2016年10月19日星期三

The Judicial corruption: the 6th letter to PM Lee Hsien Loong (08 July 2016)

From: Yan Jun [mailto:medp1128@hotmail.com]
Sent: Friday, July 08, 2016 14:08
To: Lee Hsien Loong (PM)
Cc: STATECOURTS_QSM@statecourts.gov.sg; agc@agc.gov.sg; 'Connie CHAN (PS to the PM)'; 'Hui Agnes YAO'; 'Jessie TEO'; 'K Shanmugam (Minister for Law)'; 'Roger Tan (IMH)'; 'Singapore Prison Service'; 'SUPCOURT Registry (SUPCOURT)'; Alejandro Ponce (The World Justice Project); Liao Ran (Transparency International); Sofie Arjon Schutte (U4 Anti-corruption resource centre); Srirak Plipat (Transparency International); Yuri Fedotov (United Nations Office on Drug and Crime); Buscaglia Edgardo (Columbia University); Garry Rodan (Murdoch University); Li-ann Thio (Natiaonal University of Singapore); S.T. Quah Jon (National University of Singapore); Silverstein Gordon (Yale University) ; Susan Rose Ackerman (Yale University); Article 19; Freedom House; Global Witness; Human Rights First ; Jennifer Jokstad; 'Mayda Chan (International Amnesty) '; Mickey Spiegel (Human Right Watch); Phil Robertson (Human Right Watch); The International Service for Human Rights; Commonwealth Magistrate and judges Association; Debbie Olsen; Elizabeth Andersen (American Bar of Association); Gail Davidson (Lawyers Rights Watch Canada); International Association of Judges; International Commission of Jurists; 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; Reform Party; Singapore Democratic Party; Singapore People's Party; Workers' Party; Indonesia Embassy; Laos Embassy; Malaysia Embassy; Myanmar Embassy; Philippines Embassy; Thailand Embassy; Vietnam Embassy; Australia Embassy; Canada Embassy; German Embassy; Italy Embassy; Japan Embassy; UK Embassy; US Embassy; Argentina Embassy; Brazil Embassy; China Embassy; India Embassy; Russia Embassy; Saudi Arabia Embassy; South Africa Embassy; South Korea Embassy; Turkey Embassy
Subject: Comments on the PM's essay "Fight against corruption"

Dear Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong,

I refer to the PM’s essay “Fight against corruption: Singapore's experience” (Straits Times May 14, 2016). With respect, I think the essay is misleading and it is appropriate to replace the “corruption” in the title with “petty corruption”.

The content of the essay
In the essay, 4 factors including the development of an anticorruption culture (the 4th factor) were set out as the Government’s experience. The central role played by Corrupt Practices Investigation Bureau (CPIB) was highlighted. An impressive example of how the Government transparently handled the rumour about two top officials was given to show the highest standards of integrity that the Government was committed to uphold. 

The weakness of the essay (grand corruption)
The main weakness is that the essay only touched on the petty corruption (corruption involving smaller sums and typically more junior officials) but not the grand corruption (corruption involving substantial amounts of money and usually high-level officials). It is the grand corruption that matters most. The 1.7 million case mentioned in the essay is not a grand corruption case.

Although there are not reports on the grand corruption in Singapore, the international community has frequently cast doubts on the independence of Singapore’s judiciary. In last November, solid evidence of judicial corruption in the Supreme Court was submitted to both the Government and the international community. In March and April of this year, two public protests were staged (See Straits Times report 14 April 2016) after all other procedures to address this issue had been exhausted. 

The protester (or me) was arrested and was suspected of suffering from a mental illness such as persecutory delusional disorder and was remanded in the Institute of Mental Health (IMH) for assessments. No mental disease was found. 

So far the Government has neither confirmed nor denied the corruption allegation in public. Given the fact that the judicial and political corruption are mutually reinforcing [1], it is safe to expect that the serious political corruption, if any, will be disclosed in the future.

The PAP’s anticorruption culture
As for the unusually effective anticorruption culture developed by the Government, Samuel Huntington, the late social scientist, explained this cultural change in his book “Culture Matters (2000)” by saying “politics did change a culture and save it from itself” and further raised a question “Can politics "save" a society from itself permanently?” [2]

While how politics changed a culture by the PAP Government was not explained in detail in the book, in the face of new evidence, one can easily figure out that the mechanism includes judicial corruption at a large scale. One of the most established models in political science is that democracy is a direct effect of economic development but the spectacular economic development guided by the undemocratic PAP Government stands out as an anomaly to this model. One plausible explanation is that the economic development is not founded on justice.

