My response to police advice against my protest scheduled for Nov 23

 From: Yan Jun 

Sent: Thursday, 23 November, 2017 09:40
To: 'Chun Meng CHIONH (SPF)' <CHIONH_Chun_Meng@spf.gov.sg>
Cc: 'AGC (AGC@agc.gov.sg)' <AGC@agc.gov.sg>
Subject: RE: Advice against protest at Raffles Place MRT station on 23 November 2017

Dear Chionh Chun Meng Eric,

1.      I refer to your email dated November 22, 2017.

2.      I do not accept your justification. You argument would be valid now if the police hadn’t issued the prohibition order in 2016. It is evident that now I am not in a position to apply to the police for a protest permit.  

3.      While you explained that “you have not made an application for a Police permit, Sec 8 and Sec 11 of the Public Order Act are not applicable”, it is a fact that the police had already issued a prohibition order to stop me from protesting in any public area. Please see Para 6 of my email below.

4.      In this situation, the Minister for home affairs has a duty to justify the legality of the prohibition order. On Feb 29, 2016, I wrote to the then Attorney-General VK Rajah for justifications for police’s decision to reject my permit application. While I copied that email to Mr. K Shanmugam, I have received any reply at all. Please check with the Minister for Home Affairs and the AGC for details.

5.      My protest will be carried out as scheduled.

6.      I will exercise my right to silence after the arrest. Please charge me in the High Court because the State Courts have limited authorities to deal with constitutional argument. See PP v Yan Jun (MAC No. 903277 &903278 of 2016)  in Para 19-21.

7.      In addition, don’t forget to charge me with Contempt of Court and Defamation if you think Singapore’s legal system is fair.

8.      Thank you.

Regards,

Yan Jun

From: Chun Meng CHIONH (SPF) [mailto:CHIONH_Chun_Meng@spf.gov.sg]
Sent: Wednesday, 22 November, 2017 23:07
To: Yan Jun <medp1128@hotmail.com>
Subject: RE: Advice against protest at Raffles Place MRT station on 23 November 2017

Message Classification: Restricted

Dear Sir,

              We refer to your reply dated 19 Nov 2017.

2            Police’s email of 18 Nov 2017 is not a direction under Sec 8(4) of the Public Order Act, Cap 257A.  Sec 8 applies only to conditions specified in granted permits.  Moreover, Sec 11 only gives a person a right to appeal to the Minister against the Commissioner’s decision to refuse to grant a permit, to cancel a permit or to impose any particular condition on a permit.  Since you have not made an application for a Police permit, Sec 8 and Sec 11 of the Public Order Act are not applicable.

3            Police’s email of 18 Nov 2017 is a reminder to you not to commit offences under the Public Order Act. We would like to once again remind you that organising or taking part in an assembly or procession without a Police permit are offences under the Public Order Act.

ASP(2) Chionh Chun Meng Eric Operations Officer (Management), Ops Management Operations Branch, Central Division Singapore Police Force DID: (65) 6557 5605 | FAX: (65) 6557 5115

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: Sunday, 19 November 2017 11:50 AM
To: Chun Meng CHIONH (SPF) <CHIONH_Chun_Meng@spf.gov.sg>
Cc: MHA K Shanmugam (MHA) <k_shanmugam@mha.gov.sg>; AGC (AGC) <AGC@agc.gov.sg>; Lian He Wan Bao (wanbao@sph.com.sg) <wanbao@sph.com.sg>; news@theindependent.sg; Online Citizen (Singapore) (theonlinecitizen@gmail.com) <theonlinecitizen@gmail.com>; Shin Min Daily (shinmin@sph.com.sg) <shinmin@sph.com.sg>; Straits Times (stforum@sph.com.sg) <stforum@sph.com.sg>; Today (voices@mediacorp.com.sg) <voices@mediacorp.com.sg>; Zao Bao (zblocal@sph.com.sg) <zblocal@sph.com.sg>; Hong Kong Journalists Association (hkja@hkja.org.hk) <hkja@hkja.org.hk>; Ming Pao (mingpao@mingpao.com) <mingpao@mingpao.com>; Oriental Daily News (news@odn.on.cc) <news@odn.on.cc>; SCMP (letters@scmp.com) <letters@scmp.com>; Singtao Daily (localnews@singtao.com) <localnews@singtao.com>; The Standard (editor@thestandard.com.hk) <editor@thestandard.com.hk>; Taipei Times (letters@taipeitimes.com) <letters@taipeitimes.com>; Taiwan news (service@taiwannews.com.tw) <service@taiwannews.com.tw>; The China Post (webmaster@mail.chinapost.com.tw) <webmaster@mail.chinapost.com.tw>; United Daily News (newspro@udn.com) <newspro@udn.com>; 'Apple Daily' <news@appledaily.com.tw>; Asia times <special@atimes.com>; Jon Fasman (Economists) <jonfasman@economist.com>; Keith Bradsher (New York Times) <kebrad@nytimes.com>; 'Linus Chua (Bloomberg)' <lchua@bloomberg.net>; Patrick McDowell (The Wall Street Journal) <patrick.mcdowell@dowjones.com>; 'Philip Bowring (The South China Morning Post)' <philip@bowring.net>; 'Reporters Without Borders (RWB)' <asia@rsf.org>; Rico Hizon (BBC) <ricohizon@gmail.com>; Roberto Coloma (Agence France-Presse) <Roberto.Coloma@afp.com>; 'Seiff Abby (Freelance Corrrespondent)' <aseiff@gmail.com>; 'The Huffington Post' <scoop@huffingtonpost.com>
Subject: RE: Advice against protest at Raffles Place MRT station on 23 November 2017

Dear Officer Chionh Chun Meng Eric,

1.      I refer to your email dated November 18, 2017.

2.      In this email, you advised me not to hold my protest scheduled for November 23, 2017 outside Raffles Place MRT station.  However, I will protest as scheduled in support of my email dated November 7 to PM Lee Hsien Loong. Please check my November 7 email for why I have no intention of applying for a protest permit.

