How did I uncover the Terrex conspiracy?

For the PDF version of the article, see here.

1.     In my YouTube video “Why should PM Lee Hsien Loong resign over abuse of power?”, I explained why the Terrex issue was a political conspiracy by the People’s Action Party (PAP) government against China in retaliation for my protest outside the US Embassy in Singapore on October 20, 2016.

2.     The following is my account of how I uncovered the Terrex conspiracy.

The surrendering of my passport

3.     On June 16, 2016, I was convicted of unlawful assembly for protesting against judicial corruption at the Istana Park and outside the Parliament House on March 2 and April 13, 2016, respectively. On June 21, I was released from prison on a personal bail (Bond-2016-0621-902558) of $3000 and on the condition that I surrendered my passport to police officer Spencer Tan while waiting for my appeal decision. The appeal was later scheduled for October 21, 2016.

4.     A Singapore citizen including a neutralized citizen has a constitutional right to freedom of speech and peaceful assembly. On September 30, I applied to the State Courts by email to withdraw my bail because I was unable to maintain the security deposit. On October 19, the State Courts rejected my application on the grounds that the appeal hearing couldn’t be brought forward.

5.     On the afternoon of October 20, I held another protest outside the US Embassy in Singapore. Police arrested me and took me to the Tanglin Police Division where officer Spence Tan charged me with unlawful assembly. On the morning of October 21, police ignored my request to charge me in court and released me unconditionally. While police helped me attend the appeal hearing in the Supreme Court on time, they declined to justify the unconditional release.

6.     The judge dismissed my appeal but didn’t give any oral or written judgement. Subsequently I served my sentence in Changi Prison. On the release day of October 28, I was forcibly transported to the Institute of Mental Health (IMH) and was further remanded in custody until November 10 because both the Changi Prison and the IMH diagnosed me with delusional disorder. While this diagnosis effectively reversed the official diagnosis and the medical certificate issued by the IMH in April 2016, the IMH didn’t give me any justification (See here for all the psychiatric reports).

My request for the return of my passport

7.     On November 11, I wrote an email to the Supreme Court to inquiry about whether I could further appeal my case. There was no reply. After having been detained for about 3 weeks, I felt like shopping in Johor Bahru (JB) of Malaysia, as I usually did. On November 15, I emailed Investigation Officer Spence Tan and asked for the return of my passport. While I copied my email to the Attorney General’s Chambers (AGC), there was no reply at all. It was evident to me that the government preferred me to stay in Singapore.

8.     On Friday November 18, I wrote another email to Officer Tan, saying “If I do not get my passport or justifications from the police within this week, I will make a request to the PM office for justifications. As always, my email will be copied to the international community.” I copied my email to the AGC and the State Courts. Immediately I received an auto reply from officer Tan saying he was on overseas leave. This reply showed clearly that officer Tan had already received my email dated November 15.

9.     While wondering whether to write to the PM office or not, I received an email reply from the Supreme Court at around 6pm in response to my inquiry made on November 11 about my further appeal to the Court of Appeal. The reply clearly suggested that I was allowed to go abroad because I may “call from overseas”. I thought that this email was quiet unusual because the Supreme Court replied to me all of a sudden. Since the Supreme Court didn’t give me a straight answer about whether my further appeal was allowed, the Supreme Court shouldn’t take as long as 7 days to answer my inquiry.      

10.  Given the fact that there were a large number of people travelling between Singapore and JB on a daily basis, going to JB for shopping was generally not seen as going abroad. It was clear to me that “call from overseas” suggested “call from China” so I waited to see what was going to happen.  

The first line of evidence

11.  On November 21 at 7:24pm, Officer Tan informed me by email that “you will be able to collect your Passport at Tanglin Division, level 3, from 24^th November 2016 onwards, between 10am till 6pm.”

12.  For 3 reasons, I considered this reply very unusual. First, the police had no authority to retain a citizen’s travel documents under bail conditions if bail lapsed. Secondly, Officer Tan could easily leave my passport at Tanglin Division for my collection after he received my email dated November 11. Thirdly, I believed the person who decided on the collection date was not Officer Tan but his senior or the AGC. Officer Tan interrogated me twice after I protested outside the Istana and the US Embassy. I was quiet sure that he was a frontline police officer and was in no position to make such an unusual decision.   

13.  I was able to predict at that time that something was going to happen between Singapore and China by November 24 and this event must be in favour of Singapore. The police deliberately retained my passport to ensure that this event took place before, as the government surmised, my return to China and the subsequent airing of the judicial corruption scandal in connection with my protest outside the US Embassy.    