The PAP Government’s anticorruption experience may not be a model for a country where there are opposition parties or different voices in the ruling party, because the grand corruption will be exposed so the strong effects of the negligible amount of petty corruption will be much reduced.

Corruption levels
According to The World Bank, corruption levels can vary within a country for different types. For example, there may be very little grand corruption in a country with a relatively clean elite, but a large amount of petty corruption in the lower offices of government [3]. The PAP Government has created a unique situation: a large amount of grand corruption with the judiciary but very little petty corruption in lower offices of government. 

Corruption is defined as “the abuse of entrusted power for private gain” and private gain certainly includes government interest, as contrast to the public interest. There are cases in which the courts ruled in favor of the government by denying citizens’ fundamental right against arbitrary arrest, the right to free speech and the right to a fair trial. That may partially explain why the city-state is extremely safe, orderly and well-organized under the PAP Government.

On 13 April 2016, the US Department of State released the Country Reports on Human Rights Practices for 2015. It was stated in section 1d that “The law prohibits arbitrary arrest and detention, and the government generally observed these prohibitions.” With respect, the statement is inaccurate because in 2014 the Supreme Court legitimized the arbitrary arrest by the police to cover up a fundamental mistake made by a top government official in 1984.[4] 

The Government’s denial of the right to free speech
The Government’s position on free speech was clearly set out in Chee Siok Chin  v MHA [2005] SGHC 216, a leading local case on the right to freedom of expression. Justice V. K. Rajah (as he then was), or the current Attorney-General (AG), was of the opinion that ”Permitting unfettered individual rights in a process that is value-neutral is not the rule of law. Indeed, that form of governance could be described as the antithesis of the rule of law – a society premised on individualism and self-interest.” (Para 52)

With respect, the judgment is flawed for two reasons. First, a citizen’s right to freedom of expression was solely treated as an individual interest in accordance with one’s own wish. This right is a public interest as well and is one of basic means through which the general public can supervise the operation of government. Indeed, the form of governance in which the public order is maintained at the expense of justice could be described as the Rule by Law- a society premised on authoritarianism

Secondly, the court overlooked the Singapore’s commitment to the Rule of Law, or an individual’s absolute right to justice. While the exercise of right to free speech always involves the balancing of competing public interest, the protection of public interest matters such as public order or national security or public morality or relations with other countries etc. must be carried out in accordance with the law. There are no competing social concerns to restrict the exercise of an individual’s absolute right to justice by way of public protests as a last resort to act against the judicial corruption. 

These questions have been brought up before the AG, the Public Prosecutor and the State Court in my written documents but haven’t been answered because I didn’t get a chance to ask these questions during the trial.

Corrupt legal system
If my corruption allegation is false, I should be charged with “Contempt of Court”. If it is true, the Government must allow the public protest after any other procedures to address this issue had been exhausted. It is a fact that the AGC, the police and the State Courts all refused to judge the truthfulness of the corruption allegation but instead sent me directly to psychiatric institute and the jail to solve the matter.  

After my mental state was diagnosed as healthy, I was still tortured in the institute because the IMH has wrongfully believed that its staff members had authority to apply medical restraint (both physical and chemical) on every person remanded in custody for psychiatric assessments, no matter he is a real patient or a person of sound mind (See here). Although a letter for investigations was sent to the court and copied to the Government and the media, nothing has happened. If a government conceals its deviate behaviors as prudent measures, it is not surprising that an image of good governance will be presented.

I was convicted of two charges of illegal protest and was sentenced to a fine of $5,000 in default three weeks' imprisonment. After the judgment was delivered on 16 June 2016, I was sent directly to the jail until I was out on bail pending appeal 6 days later. Here is the Grounds of Decision [5] and the local newspaper may wish to report it. 

Here is an observation made by a local law academic about the judiciary that I found objective:
The ruling People's Action Party (PAP) of Singapore legitimises its authoritarian political regime - and insulates it from substantive scrutiny - via a three-pronged strategy: first, through its tightly controlled media and communication channels; secondly, by delivering an admirable economic performance and, creating and maintaining an awe-inspiring standard of living; and thirdly - and most importantly - through its legal institutions. However, there are profound logical flaws and stark absences of consistency in the judgments that help secure this legal state of affairs. [6]

My question to the PM (resignation)
I stand by my corruption allegation and the contents of this letter. I certainly will continue with my public protests even if I will be put in prison for ever.

