Kirsten Han/

“My son loves to help people,” Cheong Kah Pin tells The Online Citizen.

In fact, he believes that it is this willingness to help others that has led his son Cheong Chun Yin to where he is today – on death row in Changi Prison.

On 16 June 2008, 24-year-old Cheong Chun Yin (known to his family as “Ah Yan”) was arrested as he was getting off a taxi on Arab Street. He, together with 55-year-old Malaysian Pang Siew Fum, was charged for drug trafficking.

A suitcase that Cheong had passed to Pang at Changi Airport was found to contain 2.726kg of heroin hidden in a false bottom.

Under Schedule 2 of the Misuse of Drugs Act, any person found in possession of more than 2 grammes of heroin receives a mandatory death sentence. Under the Mandatory Death Penalty, the judge does not have the power and the duty to take into account the personal circumstances of the offender.

Both Cheong and Pang were found guilty and sentenced to death under the mandatory death penalty in February 2010.

Smuggling gold bars

In his statement and throughout court proceedings, Cheong insisted that he believed that he had been smuggling gold bars into Singapore from Myanmar.

Cheong Chun Yin

While running a DVD stall at the pasar malam in Johor he got to know an old man known as “Lau De”. “Lau De” told him that he was in the business of smuggling gold. Cheong said that he did not believe him at first, but did later when he met a man who claimed to have had just returned from a gold smuggling trip, and was decked out in gold jewellery.

“Lau De” offered to pay Cheong RM8000, with US$500 as pocket money for the trip to Myanmar, if he would carry the gold bars to someone in Singapore. Cheong, believing that it would not be difficult, agreed.

While in Myanmar, Cheong was given a black suitcase to bring in to Singapore. He said that although he did not see the gold, he felt the sides of the suitcase and got the impression that there was something hard hidden on each side. He thus assumed that the gold bars had been hidden in the lining of the suitcase.

Cheong carried the suitcase into Singapore through Changi Airport, handing it over to Pang Siew Fum in Terminal 2. He was later arrested and taken to Pang’s flat, where it was revealed that it was heroin, and not gold, that had been hidden in the lining of the suitcase.

“He did not know it was drugs,” says his father. “If we knew it was drugs, I would not have let him go. We know the penalty. Why would he go to his death so willingly?”

No financial difficulties

Cheong Kah Pin says his son was not having any financial difficulties. Between the two of them, they had been making more than enough money to get by.

After divorcing his wife, Cheong Kah Pin had also sold two houses – one in Johor and another in Ipoh. He and his ex-wife split the money, and the profit made was enough for him to purchase a new house for him and his son.

“Why would he want to traffic drugs?” he asks. “We have enough money of our own.”

In his statement to the police, Cheong said that he had agreed to smuggle gold bars because “I wanted to make more money so that I can save it up for my marriage with my girlfriend”.

He claims that he had been persuaded by “Lau De” to smuggle gold from Myanmar, and that if caught, there would only be a fine that “Lau De” would pay for. He therefore believed that it would be a relatively small risk to take.

Always happy, but too gullible

Cheong’s parents divorced in 2002, and his other three younger siblings – two sisters and a brother – went to live with their mother. He was the only child who remained with his father, and they set up a stall at the pasar malam together. After completing secondary school, he decided to help his father with the business full-time.

According to Cheong Kah Pin, his son had never mixed around with a bad crowd, preferring to return home to play computer games instead. Cheong has always had a cheerful disposition, and is incredibly willing to trust and help others.

“Oftentimes he would lend money to his friends, and they wouldn’t pay him back,” says Cheong Kah Pin. “But he would still help them if they asked.”

He tells us that even on death row, Cheong is eager to help others. “He asks me to bring music CDs when I visit him, so he can give them to the other death row inmates.”

He believes that it is his son’s gullible nature that led him to befriend and trust the people who talked him into going to Myanmar to smuggle gold bars. “He would never have knowingly trafficked drugs. He was just too eager to help people.”

Lack of search for “Lau De” deemed “immaterial”

While being questioned, Cheong repeatedly asserted that he had had no idea that the suitcase contained heroin. He also gave the Central Narcotics Bureau (CNB) officers the telephone numbers of “Lau De”.

However, he claims that they had done “absolutely nothing” to trace the whereabouts of this “Lau De”.

In his written judgements of the case, Judge Choo Han Teck stated that the evidence given by Cheong “did not create any reasonable doubt in my mind that he might not have known that he was carrying heroin.”

He also said that “[i]t was immaterial that the CNB did not make adequate efforts to trace ‘Lau De’ or check on his cell-phones. The absence of any trace of ‘Lau De’… was not taken as evidence in favour of or against either accused.”

