Singapore more transparent than Malaysia - 2 executed - Why no 're-sentencing'? Why no clemency application?

Singapore has executed 2 persons on 18 July 2014, and we know this also because of the statement issued by the Central Narcotics Bureau of Singapore (see the statement below). In Malaysia, we would never know because it is all 'SECRET' - the only way of getting information seems to be by asking questions in Parliament. Malaysia really should follow Singapore, and maybe issue statements not just after a person is hanged BUT before execution is carried out. In Malaysia, in 2014, we were able to save 2 lives

Shocking attempt by Malaysia to hang Philip Michael discovered at the last minute and stopped

Osariakhi Ernest Obayangbon (aka Philip Michael), convicted for murder, to be hanged on 14/3/2014 - Execution stayed & the Malaysian Minister and Attorney General helped in getting the execution stayed.

Chandran Paskaran saved at the last minute from being hanged to death

Chandran s/o Paskaran, convicted for murder was to hang on 7 February 2014 - the swift intervention by civil society groups led to the Sultan of Johore granting a stay of execution of the death sentence

Singapore also amended their laws in 2012 that now allows persons sentenced to death to escape death provided they satisfy 2 conditions...

Following Singapore's amendment of their drug laws, to escape the death penalty, the accussed needs to satisfy 2 conditions - (1) Must get a CERTIFICATE OF SUBSTANTIVE ASSISTANCE from the Attorney General's Chambers, and (2) prove on a balance of probabilities, that his involvement in the offence under section 5(1) or 7 was restricted — to transporting, sending or delivering a controlled drug; to offering to transport, send or deliver a controlled drug; to doing or offering to do any act preparatory to or for the purpose of his transporting, sending or delivering a controlled drug; or to any combination of activities above;

Hence, the Singapore AG (not the court) just has too much power to decide who is hanged and who lives. 

The AG, who is really the prosecutor, has just too much power, and this is not right - this power to determine 'substantive assistance' has been provided really should rest with the judiciary...

Now, 2 persons were executed....for 'drug trafficking', and according to the Central Narcotics Bureau of Singapore statement(see below), both '... Tang Hai Liang and Foong Chee Peng ...did not wish to be part of the re-sentencing process...' - the process that could have resulted in they not being hanged if they satisfied both conditions.

'Tang Hai Liang and Foong Chee Peng both elected not to petition the President for Clemency...' - now, this also strange. Why?

Now, if person knows that he/she is guilty and has accepted their sentence of death, they would 'plead guilty' or just not fight their case...Now, both these persons filed Appeal to the Court of Appeal against their conviction - and the appeal of Tang  Hai Liang was heard and dismissed in July 2011 - so why then would he now not evade being executed by going for the 're-sentencing' process, and also applying for clemency? Likewise, why did Foong  Chee  Peng  file an appeal and then withdraw it?

I recollect the mafia movies ...where people will behave just like this maybe because the 'mafia bosses' out there are demanding silence - threatening maybe the lives of their families, etc  ---   Now, if this was the case - maybe they may be really innocent - or certainly not deserving of death. If this was the case, they may even be scared to reveal the truth...or even effectively defend themselves in court... All the more reason, why we really need to abolish the death penalty...

 

 

Joint Statement on the Executions Carried out on 18 July 2014

The Singapore Working Group on the Death Penalty deeply regrets, and is gravely disappointed at the executions of two individuals that took place today, 18th of July 2014. Inmates Foong Chee Peng, 48, and Tang Hai Liang, 36, were hanged at dawn this morning. Both men were convicted of drug trafficking.

These two executions bring to an end the moratorium that has been in place since July 2011, when the government commenced an internal review of the mandatory death penalty laws. This review took place without any public consultation nor has it been made available for public scrutiny. Subsequently, the changes were passed by Parliament in the exact form proposed by the government in July 2012, despite various warnings about their potential problems.

We also wish to highlight that there is an ongoing application filed by another drug offender before the Supreme Court, challenging the validity of section 33B of the Misuse of Drugs Act because it violates Article 12 of our Constitution. The hearing is fixed before the Court of Appeal on the 18th of August later this year.

Given the fact that the constitutional challenge to the amendments could have a potential bearing on the lawfulness of Foong and Tang’s executions, it was deeply unjust to have executed them before the constitutional challenge was decided.

The injustice is compounded by the fact that we had written to the President and the Minister of Home Affairs yesterday to highlight this situation and urged for an urgent stay of execution until our courts have decided on this constitutional challenge at the very least.

Finally, the executions are a regrettable step backwards for Singapore. The death penalty has not been proven to be a more useful deterrent against crime than alternative forms of punishment. Moreover, once carried out, miscarriages of justice cannot be remedied.

We therefore reiterate our calls for the government to impose a moratorium on all executions and move towards the abolition of capital punishment in Singapore.

We believe in Second Chances
Singapore Anti Death Penalty Campaign
Think Center Singapore

Updated: Friday July 18, 2014 MYT 8:01:43 PM

Singapore hangs two drug traffickers, first executions in over three years

SINGAPORE (Reuters) - Singapore hanged two men convicted of drug trafficking on Friday, the first executions carried out in the city-state for more than three years while the country reviewed its use of the death penalty.

Tang Hai Liang, 36, and Foong Chee Peng, 48, both from Singapore, were executed at Changi Prison according to the Central Narcotics Bureau (CNB), having been convicted of trafficking heroin.

Singapore put a halt to all executions in July 2011 while it reviewed its use of the mandatory death penalty and now allows judges to have more discretion in certain cases.

Last November, it lifted the death penalty on a convicted drug trafficker for the first time.

When the review took place, all people on death row were allowed to ask to be considered for re-sentencing, though the CNB said Tang and Foong both said they did not want to be considered.