If my allegation is proven true, with great respect, will the PM resign over the corruption case to fulfill the PAP Government’s commitment to uphold the highest standards of integrity? I would appreciate it if the PM give an answer with yes or no.

Thank you for your attention and patience to read this letter.

Regards,

Yan Jun
(S7684361I)

*********************
[1] Global Corruption Report 2007, by Transparency International, p. xxiii. Para 7.

[2] Culture matters: how values shape human progress. Basic Books; 1 edition (May 18, 2000) by Lawrence E. Harrison, Samuel P. Huntington. p.xvi, Para 1.

[3] Introduction to Corruption, Youth for Good Governance, distance learning program. The World Bank. See  http://info.worldbank.org/etools/docs/library/35970/mod03.pdf

[4] Yan Jun v Attorney-General [2014] SGCA 60, Para 89-96. See http://www.singaporelaw.sg/sglaw/laws-of-singapore/case-law/free-law/court-of-appeal-judgments/15807-yan-jun-v-attorney-general-2014-sgca-60 . And The Appellant’s comments on the Judgment of [2014] SGCA 60, Para 15-27. See http://medp1128.blogspot.sg/2014/12/yan-juns-comments-on-judgement-of-2014.html



[6] Tey Tsun Hang., “Criminalising Critique of the Singapore Judiciary"(2010), HKLJ. 40(3), 751-785. See https://singaporeconsensus.files.wordpress.com/2012/07/2011-criminalising-critique-of-the-singapore-judiciary.pdf

2016年7月7日星期四

Criminalising Critique of the Singapore Judiciary

Criminalising Critique of the Singapore Judiciary: PDF

Source: https://singaporeconsensus.wordpress.com/

Grounds of Decision for Public Prosecutor v Yan Jun

Grounds of Decision: PDF

Public Prosecutor's submission: PDF

Yan Jun's submission: PDF

Forensic psychiatric report from the IMH: PDF
(No major mental illness. Narcissistic traits, Querulous behavior)


Letter to the Office of the Chief Justice for investigations

Forensic psychiatric report from the IMHPDF 


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 (2nd 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.

Torture in the Institute of Mental Health (IMH)


Facts
1.      On 14 April 1016, the State Courts issued a 2-week remand order to place me in the IMH for a psychiatric assessment. When I was admitted to the forensic ward of the IMH at around 10pm, I asked nurses for written regulations governing the rights and duties of the detained individuals and the IMH. No document was provided.   

The 1st interview
2.      On the morning of 15 April, a psychiatrist interviewed me for the first time. I told him the course of my suit against the police for false imprisonment. In addition, I challenged the lawfulness of the remand order by pointing out that the lawfulness of the arrest hadn’t been determined by the court in the first place. In response to my request to write a letter (or a writ of Habeas corpus[1]) to the High Court Registry to review the legality of the detention, the psychiatrist suggested that I should do so after I was discharged from the IMH. I explained that an individual would not be in a position to write such a letter if he was released from the detention. There was no direct response from the psychiatrist.  

The transfer
3.      On the morning of 18 April, I managed to write the letter in front of a social worker Roger and a case manager but was told that the letter couldn’t be mailed out without the psychiatrist’s approval. While the case manager informed a nurse that she would get back to me later that afternoon, at dinner time (5pm) I checked with a nurse and found that she was gone. I checked with a senior staff member who later turned out to be a nurse clinician about the status of my letter (or whether it was mailed out) but the nurse clinician ignored me.  

4.      I explained to him that the request was made under my constitutional right so he was obliged to  respond to it; however, my explanation didn’t work. After I raised my voice to emphasize the absolute supremacy of constitutional rights, the nurse clinician simply made an order to send me to a single-bed room (seclusion room) that was specifically designed for troublemaker patients. I didn’t resist in any way and no explanation was provided to justify the transfer.

The 2nd Interview
5.      On the morning of 19 April at around 9am, the psychiatrist interviewed me for the second time and he finally concluded that I didn’t suffer from a major mental disorder. However, he didn’t give a direct response to my request for an early release on the ground of my normal mental state[2]. I reported the transfer of me to the seclusion room to him and asked for a written justification but he simply treated the transfer as a “response” but not a “punishment”. Due to my persistence, the psychiatrist allowed me to write a complaint letter to the management of the IMH. I was sent back by the security guard to the seclusion room at around 10am.