14.  Despite at first sight the Terrex issue was against the PAP government due to a suspected licensing breach, it was the only event in line with my prediction. In my email dated December 8, 2016 to PM Lee Hsien Loong, I informed the international community of the judicial corruption scandal in connection with my protest outside the US Embassy but didn’t touch on the Terrex issue. On December 29, I went to the JB for shopping and came back on the same day. 

The confirmation of my suspicion

15.  My suspicion was confirmed on January 9, 2017 when Defence Minister Ng Eng Hen explained the doctrine of sovereign immunity in Parliament and urged the Hong Kong authorities to immediately return the Terrex vehicles in accordance with international and Hong Kong’s law. Dr. Ng claimed that that state owned property automatically enjoyed sovereign immunity that the Singapore government was entitled to have so the nine Terrex vehicles were automatically protected by sovereign immunity. Dr. Ng conveniently treated the suspected licensing breach as a matter between the shipping company and the Hong Kong authorities.

16.  Dr. Ng’s explanation was plainly wrong even at first sight. If it was correct, any government was able to lawfully violate China’s sovereignty by conspiring with a shipping company to unload strategic commodities in breach of licensing requirements. The licensing breach could be easily explained by reason of negligence on the part of the shipping company.

17.  The problem I faced at that time was what went wrong with Dr. Ng’s explanation. For two reasons, I had no intention of identifying the flaws in Dr. Ng’s explanation. First, it was the Hong Kong authorities who were in a position to evaluate the sovereign immunity argument. Secondly, I knew nothing about international law. A couple of days later, I happened to read the article “Sovereign immunity: An explainer” (Today, Jan 9, 2017) by two legal academics, Associate Professor Eugen Tan at Singapore Management University and Professor Tan Cheng Han at National University of Singapore. I was quiet unhappy with their strong opinions on this matter so I decided to do some research into the doctrine of sovereign immunity.

18.  Fortunately, a correct understanding of the doctrine of sovereign immunity didn’t require much knowledge on international law. On January 13, I had already identified the flaw in the government’s legal position by studying relevant judgements and research papers. The sovereign immunity was arguably derived from the legal maxim “the king can do no wrong” so for Dr. Ng to claim sovereign immunity to protect the vehicles from being impounded, the PAP government must have complete control over the vehicles including full authority to unload the vehicles from the shipping carrier at Hong Kong port.  

19.  If the shipping company had complete authority to unload the vehicles without the PAP government’s permission, as Dr. Ng claimed, the vehicles did not enjoy sovereign immunity because a commercial shipping company was in no position to be treated as a king, or a sovereign state. If the PAP government made the decision to unload the vehicles, the vehicles certainly enjoyed sovereign immunity but the PAP government must be punished for deliberately violating China’s sovereignty.

20.  On January 14, I borrowed two books from a public library to look for the legal basis for the detention of the vehicles. It was not difficult to find that the legal basis was Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts 2001 by the International Law Commission (ILC) of the United Nations.

21.  On January 18, it was widely reported online that the spokesperson of Chinese Foreign Ministry was asked whether the Terrex vehicles would be returned to Singapore before the Joint Council for Bilateral Cooperation (JCBC) and the spokesperson answered in the negative (See here and here). I realized that the Hong Kong authorities wouldn’t respond to the sovereign immunity argument so I ought to voice my opinion in the interest of justice.  

22.  Since it was reported in the newspapers that a meeting between Singapore and Chinese government was to be held on January 24, I thought I’d better inform the academics of the fundamental flaw in the reasoning behind their arguments by January 24.  

The second line of evidence

23.  I did so on Friday, January 20 and copied my email to the AGC, Ministry of Defence, Newspaper Today and the main opposition parties. While a weekend was long enough for the two academics and the AGC to respond to my criticism, they made no reply.  

24.  On January 24, the Hong Kong authorities announced the return of the Terrex military vehicles. On January 25, I wrote an email to Attorney General (AG) Lucien Wong to refute the sovereign immunity argument. AG didn’t reply. On January 31, I emailed AG again and made it clear in the email that I would treat his silence as acceptance of my criticism. As I expected, there was no response at all.

The Third line of evidence

25.  I certainly had confidence in my criticism of the government’s legal position, however, I was still a little hesitant about writing to the Hong King authorities because of the relatively limited evidence. Fortunately, I came across a YouTube video in which Lin Yu-fang, a national security expert at the KMT’s think tank in Taiwan, reasoned that it was quiet unnecessary for the Singapore government to transport all 9 vehicles back for maintenance purposes because regular maintenance could be conveniently done in Taipei. While Lin’s analysis of the unusual shipment was correct, he came to a false conclusion because he was unaware that the shipment was part of a conspiracy. I saw Lin’s analysis as my 3^rd independent line of evidence.

