The WP team was a young one and was dubbed “Suicide Squad” by the media. Although young they may have been, they more than made up for that with passion, drive and energy. Throughout the election campaign period, one thing stood out above all else for me as I – being a greenhorn in such matters – saw how hard Shin Leong worked each day and night of the campaign.

As the designated leader of the team, he was leading it from the front.

I remember saying to everyone I know: “That fella is tireless! He’s like the energizer bunny several times over!”

And this impression I had of Shin Leong has always stayed with me, even after I left the WP in 2008.

It is thus with utter sadness when I heard the WP had expelled him from the party yesterday (15 Feb). At first, I was outraged and thought the party had gone too far. How could they – ever – think of doing something like this to one such as Shin Leong? The man had practically given more than 10 years to the party, having joined it in 2001. It was indeed with a very heavy heart that I had to eventually accept the WP’s decision after reading more closely what its position was.

Why Shin Leong has chosen not to be forthcoming, as the party explained, in clarifying what were being expressed in the allegations made against him, to the party, I don’t know. But I am sure Shin Leong has his reasons.

Perhaps in time, he will tell us his side of the story.

In the meantime, I hope that we do not forget the contributions which he has made – and also the sacrifices which he had had to go through in doing so.

About a month or two after the last GE, I was on my way home from the MRT station in Hougang. There was a group of people at one of the void decks. I wondered what these people were there for. I caught a glimpse and didn’t really bother, and went on my way. Just then, I heard someone call my name. I turned around and it was Shin Leong, the new MP of Hougang. “Hey, Andrew!” he said, with his ever present smile. He had left the group to catch up with me. “Hey, man” I replied in my usual way. “How are you?” Shin Leong asked. “I’m good.” He explained that they were there “forming up” before they went as  a group to attend one of the temple dinners that night as guests.

As I walked home, it struck me how Shin Leong is always like that – friendly, approachable and without airs about him.

A little while later, when I asked him for an interview for publichouse.sg, a website I am now involved in, he did not hesitate and said yes immediately. I was quite surprised at this. He later told me that he is always supportive of initiatives which do good for Singapore – and that granting me the interview was one way of showing his support.

It was the first interview he had given – to anyone – after the General Election.

And he chose to give it to an alternative media portal – and one which had just come online – rather than the big mainstream broadsheets.

It told me a lot about the man, and of course, I was thoroughly appreciative of his gesture.

In my time as a member with the WP, Shin Leong was the only WP member I knew then who did not dismiss anything I said. When I suggested an idea, he would listen intently, put his hand on my shoulder and said, “That is a great idea. Lets see how we can go about it and carry it out.” In all my two years there, he never once dismissed anything I said or suggested. Which is why I had and still have respect and appreciation for the man, whatever personal failings he may have.

But lets not forget one thing: the allegations against Shin Leong remain just that – allegations. Even the WP itself has said it does not know whether they are true.

I am not defending Shin Leong, if the allegations are true. I am saying that despite this, we should remember his contributions, which were especially hard to achieve, being in opposition politics. And to dedicate more than 10 years to this is commendable.

So, Shin Leong, we do not know why you’re keeping quiet. But we hope that you are ok. Please take care of yourself. Despite whatever personal transgressions you may have committed, we are here for you.

And we have not forgotten all that you have done – as a friend, as a politician, as an activist.

We do remember, and we thank you.

We hope you’re ok, Shin Leong.

The assault took place in April 2010. By Feb 2012, 2 of the 3 assailants had fled the country.

As we reported last year, on 11 April 2010, three friends tried to help a taxi driver who was being heckled and assaulted by a group of four Caucasian men at the taxi stand at Suntec City Tower 5. The three do-gooders were later pounced on by the Caucasian group, with 2 of the 3 friends eventually having to be admitted to the hospital for treatment.

The 3 Caucasians – Australian Nathan Robert Miller, Briton Robert James Springall and New Zealander Robert Stephen Dahlberg – were charged in Singapore in July 2011.