3 questions
6.      From 10am to 1pm, I waited in the seclusion room to be called out to write the letter. I also talked to a number of nurses about the psychiatrist’s permission but they all replied that they were too busy to handle my request. In fact, what the nurses supposed to do was to provide me with a pen and a piece of paper so I could write the letter in front of the security guard only. I also requested the security guard to talk to the nurses on my behalf, there was still no response.

7.      At around 1pm, I asked 3 questions to a nurse who happened to pass the seclusion room. The first question was “Can I write the complaint letter?” This nurse declined my request on the ground of their busy work schedule. The second question was “Why did you give priority to other jobs assigned by the psychiatrist but not to my request?” This nurse simply replied that my request was “less important “and didn’t provide any justification. The third question was “When can I write the letter?” This nurse replied “I have no idea”.

Physical restraint
8.      Given the facts that I had waited for 3 hours and I had got the psychiatrist’s permission, I thought this nurse had denied me my constitutional right to freedom of expression so I kicked the lower part of the door continuously to express my unhappiness. The nurse set off the alarm and after a short while, over 10 persons gather outside the seclusion room. A male ward manager told me to get out of the room and they wouldn’t apply force on me. He told me to lie on a hospital bed and as soon as I did so, they immediately applied hand and feet restraints on me to tie me to the bed. I didn’t resist in any way but expressly told them of the psychiatrist’s diagnosis of my mental state. I also requested to see the psychiatrist, there was simply no response.
9.      I was placed inside the seclusion room and after a short while, a female doctor came and asked me whether I had got any injury. I told her what happened to me and expressly informed her of the psychiatrist’s diagnosis, however, she simply ignored me and left. A nurse told me that she was the only doctor I could talk to.

10.   From 1pm to 1:30am, for over 12 hours, I was restrained in bed and I kept shouting “release me” and “protest against the IMH for false imprisonment” and also condemned the nurses but no one dealt with my request. A nurse told me that “the harder you try, the less likely you will write the letter”. At 5pm, a nurse told me that he would release me on the condition that I would have dinner; I refused because I was on a hunger strike.

Chemical restraint
11.    At 1:30am of 20 April, 3 nurses came into the room to stop me from shouting. I expressly told them the psychiatrist’s diagnosis and asked them to justify the use of restraints. One nurse shouted at me that “You have no right” and added that “We come to release you but you talked so much so we don’t release you”. He suggested to his colleague that “if he continues to make noise, we give him a shot”. I immediately stopped making noise and requested for a release but they simply left. A few minutes later they came back and gave me an injection, regardless of my protest. When questioned why to give me a shot since I had already stopped making noise, a nurse answered “to make you rest well”.

12.   I was told that my blood pressure would be measured every 15 minutes in the first hour after the injection and I could only recall the first measurement. When I woke up in the morning, I found I was lying in a mattress on the ground. When I got up, I felt dizzy. I continued my hunger strike to protest against the hospital brutality until the dinner time of 22 April, when I was confirmed that my complaint letter wrote on 21 April was sent to the CEO of the IMH. There is no response.

The nurse clinician’s explanation
13.   I came across the nurse clinician and asked him for a written justification for his transfer order. On the morning of 22 April, he showed me a copy of internal regulations made by the IMH in which the rights and the duties of the IMH and the detained individuals were set out. He added that a detained individual was not allowed to have a copy of it.  

14.   With respect to the transfer order, he explained that it was meant to protect me because he believed that “other detained persons wanted to beat me after I raised my voice on 18 April”. When questioned why he didn’t put me in a multiple-bed room as the isolation had caused me great stress, he replied that I had attitude problems so must be isolated. With respect to the physical and chemical restraints applied on me, he explained that I should be more patient and allow for the nurses’ delayed response to my request due to their tight work schedules.

15.   When I pointed out that I was a normal person by telling him the psychiatrist’s diagnosis of my mental state, he paused for a second and answered that he needed to check with the psychiatrist. In addition, he insisted that the IMH had authority to give psychiatric treatment to everyone detained in the IMH under Criminal Procedure Code (CPC) regardless of their mental states, pursuant to the clause 1 of the regulations he produced. [emphasis added]

After the torture
16.   Despite my numerous requests to talk to the psychiatrist for his opinion on the restrains, he became not available for comment. The last time I saw the psychiatrist was on the morning of 19 April. On 25 April, exactly one week after I was put in the seclusion room, I was transferred to my original multiple-bed room. No justification was provided.  On 28 April, I reported the torture to the State Courts for investigations on the ground that the court owed me a duty of care to ensure my safety in the 2-week detention in the IMH. The judge rejected my request and directed me for independent legal advice, without providing justifications.

