The 9th letter to PM Lee Hsien Loong: Protest at Raffles Place

From: Yan Jun
Sent: Monday, February 19, 2018 17:04
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>; Charles Chong (charles_chongyf@yahoo.com) <charles_chongyf@yahoo.com>; 'K Shanmugam (Minister for Law)' <k_shanmugam@mha.gov.sg>; PM Office (pmo_hq@pmo.gov.sg) <pmo_hq@pmo.gov.sg>; QSM_IMH (qsm@imh.com.sg) <qsm@imh.com.sg>; QSM_STATE (STATECOURTS) (STATECOURTS_QSM@StateCourts.gov.sg) <STATECOURTS_QSM@StateCourts.gov.sg>; SUPCOURT QSM (SUPCOURT) <SUPCOURT_QSM@supcourt.gov.sg>; Desmond Chin (SPS) (desmond_chin@pris.gov.sg) <desmond_chin@pris.gov.sg>; Sze Chuck Huang (SPS) (sze_chuck_huang@pris.gov.sg) <sze_chuck_huang@pris.gov.sg>; Tan Bin Kiat (SPS) (tan_bin_kiat@pris.gov.sg) <tan_bin_kiat@pris.gov.sg>; Teo Hock Soon (SPS) (teo_hock_soon@pris.gov.sg) <teo_hock_soon@pris.gov.sg>; VEERA PURUMAL (SPS) (veera_purumal_meyappan@pris.gov.sg) <veera_purumal_meyappan@pris.gov.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>; '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>; 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>; 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 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>; 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: Protest at Raffle Place

Dear PM Lee Hsien Loong,

I refer to my email to the PM dated Nov 7, 2017 with regard to the Terrex conspiracy. I am going to protest at Raffle Place MRT station on Feb 22, 2018 at 12 noon.

My email dated Nov 7, 2017

In that email, I requested that the PM issue a ministerial statement and then step down if my allegations of the Terrex conspiracy were true; or sue me for defamation to clear the government’s name if my allegations were false.

I did protest on Nov 23, 2017 to support my allegations and was subsequently sentenced to prison. However, I haven’t received any response from the government.

In early January, 16 fourth generation ministers suddenly released a joint statement saying they were working closely to choose PM's successor in good time. In late January, PM unexpectedly declared that “choosing next PM will take a little bit longer”. While it is difficult for people to understand Singapore's political succession plans, I will keep protesting at Raffle Place against the judicial corruption and the government’s authoritarian rule so the government will feel the urgency of picking a fourth generation leader.

The Select Committee on fake news

In early January, a Select Committee was formed to address the issue of fake news. In my email to the Supreme Court dated Feb 14, 2018, I revealed that the legal officer who came up with the idea of the Terrex conspiracy was senior judge Chao Hick Tin. I copied all ten members of the Select Committee on that email.

Last year an academic was found to be an “agent of foreign influence”. I am not an agent in any way but I don’t mind playing games with undercover agents, intelligence agents, or both. On January 18, I booked a flight to Hong Kong from Singapore on February 26 but later I changed my mind. I have decided to postpone the flight for at least 6 months and I am going to write a blog post explaining why I changed my mind all of a sudden.

I hope that the Select Committee can carefully examine my allegations and my possible connections with political organizations such as the Chinese government. I am looking forward to seeing the report presented by the Select Committee to the public on the Terrex conspiracy.    

Singapore’s legal system 

In my blog post “Is Singapore’s legal system fair?”, I claimed that the essential function of the Singapore’s legal system was to protect the ruling People’s Action Party (PAP) government’s interests at the expense of justice. I have already informed the Supreme Court of my view and I am waiting for the Supreme Court’s reply. 

