Here is what I put up on Vui Kong’s case. Yong Vui Kong’s story is still murky – can those who lobby for him enlighten me? I highlighted the inconsistencies not only from the state sponsored counsel Vui Kong had, but also from Vui Kong’s current lawyer.

As if the above inconsistencies are not enough, there’s now yet another even murkier fact to deal with. M Ravi, Vui Kong’s current lawyer, in an attempt to show how inconsistent the courts have charged Vui Kong, has now himself acting in a way that befuddles the logical thinking person. Here is the latest development on Vui Kong’s case.

Yong Vui Kong. His case gets murkier as the weeks pass by. Pic taken from TOC.

Selective prosecution? Re-open the decision upholding the Vui Kong’s conviction

A Criminal Motion has been filed in the Court of Appeal today on behalf of Yong Vui Kong. The motion challenges the constitutionality of the prosecution’s decision to charge Vui Kong with a crime that attracts the mandatory death penalty while withdrawing previous charges made against Vui Kong’s ‘boss’, Chia Choon Leng.

In his affidavit, Vui Kong’s lawyer, M Ravi, states that in acting in this manner, the Attorney-General has violated Vui Kong’s fundamental right to equal protection of the law enshrined in Article 12(1) of the Constitution. Applying the standards set out by the Court in the recent case of Ramalingam Ravinthran vs PP, it is submitted by Mr Ravi, that ‘the Applicant is able to raise a prima facie case of a breach of Article 12(1).’

Chia has been identified by the Attorney-General’s chambers as the alleged mastermind behind the criminal enterprise that Yong was found to have been a part of. In reply to queries made by Mr Ravi, the Deputy Public Prosecutor confirmed that Chia had been arrested in connection with the trafficking syndicate that Vui Kong was a part of. Yong had also mentioned his name repeatedly to the police and to the court while accounting for his actions.

During the criminal trial in the High Court, it was found that Chia was the person who initially contacted Vui Kong, and subsequently provided him with the ‘gifts’ to deliver. The ‘gifts’ that Vui Kong was caught with was found to have contained the 47.27g of diamorphine, which he was sentenced to death for.

Chia however, remains uncharged and in executive detention under the Criminal Law (Temporary Provisions) Act. The Prosecution had informed the court that they had withdrawn charges against Chia due to a lack of evidence. However, Vui Kong, in his affidavit, states that, ‘ I do not recall having been asked by the Prosecutor to assist in relation to any difficulty of evidence perceived in relation to Chia.’

Again, note M Ravi’s “let’s challenge the interpretation of the constitution” stuff, instead of going for the kill – ie VK did not have fair trial due to incompetent state-sponsored counsel he was assigned. Has not M Ravi missed the big picture which could save Vui Kong’s life, instead of being soooooo obsessed with the constitution stuff?

The latest piece of news the pubic gets to hear that adds to the already murky state is now Vui Kong has a key witness that could save his life – Chia Choon Leng, who is Vui Kong’s boss – yet this line of defence is not followed up? What the heck is going on here?

Here’s another report on the same piece of news – with one more vital info that could save Vui Kong’s life, which appears that everyone, including anti-death penalty campaigners, missed.

The Mule, the Mastermind and the MDP

At a Parliamentary sitting on 15 September 2010, then-NCMP Sylvia Lim posed an interesting question to then-Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Home Affairs, Wong Kan Seng. She asked if the government had detained, under the Criminal Law (Temporary Provisions) Act, any person believed to have organised drug trafficking activities involving Yong Vui Kong, an inmate on death Row.

The Minister’s response was just as interesting. In a written reply, Wong said, “Apart from Yong, there were indeed others who were part of the syndicate. Several have been prosecuted for trafficking. One has been detained under the Criminal Law (Temporary Provisions) Act.” (Read Wong’s full statement here.)

In a recent letter to Yong’s lawyer, M Ravi, the Attorney General’s Chambers (AGC) identified that person as Chia Choon Leng – the very same person Yong had named, in a police statement, as the mastermind of his crime. However the AGC said Yong also made it clear that he did not wish to identify Chia in court. (Read AGC’s letter and M Ravi’s query here.) [see screenshot below]

The AGC said Prosecution did not call Chia as a witness because his evidence was not necessary for their case. It said it also informed the Defense about the detention, however, Yong’s then-lawyers decided not to call Chia as a witness. According to court records, the Prosecution withdrew charges against Chia due to “the difficulty of the evidence”. Instead, “executive action” was taken against him.

It is unclear why Yong decided not to identify Chia in court. One can only speculate. What is clear though is that despite “the difficulty of the evidence”, Chia remains in custody. This must surely mean that authorities have sufficient reason to detain him. But while Chia will eventually be let go, Yong has been sentenced to hang.

It is now very obvious that the sole key defence witness Vui Kong has is Chia Choon Leng. Here are two screenshots of the letter from M Ravi.
Page 1

(you can click on image above to enlarge)

Page 2

The above shows that Vui Kong’s current lawyer, M Ravi, believes that the only person who could save Vui Kong is Chia Choon Leng. He questions why was Chia not called up by the court. The reply was that Vui Kong did not want him to be called and that the state sponsored counsel did not call for the key witness.

That’s the vital piece of info everyone missed. If M Ravi believes that Chia is the only person who could save VK’s life, why isn’t this followed up? Why is the curent defence not challenging the fact that the state-sponsored counsel then did not call this key witness, which could have saved VK’s life? Isn’t this ground for a fresh trial?

To help readers understand the long, loopy case, here is the summary so far.

Summary of critical points -

1. According to M Ravi, a key witness, Chia Choon Leng (Vui Kong’s boss), is able to confirm Vui Kong’s ignorance on the matter.

2. According to the exchange of letters, Vui Kong did not want Chia to be called upon. The then defence for VK, the state sponsored counsel, hence did not call Chia up as witness.