The flaw in your advice

3.      In paragraph 3 of your email, you pointed out that the punishment for repeated offenders who take part in an assembly is a fine not exceeding $5,000, pursuant to s16(3)(b) of the Public Order Act (POA).

4.      I am the sole organizer of all my protests so pursuant to s16(3)(a) of the POA, the punishment can be easily escalated to “a fine not exceeding $10,000 or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 6 months or to both”.

My response to your advice/direction

5.      It is evident to me that your email serves as “direction of the senior police officer given under s8(4)”. As a result, the police can lawfully charge me in court under 16(4) of the POA, or “A person organising or taking part in an assembly or a procession who knowingly fails to comply with any direction of the senior police officer given under s8(4) shall be guilty of an offence and shall be liable on conviction a fine not exceeding $10,000 (for organisers), or $5,000 (for protestors)”.

6.      Pursuant to s11(1) of the POA, a protestor has a right to appeal to the Minister if he is aggrieved by the Commissioner’s decision. Now I appeal against your direction by forwarding this letter to the Minister for Home Affairs K Shanmugam. I request Mr. K Shanmugam to justify the prohibition order issued by the police in 2016 to stop me from protesting in any public place (See here, Para 35).

7.      I will continue my protest until my allegations of judicial corruption and the Terrex conspiracy are settled in public. My passport expired on May 9, 2017 and on November 11, 2017, I submitted my application for renewal to the immigration authorities. Please let me know if I am banned from travelling overseas.

My legal positon

8.      Under the current government, Singapore’s legal system is totally corrupt. In addition, both PM Lee Hsien Loong and Mr. K Shanmugam are corrupt because they have deliberately failed to discharge their duty to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution according to law and to the best of his knowledge and ability.

9.      Please let me know the Minister’s decision in respect of my appeal before my protest. Just a gentle reminder, the Minister will be at fault if he doesn’t respond to my appeal on time.

10.   Thank you.

Regards

Yan Jun

(S7684361I)

From: Chun Meng CHIONH (SPF) [mailto:CHIONH_Chun_Meng@spf.gov.sg]
Sent: Saturday, 18 November, 2017 21:10
To: medp1128@hotmail.com
Subject: Advice against protest at Raffles Place MRT station on 23 November 2017

Message Classification: Restricted

Dear Sir,

            We refer to your email dated 7 November 2017.

2.         You have stated your intention to stage a protest outside Raffles Place MRT station on 23 November 2017 at 12 noon.  We would like to remind you that organising or taking part in an assembly or procession without a Police permit are offences under the Public Order Act.

3.         You have previously been convicted for offences of taking part in a public assembly without a Police permit.  We would like to highlight that a repeat offender who takes part in an assembly or procession without a Police permit would be liable on conviction to a fine not exceeding $5,000.

Yours faithfully,

ASP(2) Chionh Chun Meng Eric Operations Officer (Management), Ops Management Operations Branch, Central Division Singapore Police Force DID: (65) 6557 5605 | FAX: (65) 6557 5115

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."

The 8th letter to PM Lee Hsien Loong: The Terrex conspiracy

See here for the attached file.