In the case of Public Prosecutor v Yan Jun [2017] SGMC 76, District judge Lim Tse Haw arbitrarily replaced my defence of police corruption with police long-standing policy not to grant permits for all outdoor demonstrations so that at least Judge Lim could give grounds for his decision. If I am not wrong, Justice See Kee Oon, the current Presiding Judge of the State Courts, heard my appeal in the Supreme Court. Justice See simply ignored Judge Lim’s misconduct, readily concluded that my arguments didn’t make sense when he was unable to answer my first question, and immediately ended my appeal a few minutes after the start of the hearing. 

Given the fact that “The State Courts handle 90 per cent of Singapore's case load” and based on the integrity and the competence of Justice See Kee Oon, I have enough reason to believe that the State Courts are meant to help the PAP government impose authoritarian rule rather than do justice. 

As explained in my blog post, the management system of Changi Prison is autocratic in nature. I stand by my words and copy on this email a number of senior prison officers including PPA Desmond Chin, SAC Chow Chee Kin, Provost Veera Purumal s/o Meyappan, SUPT Tan Bin Kiat, SUPT Teo Hock Soon, SUPT Sze Chuck Huang. If the prison authorities do not accept my criticism of their management, we can talk about it on the coming Friday if everything goes well.

My requests

I would request that the PM publicly respond to my allegation that the Terrex detention issue is a carefully laid trap by the PAP government to embarrass China by exposing to the world Singapore's military cooperation with Taiwan and by violating China’s sovereignty.

I also request the PM to publicly address the issue of judicial corruption in Singapore.

Thank you.

Regards,

Yan Jun

(Singapore NRIC: S7684361I)

Public Prosecutor v Yan Jun [2017] SGMC 76

See here for the PDF version of this judgement. 

Paragraphs 33 to 35 were missing from the Records of Appeal provided by the State Courts. 

Public Prosecutor

v

Yan Jun

[2017] SGMC 76

District Court - MAC 911994/2017

Magistrate 's Appeal No. 9374/2017/01

District Judge Lim Tse Haw

5 and 6 December 2017

18 December 2017

District Judge Lim Tse Haw:

INTRODUCTION

1.     The accused person, Yan Jun ("the Accused") claimed trial to one charge summarized as follows:

MAC 91199412017

On 23 November 2017, at about 12.01 pm, outside Raffles Place MRT Stat ion. located at 5 Raffles Place, Singapore, the Accused did take part in a public assembly [n respect of which no permit had been granted, to wit. by demonstrating opposition to the actions of the Prime Minister of Singapore, the Singapore government and the Hong Kong government. by:

a.      displaying a placard with the words "PM Lee: resign over the Terrex conspiracy or sue me for defamation", and shouting “protest against PM Lee Hsien Loong, resign!”;

b.     shouting “protest against the PAP government!”; and

c.      displaying a placard with the Chinese characters “抗議香港政府在裝甲車陰謀中出賣中國主權!” which means “Protest against the Hong Kong government for betraying the sovereignty of China in the armoured vehicles conspiracy!” in the English language, and shouting "protest against the Hong Kong government!” and he has thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 16(2)(a) of the Public Order Act (Cap 257A, 2012 Rev Ed) ("the Act").

2.     Further, as the Accused had, before the commission of the above offence, on 14 August 2017, in State Court 4, been convicted of the same offence and was sentenced to a fine of $5,000 (in default 3 weeks' imprisonment), which conviction and punishment have not been set aside to date, he was thereby liable for enhanced punishment of a fine of up to $5000 under Section 16(3)(b) of the Act.

3.     After a two-day trial, I found the Accused guilty of the charge and convicted him accordingly. I now set out below the full grounds for my decision.

THE PROSECUTION'S CASE

The Background Facts

1.                   On 7 November 2017, the Accused wrote an email to Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong ("PM Lee"), which was copied to various other parties, to say that he was "going to make another protest outside Raffles Place MRT on November 23, 2017 at 12 noon" on the purported "Terrex issue"- referring to the seizure by the Hong Kong Customs Department of nine "Terrex" military armoured vehicles belonging to the Singapore Armed Forces on 23 November 2016 and that he had "no intention of applying for a protest permit because the licensing officers are corrupt".[1] He also posted this email on his blog in the internet. ASP Chionh Chun Meng Eric ("ASP Chionh") from the Singapore Police Force ("SPF") responded to the Accused on 18 November 2017 and reminded the Accused that organising or taking part in an assembly without a police permit is an offence under the Act. The Accused replied to ASP Chionh on 19 November 2017 saying that he "will protest as scheduled ......” [2] These exchange of emails were similarly posted on his blog.