3. In view of the “new” piece of news above, VK’s case looks even murkier because from my earlier link, what remains unanswered was why did not M Ravi challenge the whole trial itself because it appears there’s incompetence on the part of the state sponsored lawyer, when he did not challenge the prosecution after the trial judge recommended the charge be lowered to a non-capital crime.

4. With this “new” piece of info, why doesn’t M Ravi challenge the whole trial itself on the point that the state sponsored counsel was inept when they did not call up Chia Choon Leng?

5. Here is the screenshot of the reply M Ravi got. Note that VK did not wish to have Chia informed that VK informed against him. Also note that the state sponsored counsel simply “took the easy way out” and did not call for Chia as the key defence witness. All this shows ineptness and/or negligence on the part of the state sponsored counsel. Why doesn’t M Ravi contest this point?

(click on image to enlarge)

Main defence line not followed up -

I cannot understand why Yong Vui Kong’s current counsel and anti-death penalty lobbyists are so obsessed with challenging the interpretation of the constitution, to the point they appear to put that priority above VK’s life itself.

Shouldn’t the main line of defence now be that VK was not accorded a fair trial because:

- Was VK’s unwillingness to call Chia then due to the fact he was afraid that the syndicate would harm him and/or his family?

- Why wasn’t VK and his family accorded assurance of police protection then?

- Why didn’t the state sponsored counsel advise VK accordingly so that he could be defended fairly and not be sent to the gallows?

- Does this not show incompetence and/or negligence on the part of VK’s defence (which was state sponsored) team then, and hence, grounds for a fresh trial?

Like I said, I cannot understand why this line of argument is not followed up, but instead, the queer, unexplained obsession with the constitution continues.

Final Word -

I am against the Mandatory Death Penalty. But I am not against the Death Penalty itself.

At the same time, I feel that Yong Vui Kong’s case is still very murky because not only the prosecution seems to be evasive why Chia was not prosecuted, but more importantly why do VK’s current counsel and anti-death penalty lobbyists keep talking about the constitution rather than VK’s case itself, when there appears to have enough ground to call for a fresh trial.

There are probably many Vui Kongs out there who would be hanged to death. Anti-death penalty lobbyists blame the system and miscarriage of justice. That may be so. But equally to be blamed is the misplacement of emphasis on the constitution instead of fighting for the defendant itself on the part of anti-death penalty lobbyists.

CPIB probe: Woman IT exec involved with both men

The 36-year-old woman is assisting the Corrupt Practices Investigation Bureau (CPIB) in the cases involving the former chiefs of the SCDF and CNB, Mr Peter Lim Sin Pang (left) and Mr Ng Boon Gay (right). — PHOTOS: SCDF, CHEW KOK WEI

A married IT executive is believed to have had sex with two top-ranking public officers being investigated under the Prevention of Corruption Act.

The 36-year-old woman is assisting the Corrupt Practices Investigation Bureau (CPIB) in the cases involving the former chiefs of the Singapore Civil Defence Force (SCDF) and Central Narcotics Bureau (CNB), Mr Peter Lim Sin Pang and Mr Ng Boon Gay.

Sources told The Straits Times that the two men had been unaware that she had been intimate with both of them. Both officers are married. In Mr Ng’s case, he had known the woman for over three years and they are believed to have been close since early 2009.

Ah, so it isn’t just about money. It’s about a woman as well. Now how are you going to address that?

Such scandals are not new or unique. It happens in many places to many high office holders too. Even Bill Clinton, then President of the US, fell for women. Headline news splashed about it all over the place.

So how are we going to prevent sex scandals from occurring in high offices? If one were to argue that high pay is to prevent corruption, can we by the same argument say providing women (or men, if the office holder is a woman or a gay) to high office holders would prevent sex scandals outside office?

Huh? Do I hear my critics moan? You think that’s absurd? But you bought the idea that high pay prevents corruption, didn’t you?

On the other hand, if you don’t buy the argument that providing women (or men) to high office holders would stop them from being scandalous outside office, what makes you think paying them filthy high wages would stop them from being corrupted, if they already not are closet corrupts?

But providing women (or men) itself is scandalous! -

Spot on! At least you have the sense to realise that! Now admit that dishing out filthy high pay to high officials is also a scandal in itself. Why are you so unwilling to do it?

Critics may say that the main flaw with this analogy is that people work for money and not for women. I agree.

My point about providing high officials with women (or men) is to show you that if a person is a closet corrupt or a closet sexually scandalous person, he or she would fall for that sin anyway, high pay or low pay, with women supplied or no women supplied.

My point is that paying high does not eradicate corruption, the way providing women won’t eradicate scandals and the scandalous high official from seeking more women than he’s supplied with.

What does stop corruption and scandal has to come from inside the high office holder himself or herself- ie his/her moral values in him/her.

But critics to my idea would say it is a tall order to find such people. My answer is that you are insulting humankind. Just because there are people who are closet corrupts or sexually scandalous, doesn’t mean that people with high morals don’t exist.

Real life examples of politicians driven by non-monetary incentives -

If we look at the first generation of PAP politicians, they were not driven by money. They were driven by passion and belief. A belief that Singapore has to survive.

On the opposite side, we had the Leftists. They too worked hard and needed no money to drive them.

All over the world, we see this. Hamas worked hard against the anti-Palestine lobby and got elected into office democratically. Did they have money as the driving force? If money is in it for Hamas officials, they would have been Israel’s and/or America’s stooges who keep selling out their own people.

Likewise, in view of the Arab Spring the last year or so, we have seen how many politicians keep coming in to seek office to replace the highly paid corrupted officials sponsored by America. These newly elected officials (mainly from the Muslim Brotherhood) are not driven by money.

So what drives this people if not money? Passion. That’s right. Passion, belief in what they are doing, and even their love for their religion.

Passion and Belief the biggest motivator -

It is passion and belief that will conquer mountains. It does not just occur among politicians. It occurs everywhere. Even the simple guy on the street who wants to live.

