Letter to the Office of the Chief Justice for investigations

Forensic psychiatric report from the IMH: PDF 

From: Yan Jun [mailto:medp1128@hotmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, May 5, 2016 10:43 AM
To: shirleyne CHAN (Office of the Chief Justice)
Cc: Roger Tan (IMH); Ministry of Health (MOH); agc@agc.gov.sg; STATECOURTS QSM (STATECOURTS); SUPCOURT QSM (SUPCOURT); FJCOURTS Family Registry (FJCOURTS); Talia Dove (International Bar Association); Gail Davidson (Lawyers Rights Watch Canada); 'Freedom House'; 'Human Rights First '; 'Jennifer Jokstad'; 'Mayda Chan (International Amnesty) '; 'Mickey Spiegel (Human Right Watch)'; 'Office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights (South East Asia)'; 'Phil Robertson (Human Right Watch)'; 'The International Service for Human Rights'; 'Lian He Wan Bao'; 'Lian He Zao Bao'; 'Shin Min Daily'; 'The Online Citizen (Singapore)'; 'The Straits Times'; 'Apple Daily'; 'Asia times'; 'Jon Fasman (Economists) '; 'Keith Bradsher (New York Times)'; 'Linus Chua (Bloomberg)'; 'Patrick McDowell (The Wall Street Journal)'; 'Philip Bowring (The South China Morning Post)'; 'Reporters Without Borders (RWB)'; 'Rico Hizon (BBC)'; 'Roberto Coloma (Agence France-Presse)'; 'Seiff Abby (Freelance Corrrespondent)'; 'The Huffington Post'; 'Reform Party'; 'Singapore Democratic Party'; 'Singapore People's Party'; 'Workers' Party'
Subject: Request for investigations: Torture in detention

Dear the Office of the Chief Justice,

Case No. SC-903900-2016: Public Prosecutor v Yan Jun

1.      I am writing to report the torture I suffered in the Institute of Mental Health (IMH) and requested the court for investigations.

2.      The State Courts issued a remand order on 14 April 2016 to detain me in the IMH for two weeks for a psychiatric assessment, so the court owed me a duty of care to ensure my safety during the detention. However, when I returned to the Court on 28 April, the judge of the State Courts declined my request for investigations, without giving any justification.

3.      The remand order was reported by both the Straits Times and Channel News Asia.

Torture in the IMH

4.      The torture refers to the physical and chemical restraints (4-point restraint in bed and antipsychotic medication) imposed on me by the staff members of the IMH on 19 April 2016[1]. I already filed a formal letter of complaint to the CEO of the IMH but there is no reply. It should note that the use of restraints is not unusual because in one week time, I witnessed another two cases where physical and chemical restraints were used on individuals detained in the next door seclusion room. In my case, the torture was caused by the IMH’s misunderstanding of the law.

Diagnosis

5.      I was diagnosed with “No major mental illness. Narcissistic traits, Querulous behavior” by a psychiatrist on 19 April 2016 [2] so I am fully responsible for my protests.

6.      While narcissistic personality disorder is characterized by exaggerated feelings of self-importance, I must say I held no regard for medical staff in the forensic ward of the IMH because of their questionable professional integrity, insufficient legal knowledge and poor analytic skills. 

7.      Querulous behavior refers to vexatious legal actions based on manifestly unfounded grounds. This diagnosis was based on numerous litigations I filed with the Family Justice Courts (FJCs) since 2009 but a psychiatrist certainly is not in a position to assess an individual’s legal knowledge. With great respect and honestly, it is me who identified serious flaws in the textbook  ”Element of Family Law in Singapore (2^nd Ed, LexisNexis, 2012)” and I also copied this letter to the FJCs. 

8.      With respect, I do not accept the diagnosis because it denies facts. It is a good idea for the psychiatrist to attend the trial fixed at Court 7 of the State Courts on 9 May 2016 at 9:30am [3] to check whether his diagnosis is correct. I already declined the DPP’s offer of 24-month probation or something. The offer was baseless because even at this point, I am still innocent.

State Court’s denial of my right to fair trial and hearing

9.      On 28 April in the hearing, I expressly claimed that the court denied my right to fair trial and hearing on the ground that the hearing judge prohibited me from challenging the lawfulness and the correctness of the remand order he issued on 14 April. There was no response from the court.

10.   It is a fact that the lawfulness of the arrest had not been examined in the first place by even the office of the Chief Justice (See email below) so the lawfulness of the remand order is called into question.

11.   According to Channel News Asia, the DPP reasoned “a psychiatric assessment would be crucial in determining if there was something preventing him from accepting and processing information that would be critical to his understanding the nature and consequences of his actions”.

12.   Unfortunately, a psychiatric assessment is meant to settle the issue of “how responsible one is for his actions” and in this case, it can be used to find out whether the protests were staged on my own volition or caused by my involuntary acts because someone whispered to me or ordered me to do so. I did apply for a protest permit. The right test to address the DPP’s concern is an intelligence test or a legal test.

13.   Since I submitted the evidence of the judicial corruption to the Government and the international community in November 2015, the DPP’s suspicion of “persecutory delusional disorder” was baseless. My corruption allegation is a matter of fact and of law so the truthiness of it must be assessed by legal but not medical professionals.  

14.   I stand by my allegation of judicial corruption and encourage the DPP to charge me with “contempt of court” to settle the issue of corruption in public. I will continue my protest against judicial corruption after all other remedies have been exhausted. 

15.   Thank you for your attention. I am looking forward to hearing from you soon.

Regards,

Yan Jun

(S7684361I)

[1] : Attached file, p. 1-5.

[2]: Ibid, p. 6.

[3]: Ibid, p. 7.