Latest: Singapore single mother awaits death row in Malaysia for drug trafficking. On the pretext of a business trip to China, Iqah was handed a suitcase containing heroin arranged by her Nigerian boyfriend and was arrested by Malaysian Immigration. A campaign is underway to raise funds for the appeal. To find out more, read

We have also heard that since Vui Kong's appeal started, there has been an unofficial stay of execution for all prisoners on death row in Changi Prison, pending the decision of the court on Yong's case. As the case has been dismissed by the Court of Appeal, we anticipate a Changi gallows bloodbath in a scale not seen since the Pulau Senang uprising in 1965 when 18 men were convicted of murder and hanged in a single Friday morning.

Singapore, which routinely persecute dissenters and critics, continue to hang young drug runners while at the same time work closely with Burmese military generals, and has invested billions in business ties with Burma, one of the biggest heroin manufacturing countries the world.

-----------------------------

If you know someone who's charged in a capital case, received the death sentence, or is on death row in Singapore and if you have have your side of the story to tell, contact us at sgdeathpenalty [at] gmail.com


Saturday, July 10, 2010

Yawning Bread: New book puts death penalty on trial

Yawning Bread:
New book puts death penalty on trial

To give a new twist to an old saying: Justice unevenly applied is justice denied.
Alan Shadrake, in his new book, Once a Jolly Hangman — Singapore justice in the dock, shows how uneven it is. It’s a tour de force covering cases from the early 1990s to nearly the present, many of them ending with the prisoner meeting Darshan Singh, Singapore’s hangman for the last half-century. But some of them do not meet this fate, and therein lies the twist.
When clemency campaigns are mounted and the occasional blog takes an interest, the story centres on a particular death row prisoner and for a particular crime, and understandably so. However, the result is that while we see a particular case, we seldom have the opportunity to see how the death penalty is used across a number of years.
With the release of this book, we cannot now say we can’t take in the bigger picture. Once a Jolly Hangman allows us to compare how one case was handled with another that had similar circumstances or gravity. What emerges is a very unflattering pattern of inconsistent “justice”, the dispensation of which is compromised in three important ways:
1. When foreign governments have clout over our economic interests and are willing to use that clout, their citizens will not face the death penalty;
2. When local citizens come from rich, well-connected families, or when a case threatens to involve others from this stratum of society, a way is found to avoid having them face the death penalty or even severe penalties;
3. When the state is convinced that an accused who is poor and “low-class” is guilty, and provided that exception no. 1 above does not apply, due process is less important than putting him on the fast-track to the noose.
The net outcome of these controlling conditions is that the application of capital punishment in Singapore is not a matter of justice. The most important decision as to whether someone is to be hanged is really a political one: some people can be hanged, others just cannot be hanged, and it is the government that determines who, not a court.
Condition no. 1 and 2 above can be expressed graphically:
Compare the case of Amara Tochi from Nigeria (Chapter 20) with Julia Bohl from Germany. Tochi was caught by chance at Changi Airport with more than 15 grams of heroin (the threshold that makes the death penalty mandatory) in his bag given to him by a man he hardly knew in Pakistan. The judge made the following finding of fact at his trial: “There was no direct evidence that he knew the capsules contained diamorphine. There was nothing to suggest that Smith had told him they contained diamorphine, or that he had found out on his own.” Nonetheless,  Tochi was found guilty because the judge felt he ought to have known and he could not prove the negative, i.e. he could not prove that he really didn’t know. This is because Singapore law on drug cases imposes a presumption of guilt, not innocence. It is for the accused to prove his innocence, not for the prosecution to prove guilt. Tochi was hanged January 2007.
