It's time to end the death penalty

Anti-death penalty campaigners staging a demonstration in Los Angeles. Even in other countries, people are protesting against the death penalty. AFP pic

New Straits Times
By Datuk Sri Dr Muhammad Shafee Abdullah 

ABOLITION OF CAPITAL PUNISHMENT: Malaysia should rethink holistically and practically and take the lead and be the proponent in Asean countries to implement this.

THE death penalty is prescribed for several offences, ie murder and waging war against the King (offences under the Penal Code), kidnapping for ransom (an offence under The Kidnapping Act 1960 as opposed to simple kidnapping under the Penal Code), drug trafficking (offences under the Dangerous Drugs Act 1952 and other related drug statutes), certain scheduled offences for activities in relation to possession of firearms and ammunition or explosives [offences under the Firearms (Increased Penalties) Act 1971(FIPA)] and under the Internal Security Act 1960 (ISA) the latter of which was repealed recently.

Most of the death penalties are mandatory upon finding of guilt. This means the trial judge has no discretion in sentencing to consider a range of possible sentences such as life imprisonment or a prescribed jail sentence which could run up to the maximum sentence, being the death penalty, which of those is most suited to be handed down on a convicted person after considering the myriad circumstances in relation to the commission of the offence and/or the offender.

The Malaysian legislature used to entrust judges with this important discretionary function. For instance, we used to give this sort of discretion to the High Court judges in drug trafficking matters. But a previous attorney-general was frustrated with the fact that judges were opting to sentence certain drug trafficking convicted offenders to life imprisonment rather than mete out the death penalty.

Those judges had good reasons in most cases for opting out of the death penalty. In any case, if the judges were wrong there was always the appellate process which the prosecution could resort to press their point for the capital sentence.

But immaturity and myopic considerations seemed to have prevailed then. We have been stuck with this knee-jerk culture of our legislature, a legislature that is not well advised by the parliamentary draftsman and other relevant authorities. As a result amendments made were jaundiced and lack cohesion with the general scheme of the system.

Double joy for Holy Light Church

All praise for new hall: Church-goers during a worship session.

The Star

Congregation celebrates newly completed hall and 60th anniversary

JOHOR BARU: It was a poignant moment for the congregation of Holy Light Church (English) when their retired pastor Reverend Nicholas Yeo took the stage of the newly completed Faith Worship Hall to sing ‘My Tribute (To God)’. 

This is understandable considering that the congregation had waited close to 20 years to have their own Church building.

On Sunday Oct 28 their dream finally came true when the completion of the RM4Million multi-purpose hall in Persiaran Ponderosa Utama project finally came to fruition. Close to 700 worshippers turned up for the morning service. It was also a double celebration as the Church is 60 years old this year.

Of pleading guilty and going topless

The Sunday Star

by Roger Tan

 

Two newsworthy headlines in recent weeks merit some comments.

ON Sept 11 when I was taking a flight at Changi Airport, I came across the news report that a former Singapore prosecutor and crime buster, Glenn Knight, had apologised to former MCA president Tan Koon Swan for wrongly prosecuting him in the Pan-El crisis in 1986 (Koon Swan case ‘a mistake’, The Star, Sept 11).

I thought such a move was rather strange but then I was not able to get hold of a copy of the book, The Prosecutor, at the airport. Now that I have sighted it, some observations should be made.

Among other things, Knight wrote in his book, “He (Koon Swan) was charged in 1985 before Justice Lai Kew Chai and pleaded guilty to the charge. He was also given a two-year jail sentence. And a S$1 million fine, which he immediately appealed ...

“A similar CBT case came up for hearing, and Chief Justice Yong Pung How, who had replaced Justice Wee Chong Jin as Chief Justice in 1990, concluded that I was wrong to charge Koon Swan for the offence which got him convicted. Chief Justice Yong was of the opinion that the section that I had charged Koon Swan with was wrong in law, for we could not charge a person for stealing from a company because as a director, it was not a breach of the law in that sense ...

“In the United Kingdom, such a landmark judgment would have set aside Koon Swan’s conviction, but our jurisprudence does not allow for this, though technically Koon Swan could still have been granted a pardon ... The judgment meant that Koon Swan had been wrongly convicted and he was technically an innocent man.”

Firstly, there are some factual errors. Koon Swan was actually charged and he pleaded guilty in 1986, not 1985. Justice Lai’s decision was delivered on Aug 26, 1986. Apart from the two-year jail sentence, he was actually fined S$500,000, not S$1mil.

Glimmer of hope for Vui Kong

The Sunday Star

by Roger Tan

Singapore has announced that new laws will be drafted by the year-end to abolish the mandatory death penalty for some cases of drug trafficking and murder.

ON Nov 14, 2008, Sandakan (Sabah)-born Yong Vui Kong was convicted of trafficking 47.27g of heroin and sentenced to death in Singapore.

He was 19 when he was arrested at about midnight on June 13, 2007 near the Meritus Mandarin Hotel at Orchard Road by officers from the Central Narcotics Bureau (CNB).

The drugs were found in two packets in a Malaysian-registered car MBK 5317 which the prosecution said Yong had earlier collected from a man in Taman Sentosa in Johor Baru.

Yong then went to look for his friend, one Chai Chor Hsiang, and asked him to drive the car into Singapore.

At the trial, Yong made it clear that Chai had no knowledge of the packages hidden under the driver’s seat. Yong’s defence was that he thought he was collecting debts from his boss’ debtors and that his boss had made him promise not to open the packages.

Yong said even though he was suspicious, he did not think that they contained drugs.

Yong, who initially withdrew his appeal to the Singapore’s apex court, was later allowed to appeal and he did make several other but unsuccessful attempts at the Court of Appeal.

Among others, he unsuccessfully challenged the constitutionality of the mandatory death sentence.

He failed too in his arguments that his prosecution contravened the constitutional provision on equal protection when the Public Prosecutor decided to discontinue three capital charges against one Chia Choon Leng whom Yong had identified as the man in Johor Baru who on June 12, 2007 had asked him to deliver the “gifts” to Singapore.

Yong had also sought clemency from the Singapore President but it was turned down.

Yong’s plight attracted the sympathy of many people, both within and without Malaysia.

Described by his lawyers as “impoverished and vulnerable”, many felt that Yong should be given a second chance as he was too young and naïve to appreciate the gravity of the act when he was arrested.

There appears to be one glimmer of hope for his death sentence to be commuted to life imprisonment.

On July 9 this year, Singapore Deputy Prime Minister Teo Chee Hean announced in Parliament that new laws would be drafted by the year-end to abolish the mandatory death penalty for some cases of drug trafficking and murder.