2020年11月2日星期一

My email to the Secretary-General of the UNs on Nov 1, 2020

 Attachment: 1_why to amend the UDHR2_Espionages activities


From: Yan Jun
Sent: Sunday, November 1, 2020 11:00 AM
To: Antonio Guterres
Cc: AGC (AGC@agc.gov.sg); CHIA Jin Ming Benjamin (SPS, B cluster); Eng Chye Tan (uprsec@nus.edu.sg); FAISAL Bin Mustaffa (SPS, B4); Gan Kim Yong (Minister for Health); Hong Choon Chua (IMH); HOONG Wee Teck (SPF); K Shanmugam (Minister for Home Affairs); LEE Chien Earn (CGH); LOH Hong Wai (SPS, B5); Middle East Institute (contact.mei@nus.edu.sg); Nigel Tan Choon Kiat (NTU); PM Office (pmo_hq@pmo.gov.sg); QSM_STATE (STATECOURTS) (STATECOURTS_QSM@StateCourts.gov.sg); SHIE Yong Lee (shie_yong_lee@pris.gov.sg); SPF Feedback Shared (SPF) (SPF_Feedback_Shared@spf.gov.sg) ; Subra SURESH (NTU); SUPCOURT QSM (SUPCOURT); Tan Bin Kiat (SPS, B2); TAN Chun-Yuan Avryl (SPS, B3); TAN Wee Teck; ¹ã¶«Ê¡ÈËÃñÕþ¸®(service@gd.gov.cn); Chief Executive's Office_HK (ceo@ceo.gov.hk); HK Customs and Excise Department (customsenquiry@customs.gov.hk); Alejandro Ponce (The World Justice Project); Sofie Arjon Schutte (U4 Anti-corruption resource centre); Buscaglia Edgardo (Columbia University); Garry Rodan (Murdoch University); Matthew Stephenson (mstephen@law.harvard.edu); S.T. Quah Jon (National University of Singapore); Silverstein Gordon (Yale University) ; Susan Rose Ackerman (Yale University); David Kaye (dkaye@law.uci.edu); 'Freedom House'; info@article19.org; mail@globalwitness.org; 'Mickey Spiegel (Human Right Watch)'; 'Phil Robertson (Human Right Watch)'; Yu Hah Ming (mingyu.hah@amnesty.org); Gail Davidson (Lawyers Rights Watch Canada); International Association of Judges; Talia Dove (International Bar Association); Lian He Wan Bao (wanbao@sph.com.sg); news@theindependent.sg; Online Citizen (Singapore) (theonlinecitizen@gmail.com); Shin Min Daily (shinmin@sph.com.sg); Straits Times (stforum@sph.com.sg); Today (voices@mediacorp.com.sg); Zao Bao (zblocal@sph.com.sg); editor.sh@sinarharian.com.my; estherng@thestar.com.my; newscentre@chinapress.com.my; Ming Pao (mingpao@mingpao.com); Oriental Daily News (news@odn.on.cc); SCMP (letters@scmp.com); Singtao Daily (localnews@singtao.com) ; The Standard (editor@thestandard.com.hk); Taiwan news (service@taiwannews.com.tw); United Daily News (newspro@udn.com); 'Apple Daily'; Jon Fasman (Economists) ; Keith Bradsher (New York Times); 'Linus Chua (Bloomberg)'; 'Philip Bowring (The South China Morning Post)'; Reporters Without Borders (dbastard@rsf.org); Rico Hizon (BBC); Roberto Coloma (Agence France-Presse); 'Seiff Abby (Freelance Corrrespondent)'; Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal (cfaenquiries@hkcfa.hk); Supreme Court of Canada (reception@scc-csc.ca); Supreme Court of India (supremecourt@nic.in); Supreme Court of New Zealand (supremecourt@justice.govt.nz); The Privy Council (enquiries@supremecourt.uk); Indonesia Embassy (singapura.kbri@kemlu.go.id); Myanmar Embassy (ambassador@myanmarembassy.sg); Philippines Embassy (philippine.embassy.singapore@gmail.com); Thailand Embassy (thaisgp@singnet.com.sg); Vietnam Embassy (vnemb.sg@mofa.gov.vn); Argentina Embassy (consulares_eisia@mrecic.gov.ar); Brazil Embassy (brasemb.cingapura@itamaraty.gov.br); Russia Embassy (russian_embassy@singnet.com.sg); Saudi Arabia Embassy (sgemb@mofa.gov.sa); South Africa Embassy (singapore.consular@dirco.gov.za); South Korea Embassy (korembsg@mofa.go.kr); Turkey Embassy (embassy.singapore@mfa.gov.tr); Australia Embassy (info.ausg@vfshelpline.com); Canada Embassy (spore@international.gc.ca); German Embassy (info@singapur.diplo.de); Italy Embassy (ambasciata.singapore@esteri.it); Japan Embassy (infoculture@sn.mofa.go.jp); US Embassy (singaporeusembassy@state.gov)
Subject: Complaint about the UNCHR and request to amend the UDHR

