Ministry of Law's response to media queries arising from statements attributed to Minister for Law in relation to Mr Yong Vui Kong

09 JUL 2010

Ministry of Law’s response to media queries arising from statements attributed to Minister for Law in relation to Mr Yong Vui Kong

9 Jul 2010 Posted in Replies

  1. Minister for Law, Mr K Shanmugam was asked a specific question by a resident (at a dialogue on 9 May 2010) as to whether the Government’s policy on death penalty for drug offences will change in the future, as a result of the case of Mr Yong Vui Kong.

  2. The Minister responded to say that it is difficult to speculate on changes to the law in the future, but that as of now, there was no change in Government’s legislative policy on having the death penalty, as a punishment for certain types of drug offences. The Government’s policy on drugs is reflected in the Misuse of Drugs Act. The Government has explained on various occasions, the rationale for its policies and the tough stand it takes on drug abuse and trafficking. The Minister, at the dialogue, reiterated the policy and philosophy underlying the Government’s approach.

  3. The Minister also explained why the fight against drugs cannot be successful, if the Government made exceptions for persons who are young, as in the case of Mr Yong, or based on other personal circumstances, for example where the person is a mother of a young child, when formulating its policies on who should face prosecution and the penalties. If the Government changed its policy and let them go, without facing prosecution (or had different penalties for them), then that will encourage more such persons to engage in the drug trade. Such an approach would seriously undermine the Government’s anti drug policies.

Mr Ravi’s comments are inaccurate

  1. The policy on death penalty, for certain types of drug offences, is a matter of public importance. The Government is entitled to comment on such policies.

  2. Mr Ravi’s comments (as quoted in the media) are incorrect. They are incorrect as a matter of fact because Mr Ravi attributes to the Minister, statements which were not made by the Minister. The Minister did not comment on any issue which was being considered by the Court of Appeal, or on what the outcome of Mr Yong’s court case should be. The Minister’s comments, as stated above, were on the Government’s legislative policy and whether that policy will change, and the extent to which youthfulness (as in the case of Mr Yong), or other personal factors are relevant in the formulation of Government policy to tackle the drug menace. Mr Ravi’s proposition that the clemency process has been flawed, either by what the Minister has said, or by reason of the Attorney-General advising the Government, is also incorrect.

About Mr Yong Vui Kong

  1. Evidence was led in Court to show that Mr Yong has trafficked in heroin on other previous occasions, before he was arrested on 13 June 2007. In addition, on the day he was arrested, he had already made two drug deliveries to customers. Questioned by police, he exonerated the friend who drove him to the delivery venues. The High Court found that he knew, (beyond reasonable doubt), what he was doing. He was trafficking a large amount of heroin (in excess of 47 grams) and had been doing it regularly for profit. Mr Yong withdrew his appeal against the conviction. His counsel sent a letter to the Court of Appeal (dated 23 April 2009) withdrawing Mr Yong’s appeal. The letter stated that Mr Yong had “indicated his desire not to proceed with the appeal as he had while serving sentence embraced Buddhism. With his new found faith, he said he felt uneasy and had no peace of mind if he were to proceed with his appeal.” Mr Yong in his Petition for Clemency to the President (dated 11 August 2009) stated that, after his conversion to Buddhism, he “…realised that he must not continue to lie”, and that “he should have the courage to own up to what he did”.

  2. The 47.27g of diamorphine trafficked by Mr Yong on 13 June 2007 could have been used to produce approximately 4,566 straws of heroin, worth at least S$135,000. Further, Mr Yong had also trafficked in other drugs such as Ketamine, Ecstasy, Ice and Erimin 5 when he was arrested. The total value of the drugs trafficked by Mr Yong is estimated to be between S$207,498 and S$328,283.

  3. A detailed summary of the relevant facts is at the Annex.

Annex (108KB)

Last updated on 25 Nov 2012