26.  After having found 3 independent lines of evidence to support my conspiracy allegations, I confidently came to the conclusion that the Terrex issue was a real political conspiracy.

The confirmation of my conspiracy allegations

27.  On February 2, I wrote to the editor of the Straits Times to explain why the government’s legal position was incorrect. I received an acknowledgement letter. On February 7, I wrote to the former Chief Executive of Hong Kong and copied my email to PM Lee Hsien Loong, the PAP government, the Hong Kong government, local and international newspapers and various international organizations. In this email, I pointed out the flaws in the sovereign immunity argument, challenged the integrity of the PAP government, and asked for the Hong Kong authorities’ attitude towards the Singapore government’s legal position.

28.  The Hong Kong authorities did reply to my email on February 17 and 20 but didn’t state their position on the sovereign immunity argument. In my reply to the Hong Kong Customs, I made it clear that I respected their decision but stood behind my conspiracy allegations.

29.  On March 24, 2017, Hong Kong Customs charged the vessel captain for not having required license and thus reaffirmed its legal position that the detention of the Terrex vehicles was lawful. So far, I haven’t received any response from the PAP government with regard to my criticism of its legal position and its integrity.

My protest on July 3 and the unconditional release

30.  On June 30, I uploaded the video “Why should PM Lee Hsien Loong resign over abuse of power?” to You Tube. On July 1, I wrote to the UN Human Rights Office for South-east Asia to inform them of my planned protest in support of my corruption allegations in the video. This email was copied to the PM office, local and international press.

31.  On July 3, I protested as scheduled and police arrested me. At Central Police Division, I told police to either charged me in the Supreme Court or to release me unconditionally. Police took the second option and released me unconditionally at 9:30pm. On July 4 at 11:40am, I wrote an email to the AGC to ask for the legal basis of the unconditional release the police granted to me. In their reply, the AGC denied their duty to justify police decision but informed me to seek my own legal advice. I read this reply after I got out of jail in October. I later noticed that there was a false report in the Straits Times which stated I was released on bail while protesting on July 4.

The political abuse of psychiatry

32.  On July 4, I protested again and was subsequently arrested. On July 5, Police charged me in the State Courts with unlawful assembly. District Judge Adam Nakhoda ignored the official diagnosis made by the IMH on April 27, 2016 and ordered me to undergo another psychiatric evaluation.  When announcing his decision, District Judge Adam Nakhoda deliberately looked at the other side of the court but not me so definitely the look on his face couldn’t reveal his real feeling about my mental condition. In fact, the State Courts have never issued a judgement to justify my remand in the IMH. 

33.  After admission to the IMH on July 5, I was locked up in a single cell that was designed for patients with severe mental illness. In response to my complaint of solitary confinement, the management at all levels categorically refused to explain why I was treated as a seriously ill patient. I made it clear to the IMH that I wouldn’t cooperate in any way to ensure that psychiatrists were unable to conduct any interview on me. To my surprise, the IMH persistently refused to justify the use of solitary confinement after I went on a hunger strike for 4 days from July 13 to 17.  

34.  On the afternoon of July 17, I insisted on writing a letter to the UNs Human Right Office for South-east Asia to complain about the ill-treatment I received. I gave the letter to social worker Roger Tan at the IMH and reminded him not to pass my letter to Dr. Jaydip Sarkar, the psychiatrist in charge of my case, due to conflict of interest. Roger Tan agreed to scan the letter and emailed it to the UNs, as he did in 2016. Shortly after Roger Tan took my letter, Dr. Jaydip Sarkar secretively made a tentative diagnosis that I was suffering from a delusional disorder and then ordered the hospital staff to tie me to a bed without my consent for a forcible blood draw in the name of medical check-up. Under police escort, I was transported to Changi General Hospital where Dr. Tiah Ling, a physician at the emergency department, forcibly took blood from me in front of two police officers and did a blood test to diagnose my mental illness.

35.  Before Dr. Tiah Ling took blood from me, I reminded her twice that a physician had no authority to make a psychiatric diagnosis. Dr. Tiah steadfastly refused to answer who diagnosed me as having a mental disorder and the legal basis for the forced blood draw. After the test results came out, Dr. Tiah told me the results were very good. She hesitantly said the IMH only made a tentative diagnosis in the referral letter passed to her, and it was her who diagnosed me as having a mental disorder and thus drew blood from me without my consent. Dr. Tiah Ling still turned down my request for a copy of the blood test results and instructed the medical staff to send me back to the IMH.

