As activists and supporters descended on Hong Lim Park on Sunday to mark Yong Vui Kong’s 24th birthday, the government continues to be silent on his fate. It has been some 6 months since his clemency appeal was submitted to the president. During that time, however, a new president, Dr Tony Tan, has assumed office, stepping into the shoes of the former president SR Nathan. Mr Nathan, it is worth noting, had never granted a single pardon to anyone on death row in all of his two-terms, 12-years in office.Singapore’s government stance on applying the mandatory death sentence on drug trafficking, of which Vui Kong was convicted in 2007 and subsequently sentenced to death for, is quite clear: it is a necessary deterrence. And as such, even an innocent man can be hanged to safeguard “procedural matters”, as former Chief Justice Yong Pung How once put it when asked.
The deterrence stance and defence is the underlying premise on which the mandatory death penalty is held up. And the government brooks no questions about it. There has not been the slightest indication, at least publicly, that the government has any intention of even relooking the provisions, particularly the presumption clauses in the Misuse of Drugs Act (MDA).
Yet, one is hopeful.
The delay in the decision on Vui Kong’s appeal is, to me, a hopeful sign that perhaps there are internal discussions being carried out in Cabinet. It is, after all, a departure from normal practice where decisions on clemency appeals are handed down within 3 months.
When Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong declared an era of a “new normal” after an “epochal” election which resulted in the departure of several heavyweight ministers from his Cabinet, there was an air of cautious expectation and optimism that the government indeed has finally “seen the light”.
After the General Election, the PM swiftly convened a committee to relook ministerial salaries, a bugbear for 17 years since its implementation. It was indeed one of the sacred cows the government has always hesitated to cull.
Most welcome it and saw it as a positive move.
The government now has to move beyond being reactionary and one which moves only when a threat to its power, no matter how small, appears. It can, and should, be courageous and forward-looking and dare to look into areas which it would not normally do so – such as laws which are clearly faulty.
And many from various spheres have pointed out that the mandatory death penalty, in both practice and legislation, is suspect.
Yong Vui Kong, rather than being seen as a thorn in the side which needs to be removed resolutely – ie, hanged – could turn out to be a blessing of sort. If the government opens itself to hearing and listening to those who have put forth convincing arguments for the abolishment of the mandatory death penalty, and acts accordingly, it would not only lend weight to the PM’s claims of an era of change and of a new normal, it would also convince Singaporeans that his government is one which is sincere and rational.
With the mandatory death penalty in place, we have hanged those with sub-par IQ, and young girls and young men.
If nothing else, we should at least have a wider, more open, national debate on the matter.
Should death be mandatory?
Or should our learned judges be given powers to hand down alternative sentences?
Singapore has probably reached that point where a more humane and fair justice system is called for. And it would do the government – and the country – a lot of good if it takes an honest look at the provisions in the MDA, and removed them.
Vui Kong could be this turning point to a more humane society.
That is my hope.
