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。
2016年6月2日星期四
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
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,
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
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
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
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,
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
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)
Letter to AG for justifications (29 Feb 2016)
Letter to the Attorney - General for justifications
From: Yan Jun
[mailto:medp1128@hotmail.com]
Sent: Monday, February 29, 2016 17:07
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
Sent: Monday, February 29, 2016 17:07
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
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,
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
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)
The Judicial corruption: the 5th letter to PM Lee Hsien Loong (8 March 2016)
From: Yan Jun
[mailto:medp1128@hotmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, March 08, 2016 16:56
To: Lee Hsien Loong (PM)
Cc: agc@agc.gov.sg; Connie CHAN (PS to the PM); Hui Agnes YAO (PA to Attorney-General); Jessie TEO (PA to Chief Justice); K Shanmugam (Minister for Law); STATECOURTS_QSM@StateCourts.gov.sg; 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); David Dadge (United Nations Office on Drug and Crime); Freedom House; Human Rights First ; 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; Apple Daily; Asia times; Gopalan Nair (Blogger); 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); 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; 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: The violation of the right to freedom of expression in Singapore
Sent: Tuesday, March 08, 2016 16:56
To: Lee Hsien Loong (PM)
Cc: agc@agc.gov.sg; Connie CHAN (PS to the PM); Hui Agnes YAO (PA to Attorney-General); Jessie TEO (PA to Chief Justice); K Shanmugam (Minister for Law); STATECOURTS_QSM@StateCourts.gov.sg; 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); David Dadge (United Nations Office on Drug and Crime); Freedom House; Human Rights First ; 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; Apple Daily; Asia times; Gopalan Nair (Blogger); 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); 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; 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: The violation of the right to freedom of expression in Singapore
Dear
Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong,
I
am writing to inform the PM of a police arrest over a protest against the
judicial corruption in Singapore.
Request
to the PM
I
have enough reason to believe that the arrest has provided the conclusive
evidence that the PAP government has denied a citizen his constitutional right
to freedom of expression. I would request the government, or the
Attorney-General (AG) V. K. Rajah, who represents the government, to justify
the arrest in public.
The
January email
In
my email to the PM dated 21 January 2016 (See attachment 2), I provided the
solid evidence of the judicial corruption in the Supreme Court and further
questioned the government’s corruption-free reputation.
I
didn’t receive any reply from the government. Although the Attorney-General’s
Chambers (AGC) has treated my allegations as spurious, the AGC ignored my
requests to bring contempt proceedings against me to settle the issue of
corruption in Court.
The
protest and the arrest
After
I had exhausted all other remedies including a discussion in the parliament, on
2 March 2016 at 10am, I staged a one-person protest by holding up 2 signs which
read “No judicial corruption in the Supreme Court of Singapore” at Istana
Park, a public park located across the
road from the Istana
(the office of the President).
Police
officer Tang Wen Huei arrested me for protesting in prohibited areas, under
Section 15 of the Public Order Act (POA). I was detained for some 26 hour and
40min (10:05 of 2 March to 12:40 of 3 March) and was released on bail.[1] The police has refused to explain
why the Istana Park or the Istana is a prohibited area, and the Istana was not
in 2015.
On
29 Feb 2016, the police rejected my application (PP/20160225/0003/G) for a
permit on the ground that “Istana is a prohibited area under POA”[2]. While on the same day I proved
that the rejection was flawed in law and requested the AG for justifications[3], there was no response. On 1
March, police officer Kai Wun THIA simply reminded me by email that “staging
a protest outside Istana or any other public places is an offence under
POA“[4].
The
double standard
In
an interview with Time last year about the cases of Amos Yee and Roy Ngerng,
the PM said “we welcome criticism with
constraints”. With respect to Mr. Ngerng's
allegation that “the PM is guilty of criminal misappropriation of pension
funds of Singaporeans”, the PM expressly stated that "If it's not
true, the matter must be clarified and the best way to do that is by settling
in Court. If it's untrue, it will be shown so".
In
sharp contrast to the PM’s opinion, the AGC has persistently refused to settle
the issue of the judicial corruption in Court and has declined to respond to
the corruption allegations in public, without any justification.
The
violation of the right to freedom of expression
In
2009, two police officers arrested me for violating an expired court order. In
2012, the AGC officially treated the arrest as lawful. In 2014, the Supreme
Court ruled that the arrest was unlawful but dismissed the suit in 2015 and
made a cost order in favor of the police, without awarding any damages to me.
Now the police has prohibited me from speaking out in any public areas
against the injustice the Supreme Court imposed on me. Finally, the police has
arrested me.
I
would request the AG V. K. Rajah to explain why the government is not oppressive
in this case. Since a prohibited area must be determined in the public interest
(s12 and s13 of the POA), the AG must state the very public interest that the
police has relied on and explain how it overrides the government’s primary duty
to administer justice.
My
decision
On
18 Feb 2016 I submitted a petition to the Working Group on Arbitrary Detention
of the United Nations[5], so the PAP government’s explicit
denial of the fundamental right against arbitrary arrest since 1984 can be
investigated.
In
order to get justice, I will continue my protests against the judicial
corruption because I don’t think the Supreme Court can curb the corruption on
its own. Soon the protests will take place outside the following places: the
Parliament, the US Embassy in Singapore, Singapore Press Holdings (the local
press), and the Aljunied-Hougang Town Council (the main opposition
party).
I
won’t abide by the police decision on my protests because the police obviously
acts against justice. Finally, I would repeat that the AG has a duty to clear
the government's name by justifying the arrest in public.
Thank
you.
Regards,
Yan
Jun
(Singapore
NRIC: S7684361I)
[1] Attachment 1, Bond and bail bond No. 1087749
issued by the police on 3 March 2016. p.1-2.
[2] Ibid, Email from Officer Kai Wun
THIA of Tanglin Division on 29 Feb 2016. p. 5, Para 2.
[3] Ibid, My email to the AG
on 29 Feb 2016. p. 4-5. Para 5-9.
[4] Ibid, Email from Officer
Kai Wun THIA on 1 March. p. 3, Para 2.
[5] Ibid,, My Petition sent on 18 Feb
2016 to the Working Group United Nations Working Group on Arbitrary Detention (p.
9-23) and the Acknowledgement Email Reply from the UNs. (p.6).
Judicial corruption: the 4th letter to PM Lee Hsien Loong
Judicial
Corruption and the Rule by Law in Singapore
From: Yan Jun
[mailto:medp1128@hotmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, January 21, 2016 15:58
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
Sent: Thursday, January 21, 2016 15:58
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 4th
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)
订阅：
博文 (Atom)