(Or “Why Vui Kong should take responsibility for saving his own life, and not depend on his groupies to spin tales” or “Why is Vui Kong spinning such a tangled web?”)
So the Court of Appeal will be giving its latest verdict on Wednesday on the latest attempt of Vui Kong and his groupies to save him from judicial murder. I doubt very much that the court will allow the appeal*.
Wonder then what lie we will told next by his groupies in an attempt to save his life? The last was a lie too far even for a cynic like me: that S’pore discriminated against VK because he was a Malaysian.
What this piece
didn’t tell us that he refused to testify against the alleged drug mastermind, hence he was charged with a hanging offence (see the link below). If he had been willing to testify, he would not have been charged with a crime that carries with it the penalty of judicial murder. Even now, as I understand it, if he changes his mind, the state will ensure that he does not get judicially murdered. Fair exchange, as I see it. “You want yr life, the state wants you as a witness”.
But not to him. He refuses to trade, and his groupies say on Facebook that it is because he is afraid that his family will be harmed.
Is it a resasonable fear? Well there is a S’porean that has agreed to testify against the alleged mastermind, and there is no evidence that his family has been put in danger. This S’porean was charged with a lesser offence which ensured that he only got a very long custodial sentence, what VK wants too but only on VK’s terms. Sounds like a spoiled brat with a gigantic sense of entitlement to boot.
Beggars and condemned men can’t be choosers, VK should realise. He lost his right to pick and choose and behave like a spoled brat when he was caught smuggling drugs into S’pore. Now no-one forced him into doing that, did they? He knew he was commiting a hanging offence, but is not willing to accept the consequences of his crime.
He wants to live, but on his terms, not the terms that the state is willing to grant him life. What a spoiled brat, he is. And what a sense of entitlement: the world must let him live, despite his refusal to help himself.
But this isn’t all. His lawyer argued in the Court of Appeal that his rights have been violated because the state refused to compel him to testify against said mastermind.
Let me get this right. The state respects his right not to testify against someone because he is afraid his family may be harmed, yet the state is accused of violating his rights by not forcing him to testify. By not forcing him to testify, the state is respecting his freedom to choose. Is this so wrong?
And by not forcing him to testify, the state is not forcing him to choose whether to endanger his family or not. Isn’t this generous of the state?
Whatever it is, I wish someone who cares for him would shake him by the shoulders and tell him,”Boy you are going to die sooner or later. You can make it a lot later by agreeing to give evidence against the person you alleged is the mastermind. You are prepared to testify if the state compels you to, so why can’t you do so of yr own free will?”
*Let me be clear: I hope VK will not be murdered by the state. True, drug smugglers deserve to be severely punished, but state-sanctioned murder is a step too far. I don’t believe in the death penalty but I accept that this is a minority view even in countries like the UK, and I accept that society has the right to murder those that breaks its laws, even if the punishment is disproportionate to the crime.