Judicial corruption: The first letter to PM Lee Hsien Loong (3 Nov, 2015)

 Request for investigation: The Supreme Court of Singapore's bias in favor of the Government

From: Yan Jun [mailto:medp1128@hotmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, November 03, 2015 13:32
To: Lee Hsien Loong (PM)
Cc: AGC CIVIL (AGC); Connie CHAN (PS to the MP); Hui Agnes YAO (PA to Attorney-General); Jessie TEO (PA to Chief Justice); K Shanmugam (Minister for Law); SUPCOURT Registry (SUPCOURT); Alejandro Ponce (The World Justice Project); Jose Ugaz Sanchez (President of the Transparency International); Liao Ran (Transparency International); Sofie Arjon Schutte (U4 Anti-corruption resource centre); Srirak Plipat (Transparency International); The World Justice Project; Amnesty International (UK); David Dadge (United Nations Office on Drug and Crime); Global Witness; Human Rights First ; Mickey Spiegel (Human Right Watch); Nicholas Bequelin (Amnesty International); Office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights (South East Asia); Phil Robertson (Human Right Watch); The International Service for Human Rights; Yuri Fedotov (United Nations Office on Drug and Crime); David W Rivkin (International Bar Association); Dott. MARCO FABRI (Research Institute on Judicial Systems) ; Elizabeth Andersen (American Bar of Association); Gail Davidson (Lawyers Rights Watch Canada); International Association of Judges; International Bar Association's Human Rights Institute; International Commission of Jurists; International Network to Promote the Rule of Law; Mark Ellis (International Bar Association); Talia Dove (International Bar Association); The Asia-Pacific Integrity in Action Network; The Commonwealth Lawyers' Association; Australia High Court; Federal Court of Malaysia; Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal; Supreme Court of Canada; Supreme Court of India; Supreme Court of New Zealand; Supreme Court of South Africa; The Caribbean Court of Justice; The Privy Council; Lian He Wan Bao; Lian He Zao Bao; Shin Min Daily; The Straits Times; Apple Daily; Asia times; Evgeny Solovyev (ITAR-TASS); Jeremy Grant (Financial Times); Jon Fasman (Economists) ; Keith Bradsher (New York Times); Linus Chua (Bloomberg); Nguyen Viet Hai (Vietnam News Agency); Patrick McDowell (The Wall Street Journal); Reporters Without Borders (RWB); Rico Hizon (BBC); Roberto Coloma (Agence France-Presse); Seah Chiang Nee (The Star); Takuma Yoshioka (NHK); Vijay Joshi (Associated Press); Reform Party; Singapore Democratic Party; Singapore People's Party; Workers' Party; Brunei Embassy; Cambodia Embassy; Indonesia Embassy; Laos Embassy; Malaysia Embassy; Myanmar Embassy; Philippines Embassy; Thailand Embassy; Vietnam Embassy; Australia Embassy; Canada Embassy; Italy Embassy; Japan Embassy; UK Embassy; US Embassy
Subject: Request for investigation: The Supreme Court of Singapore's bias in favor of the Government

Dear Prime Minister (PM) Mr. Lee Hsien Loong,

I am writing to inform the PM of the Supreme Court’s bias in favor of the Government and request for investigations.

I would like to appeal to the PM to pay attention to two issues. One is the administration of justice in Singapore, especially the Supreme Court’s bias in favor of the Government and the irregularities in the administration of family justice. The other is the late PM Mr. Lee Kuan Yew’s questionable/erroneous interpretation of the Constitution right against arbitrary arrest in 1984.

While in my case the Supreme Court ruled the late PM’s interpretation correct, this interpretation clearly contradicts the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the Supreme Court has persistently refused to admit that their ruling on the PM’s interpretation is correct.   

Evidence for the Supreme Court’s bias in favor of the Government

In 2009, the police arrested me for “breach of Personal Protection Order (PPO)” but the PPO was later discovered to have expired two weeks before the arrest. While the highest court (Court of Appeal) in 2014 upheld my wrongful arrest/false imprisonment claim, the High Court refused to proceed with this claim but dismissed the entire case and made a cost order against me, without stating the authority by which they ignored the binding effect of the highest court’s decision.

Although the issue of the lawfulness of the arrest was already decided in the first place in 2013 because the answer to this issue was self-evident, now the Supreme Court refuses to state their position on this issue but leaves this issue to a future hypothetical trial in order to justify their dismissal of the entire case.

