M Ravi and anti-Death Penalty Lobbyists toying with Yong Vui Kong’s life?

S’pore anti-Death Penalty Lobbyists end all hopes for Yong Vui Kong

Anti-Death Penalty lobbyists mentally boxed in their own ‘Yong Vui Kong world’

Anti-Death Penalty Campaigners, your claim Yong VK cannot ask for retrial is wrong

Yet another twist in the long loopy Yong Vui Kong case

Just when you thought all facts have been made known to the public, out comes yet another previously undisclosed fact the anti-Death Penalty Campaigners have been hiding. It does seem that as the months go by, these anti-Death Penalty Campaigners are deliberately holding material facts from the public, in order to deceive to gain sympathy for their cause. Isn’t concealment of material fact from those who you want support from, as good as lying?

Here’s my immediate previous post on Yong Vui Kong – Anti-death penalty lobbyists’ untenable approach on Yong Vui Kong’s case

In the above post, I argued that it was untenable for VK to argue that he was treated unequally using the fact that his boss, Chia Choon Leng, was not prosecuted but he was. One major reason is that although Chia and VK were complicit, VK who happens to be the only key witness was not willing to testify against Chia in court. That being the case, how is the prosecution going to put Chia on trial?

In any case, VK’s appeal to have this “equal treatment” is being heard in court. Here is a report from Channel News Asia. I have highlight in red the “new fact” that is now disclosed in court, which was never highlighted by VK’s defence and/or anti-death penalty lobbyists.

This fact is material to VK’s case. Why did the anti-Death Penalty lobbyists keep this away from the public? Trying to hide info that is detrimental to their case?

Court reserves judgement on drug trafficker’s appeal

The Court of Appeal has reserved its judgement on the case involving Malaysian drug trafficker Yong Vui Kong.

Yong was sentenced to death in November 2008 for trafficking 47.27 grammes of heroin.

Under the law, anyone found guilty of importing more than 15 grammes of heroin could face the death sentence.

Yong was 19 when he was arrested in Singapore in June 2007.

The hearing on Wednesday follows an affidavit filed earlier by Yong who alleged unequal treatment by the Attorney-General’s Chambers (AGC).

The move came after the AGC brought 26 charges against the “mastermind” and Yong’s boss, Chia Choon Leng, which they later withdrew.

Chia is currently detained under the Criminal Law (Temporary Provisions) Act, and he could possibly be released one day.

Yong’s defence counsel Mr M. Ravi argued that his client, who’s less culpable, has been more severely punished than Chia, who’s more culpable as he was the “mastermind”.

This led to a key point raised by Chief Justice Chan Sek Keong, who asked whether Chia’s act of abetment in Malaysia meant that he had committed an offence in Singapore.

He also asked Mr Ravi at what point did discrimination take place as the Attorney-General did try to prosecute Chia.

Both the prosecution and defence will have to address these issues in their written submissions to be sent in by March 19.

A judgement will be made thereafter.

Yong, now 23, has spent the past four years on death row and is awaiting clemency.

-CNA/wm

What? The abetment was made in Malaysia? Why was this not made known to the public when anti-Death Penalty Lobbyists claim that his boss was not prosecuted in Singapore?

This is deception on the part of anti-Death Penalty Campaigners to say the least. VK’s defence and anti-Death Penalty Campaigners want the public to believe that Chia committed a crime in Singapore and was not prosecuted, while VK was. They further add that Chia was more culpable in the crime, which he was of course, being the boss. Then they argue that if the more culpable person (Chia) is not prosecuted, why the less culpable person (VK) was?

But the material fact left out was that the crime committed by Chia (abetment) was committed in Malaysia! Now technically, how is the PP in Singapore going to prosecuted Chia?

VK’s current defence and anti-Death Penalty Lobbyists argue that charges were filed against Chia, but he was never prosecuted. But isn’t this because it was due to the lack of evidence, in particular, VK’s own unwillingness to testify against Chia, contributory to this?

My thoughts and conclusion -

This is not the first time anti-Death Penalty campaigners have been stingy with information pertaining to VK’s case. They are so secretive, you need to almost be a detective to piece all the missing parts together.