 

Dear Mr. António Guterres,

 

I am the serial protestor in Singapore who is acting against the corrupt legal system here. On Jul 1, 2017, I wrote to the UN Human Rights Office for South-East Asia and requested it to pay attention to the lack of free speech in Singapore. 

 

I am writing to the Secretary-General of the UNs for three reasons. The first reason is my complaint about the United Nations Commission on Human Rights (UNCHR) for abuse of process. The second reason is my request to amend the Article 21(3) of The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR). The third reason is to request the UN to deal with the espionage activities conducted by Malaysian, Singapore and the US government because the US Presidential election is just two days ahead. These illegal activities are supposed to be exposed to the public.  

 

My complaint

Although I have protested for 10 times against judicial corruption, Singapore courts have steadfastly declined to charge me with Contempt of Court. It is self-evident that Singapore’s legal system is totally corrupt, and it is a fact that I have been repeatedly arrested and tortured in Changi Prison.

 

Changi Prison is a dangerous place because of abuse of medicine and psychiatry and lack of justice.  A typical example of an evil staff member in Changi Prison is Dr. Jacob Rajesh, who has routinely made arbitrary diagnoses without getting informed consent from inmates. 

 

On Apr 9, 2016, I submitted my petition to Mr. Dvid Kaye, the then Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression. On May 9, 2016, I gave my informed consent to the UN Special Rapporteurs. On May 19, 2016, I submitted my allegation letter required by the UNs. On Feb 18, 2016, I submitted my petition to UNs working Group informing it the lack of the fundamental right against arbitrary arrest and detention in Singapore.

 

Four years have passed since I submitted my petition regarding free speech and expression on Apr 9, 2016, so far I haven’t received any reply from the UNs. It is hard for me to imagine that the UNCHR had simply ignored my petition filed on Feb 18, 2016 with regard to a right that was even more important than the right to free speech. Singapore most probably is the only country in the world that has lawfully legitimized the arbitrary arrest and detention.

 

As such, I would like to lodge a formal complaint to the Secretary-General of the UNs about the UNCHR for abuse of process. I hope that the UNCHR can take my complaint seriously. 

 

The amendment of the Article 21(3) of the UDHR

The UDHR has wrongfully treated "the people" as a morally good force and thus can give rise to a legitimate unjust government. In spite of the Singapore government’s unjust and totalitarian rule, most Singaporeans have still voted for the ruling People’s Action Party in general election (GE) 2020 to maintain Singapore’s high global reputation. In fact, Singapore GE 2020 has provided a unique opportunity to the world to prove the UNDR wrong.

 

As explained in the attached file, I believe the UDHR ought to be amended.  As far as I know, I am the first person who has conclusively proved that the will of the general public can be unjust. So I am in a position to request the UNs to amend the UDHR in the interest of justice.

