Public Prosecutor v Yan Jun [2017] SGMC 50

A PDF version of this judgement is here. 

Public Prosecutor

v

Yan Jun

[2017] SGMC 50

MAC-905633-20 17 & 4 Others

Magistrate's Appeal No MA-9258/20l7/01

10 August 2017 - 11 August 2017 & 14 August 2017

22^nd August 2017

District Judge Ng Peng Hong:

1. This was a joint trial of 5 charges conducted pursuant to s133 Criminal Procedure Code as the charges formed or were a part of a series of offences of the same or a similar character. At the conclusion of the trial, the Accused was convicted and sentenced to 3 weeks' imprisonment and a total fine of $20,000 and in default of payment, to serve an imprisonment term of 12 weeks. The Accused is appealing against the conviction and sentence.

2. The Accused claimed trial to all the 5 charges - 4 for taking part in a public assembly without a permit, an offence punishable under s 16(2)(a) of the Public Order Act (Cap. 257A, 2012 Rev. Ed.) ("POA"), read with s5(1) of the same Act and for a repeat offender the punishment is prescribed by sI6(3)(b) of the same Act. The 5th charge is for behaving in a disorderly manner in a public place contrary to s 20 of the Miscellaneous Offences (Public Order & Nuisance) Act (Cap. 184, 1997 Rev. Ed.) ("MOA").

3. As the 4 charges for taking part in a public assembly without a permit were similar, I will only set out the text of one of the charges, namely MAC 905633/2017, which reads:

"You ... are charged that you, on 3 July 2017, at about 12.01 pm, outside Raffles Place MRT, located at 5 Raffles Place, Singapore, did take part in a public assembly without permit, to wit, by demonstrating opposition to the actions of the Prime Minister of Singapore and the Singapore judiciary, by displaying a placard stating "PM LEE: RESIGN OVER TERREX CONSPIRACY!" on one side and "NO JUDICIAL CORRUPTION IN SUPREME COURT" on the other side, and you have thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 16(2)(a) of the Public Order Act, Chapter 257A, read with Section 5(1) of the same Act and further, that you, before the commission of the said offence, were on 16 June 2016, in State Courts 7, vide MAC-903278-2016, convicted of an offence punishable under s 16(2)(a) of Public Order Act, Chapter 257 A, read with s 5(1) of the same Act, and sentenced to a fine of $2,000 (in default 1 week imprisonment), which conviction and punishment have not been set aside to date, and you are thereby liable for enhanced punishment under Section 16(3)(b) of the Public Order Act, Chapter 257A."

4. The charge for behaving in a disorderly manner in a public place contrary to s 20 MOA reads:

"You ... are charged that you, on 4 July 2017, at about 1. 15pm, outside Raffles Place MRT, located at 5 Raffles Place, Singapore, a public place, did behave in a disorderly manner, to wit, by repeatedly shouting through a loudhailer at the police officers at the scene and you have thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 20 of the Miscellaneous Offences (Public Order & Nuisance) Act, Chapter 184." See MAC906355/2017.

5. The Prosecution called a total of 11 witnesses. On the other hand, the Accused did not give evidence. But at the end of the case, he tendered a written submission in response to the Prosecution's written submissions. See exhibit D1.

6. Having reviewed the evidence and the submissions, I found the accused guilty and convicted him of all the 5 charges. These are the reasons for my decision on conviction and sentence.

ELEMENT OF THE Sl6(2A) POA OFFENCE

7. Section 16(2)(a) of the POA reads: "16. (2) Each person who takes part in 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; […]

shall be guilty of an offence and shall, subject to subsection (3), be liable on conviction to a fine not exceeding $3,000."

8. Under s 5(1)(a) of the POA, no public assembly may be held in a public place unless a permit has been obtained from the Commissioner of Police:

"5.- (1) Subject to the provisions of this Act, a public assembly and a public procession shall not take place unless -(a) the Commissioner is notified under section 6 of the intention to hold the public assembly or public procession, and a permit is granted under section 7 in respect of that public assembly or public procession, as the case may be; "

9. For the 4 charges under s 16(2)(a) of the POA, the Prosecution must prove that the accused was taking part in a public assembly and no permit was granted in respect of that assembly.

10. The term "public assembly" is defined in s 2 POA as follows:

" "public assembly" means an assembly held or to be held in a public place or to which members of the public in general are invited, induced or permitted to attend."

11. The terms "assembly" and "public place" are further defined in s 2 POA as follows:

"assembly" means a gathering or meeting (whether or not comprising any lecture, talk, address, debate or discussion) of persons the purpose (or one of the purposes) of which is-

(a) to demonstrate support for or opposition to the views or actions of any

person, group of persons or any government; […]

and includes a demonstration by a person alone for any such purpose referred to in paragraph (a), (b) or (c);”

“public place” means ---

(a)   any place (open to the air or otherwise) to which members of the public have access as of right or by virtue of express or implied permission, whether or not on payment of a fee, whether or not access to the place may be restricted at particular times or for particular purposes, and whether or not it is an "approved place" within the meaning of the Public Entertainments and Meetings Act (Cap. 257); [ ...]

12. In relation to the meaning of "taking part in an assembly", s 3(2) of the POA clarifies that:

"A reference to a person or persons taking part in an assembly or a procession shall include, as the case may be, a person carrying on a demonstration by himself, or a march by a person alone, for any such purpose referred to in the definitions of an assembly and a procession, respectively, in section 2(1). "

13. Section 17(1) provides a defence:

"17-(1) In any proceedings for an offence under section 16(1)(a) or (2)(a), it shall be a defence for the person charged to prove that he did not know, and neither suspected nor had reason to suspect, that no permit had been granted under section 7 in respect of the assembly or procession or that no such permit is in force, as the case may be. "

14. The Accused did not proffer any evidence to prove that he did not know, and neither suspected nor had reason to suspect, that no permit had been granted under s 7 POA in respect of the assembly he took part in, or that no such permit was in force.