So the net result is: the Supreme Court has punished the victim and awarded the perpetrator, which has shown the Supreme Court’s actual bias in favor of the Government. In response to my recent questions, the State Counsels on 9 Oct 2015 expressly stated that the arrest was lawful and “there were no damages due to you”. On the contrary, I was requested to pay to the police without further delay.

When I pointed out the Court’s flaw in ignoring the binding effect of the highest court’s decision, the Court informed me to “seek your own independent legal advice as to your next course of action”. When I pointed out to the Court that the 15 September hearing wasn’t fair because the judicial officer who ignored the binding effect ruled his own decision “proportionate and necessary”, the Court reiterated its position and added “we will not be corresponding with you further on this matter”.

I am confused about the duty of the Supreme Court: to issue orders for the sake of orders or to administer justice?

The influence underlying Supreme Court’s the bias

While Supreme Court is supposed to be fair, in my case the judicial processes that were meant to proceed with the false imprisonment claim were distorted and an unjust outcome was produced. Given the legal credibility that the Supreme Court has earned, it is necessary for the Government to find out the influence under which the Court produced gross injustice in favor of the Government.  

My conclusion

In my wrongful arrest case, the Supreme Court’s good reputation for fairness and impartiality is not a fact but an artifact. 

My requests to the PM

First of all, I would request the PM to explain on behalf of the Government why I should pay to the police if the police made a wrongful arrest of me? Alternatively, the PM may explain how to breach an expired/invalid court order, because the State Counsels “will not be corresponding further on the above [the lawfulness of the arrest] issues”.  

Secondly, to ensure the public confidence in the Supreme Court, I would request the PM to expose my complaint and the progress of the investigation to the public. I would appreciate it if the PM invites external authorities such as Transparency International or International Bar Association (IBA) to take part in the investigation. If the Chief Justice and the Attorney-General provide straight answers to my questions (see Para 19-28 in the Evidence-in-Chief), the judicial integrity of the Court could be assessed easily.

Third, I would request the PM to consider my suggestion of inviting the Privy Council to make comments on the quality of the CA’s final judgment ([2014] SGCA 60), especially on the late PM’s interpretation of the Constitutional right. While the Constitutional right against arbitrary arrest is founded on Presumption of Innocence and the Law Minister expressly stated in 2008 that the Government is “absolutely committed to upholding the presumption of innocence”, the Court didn’t explain this constitutional right from the point of view of the Presumption of Innocence and has refused to admit that its final judgment is correct.  

It is evident that the proper exercise of the fundamental human right against arbitrary arrest is required in the interest of the millions of people in Singapore. With respect, if the late PM’s interpretation is proved wrong, the Government may wish to admit and correct the mistake in public.

My statements

I believe that either I have committed “Contempt of Court’ or the Supreme Court needs to correct its misjudgment and improve its compromised judicial integrity.

My criticism over the Supreme Court’s bias is backed by solid evidence so I stand by my fair criticism. For that reason, I have copied in on this email a number of the Embassies in Singapore (G7, ASEAN), various Human rights organizations, International legal associations, Supreme courts of commonwealth countries, Privy Council, locals and international Press and the opposition parties.

I hope that the opposition parties pay attention to this matter because of the Supreme Court’s bias in favor of the Government. 

I encourage the local and international Press to investigate my complaint and to report their findings to maintain the good reputation of the Supreme Court in Singapore.  

Thank you for your attention. I am looking forward to hearing from the PM at the PM’s earliest convenience.

Regards,

Yan Jun

(Singapore NRIC: S76843xxx)

Email: xxxx@hotmail.com (for now) and xxxx@gmail.com.

*****************************

·         There is a lot of information in my “Letter to the PM” and the “Evidence-in-Chief”. Please see the footnotes in the attached file for corresponding evidence in the “Bundle of Evidence”. 

For legal professionals:

·         After reading Yan Jun v Attorney-General of Singapore [2014] SGCA 60  in the Bundle of Evidence (BOE P. 80-124) and my criticism over the judgment (BOE P. 125-132), a legal officer will get an idea why the Supreme Court declined to response to my criticism and has refused to admit that the final judgment is correct. If a legal officer reads my affidavit (BOE P. 24-35) filed on 13 July 2015 against the Family Justice Courts (FJCs), he can easily judge whether it is fair for me to claim that “it is extremely difficult for me to get justice in the FJCs in my case”.