As it is now, there are so many unanswered questions.

1. Is Chia now kept in custody because PP and VK’s defence are negotiating terms to have Chia prosecuted?

2. If Chia’s crime was committed in Malaysia, on what grounds does the Singapore authorities have to keep him in custody?

3. Since the abtement was made in Malaysia, won’t the Malaysian authorities also have a warrant of arrest against Chia, if he were to return to Malaysia? That being the case, VK’s defence and anti-Death Penalty Campaigners are once again less than truthful, giving the impression that Chia, if not prosecuted in Singapore, would walk a free man!

My only conclusion I can make is that anti-Death Penalty campaigners are really not interested in VK’s life. They are only using him as a pawn to have the Death Penalty abolished.

Otherwise, why are these people always hiding material facts from the public, in their campaign to save Yong Vui Kong?

Anti-death penalty lobbyists’ untenable approach on Yong Vui Kong’s case

Those who have been following Yong Vui Kong’s case can’t be blamed for feeling dizzy. No thanks to anti-death penalty lobbyists who go round in loops and are so stingy with information pertaining to Vui Kong’s case.

[Note to readers - Although Yong Vui Kong's affidavit is prepared by his counsel, the approach to have his case quashed is supported and endorsed by anti-Death Penalty campaigners. Hence, I am arguing this case from the platform that this approach taken by Vui Kong generally is the campaigners' idea, rather than Vui Kong himself. PS - VK's counsel is part of the campaign lobby.]

Let’s get this straight. Anti-Death Penalty campaigners are supposedly anti-death penalty, right? Why then does this latest development on Yong Vui Kong seem otherwise?

Here’s the latest development. Vui Kong, in his affidavit (prepared by his lawyer of course), is asking for “equal treatment”. The issue is that his boss, Chia Choon Leng, is not prosecuted, but he is. The argument goes that if Chia, the more culpable party is not prosecuted, shouldn’t he also not be prosecuted and be spared the gallows?

Sounds logical. Except for two very amazingly self-contradictory points.

1. “Equal treatment” could well mean that Chia also be prosecuted and be hanged. Is that what anti-Death Penalty campaigners is asking?

2. Wasn’t it because Vui Kong was unwilling to testify against Chia in court, that led to the court being unable to convict Chia and hence, no charges (so far) has been filed against Chia? To implicitly claim that the courts have enough evidence for Chia to be prosecuted (which also carries the Mandatory Death Sentence) in spite of the absence of Vui Kong’s testimony against Chia, would be in direct contradiction to anti-Death Penalty Lobbyists’ objective. Chia would be hanged even due to lack of evidence! Hey, isn’t that what anti-death campaigners are fighting for against? So what’s with this latest crazy move to get Vui Kong put in his affidavit to have “equal treatment” about?

Here’s a report on Vui Kong’s latest development. Yong Vui Kong files affidavit alleging unequal treatment

Yong Vui Kong has filed an affidavit alleging unequal treatment by the Attorney General’s Chambers (AGC) after further evidence concerning his “boss” Chia Choon Leng was brought to light.

The AGC initially brought 26 charges against Chia. However, they were later withdrawn and Chia was not prosecuted.

Details of five of those charges were recently released to Yong’s lawyer, M Ravi. The charge sheets show that Chia had allegedly abetted Yong in his crimes by “instigating Yong Vui Kong” to transport drugs from Johor Bahru into Singapore.

Chia is now detained under the Criminal Law (Temporary Provisions) Act, which means that he will one day be released.

Yong, on the other hand, has spent the past four years on death row, and is awaiting a response from the President with regard to his clemency appeal.

“Enough Evidence”

In his affidavit, Yong stated that investigating officers and prosecutors must have had enough evidence against Chia to have brought 26 charges against him in the first place.

According to Yong, Deputy Public Prosecutor (DPP) Darryl Soh had implied, in a letter written to M Ravi, that Chia was not prosecuted because of Yong’s own refusal to testify against him in court.

Yong explained that he had not wanted to identify Chia in court because he was worried for his family’s safety. At the time, he did not know that Chia had been detained.