15. On the other hand, the Prosecution has led evidence to prove every element of the charges beyond a reasonable doubt for each of the charges for which the accused had been charged. Their evidence took the form of oral testimonies in court as well as in in the form of Body-Worn-Camera ("BWC") footage and Police-Camera ("Polcam") footage which were screened in court.

3^RD CHARGE (MAC906055/2017): PROTEST OUTSIDE US EMBASSY ON 20 OCTOBER 2016

16. The Prosecution called 4 witnesses in relation to this charge: US Embassy Security Officer Teo Yew Kiat (PW7), Police Superintendent Ang Beng Chong (PW8), Sergeant Jacky Ong (PW9) and Inspector Kheong Yew Ming (PWI0).

17. Based on their testimonies and the Body-Worn-Camera ("BWC") footage and Police-Camera ("Polcam") footage, I made the following findings. I found that the Accused approached the US Embassy to submit a petition and to protest at the Embassy. Despite advice from PW7, the Accused persisted in protesting at the pavement in front of the Embassy. The Accused was holding two placards, bearing the words "PM LEE HSIEN LOONG RESIGN" and "NO JUDICIAL CORRUPTION IN THE SUPREME COURT IN SINGAPROE [sic]". See exhibits P21 and P22.

18. I agreed with the Prosecution that "[t]he clear inference from the content of the placards is that the accused was conducting a demonstration against the actions of Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong, and the Singapore Judiciary. The was corroborated by the BWC footage (P23), which captures:(a) At 1625hrs, the accused claimed that "I am trying to get justice", (b) At 1627hrs, the accused claimed that "there is judicial corruption because the police arrested me wrongfully."

19. In a statement dated 20 Oct 2016 (exhibit P27) recorded by Investigation Officer Insp Spencer Tan (PW11), the Accused admitted to demonstrating opposition to the actions of the Singapore Judiciary and Prime Minister Lee during this incident. When asked to explain the meaning of his two placards, the Accused stated:

'No judicial corruption in the supreme court of Singapore, ' refers to the misjudgement of [2014] SGCA61 Tan Jun vs Attorney General' and subsequent court order to dismiss the entire case and the cost order against me ... This is a typical example of judicial corruption ... (at [A 13]) It means that PM Lee Hsien Loong should resign over the judicial corruption scandal. I have already reported the judicial corruption to the PM several times by email for investigations, but there was no response at all ... for that reason I request the PM Lee Hsien Loong to resign. (at [A 14])

20. I also found that the pavement outside the US Embassy was a place to which members of the public have access as of right.

4^TH CHARGE (MAC906056/2017): PROTEST OUTSIDE THE BRITISH HIGH COMMISSION ON 23 DECEMBER 2016

21. On 23 Dec 2016, the Accused staged another protest outside the British High Commission. The incident was captured on the BWC footage of Insp Kheong (PW 10). I found the Accused was holding two placards in protest: one reads, "PROTEST AGAINST THE JUDICIAL CORRUPTION IN THE SUPREME COURT OF SINGAPORE", and the other, "PM LEE HSIEN LOONG RESIGN".

22. I agreed with the Prosecution's submission that" [g]iven the proximity in time between this protest and the one outside the US Embassy, and the similar words used on the placards, the irresistible inference was that the accused was demonstrating opposition to the actions of Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong and the Singapore Judiciary."

23. I also found that the pavement where the Accused stood was a place to which members of the public have access as of right.

1^ST CHARGE (MAC905633/2017): PROTEST AT RAFFLES PLACE MRT ON 3 JULY 2017

24. This incident was captured by the Polcam (PI2). The video footage showed the Accused was standing outside the Raffles Place MRT exit, on 3 July 2017 from about 1201hrs. This is clearly a place where members of the public have access as of right. The Accused was speaking into a loudhailer (P2) held in his right hand and holding a placard (P3) in his left hand. One side of the placard showed the words "PM LEE: RESIGN OVER TERREX CONSPIRACY", and the reverse side "NO JUDICIAL CORRUPTION IN SUPREME COURT". From the contents of the placard, I found that the Accused was conducting a demonstration against the actions of Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong, and the Singapore Judiciary. This was corroborated by the Accused's statement (P10) recorded by ASP Sim Yi Cheng (PW5) on 3 July 2017, in which the Accused refused to answer ASP Sim' s questions but referred to his YouTube video entitled "Why should PM Lee Hsien Loong resign over abuse of power" as "his statement". In this YouTube video (P14) (the accused's self-written transcript of the video is at P15), the Accused expressed various grievances against the actions of the Prime Minister in relation to the Terrex vehicles belonging to Singapore which were seized by the Hong Kong authorities and the actions of the Singapore Judiciary. I accepted the submission of the prosecution that "[t]he natural inference from his referring to the said video as "his statement" is that the 3 July 2017 protest was held to demonstrate his opposition to the actions of Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong and the Singapore Judiciary." In addition, in P11, the Accused's email to the Police on 3 July 2017, stated that he "will stage a protest at the central square outside Raffles Place MRT station at 12 noon on July 3, 2017 to back my Youtube video "Why should PM Lee Hsien Loong resign over abuse of power".

25. In these circumstances, I found the Accused did take part in in a public assembly outside the Raffles Place MRT exit on 3 July 2017, within the meaning of s 2 POA, for the purposes of s 16(2)(a) POA. Further, it is common knowledge that the place outside Raffles Place MRT is a place to which members of the public have access as of right.