(B) The Protest on 23 November 2017 at Raffles Place MRT

2.                   On 23 November 2017 at about 12.0Ipm, the Accused did carry out his protest outside Raffles Place MRT Station at 5 Raffles Place. The Accused can be seen [3] standing outside Raffles Place MRT Station holding up two placards, bearing the words "PM Lee: resign over the Terrex conspiracy or sue me for defamation” [4] and 抗議香港政府在裝甲車陰謀中出賣中國主權!”[5] According to Ms Seta Xin Er, a Chinese translator from the Criminal Investigations Department ("CID") of the SPF[6], these Chinese characters translate to mean "Protest against the Hong Kong government for betraying the sovereignty of China in the armoured vehicles conspiracy"[7]. In the footages[8], the Accused can also be heard shouting "protest against the Hong Kong government!", protest against the PAP government!"' and "protest against PM Lee Hsien Loong, resign!"

3.                   The arresting officer, Senior Staff Sergeant Ahmad Salihin[9], together with a few other police officers, then moved in and arrested the Accused. The two placards and a loud hailer[10], which the Accused had used in his protest, were seized.

4.                   In the Accused 's police statement dated 23 November 2017[11], the voluntariness of which he did not dispute, the Accused stated that he had made it very clear in his email dated 7 November 2017 to PM Lee that he would stage a protest in support of his allegations against PM Lee in what he called the "Terrex conspiracy issue".[12]

5.                   Assistant Superintendent of Police (ASP) Ang Huan Chau Vincent[13] from the Compliance Management Unit of the SPF testified that no permit was issued to the Accused for him to carry out his assembly in public on 23 November 2017.

THE DEFENCE'S CASE

The Accused’s Evidence

6.                   The Accused did not dispute the fact that he was protesting against PM Lee and the governments of Hong Kong and Singapore as stated in [5] above. His main defence was that he knew that he was not going to get a police permit for his intended protest, as he alleged that he was under a "prohibition order" by the police from holding a protest. Hence he decided that there was no point for him to apply for one and proceeded with his protest without a permit.

7.                   The Accused did not call any other witness in his defence.

THE LAW

8.                   Section 16(2)(a) of the Act states that:

"Each person who takes part in a public assembly ... ----

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 ... "

9.                   Section 5(1) (a) of the Act further states that:

"Subject to the provisions of this Act, a public assembly ... shall not take place

unless-

a.      the Commissioner is notified under section 6 of the intention to hold the

public assembly ..., and a permit is granted under section 7 in respect of that

public assembly ...., :"

10.                Section 2 of the Act defines "public assembly" to mean "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.                "Assembly" is further defined in section 2 of the Act to mean:

"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--

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) .... "

[emphasis added]

12.                On the meaning of "taking part in", section 3(2) of the Act clarifies as follows:

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

[emphasis added]

13.                In other words, a person carrying on a demonstration by himself against the views or actions of a person, group of persons, or any government, in a public place can come within the meaning of ''taking part in a public assembly" for the purposes of

section 16(2)(a) of the Act.

MY DECISION

(A)  Did the Accused take part in a public assembly?

14.                The Accused did not dispute the fact that:

                                                     i.    He was He was standing outside Raffles Place MRT Station holding up two placards that read:

a.      “PM Lee: resign over the Terrex conspiracy or sue me for defamation”;

b.     "Protest against the Hong Kong government for betraying the sovereignty of China in the armoured vehicles conspiracy" in Mandarin; and

                                                   ii.    He was shouting out the words:

a.      ''protest against the Hong Kong government!";

b.     "protest against the PAP government!"; and

c.      ''protest against PM Lee Hsien Loong, resign!"