From: Yan Jun
Sent: Tuesday, 7 November, 2017 14:12
To: 'Lee Hsien Loong (lee_hsien_loong@pmo.gov.sg)' <lee_hsien_loong@pmo.gov.sg>
Cc: Chief Executive's Office_HK (ceo@ceo.gov.hk) <ceo@ceo.gov.hk>; HK Customs and Excise Department (customsenquiry@customs.gov.hk) <customsenquiry@customs.gov.hk>; AGC (AGC@agc.gov.sg) <AGC@agc.gov.sg>; 'K Shanmugam (Minister for Law)' <k_shanmugam@mha.gov.sg>; PM Office (pmo_hq@pmo.gov.sg) <pmo_hq@pmo.gov.sg>; QSM_CGH (feedback@cgh.com.sg) <feedback@cgh.com.sg>; QSM_IMH (qsm@imh.com.sg) <qsm@imh.com.sg>; QSM_STATE (STATECOURTS) (STATECOURTS_QSM@StateCourts.gov.sg) <STATECOURTS_QSM@StateCourts.gov.sg>; Singapore Prison Service (prisonfeedback@pris.gov.sg) <prisonfeedback@pris.gov.sg>; Spencer Tan (spencer_tan@spf.gov.sg) <spencer_tan@spf.gov.sg>; SUPCOURT QSM (SUPCOURT) <SUPCOURT_QSM@supcourt.gov.sg>; Tan Bin Kiat (tan_bin_kiat@pris.gov.sg) <tan_bin_kiat@pris.gov.sg>; Tiah Ling (ling_tiah@cgh.com.sg) <ling_tiah@cgh.com.sg>; Alejandro Ponce (The World Justice Project) <aponce@worldjusticeproject.org>; Sofie Arjon Schutte (U4 Anti-corruption resource centre) <sofie.schuette@cmi.no>; Yuri Fedotov (United Nations Office on Drug and Crime) <yury.fedotov@unodc.org>; 'Buscaglia Edgardo (Columbia University)' <ebuscaglia@law.columbia.edu>; 'Garry Rodan (Murdoch University)' <G.Rodan@murdoch.edu.au>; Matthew Stephenson (mstephen@law.harvard.edu) <mstephen@law.harvard.edu>; 'S.T. Quah Jon (National University of Singapore)' <jonstquah@gmail.com>; 'Silverstein Gordon (Yale University) ' <gradpro.law@yale.edu>; 'Susan Rose Ackerman (Yale University)' <susan.rose-ackerman@yale.edu>; 'Freedom House' <info@freedomhouse.org>; Human Rights First (feedback@humanrightsfirst.org) <feedback@humanrightsfirst.org>; info@article19.org; 'Jennifer Jokstad' <jokstad@un.org>; mail@globalwitness.org; 'Mayda Chan (International Amnesty) ' <mayda.chan@amnesty.org>; 'Mickey Spiegel (Human Right Watch)' <spiegem@hrw.org>; 'Phil Robertson (Human Right Watch)' <RobertP@hrw.org>; World Psychiatric Association (wpasecretariat@wpanet.org) <wpasecretariat@wpanet.org>; 'Elizabeth Andersen (American Bar of Association)' <elizabeth.andersen@americanbar.org>; 'Gail Davidson (Lawyers Rights Watch Canada)' <lrwc@portal.ca>; 'International Association of Judges' <Judicial.Independence.wp@gmail.com>; 'Talia Dove (International Bar Association)' <talia.dove@int-bar.org>; Lian He Wan Bao (wanbao@sph.com.sg) <wanbao@sph.com.sg>; news@theindependent.sg; Online Citizen (Singapore) (theonlinecitizen@gmail.com) <theonlinecitizen@gmail.com>; Shin Min Daily (shinmin@sph.com.sg) <shinmin@sph.com.sg>; Straits Times (stforum@sph.com.sg) <stforum@sph.com.sg>; Today (voices@mediacorp.com.sg) <voices@mediacorp.com.sg>; Zao Bao (zblocal@sph.com.sg) <zblocal@sph.com.sg>; Taipei Times (letters@taipeitimes.com) <letters@taipeitimes.com>; Taiwan news (service@taiwannews.com.tw) <service@taiwannews.com.tw>; The China Post (webmaster@mail.chinapost.com.tw) <webmaster@mail.chinapost.com.tw>; United Daily News (newspro@udn.com) <newspro@udn.com>; Hong Kong Journalists Association (hkja@hkja.org.hk) <hkja@hkja.org.hk>; Ming Pao (mingpao@mingpao.com) <mingpao@mingpao.com>; Oriental Daily News (news@odn.on.cc) <news@odn.on.cc>; SCMP (letters@scmp.com) <letters@scmp.com>; Singtao Daily (localnews@singtao.com) <localnews@singtao.com>; The Standard (editor@thestandard.com.hk) <editor@thestandard.com.hk>; 'Apple Daily' <news@appledaily.com.tw>; 'Asia times' <special@atimes.com>; 'Jon Fasman (Economists) ' <jonfasman@economist.com>; 'Keith Bradsher (New York Times)' <kebrad@nytimes.com>; 'Linus Chua (Bloomberg)' <lchua@bloomberg.net>; 'Patrick McDowell (The Wall Street Journal)' <patrick.mcdowell@dowjones.com>; 'Philip Bowring (The South China Morning Post)' <philip@bowring.net>; 'Reporters Without Borders (RWB)' <asia@rsf.org>; 'Rico Hizon (BBC)' <ricohizon@gmail.com>; 'Roberto Coloma (Agence France-Presse)' <Roberto.Coloma@afp.com>; 'Seiff Abby (Freelance Corrrespondent)' <aseiff@gmail.com>; 'The Huffington Post' <scoop@huffingtonpost.com>; Australia High Court (jsmart@hcourt.gov.au) <jsmart@hcourt.gov.au>; Federal Court of Malaysia (webmaster@kehakiman.gov.my) <webmaster@kehakiman.gov.my>; Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal (cfaenquiries@hkcfa.hk) <cfaenquiries@hkcfa.hk>; Supreme Court of Canada (reception@scc-csc.ca) <reception@scc-csc.ca>; Supreme Court of India (supremecourt@nic.in) <supremecourt@nic.in>; Supreme Court of New Zealand (supremecourt@justice.govt.nz) <supremecourt@justice.govt.nz>; Supreme Court of South Africa (PaMyburgh@justice.gov.za) <PaMyburgh@justice.gov.za>; The Caribbean Court of Justice (info@caribbeancourtofjustice.org) <info@caribbeancourtofjustice.org>; The Privy Council (enquiries@supremecourt.uk) <enquiries@supremecourt.uk>; Indonesia Embassy (info@indonesianembassy.sg) <info@indonesianembassy.sg>; Laos Embassy (laoembsg@singnet.com.sg) <laoembsg@singnet.com.sg>; Myanmar Embassy (ambassador@myanmarembassy.sg) <ambassador@myanmarembassy.sg>; Philippines Embassy (philippine.embassy.singapore@gmail.com) <philippine.embassy.singapore@gmail.com>; Thailand Embassy (thaisgp@singnet.com.sg) <thaisgp@singnet.com.sg>; Vietnam Embassy (vnemb.sg@mofa.gov.vn) <vnemb.sg@mofa.gov.vn>; Argentina Embassy (consulares_eisia@mrecic.gov.ar) <consulares_eisia@mrecic.gov.ar>; Brazil Embassy (brasemb.cingapura@itamaraty.gov.br) <brasemb.cingapura@itamaraty.gov.br>; China Embassy (chinaemb_sg@mfa.gov.cn) <chinaemb_sg@mfa.gov.cn>; India Embassy (hc@hcisingapore.org) <hc@hcisingapore.org>; Russia Embassy (russian_embassy@singnet.com.sg) <russian_embassy@singnet.com.sg>; Saudi Arabia Embassy (sgemb@mofa.gov.sa) <sgemb@mofa.gov.sa>; South Africa Embassy (singapore.consular@dirco.gov.za) <singapore.consular@dirco.gov.za>; South Korea Embassy (korembsg@mofa.go.kr) <korembsg@mofa.go.kr>; Turkey Embassy (embassy.singapore@mfa.gov.tr) <embassy.singapore@mfa.gov.tr>; Australia Embassy (enquiries-sg@dfat.gov.au) <enquiries-sg@dfat.gov.au>; Canada Embassy (spore@international.gc.ca) <spore@international.gc.ca>; German Embassy (info@singapur.diplo.de) <info@singapur.diplo.de>; Italy Embassy (ambasciata.singapore@esteri.it) <ambasciata.singapore@esteri.it>; Japan Embassy (infoculture@sn.mofa.go.jp) <infoculture@sn.mofa.go.jp>; UK Embassy (consular.singapore@fco.gov.uk) <consular.singapore@fco.gov.uk>; US Embassy (singaporeusembassy@state.gov) <singaporeusembassy@state.gov>
Subject: The Terrex conspiracy