2^ND CHARGE(M.AC905634/2017): PROTEST AT RAFFLES PLACE ON 4 JULY 2017

26. On 4th July 2017, outside the Raffles Place MRT exit, the Accused was again captured by the Po1cam footage (P13) using a loudhailer (P5), and a placard (P6) similar to P2 and P3 which were seized from him upon his arrest on 3rd July 2017. The Po1cam footage for that day (P13) showed the Accused was speaking into a loudhailer (P5) held in his right hand and holding up the placard (P6) from about 12.56pm on 4 July 2017. The Accused continued doing so even after the arrival of the police officers at the scene. His actions were also captured by ASP Joey Tham (PW2) and SSI Phua Buak Khian's (PW3) in their respective BWCs. The Accused's actions were similar to the incident that took place on 3^rd July 2017 for which he had been arrested and charged.

27. Given the similarities with the 3rd July 2017 protest, I was of the view that the Accused's action on 4th July 2017 was also meant to demonstrate opposition to the actions of Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong and the Singapore Judiciary. Moreover, on this occasion, the Accused also shouted things like "PM Lee Hsien Loong is deeply corrupt" and "what's wrong with protesting against corruption in public" as he was escorted away by the arresting officers.

28. In these circumstances, I held that the Accused did take part in a public assembly outside the Raffles Place MRT exit on4 July 2017, within the meaning of s 2 POA, for the purposes of s 16(2)(a) POA.

NO PERMIT WAS OBTAINED FOR EACH OF'TIIE FOURPUBUC ASSEMBLIES

29. ASP Vincent Ang (PW4) testified that no permit was granted under s 7 of the POA in respect of the four protests mentioned above. In fact, the Accused did not even apply for such a permit. PW4's evidence was not challenged by the Accused.

30. I will now proceed to consider the 5^th charge against the Accused.

ELEMENTS OF THE S20 MOA OFFENCE

31. There is no statutory definition of "disorderly behaviour". But the court in PP v Iberahim [2003] SGDC 182 at [22] approved the following definition of "disorderly" in relation to offences under s 20 MOA:

"In Black's Law Dictionary the word "disorderly" means "contrary to rules of good order and behaviour; violative of the public peace or good order; turbulent, riotous or indecent" and "disorderly conduct" is defined as " ... generally any behaviour that is contrary to law, and more particularly such as tend to disturb the public peace or decorum, scandalise the community, or shock the public sense of morality. An offense against public morals, peace or safety ... (see page 469 of Black's Law Dictionary, 6th Edition). "

32. The Accused's belligerent conduct towards the police officers on 4th July 2017 was captured on the Po1cam (P 15) and from ASP Tham's and SSI Phua's respective BWCs (P4 and P7). The video footage was shown in court. I agreed with the Prosecution that the footage showed that:

"(a)The accused began yelling at the police officers using his loudhailer from a distance upon noticing their arrival at the scene.

(b)The accused repeatedly demanded that the police officers explain to the onlookers why he had been released after his arrest on 3 July 2017, despite ASP Tham explaining that she was not going to discuss the events of 3 July 2017 and wished to only discuss the present day (4 July 2017). {See P4 at time stamp l3:14:36.} He shouted, "tell the general public, why did you release me". {See P4 at time stamp 13: 15 :36.} {Annotation added}

(c)The accused continued yelling at the police officers through the 10udhailer when they had engaged him and were standing right in front of him.

(d) Throughout the time the accused was yelling over the loudhailer, he was challenging police authority in full view of the large crowd that had gathered. He shouted at them, "you do not represent justice, I represent justice", {see P4 at time stamp 13:14:27} "the general public is looking at you", {see P4 at time stamp 1313: 15: 13} "you are using force on me", {see P4 at time stamp 13:15:45} and that their arrest on 4 July 2017 contravened "equal protection under the law". {See P4 at time stamp 13: 14:51} {Annotations added}

(e)The accused was uncooperative while he was being arrested and initially refused to release the loudhailer and the placard he was holding. This led to the placard becoming damaged.

(f)The accused continued shouting and raising his voice at the police officers while being led to the police car, in full view of the large crowd that had gathered in the area."

33. Bearing in mind the definition of "disorderly" and "disorderly conduct" in Black's Law Dictionary and having viewed the video footage, I was of the view that the Accused's conduct and behaviour constituted disorderly behaviour in that he shouted at the police officers and disturbed the public peace and caused annoyance.

THE DEFENCE

34. Not only that the Accused did not choose to cross-examine the Prosecution's witnesses in most cases, he also did not give any evidence in his defence. He merely made statements from the dock claiming that it was an unfair trial and insisting on his right to remain silence. In those instances when he questioned the witness, the questions were irrelevant. He also tendered a written submission at the end of the whole case. See exhibit D 1. In it were irrelevant issues and with respect, has no merit at all.

GUILTY AND CONVICTED

35. At the end of the case, having reviewed the evidence and the submissions, I was satisfied that the Prosecution has proven all the 5 charges beyond a reasonable doubt. Accordingly, the Accused was found guilty and convicted.

ANTECEDENTS

36. The Accused was traced for similar offences. In 16 June 2016, the Accused was convicted of two offences, namely, for taking part in a public assembly which he knew was prohibited by an order (s15(2) POA) and for taking part in a public assembly without a permit (s16(2) of the POA). See PP v Yan Jun [2016] SGMC 24.

He was fined $3,000 (i/d two weeks' imprisonment) and $2,000 (i/d one week imprisonment) respectively.

MTI1GATION

37. In mitigation, the accused tendered a written submission. With respect, I found it was totally lacking in mitigating factors.

ADDRESS ON SENTENCE

38. The Prosecution tendered a written submission on sentence. In short, the Prosecution submitted for the maximum fine of $5,000 for each of the four POA Charges and a custodial sentence of at least 3 weeks' imprisonment for the MOA Charge.