Julia Bohl (Chapter 10) had been closely watched by the Central Narcotics Bureau for several months as a supplier of various party drugs to high society. Piecing together various reports, Shadrake shows that an undercover officer was planted in her company, eventually gaining her confidence. In a raid mounted on a party one night in March 2002, Bohl and several others were arrested, with Bohl charged for having 687 grams of cannabis in her possession, above the 500-gram threshold that mandates the death penalty. The German government applied maximum pressure on Singapore, threatening economic reprisals.  The seized drugs (all or part of it?) were then re-analysed by a laboratory which issued a  new report that said there were just 281 grams. She was sentenced to five years in jail, serving only three.
One of Bohl’s likely customers and sub-seller was Mike McCrea. He killed his driver Kho Nai Guan and Kho’s girlfriend Lan Ya Ming, most probably due a dispute over a theft of a stash of drugs. However, by the time the bodies of Kho and Lan were discovered, McCrea had fled, first to Britain, then to Australia. Singapore tried to get him extradited, but Australia would not agree if doing so meant that someone faced execution. So a bargain was struck and McCrea faced only the reduced charge of culpable homicide that carried a maximum penalty of 10 years’ imprisonment for each killing.
After another lengthy investigation, a series of arrests were made in October 2004 (Chapter 17). Sixteen Singaporeans and seven foreigners, including two permanent residents were arrested and faced a variety of charges ranging from consumption to dealing. One of the accused was Dinesh Singh Bhatia, the son of former judicial commissioner Amarjeet Singh. He faced 10 years behind bars for consumption. His defence lawyer, K Shanmugam (now the Minister for Law) submitted to the trial judge that Dinesh Bhatia did not know it was cocaine that he was snorting. (I can’t for the life of me think of any other substance that one would snort, and no, snuff is not snorted in the same way). In the end, after appeal, Bhatia’s sentence was reduced to eight months, but less than three months after that, he was reported by the Straits Times to be at home, albeit wearing an electronic tag.
Others rounded up, all members of high society (financial broker, managing director of an oil trading firm, award-winning chef, etc), similarly got just months in jail when convicted. Investigations pointed to a Tunisian, Guiga Lyes Ben Laroussi, as the main supplier, himself a high-ranking executive. Laroussi was arrested on the capital charge of trafficking, but when the haul was assayed a second time, the quantity he was accused of diminished miraculously below the mandatory hanging threshold. Then he was given bail on his own recognition, upon which he promptly disappeared from Singapore, even though his passport had been impounded. No serious attempts have been made to find him or to press Interpol for assistance, despite having him listed there for years.
Without Laroussi, it has been hard to follow up with other arrests. As Shadrake wrote in the book (pages 145 – 146):
During the CNB investigation [Laroussi] refused to name any of his other customers — while hinting there were more prominent members of Singapore’s high society he could expose as serious drug users, which, I was reliably informed, would create an even bigger scandal among the country’s elite. He decided to hold on to his secret list of clients as a bargaining chip — his ace in the hole — when the time was right, when the shadow of the gallows loomed. But it was this plea bargaining strategy that the authorities were only too pleased to entertain. ‘They were terrified that if he were to be tried for a capital offence with the gallows as the end game, he would first “blow the lid off” Singapore’, a lawyer close to the case told me.
Shadrake interviewed a number of lawyers and persons involved in investigations while researching for this book. He had to promise confidentiality to his informants, one of whom, perhaps the most useful, was a former Central Narcotics Bureau officer who was angered by the way things worked.
The case that the book details in support of the third contention — that due process is sometimes less important than putting someone on the fast track to the noose — is the most disturbing. Chapter 18 recounts how Vignes Mourthi, a Malaysian who commuted to Singapore for work, was found guilty of trafficking 27.65 grams of heroin in 2002. Vignes claimed at his trial that he did not know he had heroin on him; he thought that what he had been given to hand over to a contact was a pack of precious incense stones used in Hindu worship, a claim of innocence he maintained throughout.