15.                The act of carrying the two placards with its wordings in [17(i)] above, coupled with shouting out the words in [17(ii)] clearly showed that the Accused was demonstrating opposition to the views and/or actions of a person (PM Lee) and the governments (Hong Kong and Singapore governments) within the meaning of "assembly" as defined under section 2 of the Act. Section 3(2) of the Act also makes it clear that "taking part in an assembly" includes a person carrying on a demonstration by himself. As the outside of Raffles Place MRT Station is clearly a public place, there was no question that the Accused was taking part in a public assembly within the meaning of section 16(2)(a) of the Act.

16.                It was also not in dispute that the Accused did not have a permit from the police to take part in this public assembly on 23 November 2017.

(B) Did the Accused raise any valid defence in law to the charge?

17.                The Accused's defence to the charge was that because he knew that he was not going to get a police permit for his intended protest on 23 November 2017, he decided that there was no point for him to apply for one and proceeded with his protest without a permit nevertheless. This is not a valid defence under the law.

18.                Section 17 of the Act affords a statutory defence to an accused person charged with an offence under section 16(2)(a) of the Act if he can demonstrate that he "did not know, and neither suspected nor had reason to suspect that no permit had been granted”. The Accused did not avail himself of this statutory defence at the trial. Based on his own evidence, he clearly knew that he needed a permit from the police to allow him to carry out his demonstration at Raffles Place MRT on 23 November 2017. However, he decided not to apply for one as he said he knew that he was not going to be given a permit by the police. By deciding to go ahead with the demonstration on 23 November 2017 without applying for a police permit under section 7 of the Act, the Accused has clearly committed an offence under section 16(2)(a) of the Act.

19.                In the circumstances, I found the Accused guilty of the charge and convicted him accordingly.

ANTECEDENTS

20.                The Accused had been convicted of the same offence on two previous occasions as follows:

                                                 iii.    On 16 June 2016, he was convicted in State Court No.7, inter alia, of one count of taking part in a public assembly without permit under section 16(2)(a) of the Act. He was fined $2000, in default one week imprisonment for the charge. His appeal against the conviction and sentence was dismissed by the High Court on 21 October 2016[14];

                                                 iv.    On 14 August 2017, he was convicted in State Court No 4, inter alia, of four counts of taking part in a public assembly without permit under section 16(2)(a) of the Act. He was fined $5000, in default three weeks' imprisonment for each charge. His appeal against the conviction and sentence was also dismissed by the High Court on 26 September 2017.[15]

MITIGATION

21.                The Accused refused to mitigate but asked that his remand period be taken into account in sentencing.

THE PROSECUTION'S SUBMISSIONS ON SENTENCE

22.                The Prosecution pointed out that as the Accused had previously been convicted of the same offence, he was liable for enhanced punishment of a fine of up to $5,000 under s 16(3)(b) of the Act as a repeat offender. In view of his propensity to reoffend, the Prosecution submitted that specific deterrence should be the predominant sentencing consideration in this case.[16]

23.                The Accused was described by the Prosecution as a "serial recidivist who has shown blatant disregard for the law, and contempt for all forms of lawful authority.”[17] It was noted that even the maximum sentence that was imposed on him for his latest set of antecedents did not deter him from committing the present offence, which was committed less than two months after he completed serving his last sentence.[18]

24.                The Prosecution submitted that the Accused had courted criminal charges because he wanted to use the trial process as the platform for his personal agenda of maligning the various stakeholders in the criminal justice system. He also displayed contemptuous behaviour towards the Court throughout the trial and repeatedly demanded that he be cited for contempt.[19]

25.                Hence, the Prosecution pressed for the maximum fine of $5,000 to be imposed with an in default term of not less than five weeks' imprisonment.[20]

26.                The Prosecution further submitted that the in default term should not take into account the period the Accused had already spent in remand for the following reasons:[21]