Dear PM Lee Hsien Loong,

I refer to the Terrex issue, or the seizure of the 9 Terrex military vehicles by the Hong Kong Customs on November 23, 2016 due to a suspected licensing breach. 

My conspiracy allegations

On June 30, 2017, I uploaded a video “Why should PM Lee Hsien Loong resign over abuse of power?” to YouTube. In this video, I explained why the Terrex issue was a political conspiracy by Singapore’s People’s Action Party (PAP) government against China and saw this issue as a rare and typical grand corruption case. I also requested the PM to step down on the grounds that the PM knowingly and voluntarily joined this conspiracy.    

On July 1, I wrote an email to the UN Human Rights Office for South-east Asia to inform them of my public protest in support of my corruption allegations made in the video. I copied this email to the PM Office, the Attorney-General’s Chambers (AGC) and the media. 

On July 3, I protested as scheduled. Police arrested me but later released me unconditionally so I protested again the next day. Police arrested me and charged me in court on July 5 with unlawful assembly. While I had been certified to be of sound mind by the Institute of Mental Health (IMH) in April 2016, the State Courts ordered me to undergo another mental evaluation. Finally, the IMH diagnosed me as having no mental disorder (See here for all the psychiatric reports).

During the trial and the subsequent appeal hearing, both the two judges and the Prosecution refused to state their positions on my allegations of the Terrex conspiracy and the judicial corruption. They simply insisted that a protest permit was mandatory for a lawful protest, even if licensing officers were corrupt and thus didn’t process permit applications in accordance with the law. I was convicted on August 14 and sentenced to 3 weeks’ jail and a fine of $20,000 (in default 12 weeks’ imprisonment) and my appeal was dismissed on September 26. After serving my sentence in Changi Prison, I was released on October 9.   

Overt act: the evidence of the PAP government’s involvement

My video has been watched for 19K times and so far no one has disproved my conspiracy allegations. To establish a conspiracy case, however, I must show at least one “pre-conspiracy” event that was committed by the PAP government in an effort to accomplish some object of the conspiracy. Such an event is defined as an overt act in law and its sole function is to demonstrate that the conspiracy is operative.

One overt act in the Terrex conspiracy is the Investigation Officer Spencer Tan’s email dated November 21 in response to my request for the return of my passport. According to this email, I was not allowed to leave Singapore until November 24, 2016. Such an arrangement was absolutely necessary for the PAP government to ensure that the Terrex issue took place before, as the government surmised, my return to China and the subsequent breakout of the judicial corruption scandal arising from my protest outside the US Embassy on October 20, 2016.  

In fact, on November 21, I began to suspect that the government had engaged in some underground activity. This activity turned out to be the Terrex issue on November 23. My suspicion was confirmed on January 9, 2017 when the Defence Minister Ng Eng Hen took the legal position that the Terrex military vehicles were protected by sovereign immunity and therefore blamed the Hong Kong authorities for violating international law.

Before I wrote to the Hong Kong authorities on February 7, 2017, I had already obtained 3 independent lines of evidence to support my conspiracy allegations. The first line of evidence was the email instructions from the Investigation Officer Spence Tan about the return of my passport. Officer Tan’s instructions clearly demonstrated that the Terrex conspiracy was in operative and therefore served as conclusive proof of the government’s involvement in the licensing breach on November 23. The second line of evidence was Attorney-General Lucien Wong’s acquiescence to my criticism of the sovereign immunity argument that the government put forward. The third line of evidence was the fact that it was unnecessary for the government to ship all 9 Terrex military vehicles back from Taiwan for the purpose of maintenance and serviceability check, as explained by a national security expert in a YouTube video.

In my blog post “How did I uncover the Terrex conspiracy?” (or see attached letter), I explained in great detail the lengthy process I have gone through to discover this political plot. Quite frankly and with respect, I believe I can correctly figure out the legal officer who came up with the idea of the Terrex conspiracy last November and assessed the strength of my arguments made in the video this July. I didn’t include the first line of evidence in the video because I thought it was more appropriate for me to report it directly to the international community.  

Political abuse of psychiatry and prisoner abuse

My case serves as evidence of political abuse of psychiatric in Singapore. The IMH has every intention of diagnosing me as having a delusional disorder to discredit my allegations against the government within the limits of what is good for its reputation. For that reason, I copy this email to the World Psychiatric Association.