Under the Misuse of Drugs Act, any person found in possession of more than the prescribed amounts is presumed to be trafficking. Furthermore, any person who is proved or presumed to have had a controlled drug in his possession shall be presumed to have known the nature of that drug. The burden of proof therefore rests on the defendant, as opposed to common law jurisdiction where the accused is presumed to be innocent until proven guilty.

A father left alone

When Cheong had first mentioned travelling to Myanmar, his father had not allowed him to go. “I told him not to go, to stay and help me with the business,” he says.

“But later I thought that he was already an adult, and I didn’t want to control him too much, so I let him go,” he adds. “If I had known, I would never have let him go.”

Cheong Kah Pin now lives and runs his business alone. Every Monday morning, he rides a motorcycle across the Causeway in to Singapore to visit his son at Changi Prison.

“How can I not be heartbroken?” he says. “This is the only son I have by my side.”

He tries to fill his days with work, going to morning markets as well as the usual night ones. Occasionally he will also seek extra factory work, helping to guard vehicles.

He says that it is not because he needs the money, but because he cannot bear to spend time alone in the house he once shared with his son. “I don’t want to stay at home, staring at the ceiling and crying,” he tells us.

“What meaning would there be left for me, if I were left alone?” he asks. “A good, healthy child, used by others because he was too gullible. Life will have no meaning for me if I were left alone.”

Awaiting presidential clemency

Cheong’s case has already progressed to the last stage: the presidential clemency. His clemency petition has already been submitted to President Nathan at the beginning of this year, and is expected to be due back by the end of April 2011. If the petition is turned down, Cheong can be expected to hang in early May.

In August 2010, in response to lawyer M Ravi’s application for a judicial review of the President’s powers in granting clemency, the Supreme Court ruled that the President has no discretion under the Constitution, and specifically under Article 22P, to grant pardons. “The power to do so rests solely with the Cabinet,”High Court Judge Steven Chong said.

Although time is running out, his father refuses to give up. “If my son was a bad person and a drug trafficker, I would have nothing to say,” he tells us. “But he is not a bad person. He really did not know he was carrying drugs. How can his life just be taken like this?”

Malaysia also practices the Mandatory Death Penalty for drug-trafficking cases. On March 18, A Singaporean single mother was found guilty of drug-trafficking and sentenced to death. TOC will provide updates soon.

Read also The Moratorium on the Death Penalty campaign

Subscribe
Notify of
0 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
You May Also Like

K Shanmugam says politicians should focus on key issues like jobs and COVID-19 pandemic at hustings

Politicians should focus on addressing issues like jobs and the COVID-19 pandemic…

Filipino on S-Pass: We are humans who have families to support

Singapore Business Review (SBR) published an article last Mon (‘Singapore’s foreign workers…

估计10万工友所得少于最低薪资 林志蔚:政府渐进式薪制无助改善处境

对于有者不同意新加坡工人党倡议最低薪金制,老本行是经济学家的盛港候任议员林志蔚,发文比较最低薪金制和渐进式薪金模式的差异。 他分析政府推出的渐进式薪金模式把薪资和工作职能绑定,也给了雇主更很多空间“省成本”,且没有考量到劳资之间的权力差异。再者,对于那些无法提升技能的工友,只能继续生活在低工资的处境,“事实上,据我们估计,有10万名工友薪资少于最低薪资,显然渐进式模式对他们无效。” 他在文中指出,最低薪资制尽管不是毫无疑问的好政策,但他是立足于证明,能改善雇员处境的良好开端。而在英美国家,所有的综合分析(meta- analyses)也显示,最低薪资制实则对于雇员就业问题,几乎没有影响。 而近期的研究,也倾向支持最低薪资制,即时薪资涨幅很大,对于低薪工友的就业问题实则带来冲击微小。 过去,本地反对最低薪资制的论述,不外乎认为这将造成雇主不愿聘用更多低薪工友、恐加剧失业问题等。前内阁部长、职总前秘书长的林文兴,曾认为最低薪资并无法改善低收入群体的困境。他也为此议题与巡回大使许通美教授论战。 林志蔚本身也是位经济学家,拥有美国哈佛大学历史学硕士、美国加利福尼亚大学圣克鲁兹分校国际经济学、哲学博士资历,目前也是ESSEC商学院经济学副教授。 不过,他也提出在推出最低薪资政策前,应设定评估框架和独立的最低薪检讨委员会,根据本地的情况作出调整。 至于谁该为最低薪资制买单?有者认为政府会为此付出代价,但林志蔚则解释,实际上他不会带来财政影响,可能由七成由消费者支付更高价格、三成由雇主承担。但他认为,关键在于,要把谈判薪资的权力,从资本方重新分配给劳动力。 “我认为我们可以承担一些费用,来照顾社会上较不富裕 群体,随着消费者比最低薪资工友多,对价格的影响也就减少。”