Judicial Corruption: The second letter to PM Lee Hsieng Loong (25 Nov, 2015)

Follow-up letter: Government integrity and the inquiry into judicial corruption

From: Yan Jun [mailto:medp1128@hotmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, November 25, 2015 15:57
To: Lee Hsien Loong (PM)
Cc: AGC CIVIL (AGC); Connie CHAN (PS to the MP); Hui Agnes YAO (PA to Attorney-General); Jessie TEO (PA to Chief Justice); K Shanmugam (Minister for Law); SUPCOURT Registry (SUPCOURT); Alejandro Ponce (The World Justice Project); José Ugaz Sánchez (President of the Transparency International); Liao Ran (Transparency International); Sofie Arjon Schütte (U4 Anti-corruption resource centre); Srirak Plipat (Transparency International); The World Justice Project; Amnesty International (UK); David Dadge (United Nations Office on Drug and Crime); Global Witness; 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); David W Rivkin (International Bar Association); Dott. MARCO FABRI (Research Institute on Judicial Systems) ; 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; International Network to Promote the Rule of Law; 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 Straits Times; Apple Daily; Asia times; Evgeny Solovyev (ITAR-TASS); Jon Fasman (Economists) ; Keith Bradsher (New York Times); Linus Chua (Bloomberg); Nguyen Viet Hai (Vietnam News Agency); Patrick McDowell (The Wall Street Journal); Reporters Without Borders (RWB); Rico Hizon (BBC); Roberto Coloma (Agence France-Presse); Seah Chiang Nee (The Star); Takuma Yoshioka (NHK); Vijay Joshi (Associated Press); Reform Party; Singapore Democratic Party; Singapore People's Party; Workers' Party; Brunei Embassy; Cambodia Embassy; Indonesia Embassy; Laos Embassy; Malaysia Embassy; Myanmar Embassy; Philippines Embassy; Thailand Embassy; Vietnam Embassy; Australia Embassy; Canada Embassy; Italy Embassy; Japan Embassy; UK Embassy; US Embassy
Subject: Follow-up letter: Government integrity and the inquiry into judicial corruption

Dear Primer Minister Mr. Lee Hsien Loong,

I refer to my email to the PM dated 3 Nov 2015.

In that email, I reported the Supreme Court’s bias in favor of the Government and the Court’s ruling in favor of the late PM’s position on the fundamental right against arbitrary arrest. The late PM’s position clearly contradicts the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

I haven’t received a reply so I am uncertain about the Government’s position on my serious allegations against the Supreme Court.    

Accountability of the Government

In 1993 Michael Fay canning case, the Government declined the former US President Bill Clinton’s call to grant the teenager clemency from caning  and won the respect from the world for upholding justice.

Departing from the international law, now the Court has accepted the late PM’s position and has ruled that policemen in Singapore can lawfully arrest and release a suspect under police discretion, without informing the Court to examine the lawfulness of the arrest.

Given the fact that public officials are held accountable and their decisions are open to public scrutiny, the Government ought to expressly state its position on this fundamental right through newspaper. The Government may need to invite an external authority to comment on this position because the highest court has refused to admit that its final judgment is correct.

In addition, the Government has a duty to explain why a victim of a wrongful arrest should pay to the police, without getting damages for the wrong caused by the police.

Inquiry into judicial corruption

It is a rarest of rare case when a supreme court shows actual bias in favor of a government but this actual bias did take place in my wrongful arrest case, as demonstrated by the Court’s decision to punish the victim and to award the perpetrator. 

In my earlier email, I didn’t accuse the Supreme Court of judicial corruption due to a lack of a standard definition. However, it is necessary for the Government to look into this matter because Huguette Labelle, the former Chair of Transparency International, expressly stated in 2007 that “Judicial corruption means the voice of the innocent goes unheard, while the guilty act with impunity”.

Judicial misconduct and the quality of the judgment

Although Singapore ranks 9th for rule of law, the Supreme Court allowed a judge to influence a litigant’s decision-making in a formal appeal and even allowed a judicial officer to rule his own decision correct. I filed several complaints to the Chief Justice’s office against the straightforward judicial misconduct but they were all treated as baseless. Instead of providing grounds for its decision, the Supreme Court stated that “we will not entertain any further baseless complaints of judicial misconduct from you and will not tolerate any further unwarranted challenges” in a court correspondence labeled as “restricted”.

With respect, I do not accept the Court’s position unless valid grounds are provided. I still think there should be an accountability mechanism outside the judicial system to ensure that the judges don’t have free rein to behave as they please.

The Family Justice Courts (FJCs) may have imposed injustice on the husbands for several decades as a result of the academics’ faulty analysis of the family law (See the footnote in the attached file). I have suffered a lot in the FJCs and I believe the injustice imposed on the husbands is bound to cause troubles.

My statement

I stand by my fair criticisms and if the Supreme Court denies them, an action must be taken against me in the interest of justice. Otherwise, the general public and the international community may begin to suspect that the Supreme Court and the Government are covering up their own misconduct.

I believe my report to the PM can be dealt with fairly and transparently.

Thank you for your attention. I hope to get an answer from the PM.

Regards,

Yan Jun

(NRIC: S7684361I)