On July 17, Dr. Jaydip Sarkar at the IMH first diagnosed me as having a mental disorder to lawfully tie me to a bed without my consent and to forcibly draw blood from me for a blood test to diagnose my mental illness. After the result came out, Dr. Jaydip Sarkar changed his diagnosis and certified me to be of sound mind on July 18 (See attached letter, Para 30-38). Dr. Tiah Ling at the Changi General Hospital did the forced blood draw.

I was jailed in Changi Prison for about 12 weeks (from Jul 19 to Oct 9) and had a first-hand experience of prison life. The prisoners only have rights to eat, to sleep and to receive medical treatment. A prisoner’s right to eat is his duty as well because it is illegal for a prisoner to go on hunger strike. Superintendent Tan Bin Kiat used excessive force on me in response to my hunger strike against the torture by prison authorities, although he could easily end the hunger strike by giving me a written reply to my complaint. Superintendent Sze, a prison officer who was not legally trained but took some law courses, in a prison mini court found me guilty of going on hunger strike, issued a warning letter against me, and didn’t allow me to appeal.  

My experience with the police, the AGC, the Supreme Court and the State Courts, and the prison shows clearly that the current legal system is not meant to do justice but to protect the interest of the PAP government, and that is why the PAP government is facing a crisis now.

My legal position

The Terrex issue is not a professional negligence case but a political conspiracy by the Singapore government against China. The object of this conspiracy is to embarrass China in retaliation for my protest outside the US Embassy on October 20, 2016 by deliberately violating China’s sovereignty and by exposing to the world Singapore’s military cooperation with Taiwan. The PM abused his power by knowingly and voluntarily joining the Terrex conspiracy.

I stand by all my allegations made in the video and am going to make another protest outside Raffles Place MRT on November 23, 2017 at 12 noon if I am not in police custody. I have no intention of applying for a protest permit because the licensing officers are corrupt. Police had already issued a prohibition order in 2016 to stop me from protesting in any public place (See here, Para 35). Both the court and the police have refused to justify the legality of this prohibition order, which is apparently unconstitutional. 

   

My request

In a ministerial statement on the alleged abuse of power in the Oxley Road dispute, the PM claimed that “As the PM, I have a duty to explain myself to MPs, and to rebut in Parliament the allegations against me and my Government.” So will the PM respond to my allegations of abuse of power? 

If my allegations are true, the PM ought to first issue a ministerial statement about the role played by PAP government in the Terrex conspiracy, an international wrongful act, and then step down. If my allegations are false, the government ought to sue me for defamation to clear its name. In fact, I had already requested twice for a defamation suit against me at the hearing but the judges and the Prosecution simply ignored my requests. Despite the recent allegation that “no man is above the law”, it is evident that I am above the law in Singapore. 

I deal with the Terrex issue fairly and transparently. Actually, I seriously consider protesting on November 23 against the Hong Kong authorities for selling China’s sovereignty in the Terrex conspiracy. In addition, I have every intention of doing so in Hong Kong.

If the judicial corruption scandal had been exposed in early 2016, the Terrex issue wouldn’t have taken place. I think Mr. Low Thia Khiang, the leader of the opposition in Parliament, ought to explain in public why the Workers' Party didn’t act as checks and balances against the ruling PAP and didn’t raise the issue of judicial corruption in Parliament last year.

The Terrex conspiracy has seriously damaged Singapore’s reputation. It is time for the PAP government to demonstrate its integrity to the world. I am looking forward to seeing the ministerial statement on my alleged Terrex conspiracy soon.  

Thank you.

Regards,

Yan Jun

(Singapore NRIC: S7684361I)

How did I uncover the Terrex conspiracy?

For the PDF version of the article, see here.

1.     In my YouTube video “Why should PM Lee Hsien Loong resign over abuse of power?”, I explained why the Terrex issue was a political conspiracy by the People’s Action Party (PAP) government against China in retaliation for my protest outside the US Embassy in Singapore on October 20, 2016.

2.     The following is my account of how I uncovered the Terrex conspiracy.

The surrendering of my passport

3.     On June 16, 2016, I was convicted of unlawful assembly for protesting against judicial corruption at the Istana Park and outside the Parliament House on March 2 and April 13, 2016, respectively. On June 21, I was released from prison on a personal bail (Bond-2016-0621-902558) of $3000 and on the condition that I surrendered my passport to police officer Spencer Tan while waiting for my appeal decision. The appeal was later scheduled for October 21, 2016.

4.     A Singapore citizen including a neutralized citizen has a constitutional right to freedom of speech and peaceful assembly. On September 30, I applied to the State Courts by email to withdraw my bail because I was unable to maintain the security deposit. On October 19, the State Courts rejected my application on the grounds that the appeal hearing couldn’t be brought forward.

5.     On the afternoon of October 20, I held another protest outside the US Embassy in Singapore. Police arrested me and took me to the Tanglin Police Division where officer Spence Tan charged me with unlawful assembly. On the morning of October 21, police ignored my request to charge me in court and released me unconditionally. While police helped me attend the appeal hearing in the Supreme Court on time, they declined to justify the unconditional release.

6.     The judge dismissed my appeal but didn’t give any oral or written judgement. Subsequently I served my sentence in Changi Prison. On the release day of October 28, I was forcibly transported to the Institute of Mental Health (IMH) and was further remanded in custody until November 10 because both the Changi Prison and the IMH diagnosed me with delusional disorder. While this diagnosis effectively reversed the official diagnosis and the medical certificate issued by the IMH in April 2016, the IMH didn’t give me any justification (See here for all the psychiatric reports).