Discussions (torture vs normal psychiatric treatment)
17.   The use of physical and chemical restraint on me constituted a torture or psychiatric malpractice because I was already diagnosed as having a sound mind at the point when the restraints were applied.  The malpractice was caused by the IMH’s misunderstanding of the law. 

3 issues
18.   There are three issues in this case. The first issue is about the lawfulness of the IMH’s internal regulations which authorize its staff members to apply psychiatric treatments including restraints and seclusion to every detained individual under Criminal Procedure Code. The second issue is whether there was a breach of professional integrity on the part of the psychiatrist because he refused to free me from the seclusion room after his diagnosis.  The third issue is whether the staff members have breached their duty of care by not checking with the psychiatrist for his diagnosis and by their failure to observe the guidelines for the use of restraints and seclusion rooms.
  
19.   For the first issue, the clause which reads that “these [internal] regulations are applicable to each individual detained in IMH under Criminal Procedure Code” is apparently unlawful because it has contradicted the Constitution[3] and the Mental Health Act (CAP 178A)[4].In other words, the IMH’s internal regulations are only applicable to an individual who is diagnosed with mental illness or who is reasonably suspected of suffering from mental illness by a designated medical practitioner.

20.   It should note there are 3 types of persons detained in the IMH. The first type is the Real patients or those who have diagnosed as having mental illness. The second type is Patients To Be or those whose mental states are to be assessed by a psychiatrist. The third type is Normal persons or those who has been excluded from having mental illness by a designated medical practitioner. It is self-evident that a normal person’s right to liberty and body integrity is guaranteed by the Constitution, so psychiatric treatments including the restraints and seclusion are not applicable to normal persons like me. In fact, pursuant to s10(6) of the Mental Health Act, I should be released from the IMH on 19 April after the psychiatrist reached his diagnosis[5].

21.   For the second issue, the psychiatrist must provide justifications as to why I was put in the seclusion room after diagnosis. The psychiatrist, on behalf of the court and the IMH, owed me a duty of care so he needs to justify his inaction on the correctness and the lawfulness of the use of the physical and chemical restraints on me after the torture.

22.   For the third issue, the relevant nursing staff needs to answer the following questions:
a)      Given the fact that my 3 questions were apparently rational, why my kicking the lower part of the door made me an agitated patient so physical restraints were applied to me?
b)     The time limit for the application of physical restraints on an adult (usually it is 4 hours) ;
c)      Why didn’t the nurses consult with the psychiatrist about his diagnosis after the use of physical restraints?
d)     Why didn’t the female doctor assess my mental state on the spot in the seclusion room or consulted with psychiatrist for his diagnosis?
e)      Given the fact that I informed the nurses of the psychiatrist’s diagnosis at 1:30am on 20 April, by what authority did the nurse use chemical restraint on me without my consent?

Conclusion and request
23.   For the reasons set out above, I conclude that the physical and chemical restraints and the seclusion applied on me constitute a torture. I request the IMH for a public explanation. 
Yan Jun (S7684361I)
4 May, 2016



[1] Pursuant to Article 9(2) of the Constitution of Singapore which reads “Where a complaint is made to the High Court or any Judge thereof that a person is being unlawfully detained, the Court shall inquire into the complaint and, unless satisfied that the detention is lawful, shall order him to be produced before the Court and release him”. See http://statutes.agc.gov.sg/aol/download/0/0/pdf/binaryFile/pdfFile.pdf?CompId:62847936-2328-4409-aa97-2ff69536bc2a

[2] Pursuant to s10(6) and s2(1) of Mental Health Act (CAP 187A). s10(6) reads that “A person shall not be detained at a psychiatric institution for treatment unless —(a) he is suffering from a mental disorder which warrants the detention of the person in a psychiatric institution for treatment; and (b) it is necessary in the interests of the health or safety of the person or for the protection of other persons that the person should be so detained. s2(1) reads that “treatment” includes observation, inpatient treatment, outpatient treatment and rehabilitation”. See http://statutes.agc.gov.sg/aol/download/0/0/pdf/binaryFile/pdfFile.pdf?CompId:a623c1d9-a2ed-4de7-9ada-d3bc2f51027e

[3]Pursuant to Article 9(1) of the Constitution of Singapore which reads “No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty save in accordance with law.”