A good example that still exists today is the will of the Palestinians to live. For more than 40 years of Israeli oppression and massacre, the Palestinians are not giving up. It was on the agenda of many Israeli PMs (and it still is) in the past to remove Palestinians from their homes. Yet time and time again, in spite of the fact Israel has the most sophisticated weapons in the Mid East, the Palestinians fight back to get back their land. The Palestinians needed no money to fight back, did they?

How many Singaporeans are willing to fight a war to defend our land the way Palestinians did the last more than forty years?

Moral beliefs comes from inside unlike monetary incentives -

Let’s not talk about being one people, one nation. Let’s just talk about a simple belief that is related to the CPIB case and other high office scandalous cases. The belief we want to have in us is that we must have a high moral standard – ie no corruption including buying sexual favours. So how do we get that embedded in us and in our future generations?

Isn’t it all back to teaching moral ethics right from very young? Again, critics will say that is just a Utopian Dream. My counter argument is that high pay never really worked at all. But at least, there’s a history and real life cases where moral ethics and beliefs have worked. Moral ethics and beliefs have worked for the first generation PAP leaders.

We also saw how it worked for the Leftists in Singapore in the 1960s. We see how it worked for Hamas officials. Now we are seeing how it works for many newly elected Islamic politicians as the result of the Arab Spring.

Ironically, what has prevented them or still preventing these non corrupt officials from carrying out their goals is/was the current ruling govt of the day! Yes, the very govt that is in control in first place. Aren’t these govts that are in control now using their big funds to oppress these upcoming uncorrupt officials?

Ah, again, the practice and belief that money is the one that controls everything.

Final Word -

One final criticism I see coming from my critics is this – where are we going to get people with passion and belief to serve high office?

Here’s my reply. The current govt should let go of their desire to control everything in their desire to hold onto power. Stop harassing dissenters with ISA, threats and other disincentives. Those with the talent, desire and moral beliefs will come naturally after that.

13th month pay ‘part of basic wage’ in SIA case

The 13th month annual wage supplement is part of basic pay, an English court has ruled, in a case involving Singapore Airlines and a consultant firm.

The issue had emerged as a preliminary point to be settled in a court suit in London between SIA and Buck Consultants. SIA hired Buck in 1997 as a pension benefits consultant and administrator. But the airline sued Buck for alleged negligence over its drafting of revised pension scheme rules in 2000.

While the ruling is not legally binding here, lawyers say that the Englishcourt’s rationale could be a reference point for employers mulling over whether to give the 13th month pay to older workers renegotiating their jobs. An SIA spokesman said the ruling had no impact on the airline as it had been including the 13th month payment when rehiring workers in Singapore past the retirement age of 62.

‘The recent ruling in the UK court has no bearing on the practice,’ he said. Under newly enacted laws that took effect this month, employers must offer re-employment to workers who turn 62, though not necessarily in the same job or on the same terms.

Reproduced full report here: https://docs.google.com/Doc?id=df8pj3wz_655dbgvbnxp

AWS implicitly not considered base pay in Singapore’s Employment Act -

It is claimed that this ruling does not affect workers in Singapore. That can be argued if we look at the Employment Act on how salaries are calculated on a daily basis. See link below.

Calculation of Salary

There are two ways to calculate daily wages: the basic rate of pay, and the gross rate of pay.

Basic rate of pay is used to calculate pay for work on a rest day or public holiday.

For a monthly-rated employee, the basic rate of pay for one day is calculated as follows:

(12 X monthly basic rate of pay) divided by (52 X average number of days an employee is required to work in a week)

Note that the basic pay for one day’s work is worked out on the basis of 12 months and not 13 months. The period covered is for a full year and that is shown in the 52 weeks.

But is this a fair method, or is there inherently a flaw here?

Argument for AWS being part of basic pay -

One argument that AWS is part of basic pay is the fact that being paid monthly is not as equitable as being paid weekly. For sure, there are only 7 days a week. But the number of days per month varies. That being the case, shouldn’t the monthly payments also vary accordingly? But that would cause an admin headache. So in comes the AWS!

Here is a tabulation to show how being paid monthly instead of weekly entitles one to the AWS, which means AWS is part of basic pay and not a bonus given to employees as a privilege.

4 weeks in a month will give 28 days. But each month (with the exception of Feb) has more than 28 days. If we were to total the excess days, we will get 29 days, which is nearly one month.

Isn’t this the one month we have been shortchanged when we are paid monthly instead of weekly? Isn’t the AWS hence part of our (deferred) basic pay, which will be given to us at the end of the year?

My Views -

Currently, the Employment Act (in Singapore) is worded such that the AWS is not part of our basic wages. In view of the court ruling in the UK which deems AWS is part of basic pay, it would perhaps be time for the NTUC and MOM to work something out to get Parliament to amend the Employment Act to reflect that AWS is indeed part of basic pay.

Inflation hit three-year high of 5.2% last year
Well-off bear biggest brunt of the price increases, figures show

Inflation surged to a three-year high of 5.2 per cent last year, driven by the higher costs of owning a car and steep rents. — ST PHOTO: CAROLINE CHIA

Inflation surged to a three-year high of 5.2 per cent last year, driven by the higher costs of owning a car and steep rents.

But not all income groups felt the effects uniformly, with the well-off feeling the brunt of rising prices more, the Department of Statistics (DOS) said on Wednesday. Last year, the top 20 per cent of income earners were hit by an inflation rate of 5.7 per cent – much higher than the 4.7 per cent for the bottom 20 per cent of households.

But the difference is far sharper if the cost of renting a home is stripped out. More than 87 per cent of Singaporeans owned their homes in 2010 and do not pay rent. Minus the cost of rentals, the lowest 20 per cent of households had inflation of just 2.2 per cent, less than half the rate experienced by the top 20 per cent.