The New Paper reported in December 2011:

“The Kiwi was granted bail of $25,000 and was given permission to leave Singapore for London and Hong Kong from July 11 to 29. Springall, an options broker like Dahlberg, was released on a bail of $6,000, while Miller’s bail was $10,000. After his trip, Dahlberg was supposed to surrender his passport to the Singapore police on Aug 1.”

Dahlberg is alleged to have pushed Mr Paul Louis Liew Kai Ming, 26, causing him to hit his face against a pillar. Mr Liew was reported to have “fractured his nasal bone and suffered a 4cm cut on his forehead and had to be hospitalised.”

However, Dahlberg was allowed to leave Singapore for two weeks in July and has since absconded. A warrant of arrest was issued against him in September 2011. The Straits Times reported that the “Singapore Police Force may enlist the help of Interpol to track down… Dahlberg.”

In February, news reported that Springall too had fled Singapore’s jurisdiction. In fact, he did so in December last year.

The third man, Miller, has since pleaded guilty and has been sentenced to three weeks’ jail for punching the cab driver.

The circumstances which have resulted in 2 of the 3 assailants fleeing Singapore have raised questions of how the case was handled by the police. As reported by both publichouse.sg and mainstream news outlets, the assault was a vicious one, resulting in two of the men having to be hospitalised.

Also, the case took more than a year, after the victims lodged a police report following the incident, for the authorities to complete its investigation and to arrest and charge the assailants. One of the men who tried to help the cab driver, Mr Laurence Wong, had expressed fears that the assailants may flee Singapore as the police had told Mr Wong and his friends that the Caucasian men ““are allowed to leave the country as and when they want”.

Now, it seems, Mr Wong’s greatest fears have come true with the second of the 3 assailants absconding from Singapore.

It is unclear if the police are going to engage the help of Interpol, as news reported earlier they might, to bring the two culprits to justice.

Singaporeans deserve to know what the authorities plan to do next and they should also explain how 2 men accused of violent assaults are able to flee Singapore so easily.

“Last night was especially busy (see previous status update). Certainly, some of our residents have been vocal. But I could not believe my eyes when I read in the Straits Times this morning that some of our residents likened studio apartments for the elderly to ‘death houses’. We even called up the journalist to double-check that this was said and heard. As MP, I am committed to represent our residents and will continue to do so. But I cannot support comments like this. Let’s keep our tone civil and maintain respect for our elderly.”

Ms Sim Ann is referring to the controversy surrounding the building of elder-friendly facilities and the HDB’s plans to build studio apartments for the elderly in the Toh Yi estate in Bukit Timah. The Straits Times had reported:

“A handful of the residents also likened the apartments to ‘death houses’ for the elderly to wait out their last days.”

While the residents’ concerns about the lack of space and common amenities may be valid and should be taken into consideration by the authorities, their misguided and insensitive views on the elderly should be condemned by all Singaporeans.

Being older in age does not mean one is waiting to die.

And such myopic and disrespectful remarks or views do not entitle one to use them as justification in not wanting facilities for the elderly to be built in the estate.

In a similar vein, residents in Woodlands too were reported to be against the building of an elder day care centre at the void decks of two blocks in the area. One of the reasons cited was the negative effect this will have on the value of the flats there.

Residents objecting to facilities being built at their void decks or near their areas are not new. These have happened in at least three other precincts in Bedok, Hougang and Tampines.

In Tampines, MP Irene Ng said she welcomed the building of studio apartments in one of her precincts last year. “[We] worked with grassroots leaders and residents to help make sure they understand the benefits. Had a frank closed-door dialogue with them before the development was announced publicly. The construction is coming along nicely, and the flats are very popular, especially among our seniors themselves who want to live near their children in Tampines.”

“Our response as a community reflects on our attitude towards providing for our elderly to help them lead independent and dignified lives,” she had posted on her Facebook page last year, explaining how she dealt with residents’ concerns. (Read the entire note here.)

