Attachment 1:Police Charge
Attachment 2: Patient abuse in the IMH
From: Yan Jun [mailto:medp1128@hotmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, December 08, 2016 14:13
To: Lee Hsien Loong (PM)
Cc: Yuri Fedotov (United Nations Office on Drug and Crime); Liao Ran (Transparency International); Srirak Plipat (Transparency International); Alejandro Ponce (The World Justice Project); The World Justice Project; Silverstein Gordon (Yale University) ; Li-ann Thio (Natiaonal University of Singapore); Garry Rodan (Murdoch University); Buscaglia Edgardo (Columbia University); S.T. Quah Jon (National University of Singapore); Susan Rose Ackerman (Yale University); isktan@ntu.edu.sg; info@article19.org; 'Freedom House'; mail@globalwitness.org; ohchr.bangkok@un.org; Jennifer Jokstad; information@ishr.ch; feedback@humanrightsfirst.org; 'Mickey Spiegel (Human Right Watch)'; 'Phil Robertson (Human Right Watch)'; 'Mayda Chan (International Amnesty) '; info@icj.org; info@cmja.org; Elizabeth Andersen (American Bar of Association); International Association of Judges; Gail Davidson (Lawyers Rights Watch Canada); Talia Dove (International Bar Association); Debbie Olsen; The Privy Council; Supreme Court of South Africa; Supreme Court of New Zealand; Federal Court of Malaysia; The Caribbean Court of Justice; Supreme Court of India; Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal; Supreme Court of Canada; Australia High Court; The Straits Times; Shin Min Daily; Lian He Wan Bao; Lian He Zao Bao; The Online Citizen (Singapore); news@theindependent.sg; 'Seiff Abby (Freelance Corrrespondent)'; Rico Hizon (BBC); 'Philip Bowring (The South China Morning Post)'; 'Linus Chua (Bloomberg)'; Gopalan Nair (Blogger); 'Apple Daily'; Asia times; 'Reporters Without Borders (RWB)'; Patrick McDowell (The Wall Street Journal); Keith Bradsher (New York Times); Jon Fasman (Economists) ; Roberto Coloma (Agence France-Presse); Vijay Joshi (Associated Press); 'The Huffington Post'; 'Reform Party'; 'Singapore People's Party'; Workers' Party; 'Singapore Democratic Party'; Vietnam Embassy; Myanmar Embassy; Laos Embassy; Thailand Embassy; Philippines Embassy; Indonesia Embassy; US Embassy; UK Embassy; Japan Embassy; Italy Embassy; German Embassy; Australia Embassy; Canada Embassy; Turkey Embassy; South Korea Embassy; South Africa Embassy; Saudi Arabia Embassy; India Embassy; China Embassy; Brazil Embassy; Argentina Embassy; Russia Embassy; 'Singapore Prison Service'; SUPCOURT Registry (SUPCOURT); STATECOURTS QSM (STATECOURTS); K Shanmugam (Minister for Law); Jessie TEO (PA to Chief Justice); 'Hui Agnes YAO (PA to Attorney-General)'; Connie CHAN (PS to the PM); qsm@imh.com.sg; enquiries@smc.gov.sg; agc@agc.gov.sg
Subject: The Rule of Law or Hypocrisy
Dear Prime
Minister Lee Hsien Loong,
I refer to the
email I sent to the PM on 8 July 2016.
In that email, I claimed
systematic violations of the fundamental human rights in Singapore caused by
the judicial corruption on the part of the Supreme Court. In addition, I
questioned whether the PM would resign from the post if my corruption
allegation was true. Here is the newest evidence of the judicial corruption in
a broader sense on the part of the Attorney-General (A.G.).
My 3rd
protest and the unexpected release
On 14 June 2016, I
was convicted of unlawful protests and was sentenced to imprisonment for
holding up two signs stating “No Judiciary corruption in the Supreme Court
of Singapore” outside the Istana and the Parliament house without a permit.
On 21 June, I was out on bail to wait for the appeal that was later scheduled
for 21 October at 10am.
At around 4pm on
20 October, I staged the 3rd protest without a permit on the public
road (Napier Road) right outside the US Embassy in Singapore by holding up two
signs. One sign stated “No Judiciary corruption in the Supreme Court of
Singapore” and the other sings stated “PM Lee Hsien Loong, Resign”.
Police arrested me
on the spot and charged me with protesting without a permit as usual in the
police station [1]. I chose not to bail out and requested to be charged in
court. On the morning of 21 October, the police released me unconditionally and
3 police officers drove me from the police station to the Supreme Court to
ensure I attended the appeal hearing on time. I questioned the officers why
didn’t bring the case to the court but there was no answer. If the case had
been brought before the court, the 3rd protest could have been
reported by the media.
The appeal
The appeal was
dismissed on 21 October by Justice Chan Seng Onn on the grounds that “the
district judge’s findings were correct both in law and fact”.
