Letter to AG for justifications (29 Feb 2016)

Letter to the Attorney - General  for justifications

From: Yan Jun [mailto:medp1128@hotmail.com]
Sent: Monday, February 29, 2016 17:07
To: agc@agc.gov.sg
Cc: Hui Agnes YAO (PA to Attorney-General); SUPCOURT Registry (SUPCOURT); K Shanmugam (Minister for Law); Lian He Wan Bao; Lian He Zao Bao; Shin Min Daily; The Online Citizen (Singapore); The Straits Times; The Huffington Post; Asia times; Jon Fasman (Economists) ; Keith Bradsher (New York Times); Linus Chua (Bloomberg); Patrick McDowell (The Wall Street Journal); Reporters Without Borders (RWB); Rico Hizon (BBC); Roberto Coloma (Agence France-Presse); Seiff Abby (Freelance Corrrespondent); Reform Party; Singapore Democratic Party; Singapore People's Party; Workers' Party
Subject: Request for justification for the rejection of a protest

Dear the Honorable Attorney-General (AG) VK Rajah,

1.In the public interest, I am writing to the AG to request for a justification for a police decision. 

The application and the rejection

2.I made an application (Reference number: PP/20160225/0003/G) for a one-person protest outside the Istana on 2 March 2016 from 10am to 8pm against the judicial corruption in the Supreme Court.

3.This morning, police officer Eddie Thia from TangLin Division informed me that my application was rejected. He explained that “the Istana is a prohibited area under the Public Order (Prohibited Areas) Order 2009.  Organising or taking part in an assembly or procession at the prohibited area is an offence under Section 15 of the Public Order Act, Chapter 257A”.(See email below)

My position

4.I do not accept the rejection and will not appeal against it because the rejection is invalid. 

Validity of the rejection (4 flaws)

5.First, the rejection has violated the Supremacy of the Constitution (Article 4). Article 14 of the Constitution provides that a citizen has right to freedom of peace assembly so the Public Order Act (POA, Cap 257A), or a statute, cannot be lawfully used to override a constitutional right.

6.Second, the rejection has denied the government’s primary duty to administer justice. Prohibited Area justification, or section 14 of POA[1] provided by officer Eddie Thia, requires a minister to make a decision in the public interest. However, the police have failed to specify the very public interest that they relied on to deny the primary duty of the government. If the Government treats my corruption allegations as spurious, actions must be taken against me for “Contempt of Court” to solve the issue of corruption in the public.

7.In addition, the police failed to provide the name of the minister who has treated the Istana as a prohibited area. This minister, either PM Lee Hsien Loong, or Minister for Law K Shanmugam, or other ministers, must be held accountable for this decision in the parliament.

8.Third, the rejection shows the absence of consistence in police decisions. In 2015, Duo were arrested for organising public assembly without permit outside Istana, however, the police didn’t specify the Istana as an prohibited area. In contrast to officer Eddie Thia’s explanation, the arrest was made under Section 16(1)(a) of the POA [2] but not Section 15 of the POA [3] .   

9.Fourth, the rejection is flawed in law for lack of the specification of the Istana area. My protest will be outside of the Istana but so far the police haven’t requested me for the exact location of the protest. I would request the AGC or the police to specify the following 5 areas: the Istana, the Parliament, the US Embassy, the Singapore Press Holdings Ltd (SPH), and the Aljunied-Hougang Town Council (AHTC).

My request

10.My protest will be carried out on 2 March 2016 at 10am if no valid justification is provided. I would request the police spokesman to inform the press that my sign reads “Protest against judicial corruption in the Supreme Court of Singapore”, if the police arrest me.

11.Thank you. I am looking forward to hearing from you soon.

Regards,

Yan Jun

(Singapore NRIC: S7684361I)

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

 [1] : Prohibited areas: 12.—(1) If, in relation to any public place, the Minister is of the opinion that, having regard to the extent of powers exercisable under section 13, it is necessary in the public interest to do so, the Minister may, by order published in the Gazette, prohibit the holding of all public assemblies or public processions or both in the public place (referred to in this Act as a prohibited area). See  http://statutes.agc.gov.sg/aol/download/0/0/pdf/binaryFile/pdfFile.pdf?CompId:1549b3f9-2f94-4e57-a429-a096bea93584

[2]: Ibid, Other offences in relation to assemblies or processions 16.—(1) Each person who organises a public assembly or public procession — (a) in respect of which no permit has been granted under section 7

or no such permit is in force, where such permit is required by this Act;

[3] : Ibid, Offences in prohibited areas, etc.15.—(1) A person who organises an assembly or a procession the holding of which he knows or ought reasonably to know is prohibited by an order under section 12(1) or 13(1) or a notification under section 13(2), as the case may be, shall be guilty of an offence and shall be liable on conviction to a fine not exceeding $10,000 or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 6 months or to both.