SENIENCING CONSIDERATIONS

39. I agreed with the Prosecution that specific deterrence should be the predominant sentencing consideration in this case given the blatant disregard for the law by the Accused and the unrelenting offending behaviour of the accused person.

PRESCRIBED PUNISHMENTS

40. In respect of the offence under s16(2)(a) POA, the punishment prescribed for a repeat offender is fine up to a maximum of $5000. The penalty prescribed for disorderly behaviour under s20 MOA is fine up to $2000 or imprisonment not exceeding 6 months or both.

AGGRAVATING FACTORS

41. The Accused is traced for similar offences which he committed in 2016. He was convicted of two offences under the POA - the first was under s 15(2) of the POA for taking part in a public assembly which he knew was prohibited by an order under the POA; and the second was under s J6(2)(a) of the POA for taking part in a public assembly without a permit. He was fined $3,000 (i/d two weeks' imprisonment) for the first charge and $2,000 (i/d one week imprisonment) for the second charge.

42. The Prosecution highlighted that the Accused had re-offended while he was on court bail. This was in respect of taking part in a public assembly without permit outside the US Embassy on 20 Qct 2016. See MAC 906055/2017. Within 2 months after the Accused was released from his last sentence in Oct 2016, he held a further protest outside the British High Commission on 23 December 2016. This resulted in another charge against him. See MAC 90605612017. This was followed by 2 other offences committed in 2017. It demonstrated that the punishments he received for his previous offences had no effect on him. His unrelenting offending conduct needed to be deterred specifically.

43. I also noted that for the present offences, the Accused had committed a spate of offences within a short period of time. It was not only indicative of his blatant disregard for the law but also an escalation of the offending behaviour. It was clear that he needed a permit to take part in a public assembly as he had been convicted for a similar offence before. He even had the audacity to send an email to the Police on 3rd July 2017 stating that he would be staging a protest on the same day and that he had no intention of applying for a permit. See exhibit P11. The Accused was also very calculative in determining where to stage his protests. He not only did it outside the Raffles Place MRT exit but also outside the foreign embassies. His conduct was clearly calculated to inflict the maximum damage to the Prime Minister and the Singapore judiciary. His conduct in each occasion was also becoming more extreme and aggressive. For the incidents on 20th October and 23rd December 2016, the Accused had merely held up placards and engaged in a measured protest outside the embassies. On the other hand, for the 3rd and 4th July 2017 incidents, the Accused took to shouting over a loudhailer, in an obvious bid to attract the attention of the Raffles Place lunch-time crowd. Most egregiously, on 4th July 2017, the Accused used the loudhailer to yell at the uniformed police officers in a bid to challenge and undermine their lawful authority in front of the on-lookers.

44. Next, the Accused did not express any remorse. His behaviour in court was also contemptuous by alleging that the trial was unfair and that he was asked to attend court against his will. He even made demand to summon the Attorney General and the Solicitor General to attend court for no valid reason.

45. I was mindful that the latest IMH report dated 18^th July 2017 found that while the Accused displayed querulous behaviour, he was not mentally ill currently or at the time of the offences, and was fit to plead. The report also highlighted that "[t]here is a high risk of recurrence and a possibility that there may be further escalation in future incidents with uncontained anger, with a need for vengeance and vindication of his stand."

THE SENTENCE

46. The Accused was clearly a recalcitrant offender and had displayed a blatant disregard for the law with unrelenting offending behaviour. These coupled with the aggravating factors and lack of mitigating circumstances, warranted the maximum penalty to be imposed. Accordingly, I sentenced the Accused to the maximum fine of $5000 for each of the 4 POA charges, amounting to a total fine of $20,000. In default of payment, the Accused was to serve a total default imprisonment term of 12 weeks which was discounted for the fact that the Accused has been in remand for a period of time from 5th July 2017. If he had not been in remand, I would have ordered a default sentence of 5 weeks' imprisonment for each of the $5000 fine. The default sentence is well below the maximum imprisonment term of 6 months prescribed for default of payment of fine. See s319 (l)(d) CPC.

47. As for the MOA charge, I agreed with the Prosecution that a fine would be inappropriate in view of the aggravating factors. Firstly, viewed from the entire history of the Accused's offending conduct, it was clear to me that there was a marked escalation of his offending behaviour. Despite the fact that he was not brought to court for the incident that happened on 3rd July 2017, he proceeded to return to the same place the next day to stage a protest again but with more belligerent behaviour and clearly calculated to provoke the law enforcement agencies to take action against him. Based on P4, the BWC footage, it clearly showed that the Accused had openly and brazenly challenged and using the loudhailer to yell at the police officers in the view of the general public. It is in the public interest to ensure that the lawful authority of the police officers be not undermined. A fine in such a case would not be adequate. Next, I considered the duration of the said incident. Based on the time-stamp in P4, it lasted about 5 minutes. I noted that the Accused resisted arrest and continued to behave in a disorderly manner even after his arrest. The whole incident also attracted a large crowd to witness the commotion. The incident area was also a public place that experienced high volume human traffic at the material time. In my view, if the incident was not well managed it could escalate into a riot or other form of public disorder and thereby endanger public safety. Such conduct cannot be condoned and must be deterred. For all these reasons, the aggravating factors highlighted above and the lack of mitigating factors, I sentenced the accused to an imprisonment term of 3 weeks for the MOA charge.

CONCLUSION

48. For the sentence in respect of the offence under s20 MOA, it was backdated to 5th July 2017, the date from which he was in remand. He was in remand for about I month and 10 days before he was convicted and sentenced. For the offence under sl6 (2)(a) POA, the Accused was sentenced to a total fine of $20,000 and in default of payment, to serve a total jail term of 12 weeks.

