My letter to the Workers' Party dated Feb 3, 2016 for an informal meeting

From: Yan Jun 

Sent: Wednesday, February 3, 2016 11:10 AM
To: Workers' Party
Subject: Informal enquiry about raising an issue in the Parliament

 

Dear Workers’ Party,

I am writing to enquire about the possibility of raising an issue of judicial corruption in the Parliament by the WP.

I turn to the WP for assistance due to the government’s non-action to my corruption allegations. One belief of the WP is that “The government must live up to its responsibilities and promises. We hold the government accountable to you and ensure good governance”.

The facts

I wrote to PM Lee Hsien Loong by email 4 times (3 Nov 2015, 25 of Nov 2015, 4 Dec 2015 and 21 Jan 2016) and requested for investigations into judicial corruption in the Supreme Court. While the emails were copied to a large number of organizations including the WP, there has been no response from the government with regard to the investigations.

On 30 Nov 2015 the AGC dismissed my corruption allegation as spurious in an official warning letter (The AGC’s warning letter), however, the AGC hasn’t brought contempt proceedings against me even after I posted a video entitled “Judicial Corruption in Singapore” on YouTube on 20 January 2016. If the AGC has stood by their position on the absence of judicial corruption, the AGC must take action against me to clear the government’s name.

In the wrongful arrest case ([2014] SGCA 60) I brought against the police, the Supreme Court issued an order to punish the victim and to award the police. There is no way to explain this unjust order. After I informed the various organizations of the official explanation in The AGC’s warning letter, the international community must a clear picture of whether there is corruption in the Supreme Court. The issue of judicial corruption cannot be denied and that explains the government’s unresponsiveness to my requests for investigations.  

The significance of the issue

Judicial corruption denies citizens impartial settlement of disputes with the authorities. Now the message the government has delivered is that the corruption is tolerated in Singapore.

The other issue worth noting is the Court of Appeal’s (CA) interpretation of the Article 9(4) of the Constitution. It is self-evident that the interpretation has contradicted the international law and has legitimized arbitrary arrest. It is a fact that even the CA has refused to admit that its interpretation is correct. however, I prefer not to elaborate it at this point.  

My intention

I have no intention to bring any trouble or difficulty to the WP. Judicial corruption is a serious allegation so it is understandable that both local and international press are extremely cautious about touching on this issue. Even if I cannot get any external assistance or advice, I will still continue with my efforts to attract public intention to my corruption allegations because the international community is aware of them so the allegations cannot be denied.

However, I would appreciate it if the WP considers my informal enquiry seriously so the people in Singapore know that the WP will and is able to let ordinary people’s voice be heard in the parliament. In other words, the government is held accountable to its actions and decisions by the opposition party in real case.

If the WP is interested in this email, I am wondering whether I can get some advice from the WP in an informal gathering/meeting. If not, please ignore this email.

Thank you for your attention. I am looking forward to hearing from the WP at its earliest convenience.  

 

Regards,

Yan Jun

(Singapore NRIC: S7684361I)

 

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

From: Yan Jun [mailto:medp1128@hotmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, 21 January, 2016 3:58 PM
To: Lee Hsien Loong (PM)
Cc: AGC CIVIL (AGC); Connie CHAN (PS to the PM); Hui Agnes YAO (PA to Attorney-General); Jessie TEO (PA to Chief Justice); K Shanmugam (Minister for Law); Parliament Speaker; STATECOURTS_QSM@StateCourts.gov.sg; SUPCOURT Registry (SUPCOURT); Tony Tan (President); Alejandro Ponce (The World Justice Project); Judicial Reform Network in the 21st Century (JRN21); Liao Ran (Transparency International); Sofie Arjon Schütte (U4 Anti-corruption resource centre); Srirak Plipat (Transparency International); David Dadge (United Nations Office on Drug and Crime); Mickey Spiegel (Human Right Watch); Nicholas Bequelin (Amnesty International); Office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights (South East Asia); Phil Robertson (Human Right Watch); The International Service for Human Rights; Yuri Fedotov (United Nations Office on Drug and Crime); Commonwealth Magistrate and judges Association; David W Rivkin (International Bar Association); Elizabeth Andersen (American Bar of Association); Gail Davidson (Lawyers Rights Watch Canada); International Association of Judges; International Bar Association's Human Rights Institute; International Commission of Jurists; Mark Ellis (International Bar Association); Talia Dove (International Bar Association); Australia High Court; Federal Court of Malaysia; Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal; Supreme Court of Canada; Supreme Court of India; Supreme Court of New Zealand; Supreme Court of South Africa; The Caribbean Court of Justice; The Privy Council; Lian He Wan Bao; Lian He Zao Bao; Shin Min Daily; The Online Citizen (Singapore); The Straits Times; Yawning Bread; The Huffington Post; Asia times; Goplan Nair (Blogger); 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); The Guardian; Reform Party; Singapore Democratic Party; Singapore People's Party; Workers' Party; Brunei Embassy; Indonesia Embassy; Laos Embassy; Malaysia Embassy; Myanmar Embassy; Philippines Embassy; Thailand Embassy; Vietnam Embassy; Australia Embassy; Canada Embassy; France Embassy; German Embassy; Italy Embassy; Japan Embassy; UK Embassy; US Embassy; Argentina Embassy; Brazil Embassy; China Embassy; India Embassy; Mexico Embassy; Russia Embassy; Saudi Arabia Embassy; South Africa Embassy; South Korea Embassy; Turkey Embassy; Buscaglia Edgardo (Columbia University); Garry Rodan (Murdoch University); Li-ann Thio (Natiaonal University of Singapore); Matthew Stephenson (Harvard University); S.T. Quah Jon (National University of Singapore); Silverstein Gordon (Yale University) ; Susan Rose Ackerman (Yale University)
Subject: Judicial Corruption and the Rule by Law in Singapore