The prosecution’s case and the verdict rested mainly on a handwritten note by the arresting officer recording the alleged conversation that took place between the officer Rajkumar and Vignes just before the arrest on 20 September 2001. Rajkumar was posing as the buyer and in his undated note said that Vignes’ replies during the short conversation indicated the latter knew that what he had handed over were drugs. There was no corroboration of the account contained in this handwritten note, nor even any indication it was not written up far later, yet it was what the judge relied on to convict Vignes.
Vignes was hanged on 26 September 2003.
The day after Rajkumar arrested Vignes, a woman accused Rajkumar of raping and sodomising her. Two days later, on 23 September 2001, Rajkumar himself was arrested on these complaints. He was apparently not suspended from duty and continued to be part of the prosecution’s case against Vignes.
Eventually, the woman withdrew her accusations, but by then, police investigations had begun of Rajkumar and fellow officer Balbir Singh for offering large amounts of money to the woman to persuade her to do so. The men were later found guilty of corruption and sentenced to fifteen and six months’ imprisonment respectively. Page 161:
But it was not until Vignes Mourthi was hanged that Rajkumar’s trial began. When Rajkumar, whose contested testimony had sent Vignes Mourthi to the gallows, was sentenced, Judge Sia Aik Kor described his actions as ‘so obviously corrupt by the ordinary and objective standard that he must know his conduct is corrupt’. The judge also cited a precedent which found actions to be ‘akin to an attempt to subvert the course of justice’. So if he could subvert the course of justice to save himself from a long prison term, was he also capable of inventing those damning words that confirmed, in the eyes of trial judges, that Vignes Mourthi knew what he was doing?
First of all, isn’t it interesting that a case of rape, sodomy and corruption from an arrest of 23 September 2001 languishes for years while a capital case arising from an arrest of 20 September 2001 is finished and done with more quickly?
Shadrake pointed out that the police and very likely the Attorney-General’s Chambers knew even as Vignes was on trial, that their chief prosecution witness Rajkumar was himself under investigation for corruption and subverting justice. Surely this must be pertinent to Vignes’ case? Would knowledge of this not have been grounds for impeaching Rajkumar’s credibility and for reasonable doubt in Vignes’ case?
Shadrake asks why there was silence throughout; why Rajkumar’s trial didn’t commence until Vignes had been hanged.
I would ask: Was the silence judged necessary to avoid an embarrassing collapse of the case against Vignes? Was it felt that it was more important not to have it collapse, more important to protect the idea of the death penalty from disrepute, the image of police and prosecutorial infallibility, than the question of true justice to a man?
* * * * *
Defenders of capital punishment have to assume that this extreme penalty is applied fairly and the process is unimpeachable; that issues such as  presumption of innocence and integrity of evidence are totally above board. That verdicts reached are safe. Anything short of an extremely high standard of probity and equal application would undercut the moral basis for taking a life.
It would be unconscionable if the death penalty is applicable for some and not applicable to others accused of similar crimes.  It would be unconscionable if process is a slapdash construction of toothpicks.
And yet it is. Because so many laws mandate the death penalty, tying the hands of judges, the real decider as to who hangs and who does not is the prosecutor through his ability to pick and choose what charges to level at the accused.  It stinks when the quantum of drugs the accused is charged with handling can go up or down depending on the day of the week or phase of the moon. It is putrid when allegedly key dealers friendly with the upper crust of society can get bail and escape from this island while friendless (alleged) mules get their cases rushed through.
What this book shows is that defenders of capital punishment in Singapore have no basis to make their critical assumptions. If anything, the cases recounted by Shadrake show an unevenness, almost a capriciousness, that should make Singaporeans hang their heads in shame.
Alan Shadrake has done great service to this country through his investigative work. By providing both the comparative overview and the case details that shatter complacent assumptions, he has delineated the baseline which any debate about capital punishment has to proceed from. From today, if you have not read his book, you have no basis to even talk about our (mis)use of the death penalty.
* * * * *
Post-script: I will update readers as soon as I learn where the book can be obtained.