49. Although the Prosecution highlighted that the court has a discretion not to backdate the sentence, I was of the view that not to backdate the sentence would result in a crushing sentence on the Accused. Moreover, the offence under s20 MOA, in my view, constituted one transaction with the charge in MAC 905634/2017. At the end of the day, given that the sentence of 3 weeks was backdated to 5th July 2017, the Accused needed only to pay $20,000 and in default of payment, to undergo 12 weeks' of imprisonment. In my view, having taken into account the public interest, the sentence was proportionate to the Accused's culpability and the harm caused.

Ng Peng Hong

District Judge

DPP RAN DEEP SINGH, DPP VICTORIA TING, DPP SHAMINI JOSEPH

(10 AUGUST 2017 - 11 AUGUST 2017 & 14 AUGUST 2017),

Attorney-General's Chambers, for the Public Prosecutor

Accused in person

Why should PM Lee Hsien Loong resign over abuse of power?

This transcript was originally posted on Friday, 30 June 2017 at http://2helixsg.blogspot.sg/ 

______________

This is the transcript of the YouTube video “Why should PM Lee Hsien Loong resign over abuse of power”. The YouTube video  is at https://youtu.be/aHrMjo1MlOg

1.     Hello, my name is Yan Jun.  I am probably the first person in Singapore who has proved that the present Singapore government is totally corrupt. In this video, I will tell you why Mr. Lee Hsien Loong, the current Prime Minister of Singapore, should resign over abuse of power. My abuse of power allegation is based on two facts. The first fact is the Singapore government’s obstruction of justice, or its insistence on covering up the judicial corruption scandal in Supreme Court to hide the massive human rights violations in Singapore. These violations resulted from a misinterpretation of the Constitution by the later Lee Kuan Yew in 1984. The second fact is the Terrex detention conspiracy, or the Singapore government’s plot to violate China’s sovereignty in an attempt to rescue its unsavory reputation. PM Lee Hsien Loong knowingly and voluntarily joined this conspiracy by writing to the Hong Kong authorities.

2.     I bear no malice towards the ruling People’s Action Party (PAP), but as a victim of judicial and government corruption, I think I am the right person to call for the resignation of the PM Lee Hsien Loong to restore public confidence in the PAP government. Recently, PM Lee Hsien Loong was accused of abuse of power by his siblings and he vowed to refute this allegation in the Parliament to protect the integrity of the PAP government. I would request that PM Lee Hsien Loong adhere strictly to the principle of equality before the law and openly deal with my abuse of power allegation by way of parliamentary explanation or through legal action against me.

3.     In January 2016, I uploaded video “Judicial corruption in Singapore" to YouTube.  In March and April, I took to the streets to protest judicial corruption in Supreme Court after I had exhausted all other means to get justice. Police arrested me, formally charged me in court with unlawful assembly, and sent me to the Institute of Mental Health for a psychiatric evaluation. The doctor did not diagnose me with any mental illness so I was found competent to stand trial.  Throughout the hearings, the judge refused to determine the truth or falsity of my corruption allegation. On June 16, I was convicted of unlawful assembly and was sentenced to 3 weeks in prison. Because the local newspapers did not report the trial, the verdict and the official diagnosis of my mental condition, the PAP government effectively halted the spread of the judicial corruption scandal by treating me as a psychiatric patient. As explained in my previous YouTube video, Supreme Court has bias towards the PAP government to cover up the fact that the people in Singapore have been denied of their fundamental right against arbitrary arrest by the police for over 3 decades, because of the late Lee Kuan Yew’s misinterpretation of the Constitution in 1984.

 

4.     In this video, I will discuss three issues concerning Singapore’s political system. The first is about Samuel Huntington’s gloomy prediction about Singapore’s future after Lee Kuan Yew. The second is about the grand corruption in Singapore and how the PAP government has managed to engage in corruption and at the same time maintain its reputation of being corruption free. Finally, I will analyze the Terrex detention issue and explain why it is a political conspiracy against China.

Part I

5.     Now I discuss the first issue, or Samuel Huntington’s gloomy prediction. Samuel Huntington, the late political scientist at Harvard University, explained in his book “Culture Matters” in 2000 that Singapore’s uncorrupt political system was artificially achieved through political action. Although Huntington didn’t explain in detail how political action helped Singapore earn its reputation of being corruption free, he did raise the question “how uncorrupt Singapore will remain after Lee Kwan Yew is no longer there”. In fact, Huntington had famously predicted in 1995 that “The honesty and efficiency that Senior Minister Lee has brought to Singapore are likely to follow him to his grave”.

6.     In an interview with the Straits Times in 2003, the late Lee Kuan Yew dismissed Huntington’s prediction as a “non-sequitur” and explained that “My colleagues and I have institutionalized honesty, integrity and meritocracy into the systems we have created.”  However, the late Minister Mentor’s explanation hasn’t stood the test of time because the Singapore political system turns out to be founded on institutionalized corruption rather than institutionalized morality, as shown in the PAP government’s apparent disregard of the Rule of Law to cover up the judicial corruption scandal. Here is the evidence.

7.     After I was sentenced to prison in June, I filed an appeal and the appeal was set for hearing on October 21, 2016. On the afternoon of October 20, I staged my 3^rd protest in a public area outside the US Embassy in Singapore in the hope that my corruption allegation would be reported by news media after I was formally charged in court. As I expected, police arrested me on the spot and charged me with unlawful assembly at the police station. Police then decided to free me on bail but I firmly insisted that I should be formally charged in court. On the following morning, to my surprise, police released me unconditionally and drove me from the police station to Supreme Court to ensure that I attended the appeal hearing on time. It was self-evident that the unconditional release was inconsistent with the police responses to my first two protests so this decision fatally compromised the principle of equality before the law. However, the police provided no justification. 