For non-legal professional:

·         My “Letter to the PM” and the “Evidence-in-Chief” have already provide a clear picture of the course of the suit and how the injustice came about. In addition, my affidavit (BOE P. 24-35) filed on 13 July 2015 against the FJCs is also useful. For an inaccurate report on this case, please see Man seeks $1.22m in damages from A-G for wrongful arrest, malicious prosecution (Asia One 20 Nov, 2013). For accurate description of the incident, please see part of my Writ of Summons filed on 1 April 2013.

  

Evidence-in-Chief

The facts

1.      In 2009, the police arrested me for “Breach of Personal Protection Order (PPO)” but the PPO was later discovered to have expired two weeks before the arrest. In 2013, I brought a case against the police in Supreme Court for a number of claims including wrongful arrest/false imprisonment and abuse of process, etc. The “abuse of process” refers to the fact that I wasn’t taken before a Court to determine whether there were reasonable grounds for arresting me, or the violation of my Constitutional right against arbitrary arrest.

	Time and Venue	Judge	Outcome
1st hearing	High Court (3 Jul, 2013) S 257/2013	Assistant Registrar (AR)	The AR upheld the wrongful arrest/false imprisonment claim and struck out the rest of the claims.
1st Appeal	High Court (30 Aug, 2013)	High Court Judge	Dismissal, the AR’s order stands. (2013 [SGHC] 245)
2nd Appeal	Court of Appeal (9 May, 2014) CA 142/2013	Appellant Judge	Dismissal, the AR’s order stands. The false imprisonment claim is not struck out. (2014 [SGCA] 60 released on 27 Nov, 2014)
Unless order	High Court (11 June 2015)	Senior AR Tan C.	Unless the Plaintiff attends the hearing on 9 July 2015 at 2:30pm, the entire case will be dismissed.
Dismissal order	High Court (9 July 2015)	Senior AR Tan C.	Senior AR exercised the unless order and dismissed the entire case.
My application to set aside dismissal order	High Court (15 Sep, 2015)	Senior AR Tan C.	Dismissal. Senior AR ruled that the unless order issued by him was “proportionate and necessary” so his dismissal order stands.

2.      In 2013, an Assistant Registrar (AR) upheld my wrongful arrest/false imprisonment claim but struck out all of the rest of my claims and his decision was upheld in 2014 by the Court of Appeal (CA), the highest Court. However, when I pointed out and conclusively proved that the judgment was seriously flawed in striking out the rest my claims; the Court has refused to respond to my criticism and has persistently declined to admit that the CA’s decision was correct. My position was that a litigant had a right not to follow a misjudgment that was final. If the Court treated its final judgment as correct but refused to expressly admit correctness of the judgment, the Court was supposed to proceed with the case in the litigant’s absence. However, the Supreme Court ignored my request to proceed with the case in my absence and pressed me with an “unless order” to attend the subsequent hearings and to comply with the CA’s decision in its entirety. Finally, on 9 July 2015, the Court exercised the unless order and dismissed the entire case and made a cost order against me. 

3.      While the dismissal order has caused gross injustice by punishing the victim and awarding the perpetrator, on 15 September 2015, the Court dismissed my application to set aside the unless/dismissal order on the ground that I didn’t comply with the CA’s decision. When I pointed out the Court didn’t follow the CA’s decision to punish the police for making the unlawful arrest, the Court answered that “the lawfulness of the arrest is an issue which was supposed to be decided at [subsequent] trial.

4.      In sharp contrast with the Court’s reasoning, a trial judge is not in a position to decide the lawfulness of the arrest because even if he disagrees with the CA and thinks the arrest is lawful, he has no authority to dismiss the false imprisonment claim due to the binding effect of the highest court’s decision on the lower court. In fact, whether the arrest is lawful was self-evident. When I pointed out the flaw, the Court informed me to seek my own legal advice “given the order has been issued by the learned senior AR and the reason given”. When I pointed out that the Senior AR ruled his own unless order “proportionate and necessary” so the hearing on 15 Sep 2015 was not fair, the Court reiterated its position and added “we will not be corresponding with you further on this matter”.

Supreme Court’s and the State Counsels’ position

5.      It seems to me that the Supreme Court is making orders rather than administering justice in my case. In response to my claim of gross injustice caused by the Court, the State Counsels expressly stated that the arrest was lawful but declined to justify how I breached the expired PPO. In addition, there are “no damages due to you” and on the contrary, I should pay the Government legal costs. I am uncertain about the Government’s position in this case: to win the case, or to uphold justice?