[4] Supra note 2.

[5] Ibid.

2016年6月2日星期四

举牌抗议“司法不公” 男子被控违法示威 法官下令还押接受精神评估

来源:新加坡早报  2016-04-15 08:22
http://m.news-com.cn/news/index.php?c=show&id=261162

一名男子被指非法示威,并违反公共秩序法令示威抗议司法不公,昨天被控上国家法院。

被告严军(译音,40岁)曾经起诉政府,他被指分别在桥北路水仙门中心非法示威,以及在总统府正对面的公园(Istana Park)违反法令示威。他是前天在水仙门中心示威被捕。

法官在控方的申请下,下令将严军还押心理卫生学院接受精神评估,案展本月28日过堂。

主控官杨子樑副检察司告诉法官,被告可能精神有问题,有必要将他还押心理卫生学院,以评估他的精神状况,看他是否患上精神病,例如被害型妄想症。

被告声称精神没问题
主控官说,让被告接受精神评估是很重要的,这将有助于确定被告是否适合认罪或接受审讯。

严军声称精神没问题,他也表示不会认罪。他说,他的抗辩理由是总统府对面的公园是公共场所,并不是禁地。此外,警方腐败,没有妥当地处理他的准证申请。

严军面对的第一项控状,指他在今年3月2日上午10时零2分,违反公共秩序法令(Public Order Act),在总统府对面的公园示威,举起标语牌抗议新加坡司法不公。

控状显示,两个标语牌分别用华文和英文书写。其中华文标语牌写道:“抗议新加坡高等法院司法不公”,英文标语牌写道:“No Judicial Corruption in the Supreme Court of Singapore”。

他面对的第二项控状,则指他在本月13日,在桥北路水仙门中心无准证示威,抗议新加坡司法不公。

根据控状,他被指举起华文和英文的标语牌进行抗议。这两个标语牌的内容跟3月2日的那两个相同。

如果罪成,他面对的第一项控状是罚款最多5000元。至于第二项控状的刑罚是罚款最多3000元。

严军被指在2009年向妻子施暴,警方以违反法庭紧急保护令为由逮捕他。他指政府不当逮捕、非法拘留、袭击和殴打、诽谤和恶意提控他等,向政府索赔122万余元。

总检察署指他过了三年起诉期限才入禀法庭,成功得到最高法院助理主簿撤销他大部分的诉求。

严军在2013年向高庭上诉,但高庭维持助理主簿的裁决。2014年,严军向最高法院上诉庭提出上诉,但被驳回。

The police prohibited a public protest against the judicial corruption

See Para 2 of  the email sent by Officer Thia Kai Wun, who represented the police, on 1 March 2016. 

From: Kai Wun THIA (SPF) [mailto:THIA_Kai_Wun@spf.gov.sg]
Sent: Tuesday, March 01, 2016 13:25
To: Yan Jun
Subject: RE: Request for justification for the rejection of a protest

Dear Sir,

            Please be reminded that your permit application, PP/20160225/0003/G was not approved. 

2          Please note that staging a protest outside Istana or any other public places is an offence under the Public Order Act.

3          Thank you. 


Yours faithfully,

Eddie Thia
OC Compliance Management Unit
Tanglin Division
DID: (65) 6391 3979 | FAX: (65) 6391 3978
A Member of the Home Team – Keeping Singapore Safe and Secure

WARNING: "Privileged/Confidential information may be contained in this message. If you are not the intended addressee, you must not copy, distribute or take any action in reliance thereon. Communication of any information in this email to any unauthorized person is an offence under the Official Secrets Act (Cap 213). Please notify the sender immediately if you receive this in error."





From: Yan Jun [mailto:medp1128@hotmail.com]
Sent: Monday, 29 February, 2016 5:15 PM
To: Kai Wun THIA (SPF)
Subject: FW: Request for justification for the rejection of a protest

Dear Officer Eddie Thia,

Police permit application reference: PP/20160225/0003/G

1.I refer to your reply to me dated today at 9:06am.

2.I just sent an email to the Honorable Attorney-General (AG) VK Rajah but forgot to copy the email to you. Please see the email below for details. I apologize for the negligence I made.

3.Thank you.