Minister for Community Development, Youth and Sports, Chan Chun Sing, said “the government will need to share and educate the public on such needs.”

“Some of the issues are real, some of the issues could be because they do not fully understand (the need for these facilities). We have many examples of many communities embracing many of these social services in their community.

“Many of the communities in fact come to embrace the work and help out in these centres, be it day activity centres for the elderly, (or) day care centres for the children. So I think there’s great potential for everybody to work together.”

I walk pass an elder day care centre in Hougang on my way to the MRT station each day. You see how the elderly folks are taken care of, at times engaging in fun activities like singing. Never have I thought that the centre is a “death house” for them. On the contrary, it is heartening to see how we as a society extend a hand to these fellow Singaporeans when they grow old.

And that is what Singaporeans need to understand – that these folks are not some abstract statistics. They are made of flesh and blood who have lived and perhaps struggled a lifetime. Now that they are in their old age, it is our duty to be empathetic and sensitive and to extend our hands of comfort to them.

It is about caring for our seniors, about showing our children what it means to be humane so that they will be as well. It is about what kind of society we want our next generations to grow up in. How do we teach and instil respect in our children when we talk like this?

Yet, it is about more than these. It is about those frail men and women we see around us, those who contributed to what we enjoy now. Indeed, some of them may even be those who gave birth to us. How do we make them feel they are loved, respected and embrace them?

Certainly, you don’t and can’t do this with an appalling attitude which looks at the elderly as people who are doing nothing but waiting to die.

How would you feel if, when the day comes – as it surely will – you are one of the elderly in need of a home but are told that you are not welcomed (by your own countrymen) for no other reason than that you are old?

Residents of Toh Yi gathering at void deck to protest

Read STOMP’s report here.

The first thing that struck me was how simple the home was. It was quite evident that the house has remain much as it had from years past. The paint on two of the main doors were peeling, the wall is evidently older despite the paint, and even the ceiling lights were nothing to crow about. In fact, two flourescent tubes had to be added in the hall as, I suspect, it would be too dim otherwise.

But what really took me by surprise was the mosaic tiles in the living room floor. I have not seen such flooring since I was a kid, really. And that is some years ago. You certainly do not see such tiles being used in modern houses anymore. I took a picture of it:

As you can see, it is pretty old and worn out but it is well-kept nonetheless.

And here is the living hall of Lee Kuan Yew’s house which he still lives in:

You don’t see such flooring anymore either.

Dr Toh’s sparsely furnished house – and the flooring – told me more about Dr Toh than perhaps all that I have read about the man. Certainly, he is evidently one of humble needs. So too Mr Lee.

A friend asked me why don’t these two founding fathers of modern Singapore live more ostentatiously or lavishly. Well, I don’t know. But I can surmise that perhaps it is because of the times they were brought up in – an era where simplicity was lauded, where virtues such as humility and charity were appreciated more. But I don’t really know.

What perhaps we can deduce is this: one doesn’t have to live in big houses with luxurious furnishings to have a lasting impact on the lives of your fellow men and women.

I went home from the wake pondering on what I’d seen and what it means, really, to serve your nation and your people.

Dr Toh lived humbly and passed from this earth quietly, after having served his people through some of our most tumultuous times.

His feet was firmly set on the ground, as evidenced by the ground on which his feet walked.

He was a young man. Early to mid-20s. Contrary to what some may think, he wasn’t at all downtrodden with sad demeanour or immersed in self-pity. In fact, he always had a smiling face and would speak animatedly about things.

Life hadn’t been too kind to him, though, and he ended in the predicament he was in – a young man homeless.

Family circumstances led to him having to seek shelter in one of the homes run by a non-governmental organisation. 

Prior to being given a place in the home, he had been sleeping under one of those MRT tracks. I shan’t reveal which one or which particular place. He ended up there as he could not afford to rent even a room. He was, by then, in a little of a depressed state.

It was when a friend enquired with him that he was given the number of the person who ran the home. “Call him,” his friend told him. “He is a good man and he will help you.”

And so he did.