 

Espionage activities by 3 governments

In the attached file, I have provided the UNs with detailed account of the espionage activities conducted on me by the Malaysian, Singapore and the US government in Johor Bahru of Malaysia and Singapore. I can talk more.

 

Since the US presidential election is only two days ahead, I prefer to submit this document to the Secretary-General of the UNs because no one would blame Secretary-General of the UNs for interfering a general election. I stand by my espionage claim and am ready to go on a public protest.

 

Thank you for your attention. I am looking forward to hearing from you at your earliest convenience.

 

Regards,

Yan Jun

(Singapore NRIC: S7684361I)

2020年11月1日星期日

My email dated May 9, 2016 to give informed consent to Special Rapporteur

 -----Original Message-----

From: Yan Jun
Sent: Monday, May 9, 2016 1:00 AM
To: Jennifer Jokstad
Subject: Informed consent

 

Dear Jennifer,

 

Thank you very much for your attention to my case.

 

After serious considerations, I do request the UN Special Rapporteurs to take up my case and send an allegation letter to the Singapore government for their official response.

 

It is my honor to give the UN Special Rapporteurs my consent to deal with the violations of human rights set out in my petitions.

 

Thank you.

 

Regards,

 

Yan Jun

 

 

________________________________________

From: Jennifer Jokstad <jokstad@un.org>

Sent: Thursday, May 5, 2016 2:31 PM

To: medp1128@hotmail.com

Subject: Re: Torture in IMH

 

Dear Yan,

 

I think that you have a very strong case. If you wish, I can follow up with my colleagues in Geneva working with the UN Special Rapporteurs on Freedom of Expression and on Torture (and other relevant mandates) regarding sending an allegation letter to the government of Singapore on your case.

However, for the UN Special Rapporteurs to take up your case, they would need your informed consent. The letter and the response from the government (if any) will be confidential for a while until they are published on the Special Procedures' communications report which is accessible on the following website:

http://www.ohchr.org/EN/HRBodies/SP/Pages/CommunicationsreportsSP.aspx

 

Please let me know what your thoughts are on this.

 

Best regards,

Jennifer

 

 

 

 

Reply dated Feb 18,2016 from UNs in response to my petition to UN Working Group

 Attachment: Petition to the UNs Working Group_Yan Jun_20160218

 From: User Manager [mailto:urgent-action@ohchr.org] 

Sent: Thursday, February 18, 2016 2:11 PM
To: Yan Jun
Subject: Re: Petition to the United Nations Working Group: Denial of the human right against arbitrary arrest in Singapore

 

Your message has been received and forwarded to the concerned mandate(s). 

For information about the Special Procedures (Independent Experts, Special Rapporteurs and Working Groups) of the Human Rights Council, please visit:
 
http://www.ohchr.org/EN/HRBodies/SP/Pages/Welcomepage.aspx 

For information on the Communications Procedure of Independent Experts, Special Rapporteurs and Working Groups, please visit:
 
http://www.ohchr.org/EN/HRBodies/SP/Pages/Communications.aspx 

For Information on contacting specific mandate-holders, please visit:
 
http://www.ohchr.org/EN/HRBodies/SP/Pages/Themes.aspx 

Sincerely,
 

Special Procedures Branch
 

Human Rights Council and Special Procedures Divison
 

OHCHR
 

NOTE: this is an AUTOMATED EMAIL and replies to this email address will not be responded to.
 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
~o~o~o~


Dear United Nations Working Group on Arbitrary Detention (the Working Group),

 

I would request the Working Group to investigate a case of a deprivation of liberty in Singapore.

 

Purpose of the petition

This petition is not a request to the Working Group to declare the deprivation of my liberty “unfair”, or to evaluate the facts and evidence in my case, or to act as an appellate court in Singapore.