However, Yong wrote, “I am advised that if the Prosecution had considered that my evidence was relevant to the case against Chia they could have compelled me to give such evidence in Court”.

Here’s the affidavit that’s embedded in the webpage in the link above.

(Please note that “pg” below refers to the Google Document page and NOT the affidavit page)

- Pg 1 , para 4 – Asking for equality, highlights that it is not his contention that PP charge Chia for capital punishment.

- Page 2, para 5 – Believes his evidence alone inculpated Chia.

- Pg 3, para 13 – Repeats if cannot find reason to charge Chia, then no reason to charge him (VK).

- Pg 3, para 14 – during VK’s trial, he implicated Chia by name.

- Pg 4, para 15 – But in his statement, he admits that he does not wish to identify Chia in court (when shown a photo) because he was afraid that Chia would harm his family.

- Pg 5, para 19 – Blames court for not forcing him (VK) to incriminate Chia in court.

- Pg 5, para 21 – PP willing to reopen case against Chia if VK confirms willingness to testify against Chia now.

- Pg 6 para 22 – VK states that it is “too late” for PP to reopen Chia’s case now. Maintains that if Chia had been prosecuted when VK was prosecuted at the same time, he might have been offered a lesser charge against him (which won’t carry the Death Penalty). Another point is that the trial judge may see him (VK) as a carrier rather than an abettor, and hence, would have invited the PP to reduce the charge in view of the fact that VK is willing to co-operate to incriminate Chia.

[My input - But the trial judge did recommend a lower charge, and VK was not willing to testify against Chia because he felt that Chia would harm his family. Note that PP is willing to have Chia prosecuted if Vui Kong changes his mind and is willing to testify against Chia.]

- Pg 7, para 24 – VK is willing to testify against Chia on condition his conviction quashed.

- Pg 7, para 25 – States that VK’s evidence against Chia during his own trial is enough evidence to have Chia prosecuted.

Summary of points and my commentary -

In 2007, when VK was arrested, he did not wish to testify against Chia because he felt Chia would harm his family. The prosecution hence could not proceed to try Chia in court, although they had filed charges against him.

During VK’s own trial, VK did give evidence against Chia and the defence now claims that is good enough for Chia to be prosecuted. But there lies the tangled loop.

Anti-death penalty campaigners have always argued against the Death Penalty, and more so against the Mandatory Death Penalty. One of the core reasons is that a person can be hanged due to human error or “misjudgement”. So now we have a case where the courts are very careful not to charge Chia yet, no thanks to VK’s unwillingness to testify, yet these campaigners are arguing that VK’s evidence given during his own trial is enough to have Chia put on trial?

So while it is shown that the courts are indeed careful not to have Chia convicted for a crime that carries that Mandatory Death Penalty, these anti-death penalty campaigners are only too keen to argue their way to imply that Chia could have been tried, never mind the fact that a key witness (VK) is unwilling to testify against him, but instead used VK’s statement in his own trial to have Chia prosecuted!

Isn’t this an irony? So who’s the one who’s more detailed and careful and who’s the one who’s more frivolous to have a person tried such that if found guilty, he may well be sent to the gallows?

“Equal Treatment” argument does not make sense -

Anti-death penalty campaigners cannot argue that the courts have enough evidence to have Chia prosecuted . All the prosecutors have is VK’s words during his own trial. The key witness, Vui Kong, was unwilling to testify against Chia. How then is the prosecution going to proceed to have Chia tried?

The argument that Chia was not prosecuted and hence, so should VK because of “equality” does not hold water. There was hard evidence against VK. He was caught red-handed. There is no hard evidence against Chia, because the only key witness available, Vui Kong, was unwilling to testify against Chia.

The “equal treatment” argument is akin to two arsonists, A and B, who planned and carried out burning a public building. A was the planner and B the executor of the plan. When B was caught red handed, he refused to testify against A. Then when B was sentenced and A was not, B argues that he too should be left off free, because A was not even tried in court!

My Conclusion -

IMO, if all the reports by anti-death campaigners about Vui Kong is to be believed, then there is only one honourable thing left for Vui Kong to do. Since it is reported that he is a changed man and now a staunch Buddhist, he should testify against Chia unconditionally – regardless his own case quashed or not.

