Request for response: The function of the Supreme Court of Singapore

See here for the attached file.

From: Yan Jun
Sent: Wednesday, 14 February, 2018 16:13
To: 'SUPCOURT QSM (SUPCOURT)' <SUPCOURT_QSM@supcourt.gov.sg>
Cc: Family Courts Registry (FJCOURTS_Family_Registry@FJCourts.gov.sg) <FJCOURTS_Family_Registry@FJCourts.gov.sg>; PM Office (pmo_hq@pmo.gov.sg) <pmo_hq@pmo.gov.sg>; AGC (AGC@agc.gov.sg) <AGC@agc.gov.sg>; Desmond Chin (SPS) (desmond_chin@pris.gov.sg) <desmond_chin@pris.gov.sg>; Sze Chuck Huang (SPS) (sze_chuck_huang@pris.gov.sg) <sze_chuck_huang@pris.gov.sg>; Tan Bin Kiat (SPS) (tan_bin_kiat@pris.gov.sg) <tan_bin_kiat@pris.gov.sg>; Teo Hock Soon (SPS) (teo_hock_soon@pris.gov.sg) <teo_hock_soon@pris.gov.sg>; VEERA PURUMAL S/O Meyappan (SPS) (veera_purumal_meyappan@pris.gov.sg) <veera_purumal_meyappan@pris.gov.sg>; QSM_IMH (qsm@imh.com.sg) <qsm@imh.com.sg>; Charles Chong (charles_chongyf@yahoo.com) <charles_chongyf@yahoo.com>; Chia Yong Yong (yyc.2th33@gmail.com) <yyc.2th33@gmail.com>; Desmond Lee (desmond_lee@msf.gov.sg) <desmond_lee@msf.gov.sg>; Edwin Tong (edwintongchunfai@gmail.com) <edwintongchunfai@gmail.com>; Janil Puthucheary (janil_puthucheary@mci.gov.sg) <janil_puthucheary@mci.gov.sg>; K Shanmugam (Minister for Home Affairs) (k_shanmugam@mha.gov.sg) <k_shanmugam@mha.gov.sg>; Pritam Singh (pritam.singh@wp.sg) <pritam.singh@wp.sg>; Rahayu Mahzam (ms.rahayu.mahzam@gmail.com) <ms.rahayu.mahzam@gmail.com>; Seah Kian Peng (seahkp@fairprice.com.sg) <seahkp@fairprice.com.sg>; Sun Xueling (sun_xueling@prpg-grc.sg) <sun_xueling@prpg-grc.sg>; Lian He Wan Bao (wanbao@sph.com.sg) <wanbao@sph.com.sg>; news@theindependent.sg; Online Citizen (Singapore) (theonlinecitizen@gmail.com) <theonlinecitizen@gmail.com>; Shin Min Daily (shinmin@sph.com.sg) <shinmin@sph.com.sg>; Straits Times (stforum@sph.com.sg) <stforum@sph.com.sg>; Today (voices@mediacorp.com.sg) <voices@mediacorp.com.sg>; Zao Bao (zblocal@sph.com.sg) <zblocal@sph.com.sg>; 'Apple Daily' <news@appledaily.com.tw>; 'Asia times' <special@atimes.com>; 'Jon Fasman (Economists) ' <jonfasman@economist.com>; 'Keith Bradsher (New York Times)' <kebrad@nytimes.com>; 'Linus Chua (Bloomberg)' <lchua@bloomberg.net>; 'Patrick McDowell (The Wall Street Journal)' <patrick.mcdowell@dowjones.com>; 'Philip Bowring (The South China Morning Post)' <philip@bowring.net>; 'Reporters Without Borders (RWB)' <asia@rsf.org>; 'Rico Hizon (BBC)' <ricohizon@gmail.com>; 'Roberto Coloma (Agence France-Presse)' <Roberto.Coloma@afp.com>; 'Seiff Abby (Freelance Corrrespondent)' <aseiff@gmail.com>; 'The Huffington Post' <scoop@huffingtonpost.com>; Gabriel Law Corporation (main@gabriellawcorp.com) <main@gabriellawcorp.com>; Lawrence Chua & Partners (hislaw@lcp.com.sg) <hislaw@lcp.com.sg>; Legal Clinic LLC (pingping@legalclinic.com.sg) <pingping@legalclinic.com.sg>; Ramasamy Chettiar (rchettiar@centralchambers.com.sg) <rchettiar@centralchambers.com.sg>; Siang Pheng Lek (siangpheng.lek@dentons.com) <siangpheng.lek@dentons.com>; United Legal Alliance LLC (contactus@ulallc.com) <contactus@ulallc.com>
Subject: Request for response: the function of the Supreme Court of Singapore

Dear the Supreme Court,

1.      I refer to my email to PM Lee Hsien Loong dated Nov 7, 2017 with regard to the Terrex conspiracy.

2.      In that email, I claimed that the current legal system was not meant to do justice but to protect the interests of the PAP government.  Now I have written a blog post "Is Singapore’s legal system fair? " to substantiate my claim with evidence. Due to time constraints and the limited access to legal materials, I only analysed three cases in this blog post. 

