~by: We Believe in Second Chances~

 
 
In a letter responding to Mr M Ravi, counsel for Mr Yong Vui Kong, the Court of Appeal has revealed two further charges made against Chia Choon Leng, the alleged drug syndicate mastermind in Yong’s case. 
 
The two charges do not relate directly to Yong, and the Prosecution has all along declined to disclose them on the basis that they are irrelevant. 
 
This latest twist in Yong’s case goes some way to painting a clearer picture of how much more culpable in the drug syndicate Chia was. 
 
The two charges revealed against Chia were for trafficking an amount of heroin that triggered the death penalty. 
 
More interestingly, the person Chia is alleged to have trafficked the drugs to was one Koh Bak Kiang, whose judgment is actually published and a matter of public record. 
 
In Koh’s judgment, District Judge Wong Keen Onn noted that Koh had acted on Chia’s instructions and that Chia had “recruited him to run Chia’s or one of Jessie’s (Chia’s wife) errands. The errands included collecting and delivering small quantity (sic) of drugs”. 
 
Justice Wong further noted that Chia seemed to have been part of a syndicate and that he and his wife were the “two persons who were planning and giving instructions”. 
 
For reasons unknown, Chia never stood trial for these two, or any of the other 26 charges against him. 
 
Yong’s latest appeal to the Court of Appeal is premised on alleged unequal treatment meted out to him vis-à-vis Chia. 
 
In arguments before the Court of Appeal and filed in Court, Mr Ravi has submitted that it is a violation of Yong’s right to equal treatment under Article 12 of the Constitution of Singapore for Yong to be prosecuted under an offence carrying the mandatory death penalty while Chia, who was alleged to have been close to the criminal apex of the drug syndicate, is currently held in executive detention despite the Prosecution initially preferring up to 26 charges against him for trafficking and other drug related offences. 
 
The Prosecution has resisted the disclosure of the other (nearly 20) charges against Chia on the basis that these charges are not relevant to the issues Yong has raised before the Court of Appeal. Mr Ravi makes the argument that this view of culpability is too narrow, and that the surrounding charges would clearly show (as in Koh’s case), Chia’s obviously greater culpability in the entire criminal enterprise than Yong. 
 
In response to Yong’s current application, all the Prosecution has revealed is that the reason for the withdrawal of the 5 charges made against Chia in relation to Yong was because of ‘insufficient evidence’. They have also refused to justify their decision to charge Yong with a capital crime, but not Chia.
 
The one who got away.
 
Of particular note in Koh’s judgment is the fact that Koh had his charge reduced for testifying against Chia: Koh was charged with trafficking 14.99 grams of diamorphine. In sentencing, the Judge also took into account and gave “substantial weight” to the fact that Koh was willing to be a prosecution witness. 
 
This is significant for Yong as part of his argument hinges on the fact that he was at all times a compellable witness against Chia and could have, under appropriate conditions, testified against Chia. He merely expressed a concern to testifying in open court for fear of his family’s safety. 
 
Under this argument, Yong should have been given an opportunity to take advantage of the same opportunity that Koh did and it was unreasonable for the Prosecution not to allow him to do so given the obvious public policy reasons for capturing someone higher up in the syndicate chain. 
 
After all, in his statements to the police, Yong identified Chia as the person who supplied him with the drugs to bring into Singapore. During his trial, Yong also repeatedly referred to Chia as his ‘boss’.
 
The newly revealed charges raise many more questions that the Prosecution has yet to satisfactorily answer. 
 
How could the Prosecution not have sufficient evidence against Chia in Yong’s case if there were ample findings of fact through Koh’s case that Chia was pretty high up in a drug syndicate hierarchy? Surely this, combined with Yong’s evidence, would be sufficient to secure a conviction against Chia in Yong’s case? 
 
Finally, the fact that the Court has now taken the initiative to disclose an additional two charges against Chia to the Defence makes it untenable for the Prosecution to continue asserting that the remaining 20 or so charges against Chia are irrelevant. 
 
If the Court of Appeal finds the charges relevant enough to disclose, shouldn’t the Prosecution? 

 

 

 

 

 


This article is written exclusively for TOC by 'We Believe in Second Chances'. 

 

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

161 new cases of COVID-19 infection in S’pore; 156 locally transmitted cases, 79 unlinked

As of Tuesday noon (31 Aug), the Ministry of Health (MOH) has…

Facebook post about compulsory course on foreign interference is inaccurate says NUS

On Wednesday (25 September), a Facebook page called NUSSU – NUS Student’s…

有剩余物品就分享 榜鹅居民甘榜精神抗病魔

新型冠状病毒来袭,新加坡人们纷纷发挥“甘榜”互助互爱精神,除了免费派发口罩,在榜鹅西部数个公共组屋区内,可以看到电梯内被置放了消毒液和酒精湿巾,提醒人们注意健康,令人感到心暖暖。 此前,本社报导有夫妇在榜鹅地铁站街上派发免费口罩,获得网民赞许。也有民众自发派口罩惠及有需要的家庭、老人或小孩。 据了解,榜鹅西部一些组屋的电梯内,都备有瓶装的消毒液,以及一篮的酒精湿巾,并且还附有手写的字条,孤立居民们使用或在必要时领取有关物品。有关的字条上写道,“请使用你需要的物品”、“请使用……来自你邻居的关心”。 之前脸书上也有人响应榜鹅派发口罩的行为,而在电梯内放置清洁用品及口罩的案例也非首例,但是依然让人们感到温馨非常,相信国人心中的温暖能够传递,让更多类似的暖心举止在国内飘扬,应对病魔也没在怕。 电梯内置放消毒液 据榜鹅居民反映,他们赞许这种“甘榜精神”,认为这体现社区力量,居民守望相助,也有助降低对新冠病毒的恐惧心理。 “就算你无需要使用这些东西,你也会获得安全感,真正感觉到甘榜精神-既然有多出来的物品,分享,有何不可?” 也有居民坦言,现在市面上也很难买到消毒液,但有“佛心”居民愿意捐出一瓶供大家使用,方便街坊邻里。 越南抢购口罩派发居民 另一名榜鹅居民,陈建昇(39岁)和其妻子Vy Chen(34岁),在听闻新加坡出现口罩短缺后,立刻意识到他们能够做点什么来帮忙了。两人趁着农历新年假期,带着孩子家人到越南时,听说有人为了赚钱而高价转售口罩。 “在经历过严重急性呼吸综合征(SARS)后,我们了解到这是不仅要为自己的家人和朋友做准备,但是也要顾及民众。”…

Govt says nothing wrong with Erramalli's qualifications; His computer school closed down in 2002

It was reported in the media today that Ministry of Manpower and…