8.     At the appeal hearing, I informed the presiding judge Chan Seng Onn of my protest outside the US Embassy and the police decision to release me unconditionally. Justice Chan ruled that these facts were irrelevant to the hearing and finally dismissed my appeal, without addressing my legal augments. Even worse was the fact that Supreme Court declined to release the written judgment in this case so the general public was unable to question the correctness of Justice Chan’s decision. 

9.     Attorney-General VK Rajah, a former Judge of Appeal of Supreme Court, was supposed to be responsible for the police controversial decision to release me unconditionally. On November 25, he was suddenly announced to step down in January 2017 upon reaching the retirement age of 60 when he was still in the middle of a 3-year term. The succeeding Attorney-General Lucien Wong was already 63 years of age. It is evident that Mr. Rajah will not face impeachment and trial even if the police controversial decision was an abuse of police power.

10.  On December 8, I wrote to PM Lee Hsien Loong by email, informed him of my protest outside the US embassy and the police controversial decision, and seriously suggested that he resign. I copied this email to the international community. On December 23, I staged my 4th protest in a public area outside the British High Commission in Singapore. Police arrested me on the spot, freed me on bail at the police station on the same day and finally released me unconditionally two weeks later because public prosecutors gave no instructions to the police to proceed with this case. Both the judicial corruption scandal in Supreme Court and the police responses to my protests outside the embassies provided definitive evidence of government corruption.

11.  It is clear that Huntington’s prediction has come true because the PAP government doesn’t remain committed to the Rule of Law. In other words, Singapore’s clean and incorrupt system turns out to be a sham.

Part II

12.  After showing the corruption in Singapore’s political system, now I discuss the 2^nd issue, or how has the PAP government managed to engage in corruption and at the same time maintain its reputation of being corruption free. To answer this question, first of all, I must remind you that watchdogs such as Transparency International usually do not comment on a corruption scandal unless the scandal is reported in the press. Secondly, I must distinguish between petty corruption and grand corruption because Singapore is more appropriately described as petty corruption-free.

13.  Petty corruption refers to everyday abuse of entrusted power by low- and mid-level public officials, and grand corruption refers to the abuse of entrusted power by high-level officials. Grand corruption is sometimes used interchangeably with political corruption. With respect to petty corruption, Singapore certainly lives up to its reputation of being corruption free because of the famous Corrupt Practices Investigation Bureau (CPIB). While CPIB is an independent body headed by a director who reports directly to the Prime Minister, it is self-evident that in actual practice the CPIB is not in a position to investigate grand corruption cases directly involving the Prime Minister.

14.  In August 2016, Transparency International developed a legal definition of grand corruption as “A public official or other person deprives a particular social group or substantial part of the population of a State, of a fundamental right, as a result of bribery, embezzlement or other corruption offence”. Based on this definition, the PAP government has fully engaged in grand corruption because it has deprived Singapore citizens of their fundamental civil rights such as the right against arbitrary arrest by the police, and the right to freedom of speech and expression. With respect to grand corruption, it is clear that Singapore doesn’t deserve its reputation.

15.  But why do people take it for granted that Singapore is grand corruption-free? The answer is: it is hard to engage in grand corruption and it is even harder to prove grand corruption. In grand corruption, corruption has entirely taken over the political system and becomes the rule rather than the exception. For top-level leaders to behave with impunity, a government must have complete control of the judiciary because the law is used to assess and guard against corruption. From within a government where corruption has been institutionalized, it is almost impossible to show the government’s improper influence on the court from the other branches of government. It is precisely this difficulty to demonstrate the PAP government’s control over the court system that explains why it is hard to prove grand corruption in Singapore.

16.  The last time that the PAP government was caught for disregarding the Rule of Law was in the 1987 Jeyaretnam’s case. In that case, the Privy Council in London reversed the wrongful conviction by Singapore courts and called Jeyaretnam had suffered a serious miscarriage of justice. However, the PAP government refused to accept the Privy Council’s decision and later abolished the Privy Council as Singapore’s highest court in 1994. In the same year, the PAP government fully offset negative effects produced by Jeyaretnam’s case on its legal reputation. In the 1994 Michael Fay case, the PAP government strictly adhered to the principle of equality before the law and declined the then US president Bill Clinton’s personal appeal to grant Fay clemency from caning. Since then, the PAP government has established and maintained an international reputation for fairness and impartiality until the judicial corruption scandal in Supreme Court was uncovered in my case in 2015. 

17.  It should note that the full control of the judiciary is not enough for the PAP government to maintain its squeaky-clean reputation. In order to avoid public scrutiny, the PAP government must have complete control of the media and legislation. The PAP government’s tight control of the media has officially denied Singapore citizens their right to information and even the general election cannot serve as a check on governmental power. In other words, the ruling PAP has given itself free rein to behave as it wishes. In response to the criticism that Singapore’s remarkable economic success has been achieved at the expense of fundamental civil liberty, an ex-Parliament Member famously argued that freedom in Singapore “is being able to walk on the streets unmolested in the wee hours in the morning, to be able to leave one’s door open and not fear that one would be burgled. Freedom is the woman who can ride buses and trains alone”. No matter how strong this argument may sound, it is fundamentally flawed because it is based on a false assumption that the people in Singapore have a basic right against arbitrary arrest by the police. As I explained earlier in this video, the truth is the opposite because the PAP government has denied its citizens this fundamental right as a result of the late Lee Kuan Yew’s mistake in 1984.

18.  Transparency International has treated grand corruption as an international crime on the ground that fighting grand corruption must be the responsibility of the international community. I would add another reason here that corrupt leaders are willing to do anything necessary to protect their reputations, including organizing international conspiracies to violate the sovereignty of other countries. 

Part III

19.  Now I discuss the 3rd issue, the Terrex issue. The Terrex issue refers to the seizure of Singapore’s nine Terrex army vehicles by Hong Kong customs on November 23, 2016 due to a suspected licensing breach. These vehicles were used for military training in Taiwan and were transported back to Singapore via Hong Kong for serviceability checks and maintenance. After completing its investigations of the breach, Hong Kong customs released the vehicles on January 24, 2017 and two months later, brought a charge against the captain of the container ship for not having required license.