sgdeathpenalty: Get the book here.

31 comments:

  1. PLease do update, this is a very good eye opener.

    ReplyDelete
  2. It is quite interesting how these cases are handled.. we hope author done his extensive work in coming up with these inner details.. sad to see him get arrested instead of addressing concern such serious issue such as capital punishment. No life can be lost for innocence.

    me also interested to read book. post it if you come across place where can i get this.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Yes, It is indeed a veru good eye opener. I was in a taxi someday back when the driver was talking about the recent floods and even the escape of Mas Selamat. As became talking more about these topics, he get very very agitated. Who is the in-charge of the PUB? Who is in-charge of the Country's security? why are they still sitting in the post when they should have resigned if not be terminated. His trustration was that his daughters did not get the scholarship which they deserve but it went to someone who had lowe result and he went to say that the scholarship is meant for the "well connected" only.

    It is really sad to read about Vignes Mourthi case and other similar case. It just remind me about Michael Vana who have "disappeared" from the world.

    http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/czech-brothers-join-list-of-suspects-in-malaysia-1574517.html

    ReplyDelete
  4. nice... cant wait for updates...

    ReplyDelete
  5. Ang MO....stop writing thing without proof to support your claim..............

    He just make our enforcer look stupid.....you think the do thing like that?? Maybe all these can happen in State where we saw on TV, the black are been beaten or shot by police...and the police walk out free...

    ReplyDelete
  6. well..sgp is no diff from a communist state. pay and pay will want to protect their power. so if u say anything against them, either u are jailed or u are fined.
    sgpreans are to timid to stand up against anything. just like a pig waiting to be killed.

    ReplyDelete
  7. honestly, u think our gov,enforcer,so-called judges r very nice ppl?They r the worse type of beast.those who misuse law/jali/death penalty against someone will face terrible death.u take a live,they gives u the gallow,how bout they take lives?who gives them the gallow?haha,they r just bullies but u guys can be assured,they n their family will face terrible life even if they r rich,look at their family members,all cancer,all illness on them...etc one the son of the Lee family..there is true retribution around for them all their lives! - -They n their family will answer for their sins.I hope they do come read it here...Know or dont know,they will suffer.

    ReplyDelete
  8. I am Law abiding. So far so good. Have a Roof over head, 2 Kids gainfully employed, molest CPF & investment for retirement & travel, option for Expensive Medical treatment in S'pore or JB. Safe to walk on the street in the middle of the night. Peaceful & no bombing by terrorists. Few beggars, no house break-in, mugging or car-jack or robbery. But a few Flooding recently.

    ReplyDelete
  9. I wonder where he get all those information from... if purely just from an 'long-time prison executioner', don't think the 'stories' are accurate, as i believe its could be a one side story (frm the 'innocent/accused')

    ReplyDelete
  10. Come on. You know you cannot come out of buddha's palm, and yet you still want to enter it. Will try to read the book as a number of cases mentioned is quite interesting.

    ReplyDelete
  11. It's a pity the book was seized or banned from selling. Even some said that this author is out to make himself famous, so what, at least he let the public know the secrets or the true fact. Every Singaporean knows, unless those die heard to protect the country to be criticised. But as a human being, is regardless of country, should have the fair say or thinking and not being retricted.
    We sometimes read between the lines in media that obviously shown that somethings were covered up but the media or public would not confront, especailly the execution of killing weapon --defamation.
    without reading this book, a couple of times reading offenders carrying more than 20g but less than 50g of drugs are facing death sentence, I always wonder why are the white color culprits who ruined tonnes of dollars by their deliberate cheating in doing so and not facing any severe sentence(always a few years jailed and then allowed to make money via issueing their book for the wrong doing).How much money can these drug offenders make or how many more trips must he make to be able to kill(by drug) a person.
    I would agree that the judge at the same time have to prove that that person is a regurlar drug trafficker or have strong intention to bring this kind to make money(big money) that it deserves a death sentence.
    Imaging any parent of such son/daughter who is verdicted to death just by once being found with possesion of 20 to 50g in an airport would find that it's not fair to take away the life of their child. it's too vague to just take away the life of their child.
    I have nothing to do with drug or think that carry drug is a right thing, but when death sentence is imposed, it better has more mercy and justice.

    ReplyDelete
  12. sooner or later this blog will be blocked by MDA. :)

    ReplyDelete
  13. stopthis nonsense.. things would be as bad as E.....d..and many other countries if its not that serious.....

    We are running a country here.... all of u guys think its shopping centre... simply ridiculous argument

    ReplyDelete
  14. Buy Alan Shadrake's book here:

    http://sgdeathpenalty.blogspot.com/2010/07/where-to-buy-alan-shadrakes-once-jolly.html

    ReplyDelete
  15. it not just about running a country,it how they(GOV)suck u dry,u must work to feed them!Then when u r old,u might be the one snatching paperbox or empty cans selling for a bowl of rice,they dont love our elderly,they dont take care of their citizens...Think about it ppl..They r bullies more worse than the person who raped u!But dont worry,c their children being cursed,u have some ha...