                                         v.    An offender does not have a right to have an in default sentence discounted, or have an imprisonment sentence backdated in view of time spent in remand. The exercise of the court's power in discounting time spent in remand for in default sentence or backdating is discretionary and involves a fact-sensitive determination;

                                       vi.    The primary aim in imposing an in-default term is to deter non-payment of fines and to ensure sufficient punishment should the offender default on paying the fine. The Prosecution submitted that the circumstances in the present case strongly suggested that the Accused was unwilling to pay the fines imposed as opposed to him not having the funds to do so. In support of this submission, the Prosecution highlighted that the Accused had asked for his bail to be offered in the form of personal bond. This suggested that the Accused had the funds to pay any fine that might be imposed on him and hence discounting his in-default sentence would only further dis-incentivize him from paying the fine. This would defeat the purpose of imposing an in-default term in the first place;

                                      vii.    Any prejudice that might be occasioned to the Accused from his spending time in remand was completely self-induced in view of the "extravagant manner" in which the Accused had conducted his defence at his various trials, which showed that he was only interested in using the courtroom as a platform for airing his personal agendas;

                                    viii.    In any event, any unfair prejudice to the Accused had been avoided as the present trial was heard on an expedited basis;

                                       ix.    Discounting the in-default term would encourage the Accused to keep up with his routine of courting criminal charges by committing offences and then claiming trial when he has no defence whatsoever- this would be contrary to the predominant sentencing consideration of specific deterrence applicable in the present case.

THE APPROPRIATE SENTENCE

27.                In sentencing the Accused, I agreed with the Prosecution that in view of his antecedents and propensity to re-offend, the predominant sentencing consideration in this case must be that of specific deterrence.

28.                I further agreed with the Prosecution that the maximum sentence of a $5000 fine should be imposed on the Accused for the following reasons:

                               x.    The maximum sentence of $5000 fine was imposed on the Accused on each count of the same offence when he was last convicted of four counts of such offence on 14 August 2017. The sentence was affirmed by the High Court on appeal by the Accused. Yet that has not deterred him from re-offending less than two months after his release from prison;

                             xi.    His conduct at the trial was reprehensible and contemptuous. He had no regard for the law, for legal procedure and had no respect for the various stakeholders in the criminal justice system. Apart from accusing everyone, from the police to the Attorney-General's Chambers and even the Court of being corrupt, the Accused had the temerity to turn his back to the Court when I tried to point out to him that he may have misconstrued the Singapore Constitution in thinking that he had an unfettered right under the Constitution to stage a protest;[22]

                            xii.    Based on the two psychiatric reports[23] that were prepared on the Accused for his previous cases, he was not suffering from any psychiatric or mental disorder that could have contributed to the commission of the offences by him. He was only diagnosed with Querulous Behaviour, with narcissistic personality traits.[24]

29.                On the question of in default sentence, I also agreed with the Prosecution that an in default sentence that is longer than the three weeks' imprisonment term that was imposed for his previous conviction on 14 August 2017 should be considered in the present case. This is to give effect to the dominant sentencing consideration of specific deterrence in the present case. Otherwise, the Accused will go away thinking that the worst that can happen to him, even if he were to keep committing the same offence over and over again and to not pay the fine, would be to serve in default sentence of three weeks' imprisonment. In fact, that was what he had tried to ask for in his submission on sentence.[25] Hence, to ensure that the principle of specific deterrence has its intended effect, an in default sentence of more than three weeks' imprisonment ought to be imposed on the Accused.

30.                However, where I differed from the Prosecution was in relation to the question of whether the Accused's remand period should be taken into account when considering the in default sentence.