20.  Although the detention of the vehicles has been seen as an issue raised by China in retaliation for Singapore's stance on the South China Sea dispute, the truth is that the detention is just one part of a carefully laid trap set by the PAP government to embarrass China by exposing to the world Singapore's military cooperation with Taiwan. The other part of this trap is the PAP government’s escalating demands to the Hong Kong authorities for the legal basis for the detention. In retrospect, the PAP government had set this trap by exploiting a legal loophole which was expected to leave Hong Kong customs powerless to detain the vehicles. However, this legal loophole turned out to be a common misunderstanding of the law of sovereign immunity in Hong Kong so the conspiracy failed in the end.

21.  Although the licensing breach has been widely considered very unusual, the PAP government has made little effort to identify the cause of the breach. On January 9, Singapore’s Defence Minister Dr Ng Eng Hen explained the sovereign immunity doctrine to Parliament that under international law, state-owned property automatically enjoyed sovereign immunity every country was entitled to. Since the nine military vehicles were the property of the Singapore government, Dr Ng reasoned that the vehicles enjoyed and were protected by sovereign immunity the Singapore government was entitled to so the detention of the vehicles was against international law. With regard to the suspected licensing beach, Dr Ng stated the shipping company was solely responsible for the breach and this commercial shipping issue should be settled between the shipping company and the Hong Kong authorities only. PM Lee Hsien Loong reiterated the doctrine of sovereign immunity in his letter to the Hong Kong’s Chief Executive and asked for an immediate return of the vehicles. After completing its investigations of the suspected breach, the Hong Kong customs concluded that the Singapore government was not responsible for the Terrex issue and released the vehicles on January 24, 2017.

22.  On January 20, or 4 days before the vehicles were released, I informed two legal academics by email that the sovereign immunity doctrine was not applicable to the Terrex issue, because the state-owned property did not automatically enjoy sovereign immunity unless it was under state control. If the shipping company was responsible for the suspected breach, the vehicles were out of the control of the PAP government so the vehicles did not enjoy sovereign immunity and the detention was lawful. If the PAP government was responsible for the suspected breach, the vehicles certainly enjoyed sovereign immunity but the PAP government would have violated China’s sovereignty. In this situation, Hong Kong customs could legally detain the vehicles under international law, or Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts 2001 by the International Law Commission of the United Nations. In other words, the detention of the vehicles was perfectly lawful no matter who was responsible for the suspected breach.

23.  I copied my January 20 email to the Attorney-General’s Chambers, the Ministry of Defence and the media, but there was no reply. Because the Attorney-General had a duty to defend the government’s legal position, on January 25 and 31, I requested A.G. Lucien Wong twice to respond to my criticism of the government’s legal position. Although I stated in my email “silence on the part of the A.G. can be reasonably treated as acceptance of my criticism”, there was still no response.

24.  On February 7, I wrote to Hong Kong's Chief Executive CY Leung, and copied my email to PM Lee Hsien Loong and the international press. In this email, I disproved the sovereign immunity argument, suggested that the Terrex issue was a conspiracy by Singapore government against China, and asked whether the Hong Kong authorities accepted Singapore government’s legal arguments. The Chief Executive’s Office later forwarded my email to the Customs and Excise Department. On February 20, Mr. Roy Tang, the Commissioner of Hong Kong Customs and Excise, replied by email, saying, “We will not comment on the handling of a specific case, particularly if the investigation might lead to criminal prosecution.” However, on March 24, Hong Kong Customs charged the vessel captain for not having required license and thus reaffirmed its legal position that the detention of the vehicles was lawful.

Part IV

25.  After telling the Terrex issue, now I explain why it is a conspiracy by Singapore government against China. Wikipedia has identified four characteristics features every conspiracy is supposed to have. I use these features as criteria to prove my conspiracy story. The 1st criterion is conspirators. Conspirators must act as a group but not isolated individuals. The 2nd criterion is the purpose of the conspiracy. The purpose must be illegal or sinister and would not benefit society as a whole. The 3rd criterion is the principal events of a conspiracy. These events must be orchestrated acts but not a series of spontaneous and haphazard ones. The 4th criterion is the secret of the conspiracy. A conspiracy must be secret planning and is not open up for public discussion.

26.  My conspiracy story meets all four criteria. Regarding the 1st criterion, the PAP government always acts as a group but not individuals. Regarding the 4th criterion, the PAP government has never publicly discussed the strength of its legal position. Regarding the 2nd criterion, or the purpose of the conspiracy, it is indisputable that the PAP government had already faced a serious credibility crisis after its inconsistent response to my protest outside the US embassy was exposed to the international community. As a result, the PAP government badly needed an opportunity to rescue its reputation so its top leaders could stay in power.

27.  Regarding the 3rd criterion, or the connections between principal events of a conspiracy, it should note that the principal events leading to the Terrex issue took place in a controlled manner, as shown in the fundamental flaws in the PAP government’s explanation of the incident. First, it was unnecessary to ship all nine military vehicles back to Singapore for serviceability purposes. Shortly after the incident, Lin Yu-fang, a national security expert at the KMT’s think tank in Taiwan, reasoned that the vehicles were new so didn’t require regular maintenance and even if there was such a need, routine maintenance could be easily done in Taiwan. Lin was concerned that Singapore was about to either close its military cooperation with Taiwan or reduce the level of cooperation. Here is the videoclip.