    ReplyDelete
  16. I cant believe how some people here can be so taken in by singapore's propaganda. I wont say the book is true or not, it is the opinion of the author. But corruption exist in every government one way or another and singapore is no exception. It's human nature.

    Let me put it simply. If your girlfriend is convicted for death and you have the power to stop it would you save her?

    ReplyDelete
  17. I remember a story I learnt when I was very young - 'ANIMAL FARM'.....! hmm!
    History will always repeat itself.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Instead of complaining or wondering if the book is true, why not think of ways to make the system more transparent. My suggestion is that for death penalty, we decision must be made by a panel made up of judges as well as public randomly selected. Give the opposition more credibility...let them set up the system for the random picking. That way, there'll be less questioning on it's fairness.

    ReplyDelete
  19. No country is perfect and money buys you out of many situations, just that Singapore works very very hard to try and maintain it's clean image but I mean really lah,cannot have NO corruption, just not possible.

    A public panel to hang ppl will not be possible, no one will let that hang over them *pun intended*.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Hmmm why not a panel...dun know what is the system call...e.g. in America, it's the panel that decide a person is guilty or not...

    ReplyDelete
  21. There is no reason for banning a book if the authorities have alot ot hide

    ReplyDelete
  22. We like to blame Malaysia for being corrupt especially at the Mongolian model murder trial...its happening at our own back yard. Open your eyes Singaporeans!!!!

    ReplyDelete
  23. conviction by jury is more human in capital cases.ceath is nvr an answer.u not only lose e life of dat person bt his whole family too....

    ReplyDelete
  24. I am sorried by those who accept things as it is in Singapore and refuse to believe such things could happened. They are happy no unfairness and trouble will come if they just keep quiet and let the government run everything. But they forgot, if something knocks on their door then they will know the true colour.

    I think it is a good eye opener and very brave of the writer to publish such a book knowing that he will be dealt with by the government. For those who criticised him let us see your guts to speak out or act out the truth.

    We truly have given our government too much unchecked power and this have to change before we dig our own grave and start to bury ourselves.

    Cant wait for the update. Hope there is a pdf version of the book for download.

    ReplyDelete
  25. There are a lot of things that get swept under the carpet. We are not stupid but Singaporeans are gullible indeed.

    :offtopic: A friend of mine in military(navy/army whatever..) got sent to DB for insubordination. His crime was for punching his sergeant and spitting his officer's face. Why? He asked on behalf of his whole platoon for a drink of water because of the rigourous training(some hell week). Instead they all got a pail of water splash on the floor and got told to drink the water from the dirty ground.

    Point is, sometimes, verdict and judgement are passed on just on facts, not factoring in circumstances leading to the facts.

    What if someone had died from physical or heat exhaustion?

    ReplyDelete
  26. Singapore has the lowest crime rate and WHY? go internet and search and do some research. For the people that are hang are one in a few.

    ReplyDelete
  27. In all honesty.. what the book claims is something most already know. Money does wonders, who doesn't know that? Its a matter of how much, and how often..

    I think its fair to say its not that much, and its not that often, but it does happen and everyone lives with that.

    IMO, pure publicity.. 'great service'? i don't think so.. waste of time? maybe.

    ReplyDelete
  28. A good insight..but this is quite tacit actually..

    ReplyDelete
  29. This is a great book about the death penalty. I was discussing with a number of Broker Dealer Lawyers and they also agreed the value in this book.

    I highly recommend reading it over and over again. There is great insight in it.

    Dylan

    ReplyDelete
  30. I am from Singapore and I support drug trafficking for real drug traffickers. However, the fact is that most drugs couriers were drugs mules and their death is really nothing but a notice that Singapore is very strict on this issue. Malaysia is also the other country strict on this issue.

    Why waste time investigation if these people are being made used knowingly or willing mules? Just hang them.

    I have issue with Singapore PAP Government is when our government is dealing with Myanmar in shady areas such as weapons, "investments" etc. That I cannot stomach and cannot agree with the PAP government.

    The Myanmarese who protested infront of the Myanmar Embassy in Singapore few years back were deported back to Myanmar immediately had underscored the close relations between Singapore and Myanmar.

    ReplyDelete