36.  On the afternoon of July 18, Social worker Roger Tan told me that on July 17 he didn’t send off my letter to the UNs but passed it along to Dr. Jaydip Sarkar. The letter was later passed on to the Quality Service Manager and finally reached the CEO, who made the decision that I should email that letter after I got out of the IMH. To my surprise, on the evening of July 18, the IMH changed its mind and emailed my letter to the UNs after I told Roger Tan that I was going to expose this outrageous misconduct to the international community. On July 19, I was discharged from the IMH but the IMH persistently refused to answer all of my questions including its official diagnosis of my mental condition.

37.  According to the court documents I obtained on July 28, Dr. Jaydip Sarkar on July 18 certified me to be of sound mind and provided a psychiatric report in which he treated my conspiracy allegations as “delusion-like ideas” but not delusions. It should note that Dr. Jaydip Sarkar discredited my allegations and protests by saying at paragraph 31k and 31m of his report that “There is a high risk of recurrence and a possibility that there may be further escalation in future incidents” and “In case he displays frank symptoms of a mental disorder he is adviced to seek help at that time”.

38.  In a confidential report to officer Spencer Tan on February 14, or one week after I wrote to the Hong Kong authorities, Dr. Yeo Hui Li at the IMH stated that “He has poor insight with regard to his condition and was persistently preoccupied about judicial corruption in Singapore. He has also adamantly refused oral anti-psychotic medications prescribed for him. He was discharged on 10/11/16 with a diagnosis of Delusional disorder and given an outpatient follow-up appointment in two weeks. The condition is likely to persist, especially if the patient continues to refuse treatment.”

39.  Given the fact that both the courts and the AGC had adamantly refused to deny my allegations of judicial corruption, the diagnosis of delusional disorder was apparently baseless because the correctness of my corruption allegations was outside the experience and knowledge of a psychiatrist. With regard to the diametrically opposed diagnoses that the IMH had made on my mental condition, Dr Jaydip Sarka simply stated in his report at Para 5 and 13 that the earlier diagnoses (made by Dr. Yeo Hui Li and Dr. Dhanesh Kumar) were factual but not medical-legal.

40.  It is evident that the IMH has every intention of diagnosing me as having a delusional disorder to discredit my allegations against the government within the limits of what is good for its reputation. What the IMH is afraid of is an independent psychiatric assessment, especially blood tests.   

The trial and the appeal

41.  On the return date of July 19, the State Courts accepted Dr. Jaydip Sarkar’s report in a closed-door hearing. I stood trial before District Judge Ng Peng Hong between August 10 to 14. The appeal was heard by Justice Chan Seng Onn at the Supreme Court on September 26. The two judges adopted the same strategy to dispose of this case. They both discouraged and stopped me from presenting oral arguments, ignored Deputy Public Prosecutor Randeep Singh Koonar’s failure to answer my questions, refused to disqualify themselves from the hearing due to their actual bias toward the Prosecution, and rejected my application to quit the hearing and to get back to Changi Prison.

42.  Both the two judges and the Prosecution insisted that a protest permit was mandatory even if the licensing officers were corrupt and thus didn’t deal with permit applications in according with the law. The Prosecution refused to answer my question about how to lawfully stage a protest in a public place against corruption on the part of licensing officers. District Judge Ng Peng Hong told me to challenge his Grounds of Decision at the appeal hearing. Justice Chan Seng Onn didn’t delivery any judgement but simply dismissed my appeal.

43.  It should be highlighted that both the judges and the Prosecution steadfastly refused to give their opinions on the truth or falsity of my allegations of the judicial corruption and the Terrex Conspiracy.

Conclusion

44.  As the Supreme Court observed in [2000] SGHC 60, “So far as proof goes, conspiracy is generally a matter of inference, deduced from certain acts of the accused parties, done in pursuance of an apparent criminal purpose in common between them. Both the surrounding circumstances and the conduct of the parties before and after the alleged commission of the crime will be useful in drawing an inference of conspiracy.”

45.  From a legal point of view, the proof provided in this article and in my YouTube video inevitably and inexorably leads to the conclusion that the Terrex issue is a political conspiracy. Police officer Spence Tan’s email reply dated November 21 serves as conclusive proof of an overt act in furtherance of this political plot, because it shows clearly that that the Terrex conspiracy was operative.

46.  In the strictest sense, the email reply from the Supreme Court dated November 18 is not an overt act because there is no evidence to demonstrate that this email was sent before the PAP government had entered into an agreement with the shipping company APL. In my opinion, the legal officer who came up with the idea of the Terrex conspiracy last November and assessed the strength of my arguments presented in the YouTube video this July was an officer in the Supreme Court but not in the AGC.  

47.  I believe the evidence I presented in this article and in the transcript of my YouTube video has proved beyond reasonable doubt that the Terrex issue is a political conspiracy.

Yan Jun

(Singapore NRIC: S7684361I)

November 7, 2017