That would mean that Chia would be brought to justice and he would not be able to recruit mules anymore. Hopefully, with Vui Kong’s last good deed to society, his sins could be atoned.

That is if the reports given to us by anti-death campaigners is true – ie he truly is a changed man who converted to be a staunch Buddhist. Unless of course that story line itself is over-hyped, like so many other over-dramatized “facts”, which turned out to be otherwise, presented by these anti-death penalty campaigners all these years.

The biggest fib told to us was of course that Vui Kong was “innocent” and he didn’t know what was in the package. But today, after reading all available records, we know that is a lie.

More bull from Law Minister Shanmu – AG does not have to give reason for charges

Some time back, I wrote and challenged the idea that prosecutorial discretion belongs to the AG/PP. [AG's explanation on Ramalingam's case unconvincing] The case is about two different charges were made against two different people for the same one crime. Central to the issue is that the AG does not have to explain why the different charges.

In the above case cited, one of the two men charged was eventually sentenced to hang, while the other had his charge reduced and he hence escaped the gallows. The above case appears to open the door for Yong Vui Kong, the most publicised condemned drug trafficker in Singapore today, for the possibility to have a retrial to have his charge reduced to a non-capital crime.

The core problem appears to be that anti-Death Penalty campaigners are not willing to take that route and cite the above case (Ramalingam) to cement their idea that PP has final say as to what the charge against Vui Kong should be. My argument is that prior to Vui Kong’s trial, the pre-trial judge had already given VK a leg up, suggesting that VK be tried with a non-capital crime. PP rejected and the then counsel didn’t contest.

However, if VK’s current counsel were to contest PP’s opinion that VK be charged with a capital crime instead of a lower crime as suggested by the pre-trial judge, VK may have a chance to live.

I don’t buy the Law Minister’s or AG’s explanation, much less anti-Death Penalty Campaigners’ explanation, that AG/PP has the final say as to what the charge may be filed against the accused. I can’t find anything that’s in our Constitution or Statute Laws that states AG/PP has the final say. The opinion that AG has the final say is just that – an opinion.

To prove my point, here’s Law Minister’s Shanmugam’s own words. Irony is that in trying to argue that AG/PP has final say, he has exposed that they don’t have it.

Why AG does not have to give reasons for charges
(You need to be an ST Online subscriber to read the article on ST’s website)

Published on Mar 7, 2012

PROSECUTORS have a right to decide which charge to go after in trying to get a conviction and they should not have to explain their reasons because that might compromise the case.

Law Minister K. Shanmugam made this point to the House yesterday when the subject of prosecutorial discretion was raised by Workers’ Party MP Pritam Singh (Aljunied GRC).

Mr Singh had said that the Attorney-General, as the state prosecutor, ought to explain the reasons for charging two accused persons involved in the same capital offence with two different charges.

‘Taking public interest into account, would not disclosure engender greater trust in the legal system and the office of the AG?’ asked the opposition MP.

His question was prompted by the recent Court of Appeal case of Ramalingam Ravinthran who was charged and convicted for a capital offence while a second man accused in the same case faced a non-capital charge.

The case had prompted a debate on prosecutorial discretion.

Yesterday, Mr Shanmugam made it clear that the Court of Appeal itself had held ‘that differentiation between offenders of equal guilt’ can be held for many reasons.

He pointed out the court itself had noted ‘that prosecutorial power constitutionally is co-equal to the judicial power, and the Court should be slow to interfere with its exercise’.

On how prosecutorial discretion shaped the criminal justice system that prevailed, he said: ‘We want a system where the guilty are convicted, the innocent are acquitted and the wider interest of society is protected, which includes a protection of society from those who could cause it harm.’

He said that if it was clear that public disclosure by the Attorney-General on his reasons for differential treatment of offenders would improve the judicial system, it would be a ‘no-brainer’ for the law to be changed.

But reality was not so clear and there had to be trade-offs.

‘If the reasons for the underlying prosecutorial decisions are revealed, it can compromise the intelligence, confidential sources that inform such decisions.’