"Tang Hai Liang and Foong Chee Peng had been accorded full due process," the CNB said.

The Singapore Working Group on the Death Penalty, a group of non-governmental organisations, said they believed the executions should not have taken place given another drug offender is making a constitutional challenge against the anti-drug laws.

"It was deeply unjust to have executed them before the constitutional challenge was decided," they said in a statement.

"The executions are a regrettable step backwards for Singapore," they added.

Singapore has some of the toughest anti-drugs laws in the world, and its customs forms warn arriving travellers of "death for drug traffickers" in no uncertain terms.

It has hanged hundreds of people - including dozens of foreigners - for narcotics offences in the last two decades, Amnesty International and other groups say.

(Reporting by Rachel Armstrong; Editing by Robert Birsel) - The Star Online, 18/7/2014,Singapore hangs two drug traffickers, first executions in over three years

CNB NEWS RELEASE
18 July 2014

Execution of Convicted Drug Traffickers

1. Two  Singaporeans,  Tang  Hai  Liang,  36,  and  Foong  Chee  Peng,  48,  had  their  death sentences carried out today, on 18 July 2014 at Changi Prison Complex.

2.  Both Tang Hai Liang and Foong Chee Peng were convicted of trafficking in a controlled drug  and  sentenced  to  death.  Tang  Hai  Liang  was found  to have trafficked  89.55g  of  diamorphine  and  Foong  Chee  Peng  was  found  to  have  trafficked  40.23g of  diamorphine.  The  Misuse  of  Drugs  Act provides for the death penalty if the amount of diamorphine (or pure heroin) trafficked is 15g or more.
15g of diamorphine is equivalent to 1,250 straws1, which is sufficient to feed the addiction of about 180 abusers for a week.

3.  A thorough review of the mandatory death penalty in our laws was conducted from July 2011. A  moratorium  on  executions  was  placed  while  the  law was  being  reviewed.  The  changes  to  the mandatory death penalty regime were passed by Parliament in November 2012 after a full debate, and came into force in January 2013. All persons already sentenced to death under the Misuse of Drugs Act by the time the new legislation came into force were given the opportunity to elect to be
considered for re-sentencing under the new regime. 

4.  Tang  Hai  Liang  and  Foong  Chee  Peng  had  been  accorded  full  due  process,  including  the opportunity to appeal to the Court of Appeal and to elect to be considered for re-sentencing under the new regime. Tang Hai Liang and Foong Chee Peng both appeared in person before an Assistant Registrar in the High Court to confirm that they did not wish to be part of the re-sentencing process, and  that  they  understood  the  consequences  of  their  respective  decisions.  Both  of  them  were represented by counsel throughout the legal process, and were also given the opportunity to petition the President for Clemency. Tang Hai Liang and Foong Chee Peng both elected not to petition the President for Clemency. An unsigned petition for Clemency was subsequently submitted on Tang Hai Liang’s behalf. Tang Hai Liang indicated that he did not wish to appeal for Clemency and that the petition had been submitted by his family without his prior knowledge. This petition for Clemency was
turned down and his family was informed of the decision. 

CENTRAL NARCOTICS BUREAU
18 JULY 2014 

1 This is estimated using a typical purity level of  4%, based on drug seizures in recent years. The number of straws that are actually made may vary according to the purity level of the heroin used in the straws.

CNB NEWS RELEASE
18 July 2014
Page 2of 2

ANNEX A 

Details of Cases

Tang Hai Liang

1.  On  15  April  2009,  CNB  officers  arrested  Tang  Hai Liang.  A  total  of  136  packets  of  heroin having a gross weight of about 1,117.66g and 588 tablets of erimin-5 were recovered in his residence. The heroin was found to contain 89.55g of diamorphine after analysis. Prior to his arrest, Tang Hai Liang had been packing the heroin in his possessionand had sold one packet to his client just before he was arrested. On 19 November 2010, Tang Hai Liang was convicted of trafficking in a controlled drug  by  having  89.55g  of  diamorphine  in  his  possession  for  the  purpose  of  trafficking,  an  offence under  section  5(1)(a)  read  with  section  5(2)  of  the Misuse  of  Drugs  Act  (Chapter  185).  Tang  Hai Liang’s appeal against his conviction was dismissed by the Court of Appeal on 6 July 2011.

Foong Chee Peng

2.  On 30 September 2009, CNB officers arrested Foong Chee Peng when officers raided the rented  unit  he  was  staying  in.  A  total  of  913.58g  of  heroin,  2.42g  of  ketamine,  32.73g  of methamphetamine,  3,942  tablets  of  erimin-5,  30  ecstasy  tablets  and  various  drug  trafficking paraphernalia were recovered. The heroin was found to contain 40.23g of diamorphine after analysis. By  the  time  Foong  Chee  Peng  was  arrested,  he  had  already  packed  some  of  the  heroin  in  his possession into 30 packets for sale. On 19 April 2011, Foong Chee Peng was convicted of trafficking in a controlled drug by having 40.23g of diamorphine in his possession for the purpose of trafficking,an offence under section 5(1)(a) read with section 5(2) of the Misuse of Drugs Act. Foong Chee Peng filed an appeal against his conviction but subsequently withdrew his appeal  

[Source:- http://www.google.com.my/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&ved=0CCUQFjAB&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.cnb.gov.sg%2FLibraries%2FCNB_Newsroom_Files%2FExecution_of_Convicted_Drug_Traffickers.sflb.ashx&ei=yyjKU_-FIoa3uASYp4KACw&usg=AFQjCNF_N2n0HZAjygvSlmZ6nQWnSBrPsA&bvm=bv.71198958,d.c2E]