Minus the cost of rentals? But isn’t the bottom 20% more likely to be renting out flats rather than buying homes because of their financial status? By removing this are you not skewing the stats deliberately to make it look as if the poor are not as badly affected, then claim the poorest of the poor is not having it as bad as the filthy rich?

Helloooo??? Did I must something here?

Now here’s the misleading part. In the link above, there is a column titled “Background Story“. Read what it says before I tell you where the misleading part is. I reproduce it below for those who are too lazy to visit ST’s actual webpage, or if the link I gave expires. Here it is:

New gauge takes out accommodation cost

A NEW indicator that throws more light on the level of inflation was unveiled by the Department of Statistics (DOS) yesterday.

The number strips out imputed rents on owner-occupied accommodation (OOA) from the overall consumer price index (CPI) compilation.

Imputed rent is typically calculated to reflect how much a household would have to pay if it were renting the home, based on market rates.

It is the only non-cash item in the basket of data used to compile the CPI, so by stripping it out, the index can more accurately reflect households’ actual expenditure.

As of 2010, around 87.2 per cent of households own their homes and therefore do not need to pay rent.

The DOS said in a statement yesterday that the ‘changes in the CPI-imputed rentals on OOA… have no direct impact on the monthly cash expenditure of most households in Singapore’.

This latest indicator – CPI less imputed rentals on owner-occupied accommodation – was 4.3 per cent higher last month compared with the same month a year before that.

The DOS also compiles the overall, or headline, inflation figure. The figure for last month was 5.5 per cent.

Apart from this headline figure, the DOS calculates a CPI figure excluding accommodation costs. That means it excludes the non-cash item – imputed rentals – as well as other items such as maintenance fees, which are paid out in cash.

Accommodation cost was the single largest driver of headline inflation last month.

The Monetary Authority of Singapore and the Ministry of Trade and Industry said in a joint report that the increase in accommodation cost ‘reflected the sharp rise in imputed rentals on owner-occupied accommodation’.

Compiling an indicator for CPI less accommodation helps to strip out volatility.

This volatility arises due to the rebates for service and conservancy charges that are given to households living in HDB flats, at different times of the year.

The Monetary Authority of Singapore also compiles a core, or underlying, inflation number that strips out accommodation and private road transport. The core inflation stood at 2.2 per cent for the year.

For the whole of last year, the rise in CPI less imputed rentals on owner-occupied accommodation was 4.2 per cent. The overall CPI was 5.2 per cent.

MELISSA TAN

Here is a screenshot of the tabulation given by ST in their link found in their webpage. The link is here. CPI RISE FROM 2010 TO 2011. The screenshot is found below.

Still unable to find where the misleading part is? Don’t blame you. It is so well crafted, you have to go through it with a fine-tooth comb to see the lie ST puts up.

For those who still can’t see it, I’ll walk through this stuff with you.

Walkthrough -

1. First, ST reports that the upper income earners experience a higher rate of inflation than the lower income earners. Then ST reports that the gap is greater if cost of rentals is stripped out. (But why should this even be stripped out when the biggest cost to low income earners is housing costs due to rental costs?)

2. Next they try to give you a “Background Story” and by doing so, conflate two different issues, which are: 1) actual cost of rental experienced by low income earners, and; 2) imputed rentals which a home owner would have to pay, based on the assumption that is the rental amount he has to pay, if he were to pay rent for that home he resides in.

3. I know #2 sounds confusing. But what it means is that if the homeowner does not own his home, it is assumed he would have to pay rent for that house. That’s what is being stripped out from the calculation of the CPI. Rightly so. He doesn’t need to pay that rent, hence, why should it be considered as part of the calculation in the first place?

4. ST on the other hand is trying to say if actual rental costs paid by low income owners is stripped off, the lowest income earners would have an even lower CPI and hence, making the CPI gap between highest and lowest income earners even greater than it already is – meaning the highest income earners would be “suffering” even much more than lower income earners now!

5. But isn’t the rental paid mostly by low income earners actual costs and should therefore remain as part of CPI calculation – as rightly is being done so now, as can be seen from the screen shot above? The actual rental costs is under “Housing”.

6. Imputed rent, which has been truly stripped off (the red row in the screenshot above) is a non-cash item because it is based on assumption that the homeowner pays rent, if he were not the owner of that home.

7. So while the imputed rent has been rightfully stripped off, ST tries to confuse readers that housing costs, which is the highest for low income earners, if stripped off, would mean the rich would “suffer even much more” than the poor now. But why should that be the case? Trying to fudge some figures there, ST?

8. Note the very misleading statement by ST in the “Background Report” -

Apart from this headline figure, the DOS calculates a CPI figure excluding accommodation costs. That means it excludes the non-cash item – imputed rentals – as well as other items such as maintenance fees, which are paid out in cash.

Accommodation cost was the single largest driver of headline inflation last month.

Now take a look at the figures in the screenshot above. Isn’t the single largest driver for low income earners “housing”?

So isn’t ST trying to confuse readers that the imputed rentals (which has been stripped off) is the same as “housing”, by lumping both items as “accommodation”?

Isn’t ST trying to confuse you that since it is justified to remove imputed rentals, it is also justified to remove housing, because both are accommodation?

9. The Dept of Stats, Min of Trade and Industry and MAS all agree that imputed rentals should not figure in the calculation. That is a step in the right direction. It shouldn’t be there in the first place. But why is ST trying to infer that all accommodation costs (including actual rent paid) also be removed?

My Summation and Views -

To the poorest of the poor, housing (in terms of rent) is the biggest cost. ST tells us if that is removed, it doesn’t look so bad for the poor guys.

ST then tries to confuse readers by conflating two different items, which are actual rent paid by the lowest income earners with imputed rentals the very rich would have to pay if they paid rent on the residence they are living in.

This is journalism that stinks so bad, even the stray dog in my neighbourhood would die of a heart attack if it smelled the stench from the misleading ST report.