Regards,

Yan Jun

From: Yan Jun [mailto:medp1128@hotmail.com]
Sent: Monday, 29 February, 2016 5:07 PM
To: agc@agc.gov.sg
Cc: Hui Agnes YAO (PA to Attorney-General); SUPCOURT Registry (SUPCOURT); K Shanmugam (Minister for Law); Lian He Wan Bao; Lian He Zao Bao; Shin Min Daily; The Online Citizen (Singapore); The Straits Times; The Huffington Post; Asia times; 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); Reform Party; Singapore Democratic Party; Singapore People's Party; Workers' Party
Subject: Request for justification for the rejection of a protest

Dear the Honorable Attorney-General (AG) VK Rajah,

1.In the public interest, I am writing to the AG to request for a justification for a police decision. 

The application and the rejection
2.I made an application (Reference number: PP/20160225/0003/G) for a one-person protest outside the Istana on 2 March 2016 from 10am to 8pm against the judicial corruption in the Supreme Court.

3.This morning, police officer Eddie Thia from TangLin Division informed me that my application was rejected. He explained that “the Istana is a prohibited area under the Public Order (Prohibited Areas) Order 2009.  Organising or taking part in an assembly or procession at the prohibited area is an offence under Section 15 of the Public Order Act, Chapter 257A”.(See email below)

My position
4.I do not accept the rejection and will not appeal against it because the rejection is invalid. 

Validity of the rejection (4 flaws)
5.First, the rejection has violated the Supremacy of the Constitution (Article 4). Article 14 of the Constitution provides that a citizen has right to freedom of peace assembly so the Public Order Act (POA, Cap 257A), or a statute, cannot be lawfully used to override a constitutional right.

6.Second, the rejection has denied the government’s primary duty to administer justice. Prohibited Area justification, or section 14 of POA[1] provided by officer Eddie Thia, requires a minister to make a decision in the public interest. However, the police have failed to specify the very public interest that they relied on to deny the primary duty of the government. If the Government treats my corruption allegations as spurious, actions must be taken against me for “Contempt of Court” to solve the issue of corruption in the public.

 7.In addition, the police failed to provide the name of the minister who has treated the Istana as a prohibited area. This minister, either PM Lee Hsien Loong, or Minister for Law K Shanmugam, or other ministers, must be held accountable for this decision in the parliament.

8.Third, the rejection shows the absence of consistence in police decisions. In 2015, Duo were arrested for organising public assembly without permit outside Istana, however, the police didn’t specify the Istana as an prohibited area. In contrast to officer Eddie Thia’s explanation, the arrest was made under Section 16(1)(a) of the POA [2] but not Section 15 of the POA [3] .   

9.Fourth, the rejection is flawed in law for lack of the specification of the Istana area. My protest will be outside of the Istana but so far the police haven’t requested me for the exact location of the protest. I would request the AGC or the police to specify the following 5 areas: the Istana, the Parliament, the US Embassy, the Singapore Press Holdings Ltd (SPH), and the Aljunied-Hougang Town Council (AHTC).

My request
10.My protest will be carried out on 2 March 2016 at 10am if no valid justification is provided. I would request the police spokesman to inform the press that my sign reads “Protest against judicial corruption in the Supreme Court of Singapore”, if the police arrest me.

11.Thank you. I am looking forward to hearing from you soon.

Regards,

Yan Jun
(Singapore NRIC: S7684361I)

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

[1] : Prohibited areas: 12.—(1) If, in relation to any public place, the Minister is of the opinion that, having regard to the extent of powers exercisable under section 13, it is necessary in the public interest to do so, the Minister may, by order published in the Gazette, prohibit the holding of all public assemblies or public processions or both in the public place (referred to in this Act as a prohibited area). See  http://statutes.agc.gov.sg/aol/download/0/0/pdf/binaryFile/pdfFile.pdf?CompId:1549b3f9-2f94-4e57-a429-a096bea93584

[2]: Ibid, Other offences in relation to assemblies or processions 16.—(1) Each person who organises a public assembly or public procession — (a) in respect of which no permit has been granted under section 7
or no such permit is in force, where such permit is required by this Act;

[3] : Ibid, Offences in prohibited areas, etc.15.—(1) A person who organises an assembly or a procession the holding of which he knows or ought reasonably to know is prohibited by an order under section 12(1) or 13(1) or a notification under section 13(2), as the case may be, shall be guilty of an offence and shall be liable on conviction to a fine not exceeding $10,000 or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 6 months or to both.