His space in the shelter was just a cubicle, partitioned out of the living hall where another 5 cubicles were created. Each was just barely enough to site a bed and nothing much more. But it was adequate. A place to lay down one’s head at the end of the day. The homeless in that shelter worked in the day and return in the night.

As for him, he held two jobs by then, working as a cook and some odd jobs. He was happy and told me that he was also thankful that he now had a roof over his head. “Sleeping under the elements was tough,” he told me. The last I spoke to him, which was more than a year ago, he was telling me that he was going to move on to a better paying job and be able to leave the shelter. He too didn’t want to take up the space which, he said, others needed. There was a long queue for places in homeless shelters then.

He would also spend time with the children of another homeless family and from time to time there would be a BBQ at the home. A simple but meaningful way for the residents to just hang out and leave their worries behind, in the company of friends. The children took to him easily, looking up to him as a big brother. It was heartwarming to see.

I remember him and always will because he showed me how the homeless sometimes are stereotyped by some – that they are either elderly, or lazy, or drug-addicts, or sick, or selfish, and so on. He made me realise that they too could be young, working, healthy, and well, ordinary. And thoughtful.

Sometimes, people just fall into bad circumstances, not all of which are within their control.

I hope he has made it out of there now and has gotten his life back in order – and that he has kept the smile on his face which he always had.

To be clear, this S$1.1 million for a MR4 grade minister includes the bonus components.

The basic or fixed salary for a minister at the MR4 grade is S$715,000 annually.

This comes to about S$55,000 a month. (S$715,000/13 – 13 being the 13^th month payment.)

It only adds up to S$1.1 million if the variable/bonus components are factored in. These are dependent on the minister/government meeting some key performance indices, as you can see from this illustration.

Interestingly, in 2000, Mr Chiam See Tong suggested that ministers be paid S$50,000 a month – “a level enough for them to maintain “a comfortable life”, with a bungalow, servants, two cars, annual holidays and funds for their children’s education.” (See here.)

In 2006, Mr Chiam changed his mind about the figure and said it should be higher.

“At the last debate in this House, on the revision of Ministers’ salaries, I suggested that at that time, we pay our Ministers SGD $50,000 a month. This time round, I suggest that we pay our Ministers SGD$70,000 per month or $840,000 a year.” (See here.)

Also interestingly, former Nominated Member of Parliament, Siew Kum Hong, writing on his personal blog, agreed with what Mr Chiam said back in 2000:

“One way to do this is to figure out what a reasonable salary for a minister would be, such that he/she can maintain a reasonable lifestyle. And by reasonable lifestyle, I would think that the salary should be enough to comfortably cover mortgage payments for a reasonably-priced landed property in a reasonable location; payments for 2 cars for the family; education for a minister’s children (including overseas education); some retirement savings; and so on.”

Siew also said that he does not “necessarily think that S$1m a year is excessive.”

It is a figure which another former NMP Viswa Sadasivan agrees with. He said “Singaporeans were reacting on an emotional level” and that “no amount will be satisfactory” to the public, or some quarters of it. (See here.)

Other opposition parties have made different suggestions which I shall not go into. But I do want to point out two fallacies which Mr Kenneth Jeyaretnam made on his postings on Ms Grace Fu’s Facebook page:

1. He had posted that: “Entry level minister pay plus 13.5 months bonus is more likely to be $2.3 million.” As you can see from the above chart from the Straits Times, this is false.
2. Mr Jeyaretnam also asked whether a minister would receive two salaries and thus accordingly two bonuses if he held two portfolios. The answer was given by Gerard Ee and in his committee’s report. No, a minister only gets one salary, one bonus, no matter how many portfolios he handles. [It is surprising that Mr Jeyaretnam would asked such a question given that his party had issued a statement on the revised salaries the previous day and that surely Mr Jeyaretnam must have had read the report, he being the secretary-general of the Reform Party.]

But coming back to the issue of absolute dollars and cents.