My request for the return of my passport

7.     On November 11, I wrote an email to the Supreme Court to inquiry about whether I could further appeal my case. There was no reply. After having been detained for about 3 weeks, I felt like shopping in Johor Bahru (JB) of Malaysia, as I usually did. On November 15, I emailed Investigation Officer Spence Tan and asked for the return of my passport. While I copied my email to the Attorney General’s Chambers (AGC), there was no reply at all. It was evident to me that the government preferred me to stay in Singapore.

8.     On Friday November 18, I wrote another email to Officer Tan, saying “If I do not get my passport or justifications from the police within this week, I will make a request to the PM office for justifications. As always, my email will be copied to the international community.” I copied my email to the AGC and the State Courts. Immediately I received an auto reply from officer Tan saying he was on overseas leave. This reply showed clearly that officer Tan had already received my email dated November 15.

9.     While wondering whether to write to the PM office or not, I received an email reply from the Supreme Court at around 6pm in response to my inquiry made on November 11 about my further appeal to the Court of Appeal. The reply clearly suggested that I was allowed to go abroad because I may “call from overseas”. I thought that this email was quiet unusual because the Supreme Court replied to me all of a sudden. Since the Supreme Court didn’t give me a straight answer about whether my further appeal was allowed, the Supreme Court shouldn’t take as long as 7 days to answer my inquiry.      

10.  Given the fact that there were a large number of people travelling between Singapore and JB on a daily basis, going to JB for shopping was generally not seen as going abroad. It was clear to me that “call from overseas” suggested “call from China” so I waited to see what was going to happen.  

The first line of evidence

11.  On November 21 at 7:24pm, Officer Tan informed me by email that “you will be able to collect your Passport at Tanglin Division, level 3, from 24^th November 2016 onwards, between 10am till 6pm.”

12.  For 3 reasons, I considered this reply very unusual. First, the police had no authority to retain a citizen’s travel documents under bail conditions if bail lapsed. Secondly, Officer Tan could easily leave my passport at Tanglin Division for my collection after he received my email dated November 11. Thirdly, I believed the person who decided on the collection date was not Officer Tan but his senior or the AGC. Officer Tan interrogated me twice after I protested outside the Istana and the US Embassy. I was quiet sure that he was a frontline police officer and was in no position to make such an unusual decision.   

13.  I was able to predict at that time that something was going to happen between Singapore and China by November 24 and this event must be in favour of Singapore. The police deliberately retained my passport to ensure that this event took place before, as the government surmised, my return to China and the subsequent airing of the judicial corruption scandal in connection with my protest outside the US Embassy.    

14.  Despite at first sight the Terrex issue was against the PAP government due to a suspected licensing breach, it was the only event in line with my prediction. In my email dated December 8, 2016 to PM Lee Hsien Loong, I informed the international community of the judicial corruption scandal in connection with my protest outside the US Embassy but didn’t touch on the Terrex issue. On December 29, I went to the JB for shopping and came back on the same day. 

The confirmation of my suspicion

15.  My suspicion was confirmed on January 9, 2017 when Defence Minister Ng Eng Hen explained the doctrine of sovereign immunity in Parliament and urged the Hong Kong authorities to immediately return the Terrex vehicles in accordance with international and Hong Kong’s law. Dr. Ng claimed that that state owned property automatically enjoyed sovereign immunity that the Singapore government was entitled to have so the nine Terrex vehicles were automatically protected by sovereign immunity. Dr. Ng conveniently treated the suspected licensing breach as a matter between the shipping company and the Hong Kong authorities.

16.  Dr. Ng’s explanation was plainly wrong even at first sight. If it was correct, any government was able to lawfully violate China’s sovereignty by conspiring with a shipping company to unload strategic commodities in breach of licensing requirements. The licensing breach could be easily explained by reason of negligence on the part of the shipping company.

17.  The problem I faced at that time was what went wrong with Dr. Ng’s explanation. For two reasons, I had no intention of identifying the flaws in Dr. Ng’s explanation. First, it was the Hong Kong authorities who were in a position to evaluate the sovereign immunity argument. Secondly, I knew nothing about international law. A couple of days later, I happened to read the article “Sovereign immunity: An explainer” (Today, Jan 9, 2017) by two legal academics, Associate Professor Eugen Tan at Singapore Management University and Professor Tan Cheng Han at National University of Singapore. I was quiet unhappy with their strong opinions on this matter so I decided to do some research into the doctrine of sovereign immunity.

18.  Fortunately, a correct understanding of the doctrine of sovereign immunity didn’t require much knowledge on international law. On January 13, I had already identified the flaw in the government’s legal position by studying relevant judgements and research papers. The sovereign immunity was arguably derived from the legal maxim “the king can do no wrong” so for Dr. Ng to claim sovereign immunity to protect the vehicles from being impounded, the PAP government must have complete control over the vehicles including full authority to unload the vehicles from the shipping carrier at Hong Kong port.  

19.  If the shipping company had complete authority to unload the vehicles without the PAP government’s permission, as Dr. Ng claimed, the vehicles did not enjoy sovereign immunity because a commercial shipping company was in no position to be treated as a king, or a sovereign state. If the PAP government made the decision to unload the vehicles, the vehicles certainly enjoyed sovereign immunity but the PAP government must be punished for deliberately violating China’s sovereignty.

20.  On January 14, I borrowed two books from a public library to look for the legal basis for the detention of the vehicles. It was not difficult to find that the legal basis was Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts 2001 by the International Law Commission (ILC) of the United Nations.