From: Kai Wun THIA (SPF) [mailto:THIA_Kai_Wun@spf.gov.sg]
Sent: Monday, 29 February, 2016 9:06 AM
To: medp1128@hotmail.com
Subject: [PP/20160225/0003/G] Application to hold an assembly on 2 March 2016 from 10.00am to 8.00pm

Dear Sir,

               Please refer to your Police permit application reference PP/20160225/0003/G.

2             We regret to inform you that the permit application is declined. 

3             We would like to inform you that the Istana is a prohibited area under the Public Order (Prohibited Areas) Order 2009.  Organising or taking part in an assembly or procession at the prohibited area is an offence under Section 15 of the Public Order Act, Chapter 257A.

4              Thank you. 

Yours faithfully,

Eddie Thia OC Compliance Management Unit Tanglin Division Singapore Police Force DID: (65) 6391 3979 | FAX: (65) 6391 3978 A Member of the Home Team – Keeping Singapore Safe and Secure WARNING: "Privileged/Confidential information may be contained in this message. If you are not the intended addressee, you must not copy, distribute or take any action in reliance thereon. Communication of any information in this email to any unauthorized person is an offence under the Official Secrets Act (Cap 213). Please notify the sender immediately if you receive this in error."

From: Yan Jun [mailto:medp1128@hotmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, 24 February, 2016 5:24 PM
To: SPF_Licensing@spf.gov.sg
Cc: agc@agc.gov.sg; shirleyne Chan; STATECOURTS_QSM@StateCourts.gov.sg; Lian He Wan Bao; Lian He Zao Bao; Shin Min Daily; The Online Citizen (Singapore); The Straits Times; Reform Party; Singapore Democratic Party; Singapore People's Party; Workers' Party
Subject: Application for a police permit for protest against judicial corruption

Dear Police Licensing Department,

1.This is an application for police permit for a public protest against judicial corruption in Singapore, pursuant to s6 of Public Order Act (CAP 257A). The application is also copied to the AGC, Office of the Chief Justice and the QSM of the State Courts.

2.This one-person protest is scheduled on 2 March 2016 (10:00 to 20:00) and is expected to take place outside the Istana (Presidential Palace).

Why to protest in public

3.The purpose of this protest is to make the allegation of judicial corruption in Singapore heard in public in an attempt to make the government deal with this issue in public, fairly and transparently.

 

4.The applicant reported the judicial corruption to the PM Lee 4 times (3 Nov, 25 Nov, 4 Dec, 2015 and 21 Jan 2016) by email and requested for investigations, but there is no reply in public.  While the Parliament is the right place to address this issue, this possible avenue was tried but it has been practically not open to the applicant so far.

Two issues for the Licensing department to decide

5.To deal with this application, the police needs to decide on (1) whether the judicial corruption allegation is true and if so, (2) whether this one-person protest will lead to public disorders.

6.For the first issue, it is evident that the Police is not in a position to make a decision. In fact, on 30 Nov 2015, the AGC dismissed the applicant’s allegation as spurious and warned the applicant of contempt proceedings if the applicant continued to make judicial corruption allegations (See supporting document for the application form).

7.However, the AGC has failed to stick to its warning after the applicant posted a video entitled “Judicial Corruption in Singapore” on Youtube in January 2016. In addition, upon the applicant’s request, the AGC has refused to make its warning public.

8.For the second issue, the applicant can’t see a ground that one-person protest could lead to any public disorder. The letters to the PM have been copied to a large number of local and international organizations, and the content of the protest is in perfect consistence with the government’s “zero tolerance stance toward corruption”. In addition, no political party/organization is involved.

9.If the police treat this protest as potentially harmful to the society, the police is supposed to request the ACG to take preventive actions against the applicant for “Contempt of Court”.

The applicant’s decision

10.The corruption refers to the Supreme Court’s decision in a police wrongful arrest case to punish the victim and to award the police, which was clearly set out in the applicant’s petition to the United Nations Working Group on Arbitrary Detention for investigations on arbitrary (See attachment).  

11.The applicant will exercise his constitutional right to stage the protest if no valid ground is provided. The applicant will continue his protests even if he is arrested or convicted.  Reports will be made to the Working Group on Arbitrary Detention for arbitrary detention if the deprivation of the applicant’s liberty is resulted from the exercise of his right to freedom of expression guaranteed by the Constitution and the Universal Deceleration of Human Right.

12.Thank you for your attention. I am looking forward to hearing from you soon. I will pay the processing fee ($50) to the Licensing department tomorrow.

Regards,

Yan Jun

(S7684361I)