I do not want our ministers (even if in future the opposition comes into power) to be paid so lowly that the office of minister is seen as just another office job. It is not.

A minister is at the apex of being the people’s representative, besides the President and the PM. He represents the country and its people in many ways. Thus, the office should be accorded the appropriate respect and prestige, and also to recognise the difficult and complex work they do.

We may never agree on an absolute number but I think we all can agree on the value of the office – even if we do not accept that some ministers are not worthy of them. This, however, is a separate matter. If they are incompetent, kick them out at the ballot.

But do make a distinction between the office and the person, which is an important one to make.

We do not want to see our politicians being viewed as nothing more than “second-hand car salesmen” – to reference a once-used term.

I do agree that S$55,000 (or even Mr Chiam’s latter suggestion of S$70,000) a month, or S$1.1 million a year for a minister is not excessive and is acceptable.

At the traffic light, I stood beside her and observed her from the corner of my eyes. The sun was bearing down on her and I could see her face winced as she waited for the lights to turn green.

Walking across the street, she had to climb up this flight of stairs to reach the shophouses which lined the way to the markets.

As I watched her, it reminded me of my own mom who would go to the markets every morning to get fresh food for her children, including my nieces who were living with us then.

This elderly lady must be doing the same, I thought.

The simple yet important things our mothers and grandmothers do.

*An earlier post on something similar: A mother’s love does not require rest.

Since the new pay structure for ministers were unveiled on Wednesday, views have been mixed. Some criticise it for not going far enough, while others welcome it. The truth is that each person will have his or her own expectations, which is evident from the different views from the opposition parties, and from online comments so far.

I am afraid there will never be universal consensus on a matter such as this which is not only a politically sensitive one for the government, but it is also one which throws up visceral emotions. 

It doesn’t help things that the salary cuts come after 17 years of what has been seen as a grossly over-generous and unwarranted, undeserved pay formula for ministers. Sentiments against the previous formula is no doubt exacerbated by certain issues which have cropped up the past half decade or so – crowded public transport system, spiralling HDB prices, job insecurity, regular floodings around the island, the perceived arrogance of a ruling elite, and so on.

But here we are now with a new formula for salaries.

What should we make of it?

I think there are several things which are important which should not be lost in the rhetoric and reactions. And these are:

1. The important re-orientation of the formula towards placing more emphasis on the ethos of public service.
2. The consequences of such a change, that is, whether the new formula will be a hindrance or an appeal to those who intend to commit to public service.
3. Will Singapore be in good hands, going forward, a question which can only be answered years from now.

To me, these are the more important matters. Of course, how much ministers are paid is important too. The last formula which resulted in the Prime Minister being paid some S$3.76 million was just insane, and the President (who perform a largely ceremonial role) being paid some S$4.2 million was just obscene. Former President, SR Nathan, took home between S$30 million and S$40 million during his two terms in office.

Lets be clear about this – this is unacceptable and thoroughly undeserved.

The new formula brings some sanity to the whole runaway, bloated sense of self-worth of our ministers and the president. So, in this sense, it is a good step forward.

We can argue whether S$2.2 million is still too much for a prime minister, or if S$1.1 million is still obscene for a entry-level minister. The truth is that we will never reach a consensus on either or any of these.

The re-orientation of the formula to reflect the spirit of public service by Mr Gerard Ee and his committee is very much welcome. Indeed, this has been the rallying cry of those who were critical of the previous formula. And rightly so.

How will this emphasis on the public service ethos impact the recruitment of potential office holders? Of course, no one can be sure. But it is worth noting Ms Grace Fu’s remarks on the new salary scale.

On Wednesday, she posted the following on her Facebook page:

“When I made the decision to join politics in 2006, pay was not a key factor. Loss of privacy, public scrutiny on myself and my family and loss of personal time were. The disruption to my career was also an important consideration. I had some ground to believe that my family would not suffer a drastic change in the standard of living even though I experienced a drop in my income. So it is with this recent pay cut. If the balance is tilted further in the future, it will make it harder for any one considering political office.”