 

The purpose of this petition is to report to the Working Group to determine whether there is a systematic violation of the fundamental human right against arbitrary arrest and detention in Singapore, pursuant to Principle 7(3) of the Body of Principles [1]. 

 

Issues in this petition

While the issues are quiet simple and falls directly into Category I of arbitrary deprivation of liberty, the Working Group is the only organization that has mandate to look into this matter.

 

The issues are as follows:

(1)   Was it lawful for the police to arrest a suspect for an offence of a “Breach of Personal Protection Order (PPO)” but the PPO was later discovered to have expired before the arrest?

(2)   Is it lawful for the police to arrest a suspect, and release him at police discretion within 48 hours of the arrest, without subjecting the suspect to a court to determine the lawfulness of the arrest?

 

The answer to the first issue is self-evident. While the Supreme Court of Singapore answered in the affirmative to the second question in its judgment of
 [2014] SGCA 60 at Para 95, in sharp contrast, Article 9(4) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights provides that “anyone who is deprived of his liberty by arrest is entitled to take proceedings before a court for an independent judicial examination on the lawfulness of the arrest”.

 

My requests

I would appreciate it if the Working Group forwards this petition to the Singapore government through diplomatic channels for an official response. It is a fact that the Supreme Court of Singapore has refused to respond to the criticism of its judgment of [2014] SGCA 60 and has persistently declined to admit that its judgment is correct. In addition, the Supreme Court hasn’t officially declare its judgment of [2014] SGCA 60 as final.

 

I hope that the Working Group reports the outcome of this investigation to the United Nations Commission on Human Rights, which has the mandate to examine and monitor and publicly report on human rights situations in a specific country, as a general cause of arbitrary arrest in Singapore. 

 

This petition will be sent by mail, email and fax. I copy this email to the Registry of the Supreme Court of Singapore (
SUPCOURT_Registry@supcourt.gov.sg) and the Attorney-General’s Chambers of Singapore (agc@agc.gov.sg). If the Working Group needs further information, please let me know by email. 

 

Thank you for your attention. I am looking forward to hearing from you at your earliest convenience.

 

Regards,

 

Yan Jun

(Singapore NRIC: S7684361I)

 

[1]: Body of Principles, at Principle 7(3) “Any other person who has ground to believe that a violation of this Body of Principles has occurred or is about to occur shall have the right to report the matter to the superiors of the officials involved as well as to other appropriate authorities or organs vested with reviewing or remedial powers”.(See attached file: Petition to the UNs Working Group_Yan Jun_20160218.pdf)

My allegation letter to the UN Dated May 19, 2016

 Attachment: Allegation Letter_Singapore

 

-----Original Message-----
From: Yan Jun
Sent: Thursday, May 19, 2016 11:22 AM
To: jokstad@un.org
Subject: Allegation letter

 

Dear Jennifer,

 

Thank you for your patience.

 

I just finished the allegation letter including my legal analysis. I certainly respect the Special Rapporteur's expertise on analysing the information. The Istana park, the location of the 1st protest, is indeed a prohibited area under the prohibition order (POO) made in 2009. I explained that POO 2009 simply is not applicable to the present case by local standard.

 

Thank you.

 

Regards,

 

Yan Jun

 

-----Original Message-----

From: Jennifer Jokstad [mailto:jokstad@un.org]

Sent: Wednesday, 18 May, 2016 10:52

To: Yan Jun

Subject: Re: Summary

 

Dear Yan Jun,

 

For this submission, you don't need to prove how it is a violation of freedom of expression, you just need to describe the course of events with dates. The Special Rapporteur will then analyse the information in light of international human rights standards.