From: Kai Wun THIA (SPF) [mailto:THIA_Kai_Wun@spf.gov.sg]
Sent: Monday, 29 February, 2016 9:06 AM
To: medp1128@hotmail.com
Subject: [PP/20160225/0003/G] Application to hold an assembly on 2 March 2016 from 10.00am to 8.00pm

Dear Sir,

               Please refer to your Police permit application reference PP/20160225/0003/G.

2             We regret to inform you that the permit application is declined. 

3             We would like to inform you that the Istana is a prohibited area under the Public Order (Prohibited Areas) Order 2009.  Organising or taking part in an assembly or procession at the prohibited area is an offence under Section 15 of the Public Order Act, Chapter 257A.

4              Thank you. 


Yours faithfully,


Eddie Thia
OC Compliance Management Unit
Tanglin Division
DID: (65) 6391 3979 | FAX: (65) 6391 3978
A Member of the Home Team – Keeping Singapore Safe and Secure

WARNING: "Privileged/Confidential information may be contained in this message. If you are not the intended addressee, you must not copy, distribute or take any action in reliance thereon. Communication of any information in this email to any unauthorized person is an offence under the Official Secrets Act (Cap 213). Please notify the sender immediately if you receive this in error."




From: Yan Jun [mailto:medp1128@hotmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, 24 February, 2016 5:24 PM
To: SPF_Licensing@spf.gov.sg
Cc: agc@agc.gov.sg; shirleyne Chan; STATECOURTS_QSM@StateCourts.gov.sg; Lian He Wan Bao; Lian He Zao Bao; Shin Min Daily; The Online Citizen (Singapore); The Straits Times; Reform Party; Singapore Democratic Party; Singapore People's Party; Workers' Party
Subject: Application for a police permit for protest against judicial corruption

Dear Police Licensing Department,
1.      This is an application for police permit for a public protest against judicial corruption in Singapore, pursuant to s6 of Public Order Act (CAP 257A). The application is also copied to the AGC, Office of the Chief Justice and the QSM of the State Courts.
2.      This one-person protest is scheduled on 2 March 2016 (10:00 to 20:00) and is expected to take place outside the Istana (Presidential Palace).
Why to protest in public
3.      The purpose of this protest is to make the allegation of judicial corruption in Singapore heard in public in an attempt to make the government deal with this issue in public, fairly and transparently. 
4.      The applicant reported the judicial corruption to the PM Lee 4 times (3 Nov, 25 Nov, 4 Dec, 2015 and 21 Jan 2016) by email and requested for investigations, but there is no reply in public.  While the Parliament is the right place to address this issue, this possible avenue was tried but it has been practically not open to the applicant so far.
Two issues for the Licensing department to decide
5.      To deal with this application, the police needs to decide on (1) whether the judicial corruption allegation is true and if so, (2) whether this one-person protest will lead to public disorders.
6.      For the first issue, it is evident that the Police is not in a position to make a decision. In fact, on 30 Nov 2015, the AGC dismissed the applicant’s allegation as spurious and warned the applicant of contempt proceedings if the applicant continued to make judicial corruption allegations (See supporting document for the application form).
7.      However, the AGC has failed to stick to its warning after the applicant posted a video entitled “Judicial Corruption in Singapore” on Youtube in January 2016. In addition, upon the applicant’s request, the AGC has refused to make its warning public.
8.      For the second issue, the applicant can’t see a ground that one-person protest could lead to any public disorder. The letters to the PM have been copied to a large number of local and international organizations, and the content of the protest is in perfect consistence with the government’s “zero tolerance stance toward corruption”. In addition, no political party/organization is involved.
9.      If the police treat this protest as potentially harmful to the society, the police is supposed to request the ACG to take preventive actions against the applicant for “Contempt of Court”.
The applicant’s decision
10.   The corruption refers to the Supreme Court’s decision in a police wrongful arrest case to punish the victim and to award the police, which was clearly set out in the applicant’s petition to the United Nations Working Group on Arbitrary Detention for investigations on arbitrary (See attachment).  
11.   The applicant will exercise his constitutional right to stage the protest if no valid ground is provided. The applicant will continue his protests even if he is arrested or convicted.  Reports will be made to the Working Group on Arbitrary Detention for arbitrary detention if the deprivation of the applicant’s liberty is resulted from the exercise of his right to freedom of expression guaranteed by the Constitution and the Universal Deceleration of Human Right.
12.   Thank you for your attention. I am looking forward to hearing from you soon. I will pay the processing fee ($50) to the Licensing department tomorrow.
Regards,

Yan Jun
(S7684361I)