He said that there would be criminals who would work ‘around the guidelines and game the system’ as that was human nature.

The trade-offs lay in deciding between the risks of the prosecution acting wrongly, compared to the risks of the compromise of intelligence and all other attendant risks if disclosure was made.

‘The prosecution acting wrongly or maliciously is the lesser of the two risks,’ he said.

He noted that the AG’s Chambers had internal guidelines, several layers of review and in capital cases the Attorney-General reviewed the facts himself.

The court was also an additional safeguard in that if prosecutorial discretion is untenable on the face of it, it must be explained or else the court would infer no good reason for it.

‘So you have all these layers of checks and within this framework, we believe that a system where the Attorney-General exercises his discretion, without having to make those reasons public, is better for society. If we are convinced of the opposite, I say to Members unhesitatingly, we will change the law.’

K. C. VIJAYAN

So the idea that AG has prosecutorial discretion is just an opinion and nothing else. It is not enshrined in the constitution or any statute. That being the case, this now opens the door even wider to have Yong Vui Kong saved.

I have argued before that VK could ask for a retrial, based on the fact that he was not given a fair one, when PP rejected the pre-trial judge’s recommendation to have VK tried with a non-capital crime. Here is that article – Death Penalty: Ramalingan Ravinthran, another blooper by anti-death penalty lobbyists?

Again, central to the issue is whether PP has final say as to what charge may be filed against the accused. However, if one were to look at the Law Minister’s explanation, he did not cite any part of the Constitution or any statute to back his claim that AG has final say. All he gave is opinions of the courts. So if it is just opinion, why can’t anti-Death Penalty campaigners who have worked on VK’s case now contest that opinion? Isn’t this easier than contesting the Death Penalty itself?

My points in summary and conclusion -

1. Mr Shanmugam, in his eagerness to settle the disquiet on what appears to be flimsy decision type of charges filed against criminals for the same one crime, shows that AG truly does not have the right to decide when he (Shanmu) did not cite any part of the Constitution or any statute. Instead, he has shown the world that is just a flimsy suka suka opinion.

2. Anti-death Campaigners who have been working on Vui Kong’s case for years should now seize this opportunity and contest the suka suka opinion that AG/PP has the last say. Then use this as a platform to re-open VK’s case that he was not given a fair trial, when the PP did not take up the suggestion from the pre-trial judge that VK be tried with a non-capital crime.

If anti-Death Penalty campaigners are serious about saving Vui Kong’s life, they should try to at least contest the opinion that AG/PP has final say. That surely is easier than contesting the Death Penalty itself. Unless of course VK’s life is just secondary and he is just used as a pawn to achieve their main plan to have Death Penalty abolished.

Anti-death lobbyists take note, another life saved without contesting Death Penalty

I have actually more or less given up my research and my attempt to campaign for Yong Vui Kong. [Lobbyists' non-disclosure incriminates Yong Vui Kong further] That’s because after months of going through his case, I am convinced that he truly is guilty and anti-death campaigners have been less than generous in sharing information to the background of Vui Kong’s case to the public.

One of the most intriguing point about Vui Kong’s case is that the current defence counsel’s obsession with contesting the interpretation of the constitution pertaining to the Death Penalty. I have all along felt that it would be a lost cause.

Instead, I feel that if Vui Kong’s case were to be argued on the merits of the case itself, he would stand a better chance. After all, the pre-trial judge did recommend that Vui Kong be charged with a lesser crime that does not warrant the Death Penalty.

The prosecution did not agree to that recommendation. The former defence counsel then did not contest, and neither does the current counsel even till today. So that leaves a wasted chance.

It has been argued that the Prosecution has the final say as what is to be the charge. My argument is:

1. Which is easier to contest, the prosecution’s choice or the constitution?

2. If you don’t even contest the prosecution’s choice of the charge, how do you know you will not succeed? Isn’t Vui Kong’s life worth a try?

I have published an article where a Singaporean Drug trafficker had her charge reduced and was saved from the gallows. This case was in Malaysia. [How Noor Atiqah's life is saved without challenging the Death Penalty]

Here’s another case where the charge has been reduced and the accused is spared the gallows.