CPIB probe: Public should wait before passing judgment, say MPs

Mr Hri Kumar Nair (left) and Mr Alvin Yeo (right). — ST PHOTO: STEPHANIE YEOW

The public should await the outcome of investigations before passing judgment on the case involving two senior Home Team officers, said MPs on Tuesday.

Mr Hri Kumar Nair, chairman of the Government Parliamentary Committee (GPC) for Law and Home Affairs, said: ‘The authorities are doing what they are expected to do. Let’s not jump to conclusions and start making judgments before the authorities have finished investigations.’

He was reacting to news that the chiefs of the Singapore Civil Defence Force (SCDF) and Central Narcotics Bureau (CNB) have been replaced and are being investigated. His views were echoed by fellow GPC member Alvin Yeo, who said: ‘It is good to know that our authorities are vigilant and will follow up on every lead.’

Here’s an update on the issue @ 7 pm on 25 Jan 2012. From the ST.

SCDF and CNB chiefs on bail, in separate investigations

Singapore Civil Defence Force (SCDF) chief Peter Lim Sin Pang and Central Narcotics Bureau (CNB) director Ng Boon Gay were arrested on Jan 4 and Dec 19 respectively, by officers from the Corrupt Practices Investigation Bureau (CPIB).

The bureau, responding to queries from The Straits Times on Wednesday, said both men were arrested under the Prevention of Corruption Act (PCA) but were released on bail and are now assisting the CPIB in what are ‘separate investigations’.

The CPIB did not elaborate on the details of their probe, a spokesman said: ‘Given the nature of our work and as our investigations under the PCA are still ongoing, the CPIB is unable to provide further details.’

We can safely assume without waiting for the outcome that wrongdoings have occurred because:

1. The CPIB won’t arrest the two men if they don’t have enough ground to do so.

2. The two men won’t be relieved of their duties from their respective posts if there is not enough evidence.

3. The probe and the arrests were made quite some time back, but only made known now. Isn’t this a sign CPIB is sure of the outcome?

The above said, let’s scrutinize Mr Hri Kumar’s and Mr Alvin Yeo’s plea to the public not to judge too soon. If at all, it is the PAP that has been judging opposition members and/or dissenters all along, even when no proper investigation is carried out. So why this holier than thou attitude from these PAPpy MPs?

Wasn’t Tang Liang Hong called a Chinese chauvinist (without reason)? Wasn’t Francis Seow judged to be working for Marxists such that he was detained? Wasn’t his son, Ashleigh, also targetted because it was assumed he worked in collusion with his dad?

Wasn’t Dr Ang Swee Chai detained under the ISA because it was assumed that her husband was a “Euro Communisit”? The detention of Dr Ang also highlights the point it is assumed she was working in collusion with her husband on Communist ideals.

Were not the “Marxist Conspirators” of the 1980s arrested because it was assumed they planned to infiltrate the WP to introduce Marxism in Singapore? If the govt had evidence against them, they would have just arrested them and put them on trial. But since there was not enough evidence, they were detained under ISA. Isn’t this assuming they were guilty?

There’s a whole long list of assumptions that can be listed.

Let not any PAPpy MP portray he is standing on high moral ground, when it is the PAP itself that has done the judging and assuming the most.

==========

Related link – SCDF Comm and CNB Chief cases prove high pay does not eradicate corruption

What keeps corruption away is the moral fibre of the leader and/or high official. That cannot be bought with high wages.

SCDF commissioner suspended, CNB chief under probe

The Commissioner of the Singapore Civil Defence Force (SCDF), Peter Lim (left) , has been suspended from his duties and the Central Narcotics Bureau (CNB) chief, Ng Boon Gay (right), has been questioned by the Corrupt Practices Investigation Bureau (CPIB), according to Chinese daily Lianhe Wanbao. — PHOTOS: SCDF AND MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS

The Commissioner of the Singapore Civil Defence Force (SCDF), Peter Lim, has been suspended from his duties and the Central Narcotics Bureau (CNB) chief, Ng Boon Gay, has been questioned by the Corrupt Practices Investigation Bureau (CPIB), according to Chinese daily Lianhe Wanbao.

In a front page story on Tuesday, the paper quoting reliable sources, said that Mr Lim had been suspended for nearly a month and six other SCDF officials, including two of senior rank, are also under investigation. The paper quoted sources as saying the case is ‘linked to money and women’. Mr Lim had his use of the official SCDF car taken away from him, said the report. Mr Ng was said to have been called in for questioning by the CPIB but no further details were given on when exactly he did so.

Mr Lim, 51, became the SCDF Commissioner in May 2009, moving up from the rank of Deputy Commissioner. He has been in the SCDF for 24 years. He was an engineering service officer, rising through the ranks to become deputy commissioner in June 2005.

Mr Ng Boon Gay, 45, has been in the Police Force for 20 years. A local government merit scholar, he was previously in the Criminal Investigation Department (CID) before taking over at the CNB in January last year. In his term as the CID director, he oversaw the setting-up of the Casino Investigation Branch to deal with casino-related crime amongst other responsibilities.

Next time PM or any other PAPpy member tries to tell you that high pay eradicates corruption, tell them that morals cannot be bought.

If you can buy someone with high wages to serve high office, you have bought someone who is already a closet corrupt.

That’s why the high wages needed to stop corruption argument never convinces me. Never.

==========

News update – Don’t be quick to judge CPIB probe? How about telling that to PAP?

WAR WITH IRAN: MORE CHILDREN WILL SUFFER

A little girl was shot in the head by the Americans.

0:15 min -
Interviewer: Why do you need surgery?

Little girl: Because in my head, I got shoot.

Interviewer: And who shot you?

Little girl: America people.

0:30 min – bullet entered girl’s left temple, exited through her forehead. When the bullet exited, it exploded and shattered her skull.

0:50 min -
Interviewer: If you could talk to the soldier who shot you, what would you say?

