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"
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"
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.
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
[5] Grounds of
Decision, See https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BwYGzLoHxGOzamt5OXZTUUtxdFk/view?usp=sharing
Public Prosecutor’s Submission, See https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BwYGzLoHxGOzX3ljRTYwNmc3c2M/view?usp=sharing
Yan Jun’s Submission, see https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BwYGzLoHxGOzVEpCeTh6NHFBVU0/view?usp=sharing
[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