From Straits Times Interactive. (You need to subscribe to ST Online to read full article in the link)
Trafficker on death row escapes gallows

The fate of a drug trafficker who was on death row has taken a second dramatic turn.

Thong Ah Fat, a 32-year-old Malaysian, now no longer faces the gallows if he is found guilty.

He was at first convicted in August 2010 to hang for importing more than 15g of heroin.

Then, in a landmark Court of Appeal ruling last December, he was granted a retrial on the grounds that the appeals court found the one-page judgment by the trial judge inadequate.

Then last week, with nine days scheduled for the retrial, representations by his assigned lawyers R. S. Bajwa and Mahmood Ghaznavi led to the prosecution’s decision to reduce Thong’s drug offences to a non-capital charge.

Thong is expected to plead guilty in the High Court today to a lesser charge of importing in not less than 14.99g of diamorphine.

This charge under the Misuse of Drugs Act carries a maximum of 30 years’ jail and 24 strokes of the cane.

If convicted, he will be dealt at least 20 years’ jail and 15 strokes of the cane, but at least he can be certain he will be spared the gallows.

Of the move by his lawyers to push for the charges to be reduced, lawyers say it is the general accepted practice in criminal cases for them to make representations for reduced charges to the public prosecutor on an accused person’s behalf before a case is heard.

But such submissions are made based on justifiable circumstances. Under the law, the public prosecutor has the discretion to amend the charges – or not.

The defence lawyers are expected to plead for the court’s leniency on their client’s behalf, to help the court come to a fresh decision on the sentence to be meted out against Thong.

In its judgment last December, the Court of Appeal stressed that to order a retrial ‘is never of course a light matter’.

‘Much anxiety, inconvenience and even hardship is caused all round and sometimes the ultimate decision may not be different,’ said the apex court’s judgment grounds.

But the judge at his trial did not fully explain why Thong’s account was not convincing, said the appeals court. It thus ordered a retrial in the interests of open justice.

Thong had been condemned to hang, despite claiming that he did not know the substance he was carrying was heroin. He had been caught with 10 packets of the drug in his car at the Woodlands Checkpoint in 2009. At his trial, he admitted he knew the bags contained drugs, but claimed he thought they were Ice.

Trafficking in more than 15g of heroin brings a mandatory death penalty.

Thong also claimed he was tricked into making a police statement shortly after his arrest.

The court noted that there was objective evidence to show he was an Ice addict.

But it was not clear whether the trial judge had considered this, which made the judgment ‘plainly unsatisfactory’, said the appeals court.

vijayan@sph.com.sg

Again, note that the Death Penalty itself is not challenged. As I have mentioned earlier, the safer and surer way to save a condemned person’s life is to argue on the merits of the case itself. Trying to fiddle with the validity of the Death Penalty or Constitution won’t work.

Of course, campaigners for Vui Kong’s life can argue till the cows come home that the Prosecution did not agree to have the charge reduced.

My question is, did the then Defence or the current Defence contest?

If the answer is ‘NO’, what makes you so sure the Prosecution and/or the Court won’t yield? That being the case, has not Vui Kong has been deprived of the best chance to live?

==========

Update on Yong Vui Kong (External link)
Yong Vui Kong files affidavit with courts
Now he’s willing testify against his boss, after a few years. No matter. That may buy him some more time, if he’s willing to speak up so as to convict his boss.

Yong’s defence argument is that there should be “equal treatment”. Anti-death campaigners are arguing that if his boss, Chia Choon Leng, is not prosecuted and let off the hook (that’s because Yong was unwilling to testify against Chia earlier), Yong should also be “let off the hook”.

Bad argument from anti-death campaigners. It can also be argued that BOTH Chia and Yong are culpable and both should be hanged. So much for saving people from the gallows.

In any case, I feel that Yong should testify against Chia. Why should Chia be let off free?

=========

Related Link – More bull from Law Minister Shanmu – AG does not have to give reason for charges

Activists fighting against Life Term

I have been arguing against the Death Penalty citing one reason. The convict may one day be released a free man to commit his atrocious crimes against society again. Here are three examples I gave.