Little girl: Why did you shoot me? It’s not fair. I did not do anything. Why you shoot me? I’m a girl.

Note the little girl’s pain and innocent smile as she wonders why she was shot.

1:30 min – More victims are introduced in the video.

The little girl’s op was sponsored by “No More Victims”, an American NGO that opposes the wars.

Stop the madness. Stop the wars.

Visit NoMoreVictims.org for more information.

Lawyers’ association explains stand on AGC’s discretion

THE Association of Criminal Lawyers of Singapore (ACLS) supports the decision of the Court of Appeal in Ramalingam Ravinthran versus Attorney-General (‘Apex court clears air on A-G’s power’; Jan 11), both on principle and on authority.

ACLS believes that given the nature and width of the prosecutorial discretion vested in the Attorney-General by Article 35(8) of the Constitution, the view that the Attorney-General should explain how he exercises his discretion is misplaced.

There must be an element of trust and faith that the Attorney-General will carry out his duty in good faith. That element of trust is institutionalised in the Constitution of Singapore. Without such faith and trust, the legal system in our country will not work effectively and efficiently.

While ACLS would defend and protect the rights of all accused persons as it should, it also recognises that the protection of the innocent should be of paramount importance in the criminal justice system.

Our criminal justice system has numerous forms of checks and balances to ensure that no one person has unfettered discretion. The exercise of prosecutorial discretion involves numerous layers of internal review. There would be no end to matters if every single decision is questioned excessively. However, it is clear that meritorious cases will be reviewed by the court should the need arise.

The fact remains that it is Parliament which needs to legislate such change if the people demand change. In the meantime, the Attorney-General’s Chambers (AGC) must continue to carry out its duties pursuant to the Constitution. ACLS trusts in this.

Subhas Anandan
President
Association of Criminal Lawyers of Singapore

Isn’t the issue that the public needs to know the details as how it is decided the Prosecution decides what charge is to be made against the accused that is the core point? And the Lawyers’ Association supports the idea that everyone should just trust the system? Hellooo?

For those who want a quick background on the case, this is about how one man, Ramalingam Ravinthran, was charged with a capital crime, while his co-accused, had a non-capital crime charged against him. Both men committed the same crime. There lies the issue. Ramalingam’s defence asks why was his charge not lowered too.

Related links here:
Death Penalty: Ramalingan Ravinthran, another blooper by anti-death penalty lobbyists?

AG’s explanation on Ramalingam’s case unconvincing

Isn’t the real issue about the Mandatory Death Sentence, which AGC is grappling with? -

You don’t need to be a legal expert to sense that this double standard, where two men are charged differently for the same crime, is due to the fact that the Prosecution was trying hard to allow Ramalingam’s co-accused to escape the Mandatory Death Sentence. You see, the co-accused has an IQ of only 68.

There lies the problem of the Mandatory Death Sentence for Drug Trafficking. I am against the Mandatory Death Sentence. This is not to be confused with the Death Sentence itself.

If the co-accused is charged with a capital crime like Ramalingam, and if he is found guilty, he would be hanged to death. That’s because hanging is mandatory. So in all probability, in order not to have him hanged, the co-accused had his charge reduced.

But this of course triggers the question why was Ramalingim’s charge not reduced, when both committed same crime.

Many side issues on the Ramalingam case -

There are many side issues in this unique case. In summary they are:

1. The prerogative of the Prosecution to decide what charge, and more importantly, its non obligation to tell the public or even the defence, why it is decided on that charge, does not bode well for the work towards transparency. The AGC talks as if the prosecutional authority is his god-given right.

2. The ACLS has shown itself, like the NTUC, to be nothing more than a lapdog of the govt. It shows it is not an institution to protect the rights of citizens.

3. The Singapore Govt, in this case the Judiciary, is showing the world it rather worms its way out of the controversial Mandatory Death Sentence, than addressing the issue itself.

4. Most importantly, I feel the anti-Death Penalty campaigners goofed this one big time, contesting Ramalingam’s charge by questioning its legality citing the Constitution. The govt will NEVER touch the constitution. What the lobbyists should have done was to argue Ramalingam’s case on its own merits and ask for a reduced charge. By citing the constitution, the Courts simply hardened their stand.

My Final Word -

If not for the tragedy that Ramalingam would be hanged, all this certainly looks like one big circus with the govt, NGOs and some anti-Death Penalty Lobbyists performing for the world to see their comical act.

Why all this loopy explanation and act, when the issue is about transparency and the right for the public to know how the Prosecution comes to the decision on what the charge should be?

The defence for Rmalaingam argued that Rmaa should have his charge reduced to save him from the gallows. I touched a little on that here – Death Penalty: Ramalingan Ravinthran, another blooper by anti-death penalty lobbyists?

Ramalingam’s appeal was rejected. Here is the Attorney General’s explanation why it is possible for Rama and his co-founder to be charged for different charges when both committed the same crime. Central to the argument is that the AG has prosecutorial discretion. Franky, I am not convinced.

AGC: Robust reviews before discretion is exercised
(You need to be logged in as a subscriber to read the full report. Otherwise, you will only get a truncated report.)

AGC: Robust reviews before discretion is exercised
Internal guidelines exist; findings of innocence or guilt decided by courts

By K. C. Vijayan
The Attorney-General’s Chambers (AGC) on Friday sought to reassure the public that its decisions to charge offenders involved in the same crime differently are done only after thorough reviews by many levels of officers.

There are internal guidelines that guide its officers and ultimately the finding of guilt or innocence is determined by the courts and not the AGC, it said in a statement.

Note that we are not told what these “internal guidelines” are.

The reassurance comes in the wake of a recent case that sparked debate on the issue of prosecutorial discretion.

What “assurance” when we are kept in the dark? Just take the AG’s word for it?

Last week, the Court of Appeal ruled that it is neither unlawful nor unconstitutional for the Attorney-General to artificially reduce the amount of drugs in a trafficker’s charges, to differentiate them from those of his accomplice.