21.  On January 18, it was widely reported online that the spokesperson of Chinese Foreign Ministry was asked whether the Terrex vehicles would be returned to Singapore before the Joint Council for Bilateral Cooperation (JCBC) and the spokesperson answered in the negative (See here and here). I realized that the Hong Kong authorities wouldn’t respond to the sovereign immunity argument so I ought to voice my opinion in the interest of justice.  

22.  Since it was reported in the newspapers that a meeting between Singapore and Chinese government was to be held on January 24, I thought I’d better inform the academics of the fundamental flaw in the reasoning behind their arguments by January 24.  

The second line of evidence

23.  I did so on Friday, January 20 and copied my email to the AGC, Ministry of Defence, Newspaper Today and the main opposition parties. While a weekend was long enough for the two academics and the AGC to respond to my criticism, they made no reply.  

24.  On January 24, the Hong Kong authorities announced the return of the Terrex military vehicles. On January 25, I wrote an email to Attorney General (AG) Lucien Wong to refute the sovereign immunity argument. AG didn’t reply. On January 31, I emailed AG again and made it clear in the email that I would treat his silence as acceptance of my criticism. As I expected, there was no response at all.

The Third line of evidence

25.  I certainly had confidence in my criticism of the government’s legal position, however, I was still a little hesitant about writing to the Hong King authorities because of the relatively limited evidence. Fortunately, I came across a YouTube video in which Lin Yu-fang, a national security expert at the KMT’s think tank in Taiwan, reasoned that it was quiet unnecessary for the Singapore government to transport all 9 vehicles back for maintenance purposes because regular maintenance could be conveniently done in Taipei. While Lin’s analysis of the unusual shipment was correct, he came to a false conclusion because he was unaware that the shipment was part of a conspiracy. I saw Lin’s analysis as my 3^rd independent line of evidence.

26.  After having found 3 independent lines of evidence to support my conspiracy allegations, I confidently came to the conclusion that the Terrex issue was a real political conspiracy.

The confirmation of my conspiracy allegations

27.  On February 2, I wrote to the editor of the Straits Times to explain why the government’s legal position was incorrect. I received an acknowledgement letter. On February 7, I wrote to the former Chief Executive of Hong Kong and copied my email to PM Lee Hsien Loong, the PAP government, the Hong Kong government, local and international newspapers and various international organizations. In this email, I pointed out the flaws in the sovereign immunity argument, challenged the integrity of the PAP government, and asked for the Hong Kong authorities’ attitude towards the Singapore government’s legal position.

28.  The Hong Kong authorities did reply to my email on February 17 and 20 but didn’t state their position on the sovereign immunity argument. In my reply to the Hong Kong Customs, I made it clear that I respected their decision but stood behind my conspiracy allegations.

29.  On March 24, 2017, Hong Kong Customs charged the vessel captain for not having required license and thus reaffirmed its legal position that the detention of the Terrex vehicles was lawful. So far, I haven’t received any response from the PAP government with regard to my criticism of its legal position and its integrity.

My protest on July 3 and the unconditional release

30.  On June 30, I uploaded the video “Why should PM Lee Hsien Loong resign over abuse of power?” to You Tube. On July 1, I wrote to the UN Human Rights Office for South-east Asia to inform them of my planned protest in support of my corruption allegations in the video. This email was copied to the PM office, local and international press.

31.  On July 3, I protested as scheduled and police arrested me. At Central Police Division, I told police to either charged me in the Supreme Court or to release me unconditionally. Police took the second option and released me unconditionally at 9:30pm. On July 4 at 11:40am, I wrote an email to the AGC to ask for the legal basis of the unconditional release the police granted to me. In their reply, the AGC denied their duty to justify police decision but informed me to seek my own legal advice. I read this reply after I got out of jail in October. I later noticed that there was a false report in the Straits Times which stated I was released on bail while protesting on July 4.

The political abuse of psychiatry

32.  On July 4, I protested again and was subsequently arrested. On July 5, Police charged me in the State Courts with unlawful assembly. District Judge Adam Nakhoda ignored the official diagnosis made by the IMH on April 27, 2016 and ordered me to undergo another psychiatric evaluation.  When announcing his decision, District Judge Adam Nakhoda deliberately looked at the other side of the court but not me so definitely the look on his face couldn’t reveal his real feeling about my mental condition. In fact, the State Courts have never issued a judgement to justify my remand in the IMH. 

33.  After admission to the IMH on July 5, I was locked up in a single cell that was designed for patients with severe mental illness. In response to my complaint of solitary confinement, the management at all levels categorically refused to explain why I was treated as a seriously ill patient. I made it clear to the IMH that I wouldn’t cooperate in any way to ensure that psychiatrists were unable to conduct any interview on me. To my surprise, the IMH persistently refused to justify the use of solitary confinement after I went on a hunger strike for 4 days from July 13 to 17.  

34.  On the afternoon of July 17, I insisted on writing a letter to the UNs Human Right Office for South-east Asia to complain about the ill-treatment I received. I gave the letter to social worker Roger Tan at the IMH and reminded him not to pass my letter to Dr. Jaydip Sarkar, the psychiatrist in charge of my case, due to conflict of interest. Roger Tan agreed to scan the letter and emailed it to the UNs, as he did in 2016. Shortly after Roger Tan took my letter, Dr. Jaydip Sarkar secretively made a tentative diagnosis that I was suffering from a delusional disorder and then ordered the hospital staff to tie me to a bed without my consent for a forcible blood draw in the name of medical check-up. Under police escort, I was transported to Changi General Hospital where Dr. Tiah Ling, a physician at the emergency department, forcibly took blood from me in front of two police officers and did a blood test to diagnose my mental illness.