Case study on Death Penalty – Tim McVeigh, Oklahoma Bomber

Case study on Death Penalty – Ted Kacynski aka Unabomber, FBI’s longest manhunt

Why I support the Death Penalty

What is to stop the murderer from killing people again once he is released? Anti-Death Penalty argue that sentencing the convict to life imprisonment is an alternative. I never buy that argument. I said that the next thing Human Rights activists will say is Life Imprisonment is inhumane and will get that abolished too. Looks like it didn’t take long for my prediction to happen.

Khmer Rouge jailer’s life term ‘bad example’: Observers

PHNOM PENH (AFP) – A life term handed to a feared Khmer Rouge jailer has elated Cambodians, but observers say the historic verdict violates the torture chief’s human rights and serves public opinion rather than justice.

Kaing Guek Eav, or Duch, who oversaw the deaths of some 15,000 people at S-21 prison in the late 1970s, had his punishment increased on appeal by Cambodia’s UN-backed tribunal from 30 years to a full life term for war crimes and crimes against humanity.

The long-awaited ruling last Friday, which dismissed Duch’s appeal against his conviction, was hailed by survivors of the brutal regime, with Bou Meng, 71, one of the few to walk out of S-21 alive, calling it ‘perfect justice’.

Legal experts and human rights campaigners however voiced dismay at the judges’ decision not to give Duch a reduction for the time he spent in illegal detention before the court was established.

So if the Death Penalty were to be abolished, it would give the criminal a chance to be free again – to kill.

Who is going to fight for the rights and safety of the future victims?

Full article reproduced here.

Related Article:
Anti death penalty lobbyists take note – no such thing as ‘life’ sentence

Lobbyists, make up your mind! Death Penalty or Mandatory Death Penalty?

I have about enough with the flip-flip, ding-dong, wishy-washy, neither-this-nor-that ever changing objectives of these anti-death penalty campaigners.

First, it was a call to the public against the Mandatory Death Penalty to get the public behind them. Then when the momentum picked up, presto! It magically changed to an anti-Death Penalty campaign.

Naturally, when that happened, those who are willing to campaign against the Mandatory DP but not the DP itself (like me), started to withdraw their support.

So what do these campaigners do to restart their stalled engine? Yep, roll in the hot air flatulence that they are against the evil Mandatory Death Penalty (and not Death Penalty) again!

Come on, fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me. Ain’t nobody is gonna fool me a second time, dude!

Death penalty has contributed to low rates of drug use? Where’s the proof?

Ooooh… look at that evil noose and the evil Mandatory Death Penalty. They’re out to getcha! (Pic from TOC)

It’s true that although 16 states and the District of Columbia have abolished death penalty in the United States of America, it is still practiced in the other states of the USA. The mandatory death penalty though has been ruled as unconstitutional since 1976 in that country.

Only 5 countries in the world have mandatory death penalty – Singapore, Malaysia, Taiwan, Japan and India. In India it is reserved for murder by a convict serving a life sentence. In Japan it is limited to instigation to a foreign aggression. In Taiwan the mandatory death penalty has recently been relaxed to a large extent. Which means that Singapore and Malaysia remain the only two countries which have not set aside or relaxed the mandatory death penalty.

Professor Michael Hor who teaches at the National University of Singapore Faculty of Law said in an interview in 2010, ‘we must also be clear, on the other hand, that none of this proves that the mandatory death penalty does not work. We simply do not have, in my view, convincing reasons to believe that it does’.

OK, fine. So Mandatory Death Penalty is baaaad. Agreed. How about removing that and keep the Death Penalty intact?

Note that the article makes no distinction between the Mandatory DP and DP itself. If you read between the lines, the article is in fact asking for the abolishing of Death Penalty, by arguing against the faults of the Mandatory Death Penalty!

Look who’s confusing the public, only to claim that non-supporters are always mistaken that both Mandatory DP and DP are the same!

Anti-death penalty lobbyists, if you seriously want public support, you have to be serious yourselves and stop ejecting flatulence. Period.

Nobody is gonna get fooled a second time.

For the record, here is the first time the public got fooled – Anti Death Penalty Activists must be honest