But the court, in a written judgment by Chief Justice Chan Sek Keong, stressed that the Attorney-General’s decision to prosecute can be called into question if he acted unfairly in the use of his discretion.

If no clear guidelines are made public, what is “unfair” is just subjective.

In the case, Ramalingam Ravinthran was sentenced to death for trafficking in cannabis, while his accomplice was jailed for 20 years and given 24 strokes of the cane.

Ramalingam had filed a motion to question if the Attorney-General had deprived him of his right to fair treatment and sought to have his charges amended.

Several lawyers, academics and human rights group Maruah had commented on the case, asking the AGC to be more transparent in its decisions to prosecute.

In its statement on Friday, the AGC explained why it might not be appropriate to do so for many reasons, from constitutional right to efficiency and public interest.

Note the usual crap why info cannot be shared to the public.

It began by noting that prosecutorial discretion is provided for in the Constitution and is a responsibility undertaken with full recognition of its impact on society.

Isn’t that just an interpretation? There is nothing in the constitution that says the reason for deciding what the charge be against the accused not be made public. In any case, there is also nothing that states that the interpretation that prosecutorial discretion of AG cannot be challenged. AG speaks as if it is his god-given right.

The public should be assured that each decision is made carefully, with full consideration of the facts and due regard to what is required in the public interest.’

The only way the public is assured is when the reasons for the different charges be made open to the public for scrutiny.

The rest of the article is just more mere rhetoric. No convincing explanation as to why the reasons cannot be made public in the name of transparency.

The AGC explained that in everyday matters, prosecutorial discretion is exercised by officers working under the close supervision of the Chief Prosecutors of the various crime divisions. In turn, they are supervised by the Solicitors-General and the Attorney-General.

The decision to charge a person is taken by at least two officers with at least one separate higher level of review in all cases.

‘In many cases, including capital cases, there are multiple levels of review including personal review by the Attorney-General.’

Among other things, the officers look at the evidence, the facts as they relate to the law, the investigations done and the public interest in charging the accused person.

Cases in which two offenders may have been caught in apparently similar circumstances but are charged differently could be due to a wide range of factors.

These include the strength of evidence, the cooperation shown by the accused and mitigating circumstances such as mental or physical weakness, which might call for a compassionate approach.

Internal guidelines exist to ensure consistency. But these guidelines are not published and the Attorney-General does not generally explain his prosecutorial decisions because in arriving at the decisions, he and his officers ‘consider a large number of often competing interests, including those of the victim, the accused person and society as a whole’.

Also, with the inevitable resource constraints, the AGC has to prioritise and it takes into account enforcement priorities, among other things.

By not publishing the guidelines, the Attorney-General is also able to be flexible when it needs to depart from them. This is critical because each case can then be scrutinised on its own merits ‘at a nuanced level, which is the cornerstone of prosecutorial discretion’, said the AGC.

Revealing the guidelines would also show which areas the prosecution is focused on and may incentivise offenders to commit crimes where they expect lesser charges.

Demand for reasons behind every decision would also delay proceedings and lead to frequent challenges by people unhappy with specific decisions, said the AGC.

It also noted that in the United States, the Supreme Court too has been reluctant to examine the basis of a prosecution as this is a function of the executive branch of the government.

This is also the case here, as provided for in the Constitution. Any shift would impair the Attorney-General’s ability to prosecute.

Noted the AGC: ‘While the Attorney-General determines who is charged and what charge is preferred, the determination of guilt or innocence, and consequently, punishment, is solely within the province of the court after it has considered the evidence and heard full arguments.’

It added that the Attorney-General’s powers were open to judicial review and correction if it is shown they were exercised wrongly or in an arbitrary manner.
‘There are clear remedies in cases where prosecutorial discretion has been exercised unlawfully or contrary to the Constitution.’

Separately, the Association of Criminal Lawyers of Singapore said on Friday that recent calls for more transparency in the Attorney-General’s decisions were ‘misplaced’.

‘There must be an element of trust and faith that the Attorney-General will carry out his duty in good faith. Without such trust and faith the legal system will not work effectively.’

vijayan@sph.com.sg

Note how the Association of Criminal Lawyers simply lap up everything the AG says. No different from how some pro-PAPpy NGOs lap up PAPpy’s crappy stuff.

Here’s the background to the case, taken from the same link.

Case that sparked the debate

RAMALINGAM Ravinthran and his accomplice Sundar Arujunan seemed destined to face the hangman, after they were arrested in 2006 for trafficking in cannabis.

Sundar, however, escaped the gallows when he was charged with trafficking in a shade less than the quantity that draws the mandatory death penalty.

This, after the Attorney-General exercised its prosecutorial discretion and reduced the amount of drugs specified in the charges against him.

But when Ramalingam was dealt with later, the quantities of drugs in the charges against him still meant the death penalty.

Sundar pleaded guilty to the lesser charges and was sentenced to 20 years’ jail and 24 strokes of the cane.

Ramalingam, however, was convicted and put on death row.

After he had exhausted his avenues of appeal in September 2010, he filed a motion in an attempt to reopen his case.

Central to his application was that even though he and Sundar were involved in the same crime, he was prosecuted for capital offences whereas Sundar was accused of non-capital offences.

Ramalingam wanted his charges amended so there would be no difference in their punishment.

Last week, the Court of Appeal dismissed his motion in a 48-page written judgment delivered by Chief Justice Chan Sek Keong.

CJ Chan in his judgment, said it is not unlawful or unconstitutional, for the Attorney-General to artificially reduce the amount of drugs specified in a trafficker’s charges, to differentiate from those of his accomplice.

Prosecutorial discretion refers to the powers of the Attorney-General to decide what charges to prefer against an accused person. It is a power that cannot be challenged except under exceptional circumstances such as when the Attorney-General has used it unfairly. The Attorney-General cannot be compelled to explain his use of discretion in deciding what offences to proceed with.