31.                With respect, I was not able to agree with the Prosecution's submission at [29(ii)] above that the circumstances in the present case strongly suggested that the Accused was unwilling to pay the fines imposed as opposed to him not having the funds to do so. The fact that he had asked for the bail of $8000 offered to him to be in the form of a personal bond did not mean that he had the funds to pay any fine that might be imposed on him. The difference between a personal bond and the usual court bail is that in the latter case, an accused person needs to find a bailor who is willing to stand bail for him and who has assets worth at least the amount of the bail. In the former case, the accused person is his own bailor so long he has assets worth at least the amount of the bail. For a bail of $8,000, no cash or cash equivalent is required as security for the bail bond in both cases. Hence, the fact that the Accused had asked for the bail to be in the form of a personal bond did not mean that he had the funds to pay any fine. It could be that the Accused did not have any family or friend who was willing to stand bail for him, for whatever reasons.

32.                I was also not able to agree with the Prosecution's submission at [29(iii)] above that the prejudice, if any, that might be occasioned to the Accused from his spending time in remand was completely self-induced in view of the "extravagant manner" in which the Accused had conducted his defence at his "various trials". While I am not in a position to comment on the Accused's conduct at his other trials, his conduct at the trial before me, while contemptuous and belligerent, did not, in my view, deliberately or unnecessarily prolong the trial. The present trial took only two days to conclude. In my judgment, the court may exercise its discretion in not taking into account an accused person's remand period if there is evidence to show that the accused has deliberately or unnecessarily prolong the trial for some personal gain or advantage- for example, an accused person who is close to 50 years old and facing a charge which carries mandatory caning, who deliberately or unnecessarily prolong the trial just so that if he is found guilty of the charge eventually, he would have turned 50 years old and is therefore no longer eligible for caning. This was not the case here and

36.  In the circumstances, for the reasons as stated in [31] and [32] above, I imposed the maximum fine of $5000 on the Accused. I had decided, provisionally. to impose an in default sentence of 50 days' imprisonment. However, taking into account the 13 days that he had already spent in remand from the day he was charged in coming to the day he was sentenced[26], I imposed an in default sentence of 37 days' imprisonment if the Accused did not pay the fine.

Concluding remarks

37.  The Accused lacked insight into his behavioural problem. Coupled with his illusion of some grand conspiracy theory, in the present case relating to the Terrex armoured vehicles incident, and his inability or refusal to see the folly of his ways, the Accused has rendered himself a public nuisance by his latest actions. He would be well advised to seek treatment for his behavioural problem in order for him to stay out of trouble with the law and for some normalcy to return to his life.

38.  Being dissatisfied with the above judgment, the Accused has appealed against both conviction and sentence. He is still serving his in default sentence at the time of the issuance of this judgment.

Lim Tse Haw

District Judge

DPPs Randeep Singh and Victoria Ting for the Prosecution;

The Accused in person

---

[1] P2 at page 4, under the heading "My legal position"

[2] P3 at pages 3 and 4.

[3] Please see footages from the Body-Warn-Camera ("BWC") worn by PW1 (exhibit P4), the Police Camera ("Polcam"- exhibit PS) and the Public Order Video Team ("POVT"- exhibit P6).

[4] P8

[5] P9

[6] PW3

[7] P17

[8] P4 and P6.

[9] PW1

[10] P7

[11] P10

[12] Page 1, first paragraph of P10

[13] PW 2

[14] See Certificate of result of appeal in MA NO.9131/2016/01 in Yan Jun v PP.

[15] P12

[16] Prosecution's Address on Sentence ("PAS") at [7] and [8]

[17] PAS at [1]

[18] PAS at [16(b)]

[19] PAS at [3] and [25]

[20] PAS at [4] and [29] to [41]

[21] PAS at [42] to [49]

[22] Notes of Evidence (NE) Day 1, page 52 In 2 to page 55 In 21

[23] Reports from the Institute of Mental Health (lMH) dated 26 April 2016 and 18 July 2017

[24] See [1] under "Opinion" of the IMH report dated 26 April 2016 at page 4 and [31 (a) and (h)] under "Opinion" of the IMH report dated 18 July 20167 at pages 7 and 9

[25] NE Day 2, page 11 In 18 to 25

[26] From 24 November to 6 December 2017.