 

Dear Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong,

 

I refer to my emails to the PM dated 3 November and 25 November 2015.

 

“Spurious” allegations

In these emails, I made serious corruption allegations against the Supreme Court and requested the PM to initiate an investigation into this matter. On 30 November, the Attorney-General’s Chamber (the AGC) dismissed my allegations as spurious and warned me of Contempt of Court proceedings if I continued to make these allegations (See attachment 2). On 4 December I wrote to the PM to stand by my position but the AGC didn’t take any action against me.

 

I have enough reason to believe that the Government is covering up its misdeed, so I posted a video entitled Judicial corruption in Singapore on You Tube to get the message across to the general public.

 

The real issue: an uncorrupt government or not?

The Supreme Court’s actions in the present case have raised a question: Does Singapore really have an uncorrupt government or the Government’s excellent reputation is an artefact?

 

In social science, it has been widely assumed that the level of corruption correlates negatively with the level of democracy so a least corrupt country is supposed to be fully democratic. Singapore is generally treated as an anomaly because of its undemocratic PAP government.

 

I would say the Government’s corruption-free reputation is an artefact because “corruption in the judiciary ensures that corruption remains beyond the law in every other field of government and economic activity in which it may have taken root”. In theory, judicial corruption can cover up corruption-related situations involving bribery, embezzlement, extortion, nepotism and fraud. As Transparency International pointed out, “without an independent judiciary, graft effectively becomes new ‘rule of law’”.

 

For the sake of prudence, a number of local and international social scientists specialized in corruption or rule of law are copied in on this email.   

 

Grand judicial corruption

“Judicial corruption includes any inappropriate influence on the impartiality of the judicial process “so bias serves as a good indicator of judicial corruption. In this police wrongful arrest case, the Supreme Court clearly revealed an actual bias in favor of the Government by issuing an unjust order to punish the victim (me) and to award the perpetrator (the police).

 

Judicial corruption can be divided into petty and grand corruption and the latter involves the highest levels of government. Given the fact that the Chief Justice was informed of the unjust order but didn’t intervene, it is clear that the corruption in the Supreme Court falls into the category of grand judicial corruption.

 

The past case and concerns

Without assistance from external authorities, it is almost impossible to prove there is grand corruption in a given legal system. In the present case, the late PM Lee Kuan Yew misinterpreted one of the most fundamental human rights (right against arbitrary arrest) in 1984. The mistake is self-evident so no external authority is required.  

 

The last time that the Supreme Court’s act of the grand corruption was uncovered was back in 1988 in J. B. Jeyaretnam case. Although the Privy Council ruled that Jeyaretnam, an opposition leader, “"have suffered a grievous injustice" by "a series of misjudgments", the Supreme Court including the then Chief Justice refused to remove Jeyaretnam’s conviction.

 

In July 2008, the International Bar Association's Human Rights Institute (IBAHRI) released a 72-page report and concerned about “an actual or apparent lack of impartiality and/or independence” of Singapore judiciary in cases involving the ruling party. At Paragraph 5 of the response letter, the Ministry of Law dismissed the IBAHRI’s concern for lack of evidence to substantiate this grave allegation.