35.  Before Dr. Tiah Ling took blood from me, I reminded her twice that a physician had no authority to make a psychiatric diagnosis. Dr. Tiah steadfastly refused to answer who diagnosed me as having a mental disorder and the legal basis for the forced blood draw. After the test results came out, Dr. Tiah told me the results were very good. She hesitantly said the IMH only made a tentative diagnosis in the referral letter passed to her, and it was her who diagnosed me as having a mental disorder and thus drew blood from me without my consent. Dr. Tiah Ling still turned down my request for a copy of the blood test results and instructed the medical staff to send me back to the IMH.

36.  On the afternoon of July 18, Social worker Roger Tan told me that on July 17 he didn’t send off my letter to the UNs but passed it along to Dr. Jaydip Sarkar. The letter was later passed on to the Quality Service Manager and finally reached the CEO, who made the decision that I should email that letter after I got out of the IMH. To my surprise, on the evening of July 18, the IMH changed its mind and emailed my letter to the UNs after I told Roger Tan that I was going to expose this outrageous misconduct to the international community. On July 19, I was discharged from the IMH but the IMH persistently refused to answer all of my questions including its official diagnosis of my mental condition.

37.  According to the court documents I obtained on July 28, Dr. Jaydip Sarkar on July 18 certified me to be of sound mind and provided a psychiatric report in which he treated my conspiracy allegations as “delusion-like ideas” but not delusions. It should note that Dr. Jaydip Sarkar discredited my allegations and protests by saying at paragraph 31k and 31m of his report that “There is a high risk of recurrence and a possibility that there may be further escalation in future incidents” and “In case he displays frank symptoms of a mental disorder he is adviced to seek help at that time”.

38.  In a confidential report to officer Spencer Tan on February 14, or one week after I wrote to the Hong Kong authorities, Dr. Yeo Hui Li at the IMH stated that “He has poor insight with regard to his condition and was persistently preoccupied about judicial corruption in Singapore. He has also adamantly refused oral anti-psychotic medications prescribed for him. He was discharged on 10/11/16 with a diagnosis of Delusional disorder and given an outpatient follow-up appointment in two weeks. The condition is likely to persist, especially if the patient continues to refuse treatment.”

39.  Given the fact that both the courts and the AGC had adamantly refused to deny my allegations of judicial corruption, the diagnosis of delusional disorder was apparently baseless because the correctness of my corruption allegations was outside the experience and knowledge of a psychiatrist. With regard to the diametrically opposed diagnoses that the IMH had made on my mental condition, Dr Jaydip Sarka simply stated in his report at Para 5 and 13 that the earlier diagnoses (made by Dr. Yeo Hui Li and Dr. Dhanesh Kumar) were factual but not medical-legal.

40.  It is evident that the IMH has every intention of diagnosing me as having a delusional disorder to discredit my allegations against the government within the limits of what is good for its reputation. What the IMH is afraid of is an independent psychiatric assessment, especially blood tests.   

The trial and the appeal

41.  On the return date of July 19, the State Courts accepted Dr. Jaydip Sarkar’s report in a closed-door hearing. I stood trial before District Judge Ng Peng Hong between August 10 to 14. The appeal was heard by Justice Chan Seng Onn at the Supreme Court on September 26. The two judges adopted the same strategy to dispose of this case. They both discouraged and stopped me from presenting oral arguments, ignored Deputy Public Prosecutor Randeep Singh Koonar’s failure to answer my questions, refused to disqualify themselves from the hearing due to their actual bias toward the Prosecution, and rejected my application to quit the hearing and to get back to Changi Prison.

42.  Both the two judges and the Prosecution insisted that a protest permit was mandatory even if the licensing officers were corrupt and thus didn’t deal with permit applications in according with the law. The Prosecution refused to answer my question about how to lawfully stage a protest in a public place against corruption on the part of licensing officers. District Judge Ng Peng Hong told me to challenge his Grounds of Decision at the appeal hearing. Justice Chan Seng Onn didn’t delivery any judgement but simply dismissed my appeal.

43.  It should be highlighted that both the judges and the Prosecution steadfastly refused to give their opinions on the truth or falsity of my allegations of the judicial corruption and the Terrex Conspiracy.

Conclusion

44.  As the Supreme Court observed in [2000] SGHC 60, “So far as proof goes, conspiracy is generally a matter of inference, deduced from certain acts of the accused parties, done in pursuance of an apparent criminal purpose in common between them. Both the surrounding circumstances and the conduct of the parties before and after the alleged commission of the crime will be useful in drawing an inference of conspiracy.”

45.  From a legal point of view, the proof provided in this article and in my YouTube video inevitably and inexorably leads to the conclusion that the Terrex issue is a political conspiracy. Police officer Spence Tan’s email reply dated November 21 serves as conclusive proof of an overt act in furtherance of this political plot, because it shows clearly that that the Terrex conspiracy was operative.

46.  In the strictest sense, the email reply from the Supreme Court dated November 18 is not an overt act because there is no evidence to demonstrate that this email was sent before the PAP government had entered into an agreement with the shipping company APL. In my opinion, the legal officer who came up with the idea of the Terrex conspiracy last November and assessed the strength of my arguments presented in the YouTube video this July was an officer in the Supreme Court but not in the AGC.  

47.  I believe the evidence I presented in this article and in the transcript of my YouTube video has proved beyond reasonable doubt that the Terrex issue is a political conspiracy.

Yan Jun

(Singapore NRIC: S7684361I)

November 7, 2017