6.      The unless/dismissal order has put the Court in a position not to affirm the CA’s own ruling on the late PM’s interpretation of the Constitution. It should note that the quality of the Supreme Court’s judgment could be called into question, as demonstrated by the different opinions of the Privy Council (the then Highest Appellant Court) and of the Supreme Court in 1988 J. B. Jeyaretnam case.

Why is this case important (constitutional right against arbitrary arrest)? 

7.      Everyone can find the arrest is unlawful but this is the first case in Singapore for the CA to interpret the constitutional right of an individual against arbitrary arrest, or Article 9(4) of the Constitution.

8.      To protect an individual from arbitrary arrest by the police, the international law recognizes that an arrested person is entitled to be brought before a Court within 48 hours (or a certain period of time) after the arrest so the Court can decide on the lawfulness of the arrest and order his release if the detention is not lawful [International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, Article 9(4)].The 48-hour (48-Hour rule) is meant to provide the police with sufficient time to overcome delays in order to bring the suspect before the Court.

9.      However, the late PM erroneously took the 48-hour as sufficient time for the police to carry out investigations in order to take action against the suspect and as a result, the lawfulness of the arrest was not examined by the Court. If the late PM’s interpretation has been carried out strictly, the constitutional right of an individual against arbitrary arrest has been denied since 1984.However, the CA ruled the late PM’s constitutional interpretation correct on the ground that this Constitutional right must be balanced against the public interest.

10.  This 48-Hour rule is founded on the principle that “one is considered innocent unless proven guilty” (presumption of innocence). In 2008, the Law Minister expressly stated in the Parliament that the Government is “absolutely committed to upholding the presumption of innocence”. While the Attorney-General (AG) stated in “Interpreting the Constitution”(Straits Times, 30 May 2015, Para 8) that Article 9(4) of the Constitution is “clear enough that little is required by way of interpretation”, I respectfully disagree and would suggest that the AG has mixed up the habeas corpus [Article 9(2)] and 48-Hour rule [Article 9(4)]. If the AG thinks the presumption of innocence is conditional but not absolute in domestic violence cases, the AG may bear the burden to prove so.

Immigrants and Family Justice Courts (Judge’s misconduct)

11.  In a recent talk with Prof. Chan Heng Chee (31 July, 2015), the PM said "We do have to watch and see how the foreign workers and immigrants are fitting in with our community”. For two reasons, I feel extremely difficult to fit in with the Family Justice Courts (FJCs) and extremely difficult to get justice.

12.  First, in my cases, the FJCs refused to admit its own misjudgment even if it was manifestly wrong and the appeals process was not effective in redressing the misjudgment. Second, the Chief Justice is unresponsive (and/or slow) to my complaints of the judge’s misconduct of violating my constitutional right. I think there is a lack of accountability mechanisms outside the judicial system. (See my affidavit filed on 13 July 2015 against the FJCs, BOE P. 25-67 for details)

13.  The first reason can be easily found out in my fight against a maintenance order 176/2011. Although only husbands who refuse or neglect to provide maintenance may receive a maintenance order, I still got an order after indisputable evidence of my financial support was presented before the Court (See table below for details). If the 1^st judge made a misjudgment as a result of his questionable competence, I was confused about the fact that all of the rest of 3 judges refused to correct the misjudgment although they all admitted my sufficient financial support. It is clear that the Courts didn’t administer justice in this case.  

	Time	Outcome
1st hearing	23 Feb 2011 (FJCs)	The Judge issued the maintenance order 176/2011 in spite of the sufficient financial support I provided.
2nd hearing	23 June 2011 (FJCs)	The judge refused to rescind the MO 176/2011 and left my financial support to a hypothetical divorce case after I informed the court that the case was not a divorce case.
3rd hearing (Appeal)	1 Feb 2012 (High Court) DCA 20/2011	The High Court Judge admitted that the MO was premature but classified the appeal as “interactive dialogue” and managed to make me withdraw the appeal. My security deposit was forfeited, however, I managed to get the security deposit back one year later.
4th hearing	3 Oct 2012 (FJCs)	The judge admitted my financial support but still refused to rescind the maintenance order.