Not surprisingly, she was lambasted by some for her comments. At the time of writing, her note has attracted some 875 comments.

It is worth noting that Ms Fu started her career in the United Overseas Bank (UOB) and later joined the Port of Singapore Authority (PSA) where she held various posts. (Wikipedia.) She entered politics in 2006 and became MP for Jurong GRC.

In the same year, she was appointed Minister of State for National Development. In 2008, she added the Education portfolio to her work. Ms Fu is currently Senior Minister of State in two ministries, the Ministry of Information, Communications and the Arts, and the Ministry of the Environment and Water Resources.

Her comments give an insight to what someone like her considers when approached to take up office. And hers are honest comments, in my opinion. There is no reason for her to do otherwise, especially knowing that salaries for ministers is a very sensitive issue at the moment.

But lets take her remarks as they are and leave behind the accusations.

There is no doubt that what Ms Fu said in the first part of her remarks is what many will consider when considering public office. Loss of privacy, public scrutiny of not just oneself but also on one’s family, and the disruption to her career. Politics, as they say, is or could be a short-lived career.

But it is the second part of her comments which have riled some: “If the balance is tilted further in the future, it will make it harder for any one considering political office.”

I do not think Ms Fu is saying that she entered politics for the money, even though naturally finances would be a consideration for anyone with a family, as she has. She was making a more general point – that finances, for anyone in fact, is a consideration. It may not be the most important consideration (Ms Fu didn’t say it was) but nonetheless it is one aspect which will affect one and one’s family.

Some have argued whether she should have made such a comment at all. I feel this is just being facetious. Do we not expect our politicians to be honest? Yet, when they do, we question if they should have opened their mouths? Are we expecting to hear them say what we want to hear them say? Or to just shut-up if they are to say what we do not wish to hear?

It would also be naive to expect that anyone who wants to enter politics will not have considerations, including financial ones. To expect one to not do so is to expect an utopian ideal.

But the more important point is this and lets be honest: Salary and finances is what virtually all of us consider when we take up a job or when we change jobs. So, why the hullaballoo over what Ms Fu said? It may not be politically correct (although I do not see how this is so, in this case) but isn’t honesty important?

And if indeed others feel the same way as Ms Fu, with families and do consider monetary remuneration before taking up a job, then shouldn’t we consider it and factor that into our own consideration before we react in a knee jerk fashion?

What she is driving at is that salaries must be balanced and not be too far to the extremes. It is a point which is not disagreeable.

The truth is that all of us do consider financial incentives or remuneration when we take up a job.

Anyway, back to the point of the re-orientation of the salary formula.

What the government should do next is to look at the other factors which could be potentially preventing Singaporeans from stepping up. For instance:

1. The vague and wide provisions in our defamation laws, especially when it comes to political cases or which involves politicians.
2. The fairness and independence of the mainstream media.
3. The electoral system which has many flaws which should be reviewed.
4. Fairness in government policies and practices when it comes to certain things – such as HDB upgrading for opposition wards, the disbursement of CIPC funds, the appointment of “grassroots advisers” especially in opposition-held wards, etc.
5. The independence of our various state institutions such as the police, the judiciary, the civil service.
6. Abolishing the Internal Security Act and replace it with another law to specifically deal with terrorists and terrorism.

The prime minister, having convened the Ministerial Salary Review Committee two weeks after the May General Election, should now go further and look into these.

Salary revision is just the first step.

The government must also realise that it will no longer have monopoly of the scale of the past when it comes to Parliament, or in the people’s trust. Thus, as a responsible government (which the PAP government claims to be) it must ensure that Singapore’s system is fair, transparent, robust. A system which is fair to all – whether PAP or opposition.

Once such a system is in place, perhaps then we will be able to attract national leaders who will truly indeed do it for our country, for they will know that the system is fair and that their intention to serve will not be curtailed by unfair political manoeuvres (by the ruling party in power) or worse, by dubious political shenanigans by those who wield power.