(Transcript of the video clip) The military officers who were invited for the interview said the Terrex vehicles mostly stayed in the military camps. While Taiwan's military authorities didn’t comment much on the seizure of the vehicles by HK customs, their response has still attracted attention from the outside to the current Singapore-Taiwan military cooperation. Lin Yu-fang, a national security expert at the Kuomintang’s think-tank in Taiwan, thinks the Terrex detention issue is very unusual. First, these Terrex vehicles are new so they are not supposed to be replaced. Secondly, even if the vehicles broke down, broken vehicles can be repaired in Taipei. Although it is unlikely that the 9 vehicles broke down at the same time, they are now all transported back to Singapore. Lin Yu-fang suspects that Singapore is about to end the related cooperation or at least reduce the level of cooperation. He doubts whether the military cooperation between Taiwan and Singapore will suddenly change.

28.  Second, the PAP government’s explanation of the licensing breach does not make sense. As the owner of the vehicles, Singapore Ministry of Defence was in a position to decide independently whether the vehicles should be unloaded or not at the port before the container ship arrived in Hong Kong. The shipping company was expected to follow its customer’s instructions rather than made an independent decision. A professional shipping company should have known that unloading military equipment in a country without complying with the requirements of law is a violation of the sovereignty of this country. Accordingly, the licensing breach can only be explained by reason of malice but not incompetence, negligence or gross negligence on the part of either the shipping company, or the PAP government, or both. For the same reason, if a judge orders a one-sided cross-examination at a hearing, the only explanation is malice on the part of the judge. To shift its responsibility to the shipping company, the PAP government was supposed to provide evidence such as official communication from the Ministry of Defence to the shipping company and the relevant contract clauses. However, the PAP government didn’t show any evidence but blamed the shipping company APL for the licensing breach. These two lines of evidence, or the unnecessary shipping of the vehicles and the simplistic explanation of the incident, strongly suggest that the Terrex incident occurred because of the PAP government’s careful planning.

29.  Third, the PAP government showed little response to my criticism of its legal position, to my conspiracy story and to the Hong Kong custom’s legal action against the vessel captain. These actions have put Singapore’s reputation for squeaky-clean government at stake so the PAP government is expected to clear its name by taking a defamation suit against me, as it repeatedly did to the international newspapers. However, the PAP government has so far remained silent. In sharp contrast to the prevailing view that the detention was “a serious and flagrant infringement of Singapore’s national sovereignty and interests”, PM Lee Hsien Loong made a complete U-turn in the BBC HARDTalk interview on the severity of the Terrex issue and downgraded the detention issue to an incident but not a major problem with China, without even mentioning the doctrine of sovereign immunity.

30.  Fourth, after the incident, the PAP government abruptly changed its official position on Singapore-Taiwan military relations. Throughout the incident, the PAP government had technically shone a bright spotlight on Singapore’s annual military exercises in Taiwan because the detained vehicles had license plates issued by Taiwan’s Ministry of National Defence. In line with this position, the PAP government flatly refused to halt its military training in Taiwan. While it is expected to keep the spotlight on Singapore-Taiwan military cooperation’s such as Exercise Starlight, the PAP government has not address this issue again since the vehicles were returned. These two lines of evidence, or the PAP government’s sudden change in its legal position on the Terrex issue and its official position on Singapore-Taiwan military relations, can only be explained by reason of the failure of the Terrex conspiracy.

31.  The course of the Terrex conspiracy is described as follows: First, the PAP government started the conspiracy by deploying its military equipment from Taiwan to provoke an incident. Second, the PAP government treated the incident as a matter of law in order to exploit the legal loophole regarding sovereign immunity and at the same time, played up the incident through news media. Third, PM Lee Hsien Loong added considerable weight to the incident by claiming sovereign rights over the vehicles in his letter to Hong Kong’s leader. However, the doctrine of sovereign immunity was found inapplicable to the incident so this political conspiracy was suddenly brought to an end. Fourthly, the PAP government compromised with China and settled this “matter of law” through diplomatic channels but not legal proceedings. Lastly, PM Lee Hsien Loong downplayed the Terrex issue in the BBC HardTalk interview to minimize the negative consequences resulting from the failure of this conspiracy after I passed the conspiracy story to the international press. It is clear that the Terrex conspiracy is a case of grand because the head of government abused his position for the benefit of the ruling party at the expense of Singapore’s international standing.

Part V

32.  Here is the summary of the misconduct on the part of PM Lee Hsien Loong. With respect to the miscarriage of justice, or the misinterpretation of the Constitution by the late Lee Kuan Yew in 1984, Mr. Lee Hsien Loong has failed to discharge his duty as Prime Minster to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of Singapore according to law and to the best of his knowledge and ability. As such, PM Lee Hsien Loong has violated his constitutional oath and is unfit for office. He should resign over abuse of power, although this misconduct can be corrected to some extent if Supreme Court rectifies the late Minister Mentor’s mistake. 

33.  With respect to the Terrex conspiracy, PM Lee Hsien Loong has completely disregarded the Constitution and the international law. He has misused the Singapore Ministry of Defence, Singapore Ministry of Foreign Affairs and the Parliament. In addition, PM Lee Hsien Loong has misled the people of Singapore by knowingly and voluntarily joining the Terrex conspiracy. The discovery of this political conspiracy has largely damaged Singapore’s international reputation and credibility. It is self-evident that PM Lee Hsien Loong has acted in a manner contrary to his trust as Prime Minister and has ceased to command the confidence of both Parliament Members and the general public. As such, PM Lee Hsien Loong is unfit for office and must resign over abuse of power to restore public confidence in the PAP government. 

34.  As Samuel Huntington observed, “Throughout history, authoritarian rule never has provided good government over a sustained period of time. In some circumstances, authoritarianism may do well in the short term, but experience clearly shows that only democracy produces good government over the long haul.” I think it is time for the people of Singapore to think about the Constitution, freedom of the press, and the future of this country.

35.  Thank you.