A traffic accident case                                   

3.      In Asnah Bte Ab Rahman v Li Jianlin [2016] SGCA 16, as reported in “Pedestrians with right of way 'must still share responsibility” by the S.T. on Mar 19, 2016, the then Judge of Appeal Chao Hick Tin and Justice Quentin Loh ruled that even if the lights are in pedestrians’ favour, pedestrians still have to check for oncoming traffic against the risk of being knocked down by a car.

4.      It is evident that the majority disregarded the well-established rule that contributory negligence is not a defence for reckless or wanton driving. In addition, many people in Singapore don’t drive so they are unable to correctly estimate the speed of oncoming vehicles and to calculate the braking distance, let along do all these estimations and calculations in a second or two.

5.      Since the Supreme Court has imposed a duty on pedestrians to check for oncoming vehicles at signalized pedestrian crossings, I would request that the court officially inform the public how to distinguish between negligent or careless driving and reckless or wanton driving, and how to correctly estimate the speed of cars and to calculate the braking distance.

A medical negligence case

6.      Another case I am interested in is Chua Thong Jiang Andrew v Yue Wai Mun and another [2015] SGHC 119, as reported in “Plaintiff ordered to pay costs after failed lawsuit against SGH, surgeon” by Newspaper Today on May 14, 2015. In this case, a patient filed a negligence lawsuit against a hospital and one of its surgeons.

7.      The case was dismissed by Justice Woo Bih Li and the patient “was ordered to pay each of the defendants S$270,000 in legal costs”. It is self-evident that this case has created a chilling effect that discouraged patients from filing lawsuits against hospitals and doctors and may well have stopped the patient in this case from furthering his appeal.            

8.      I would like to ask the court two questions. The first question is: what is the legal basis for Justice Woo to assess the quality of the surgery provided by the hospital?  Assessment of professional competence must be done by independent medical assessment service. A judge’s decision must be based on assessment results because medical assessments are outside a judge’s knowledge and experience.

9.      If a judge genuinely believes that the testimonies given by the patient’s expert witness are “illogical and unconvincing" and "confusing and unreliable", this judge ought to order the patient to hire other experts to give logical testimonies in the interests of justice. A judge generally knows little about medicine and his duty is not to dispose of a case but to do justice. In my opinion, patient’s expert witness gave compelling evidence and presented strong arguments. The judge’s decision is unable to convince me.

10.   Justice Woo Bih Li analysed the state immunity in commercial disputes in the 5^th judicial seminar on commercial litigation in 2016. (See here). I am not sure whether the Supreme Court agrees with the government’s legal positon on the Terrex detention issue.

11.   My second question is: will the court re-open this case by means other than appeal if the patient provides independent medical assessment in favour of his arguments? I copy the law firms that participated in this case on this email.

The miscarriage of justice in Changi Prison

12.   As explained in my blog post, the prison management system is autocratic in nature. I have every intention of damaging Changi Prison’s reputation in the interests of justice. For that reason, I copy on this email a number of prison officers including PPA Desmond Chin, SAC Chow Chee Kin, Provost Veera Purumal s/o Meyappan, SUPT Tan Bin Kiat, SUPT Teo Hock Soon, SUPT Sze Chuck Huang.

The Terrex conspiracy

13.   In my email dated Jan 9, 2018 to the Supreme Court, I clearly stated that Senior judge Chao Hick Tin was the legal officer who came up with the idea of the Terrex conspiracy.

14.   I copy all 10 members of the Select Committee on fake news on this email. I would appreciate it if the Select Committee seriously tackles my claims of judicial corruption and the Terrex conspiracy. I think it is necessary for the Select Committee to look into whether I have connections with any political organization, especially Chinese government. 

15.   I am looking forward to hearing from you at your earliest convenience. 

Regards,

Yan Jun

(NRIC: S7684361I)