At the end of the day, all Singaporeans want good leaders, fair government, and a sustainable Singapore.

And this is, in the core, what this whole thing is about, isn’t it?

Vui Kong's family kneeling in front of the Istana to plead for mercy

Many Singaporeans have been campaigning to save the life of Yong Vui Kong. His story, the court trials and appeals – both to the Court of Appeal and the President – have been reported and documented. You can read about these here.

Appeals and pleas have been made to the authorities, namely the government and the president, by Vui Kong’s family, friends, supporters and especially by Mr M Ravi, Vui Kong’s lawyer. Ravi, who is also a good friend of mine and one whom I am truly proud of, has fought Vui Kong’s case for some 3 years now.

Vui Kong made his last appeal in July, beseeching then President Nathan to give him a second chance. Since then, Singapore has had a new President following the August Presidential Election.

Normally, from what I am given to understand, a clemency appeal would be decided on within 3 months. It has been 5 months now since Vui Kong’s appeal in July – and there is no word from the government or the President.

I am not sure what to make of this. Several reasons could lie behind the delay:

1. President Tony Tan, who succeeded President Nathan, could perhaps be discussing with the Cabinet to relook the mandatory death penalty, under which Vui Kong was sentenced to death for trafficking heroin.
2. President Tan, being a Christian, perhaps is reluctant to sign off on the death warrant so soon after having assumed office.
3. The Cabinet could be consulting with legal experts on how the Misuse of Drugs Act could be tweaked, and hence is hesitant in rejecting Vui Kong’s appeal. (The Court of Appeal had judged that it is the Cabinet which has the authority to decide on clemencies, and not the president.)
4. The Cabinet could be considering a moratorium but is looking at the consequences of this.

The delay could be for any reasons. We can only offer conjecture.

The arguments and pleas have all been made. There is little else for anyone to do to try and save Vui Kong.

His life is in the hands of a few men.

When I first came to know of his case in Oct/Nov 2009, I didn’t even know about the MDA, or the mandatory death penalty, and how these worked. I don’t think many people did. But having campaigned for Vui Kong, we realised how vicious these laws were.

What doesn’t help is the government giving only one explanation why drug trafficking must be dealt with not with the death penalty per se but with the mandatory death penalty.

This means judges do not and are not allowed to consider mitigating factors.

In short, if an accused is found to have a certain amount of drugs on him, he is considered to be trafficking and consequently, the mandatory death penalty applies.

It is that straight forward – except that it raises many questions. I shall not deal with these here as they have already been dealt with.

To be honest, some of us have prepared ourselves for the worst – that Vui Kong’s appeal will be rejected by the Cabinet. If this happened, he will be hanged shortly after such a decision.

I have no more words, to be honest, to say to try and appeal to the Cabinet. Words fail me when I know that the only issue which matters to the Cabinet is not the life of a young man (Vui Kong was 19 when he was arrested in 2007), but the dubious claim of deterrence which the mandatory death penalty is suppose to serve – a claim which many have debunked and disproved.

If Vui Kong is hanged, I can only conclude that the Cabinet is an unfeeling one – that its claim to want a compassionate society is nothing but hot air coming out of the chimney of political vents.

For how can we hang someone so young, practically a teenager, whatever the crime he has committed?

I can’t and will never be able to understand how grown men, intelligent and undoubtedly with well-developed consciences, are able to be at peace with themselves as the noose is tied around Vui Kong’s neck and the trap door opened for him to “hang by the neck till you have breathed your last.”

I will never be able to understand all this.

We Believe In Second Chances, a group headed by 3 young Singaporeans – Kirsten Han, Priscilla Chia, Damien Chng – will be holding an event to coincide with Vui Kong’s 24^th birthday. It is as follows:

Venue: Speakers’ Corner
Date: 15th January 2012
Time: 4pm

More details here.

Please do try and attend this. I will be there as well.

As we prepare for the new year, spare a moment to think about Vui Kong who sits on death row, and has been since 2007.

Solitary detention.

23 hours a day.

For four years now.