With regard to the
district judge’s finding that “the State Courts do not have the jurisdiction
to deal with any sustentative constitutional challenge”, Justice Chan
didn’t respond to my constitutional arguments but dismissed them without
justification. With regard to the police’s controversial decision not to bring
the case to court after my 3rd protest, Justice Chan ruled that the
inconsistency was unrelated to the appeal. With regard to the time to release
the Grounds of Decision, Justice Chan didn’t answer.
On 18 November, I
was replied by the Supreme Court that my further appeal to the Court of Appeal
was possible but there would be no written Grounds of Decision as the oral
judgment was already given [2].
Equality before
the law and the role of the A.G.
In 1994 Michael Fay case, the government
declined the then US president Bill Clinton’s appeal to grant Fay clemency from
caning on the grounds of the principle of the equality before the law. Now the
government has declined to prosecute me for unlawful protest simply because of
a specific protest location. I am confused how the US embassy as a building has
compromised the fundamental principle upheld by the government in enforcing the
law to maintain the public order.
The A.G. has a
role to uphold the rule of law and acts as the guardian of the public interest.
No matter the police dropped the charge on their own decision or on public
prosecutors’ order; the current A.G. ought to take responsibility for the
police’s controversial decision.
On 25 November,
the Prime Minister’s Office announced that the current A.G. Mr. VK Rajah, the
former Judge of Appeal, was to step down on 14 January 2017 upon reaching the
retirement age of 60 years (See here). The succeeding
A.G. is 63 years of age and the retirement age for a Supreme Court judge is 65
years. The current A.G. is still in the middle of a 3-year term. It is clear
that the current A.G. Mr. VK Rajah won’t face impeachment and trial even if the
police’s controversial decision is a result of the abuse of prosecutorial
power.
Patient abuse
in psychiatric institutions
In my July email,
I claimed that the Supreme Court had legitimized the arbitrary arrest by the
police for investigative purposes so the police could lawfully arrest
a suspect, interrogate him and release him if no evidence of an offence was
found.
In my opinion,
psychiatrists are even more dangerous than policemen in the sense that they
have unfettered discretion about whether to admit a person to a mental hospital
and that they can abuse a patient’s privilege of the writ of habeas corpus,
a right that is constitutionally guaranteed against unlawful detention.
In April this
year, I was diagnosed by the Institute of Mental Health (IMH) with having no
delusional disorder after a standard psychiatric assessment. Recently the IMH
diagnosed me with delusional disorder without conducting a formal interview and
finally kicked me out of the hospital after I staged a hunger strike [3]. I
made a police report but police replied affirmatively that no investigation
would be carried out into this matter.
The fact that I
stood the trial showed clearly that I had capacity to give consent for medical
interventions. I do not accept the recent diagnosis because the IMH didn’t
obtain consent from me so the diagnosis is unlawful. I will withhold my consent
to a psychiatrist so if anyone suspects me of having a mental illness, he can
easily call the police and subject the matter of involuntary hospitalization to
the court.
My requests
I would like to
request the PM to address 3 issues in public to defend the government’s
international reputation of being corruption-free.
The 1st
issue is about the apparent injustice demonstrated in the police’s controversial
decision. The justification is supposed to include the opinion of both A.G. Mr.
VK Rajah and Justice Chan Seng Onn on the lawfulness of my 3rd
protest.
This issue clearly
falls into the category of domestic politics so the Western media is not supposed
to touch on it due to “gazetting” (See here). The
international organizations such as World Justice Project and Transparency International
do not carry out independent investigations and the outcome of their
perception-based survey is highly influenced by the media reports on
corruption-related matters. It will be unfair for the rest of the world if the
government’s questionable conduct is not reported by the local media.
The 2nd
issue is about the correctness of my corruption allegation. Against strong
objections, the government recently passed the Administration of Justice
(Protection) Bill (See here). I stand by my
allegation and would request the government to take action against me to show
the necessity of this newly passed Act.
The 3rd
issue is the patient abuse in respect of involuntary admissions. It seems to me
that Changi Prison and the IMH are not responsible for wrongful restraints and
confinement specified in the Panel Code (s339-340) even if they willfully
commit such offences in order to cover up their misdiagnoses.
Here is the
additional evident to show the Supreme Court’s bias in favor of the government
at the level of Judge of Appeal [4]. It is reasonable for me to conclude that
the legal system ranked 9th globally in 2016 in terms of Rule of Law
index is run by Rule by Law for the government’s interests.
My Plan
I am going to
continue my protests against judicial corruption in public areas outside these
embassies: British High Commission, France Embassy, China Embassy and Russian
Embassy, before the coming Christmas.
Thank you.
Regards,
Yan Jun
(S7684361I)
[1] Attachment
1(Police Charge) p.1-3.
[2] Attachment 1, p.4.
Para 2-3.
[3] Attachment 2
(Patient abuse in the IMH)
[4] Attachment 1, p.6-7.
Para 4-8.
没有评论:
发表评论
注意：只有此博客的成员才能发布评论。