 

An actual bias in favor of the Government, or an actual lack of impartiality and/or independence, has been unraveled in the present case. In retrospect, the IBAHRI’s concern was both proportionate and necessary.

 

Rule by law

While Singapore has a reputation for fairness in commercial law, I am uncertain whether the rule of law is tailored to promote economic development rather than to protect individual rights.

 

It is clear from my first-hand litigation experience in the past 6 years that judicial misconduct is a big problem for all courts including top legal officials. In my email to the PM dated 3 November 2015 at Paragraph 14 to 17 (see email below), I set out the irregularities on the part of Judge of Appeal Chao Hick Tin and the Chief Justice Sundaresh Menon. I can talk more.  

 

In my cases, I have solid evidence to prove that what the courts upheld was not justice but a social order in which the priority was given to the government’s interest, the dignity of the judgments and the interest of the wife and the child. The biggest problem lied with the Office of Public Affairs (OPA)/Office of Chief Justice where the court officials had free rein to behave as they please to intentionally cover up the judicial misconduct by way of flat denial.

 

Without giving any justification, the OPA on 11 November 2015 dismissed my complaint as baseless and stated “we will not entertain any further baseless complaints of judicial misconduct from you and will not tolerate any further unwarranted challenges”. I attached my original complaint to this email (See attachment 1) and would encourage the OPA to take action against me if it proves my complaint baseless in public.

 

Recently I was sued in the State Courts for “breach of contract”. In response to my evidence that the plaintiff tampered with the original document and used a photocopy of the tampered document to file this case, both the plaintiff and the hearing judge adamantly refused to admit that the photocopy was a genuine copy. The judge rejected my request to examine the original document and forced me to accept the photocopy and made a cost order against me.

 

If this judge is right, everyone can sue me for “breach of contract” with a fake document. It is the plaintiff and the court who bear the burden to ensure that a contract is a genuine copy so there is a case. I didn’t think this judge had administered justice so I reported a forgery offence to the police (No. A/20160107/2096). While a complaint of judicial corruption was filed to the OPA, I am not sure there will be response because the OPA “will not entertain any further baseless complaints of judicial misconduct from you”.

 

Overall, I don’t think I can get justice because what the courts has upheld is not the rule of law and the courts have forced me to accept injustice to protect the dignity of the judgments most of the time. I stand by my words.

 

My appeal to the international community

First, I would appeal to the intentional community for intervention on the ground that Singapore government is unfortunately in violation of Article 9 of Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR). Singapore subscribes to the UDHR so is supposed to follow Article 9, or “no one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest, detention or exile”, however, the Court of Appeal has legitimized arbitrary arrest in its judgment of [2014] SGCA 60 (Para 89-96).

 

Second, I would appeal to the international legal organizations for intervention to curb the grand judicial corruption and the blatant violation of the rule of law in Singapore. I am not the first person to criticize the Singapore judiciary (See Criminalising Critique of the Singapore Judiciary). The easiest way is to urge the AGC to take action against me if it denies my corruption allegations.

 

My appeal to the opposition parties

One role of the opposition parties is to hold the government accountable to the public. Since the Government hasn’t responded to this grand corruption scandal in public, I would request the opposition parties to raise this issue in the parliament. I am ready to testify in person and would appreciate it if my request is considered carefully. This email is copied to the president (tony_tan@istana.gov.sg) and the parliament speaker (halimah_yacob@parl.gov.sg).

 

As for why the Government has done well in international anticorruption surveys, I explained briefly in the video Judicial corruption in Singapore (at 8m54s).

 

My request to the PM for investigations

Given the fact that Singapore has reputation for zero tolerance against corruption, it is big news if the Supreme Court is proved corrupt at large scale. I believe the whole world (ASEAN, G7, G20) is seriously interested to find out whether the PAP government is really as clean as it appears to be. In sharp contrast to the Courts’ image of upholding justice, my 6 years litigation experience shows the opposite of this image.

 

This is the 4^th time I request to the PM for investigations and this time, for an investigation in response to my corruption allegations on You Tube. I think the Government ought to either admit the judicial corruption or to take action against me to clear its name. In the interest of justice, I encourage the Government to take action against me so the issue of judicial corruption can be solved in public. 

 

I would request the AGC to explain why it didn’t bring contempt of court proceedings against me after I confirmed my corruption allegations on 4 December 2015.  

 

Thank you very much for your attention and patience to read a long letter. I am looking forward to a definite answer from the PM.

 

Regards,

 

Yan Jun

 

(Singapore NRIC: S7684361I)