14.  In the appeal DCA 20/2011, Judge of Appeal Chao Hick Tin on the one hand ruled the order 176/2011 premature so he could send the case back to the lower court, on the other hand, he treated the appeal as “an interactive dialogue” and suggested that I withdrew the appeal after I accepted the option to send the case back. My security deposit was forfeited so I technically lost my appeal. However, I managed to get back my security deposit some one year later.

15.  After I complained the Judge of Appeal’s misconduct to the President and copied in newspapers on my complaint letter, I received a warning letter from Mr. Aedit Abdullah from the Attorney-General’s Chambers. Mr. Aedit Abdullah alleged that I have “made spurious allegations against the Honorable Judge of Appeal. Publishing these allegations may amount to contempt of court and action will be taken against you”. No justification was provided as to the authority by which a judge is allowed to influence a litigant’s decision-making in a formal appeal. 

16.  The second reason is clearly illustrated in the CJ’s unresponsiveness to state his position on my complaint of a one-sided cross-examination. In December 2014, a judge in FJCs ordered me to stand in a witness box and let my ex-wife examine me but refused my request to examine the ex-wife. On 26 Feb 2015, I complained the matter to the CJ and on 2 March, under the CJ’s direction, the FJCs provided an “explanation” without touching on the presumption of the innocence and the equality before the law. I have enough reason to suspect that the CJ sent a warning letter to the FJCs but the CJ neither admitted nor denied that he sent the very warning letter that the FJCs provided to me.

17.  On 12 March, I brought a suit against the FJCs and on 14 May, I requested the CJ to state his position on the lawfulness of the one-sided cross-examination but there was no answer (but a reply) from the CJ. On 31 August, Justice Tay Yong Kwang ruled that the one-sided cross-examination was lawful but didn’t give any explanation. My case was dismissed and a cost order was made against me.

18.  I can talk more.

My request to Chief Justice (CJ)

19.  I would request the CJ to state whether the final judgment [2014] SGCA 60 is correct. If it is wrong, when will the Supreme Court correct it and why an unless order was issued to press me to accept the judgment in its entirety? 

20.  It is a fact that the Supreme Court has already dismissed the entire case and I was ordered to pay to the police. I would request the CJ to state whether the arrest is lawful and explain why I should pay to the police if the police made a wrongful arrest of me?

21.  The CA ruled that “the false imprisonment claim is not struck out”. I would request the CJ to state the authority by which the senior AR Christopher Tan refused to proceed with the false imprisonment claim but dismissed the entire case? 

22.  It is Senior AR (SAR) Christopher Tan who issued the unless order and later exercised it with a dismissal order. In addition, SAR dismissed my application to set aside those two orders. I would request the CJ to explain the authority by which a judicial office was allowed to judge his own decisions? It is well established that “no one should be a judge in his own cause”.

23.  In China Peng Siang v Attorney-General [2011] SGDC 311, the State Court ruled that the limitation period for police false imprisonment case was 6 years.This decision was upheld by Supreme Court and was reported in mandarin newspaper Lian he zao bao on 18 Nov 2011. However, in my case the Court ruled that the limitation period was 3 years without justifying the difference in rulings. I would request the CJ to explain the lack of consistency in the rulings over the same wrong.

24.  With regard to the one-sided cross-examination that took place in the FJCs, I would request the CJ to expressly state his own position (or the CJ’s response to my complaint) on this unusual matter. I also request the CJ to urge Justice Tay Yong Kwang to release his judgment because Justice Tay ruled the one-sided cross-examination lawful without giving any justification.

My request to the Attorney-General

25.  Since the States Counsels claimed that the arrest was lawful, I would request the AG to explain how I breached an expired PPO?

26.  As for the Article 9(4), I would request the AG to answer a question with yes or no: Is it lawful in Singapore for a policeman to arrest a suspect, investigate him for 5 minutes (or even less) and release him if insufficient evidence is found against the suspect, without informing the court of the arrest? 

27.  I would request the AG to urge senior Counsel Mr. Aedit Abdullah to justify the authority by which he issued the warning letter against me on 6 May 2013. It is necessary for Mr. to Aedit Abdullah justify how a judge is allowed to influence a litigant’s decision-making in a formal appeal and by what authority a judge is allowed to treat a formal appeal as an “interactive dialogue”?  

28.  On 19 July 2009, while the two police officers arrived at the scene in response to my call for assistance, they refused to take my report but arrested me as a result of the false police report they accepted. I would ask the AG why the AGC didn’t take action against those who made false police report against me? 

29.  The end.