K. C. VIJAYAN

=========

Update – Lawyers’ Association (ACLS), Lapdog of PAPpy

In this post, I shall discuss how a convicted life has been saved without challenging the Death Penalty rule itself. This is the story of Noor Atiqah, convicted and condemned to death for drug trafficking. The case was heard in Malaysia.

Singapore’s anti-Death Penalty lobbyists can take a leaf from Malaysia. While our lobbyists have taken the one-track route, ie challenging the legality of the Death Penalty and/or Mandatory Death Penalty, they have totally missed out other more effective and proven ways how lives are saved from the gallows.

Here is Noor Atiqah’s story. She was convicted and condemned to death – until a capital charge against her was reduced.

Singapore woman escapes gallows in Malaysia

Noor Atiqah, saved from the gallows not because the defence successfully challenged the Death Penalty, but because the Court decided against the Prosecution and had her charged with a non-capital crime instead of a capital crime.

KUALA LUMPUR – A Singaporean woman sentenced to death in Malaysia for drug trafficking has been spared the gallows, after the charge against her was reduced to possession instead, an offence which does not carry the mandatory death penalty in Malaysia.

Noor Atiqah M. Lasim, 26, will now have to serve a 12-year jail term instead, after she was caught with 370g of heroin and other drugs in her bag at the Sepang airport budget terminal on Jan 5, 2009.

She has maintained all along that she had not known that the bag she was carrying contained drugs.

During the Court of Appeal hearing in Putrajaya on Wednesday morning, the prosecution decided not to contest the appeal against the conviction for trafficking.

I have for countless of times argued with anti-Death Penalty lobbyists that the more effective way to save a condemned person’s life is to argue for the capital charge against the accused be reduced. I argued it for Yong Vui Kong’s case. The lobbyists’ reply has always been the same – ie it is the Prosecutor’s prerogative to decide whatever the charge may be.

My reply to that is simple. No one in Singapore has challenged the opinion it is the prosecutor’s right to decide the charge. That being the case, why are anti-Death Penalty Campaigners assuming the Courts won’t allow the charge be reduced?

Noor Atiqah’s case shows that it can be done. Note that it is the Court of Appeal that overrules the High Court. It was the High Court that condemned her to death. The Court of Appeal overturned that decision by having the accused’s charge reduced to a non Capital Crime. Note that the Prosecution does not intend to appeal against that.

Back to Singapore’s cases of condemned criminals. So why are Singapore’s anti-Death Penalty lobbyists not taking the same route? Why are they always stuck in the “let’s challenge the interpretation of the constitution” route pertaining to the Death Penalty?

The main idea is to save lives. Of course if the Death Penalty is repealed, it would be a blanket assurance no further lives would be condemned to the gallows. But in the meantime, why is not the safer route, ie capital charge reduced, being pursued?

If anti-Death Penalty lobbyists are serious about saving lives, they can take a leaf from Malaysia’s court. Noor Atiqah’s case is proof of that.

A deeper analysis of Noor Atiqah’ case -

To understand better what is the reason for the Court of Appeal’s overturning of Atiqah’s case, here’s a link to ST’s reproduced full report – https://docs.google.com/View?id=df8pj3wz_654csh45ncz
Relevant excerpt here:

When her case went before the Court of Appeal, however, Mr Gobind was given rare permission by the court to introduce fresh evidence.

The lawyer produced a detention order from the Home Ministry stating that Mr Stanley had been operating a drug trafficking syndicate, with details that linked him to Noor Atiqah’s case.

This new evidence probably led to the prosecution’s decision not to contest the appeal, Mr Gobind told The Straits Times on Thursday.

Anti-Death Penalty lobbyists may argue that in Atiqah’s case, there was reason for the downgrading of the charge and hence, the defence appealed for that. My reply is, so what makes you think there isn’t any case for Vui Kong’s charge to be downgraded?

According to the reports on Atiqah’s case, the “new evidence” was that it is shown that Atiqah had been linked to a known drug syndicate operator. As such, her charged was downgraded to possession of drugs, rather than drug trafficking – a crime that does not carry the Death Penalty in Malaysia.

(Personally, I don’t buy that new defence argument. Doesn’t the link to the syndicate operator actually reinforce that she was trafficking even the more? Anyway, that saved her life.)

In Vui Kong’s case, there is no such “new evidence”. But the trial judge did recommend a downgrade of charge that does not warrant the Death Penalty. The PP declined. Why didn’t the defence contest?

The fact is that the defence in Malaysia did not challenge the sanctity of the Death Penalty, or for that matter Mandatory Death Penalty. The defence worked straight on the issue – Noor Atiqah’s case itself. The Court of Appeal hence took the evidence presented by the defence and was in no way distracted by the arduous task of decidiing the legality of the Death Penalty itself. The decision was quick, simple and effective. Atiqah was thus saved from the gallows. Period.

Question time for anti-Death Penalty lobbyists in Singapore -

Now why can’t anti-Death Penalty lobbyists in Singapore be just as efficient as that? Why get bogged down challenging the validity of Death Penalty and/or Mandatory Death Penalty, wasting precious time in their bid to save the condemned?

There is always ample time to campaign to repeal the Death Penalty. But when time is of essence and the condemned’s ultimate doom draws near, there isn’t the luxury of long, arduous court hearings. The immediate concern is to save the life of the convicted.

Atiqah’s case shows that when the defence just sticks to the case itself and not get bogged down by challenging the Death Penalty, things will work out favourably for the accused.

My Conclusion -

The top priority is the lives of the convicted. The campaign to have the Death Penalty and/or Mandatory Death Penalty repealed is secondary. Anti-Death Penalty campaigners in Singapore should keep that in mind.

From the cases we have seen so far, the most effective way is to get the charge reduced to a non-capital charge. We can discuss about repealing the Death Penalty when we have the time do so – after the lives of the convicted have been saved.