 

Best regards,

Jennifer

My email dated Apr 9, 2016 to UN Special Rapporteur on the right to freedom of opinion and expression

 Attachment: Petition to UNs_YJ_20160408 

 

From: Yan Jun [mailto:medp1128@hotmail.com] 

Sent: Saturday, April 9, 2016 12:18 AM
To: urgent-action@ohchr.org
Cc: freedex@ohchr.org; Jennifer Jokstad
Subject: Petition to the Special Rapporteur (Freedom of opinion and expression)

 

Dear the Officer of the UNs,

 

On 18 Feb 2016, I sent an email to the UNs Working Group on Arbitrary Detention complaining about the arbitrary arrest in Singapore and the bias on the part of the Supreme Court of Singapore towards the Singapore government (see email below).

 

Updates

There is a lack of mechanism to hold the Singapore Government accountable. I have tried all other remedies other than public protest but they all failed.

 

My application to the police for protest permit was rejected and the police ordered that “staging protest in any public places is an offence under Public Order Act 2009”, without justifying their decision.

 

When I carried out a protest angst the judicial corruption in Singapore on 2 March 2016, the police arrested me and charged me with “protesting in prohibited areas”. The police put me on bail but refused to bring me into court for a public trial.

 

I filed a complaint to the Prime Minister of Singapore about the violation of my right to freedom of expression, there was no reply. Jennifer Jokstad, a UNs officer who working on Singapore and Malaysia, was aware of the arrest of me.  

 

Petition to the Special Rapporteur

I attached a petition to Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression. I hope the Special Rapporteur can take up my petition in the interests of justice and pursuant to relevant mandates.  

 

Thank you for your attention.

 

Regards,

 

Yan Jun

 

From: User Manager [mailto:urgent-action@ohchr.org]
Sent: Thursday, February 18, 2016 14:11
To: Yan Jun
Subject: Re: Petition to the United Nations Working Group: Denial of the human right against arbitrary arrest in Singapore

 

Your message has been received and forwarded to the concerned mandate(s). 

For information about the Special Procedures (Independent Experts, Special Rapporteurs and Working Groups) of the Human Rights Council, please visit:
 
http://www.ohchr.org/EN/HRBodies/SP/Pages/Welcomepage.aspx 

For information on the Communications Procedure of Independent Experts, Special Rapporteurs and Working Groups, please visit:
 
http://www.ohchr.org/EN/HRBodies/SP/Pages/Communications.aspx 

For Information on contacting specific mandate-holders, please visit:
 
http://www.ohchr.org/EN/HRBodies/SP/Pages/Themes.aspx 

Sincerely,
 

Special Procedures Branch
 

Human Rights Council and Special Procedures Divison
 

OHCHR
 

NOTE: this is an AUTOMATED EMAIL and replies to this email address will not be responded to.
 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
~o~o~o~


Dear United Nations Working Group on Arbitrary Detention (the Working Group),

 

I would request the Working Group to investigate a case of a deprivation of liberty in Singapore.

 

Purpose of the petition

This petition is not a request to the Working Group to declare the deprivation of my liberty “unfair”, or to evaluate the facts and evidence in my case, or to act as an appellate court in Singapore.

 

The purpose of this petition is to report to the Working Group to determine whether there is a systematic violation of the fundamental human right against arbitrary arrest and detention in Singapore, pursuant to Principle 7(3) of the Body of Principles [1]. 

 

Issues in this petition

While the issues are quiet simple and falls directly into Category I of arbitrary deprivation of liberty, the Working Group is the only organization that has mandate to look into this matter.

 

The issues are as follows:

(1)   Was it lawful for the police to arrest a suspect for an offence of a “Breach of Personal Protection Order (PPO)” but the PPO was later discovered to have expired before the arrest?

(2)   Is it lawful for the police to arrest a suspect, and release him at police discretion within 48 hours of the arrest, without subjecting the suspect to a court to determine the lawfulness of the arrest?

 

The answer to the first issue is self-evident. While the Supreme Court of Singapore answered in the affirmative to the second question in its judgment of
 [2014] SGCA 60 at Para 95, in sharp contrast, Article 9(4) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights provides that “anyone who is deprived of his liberty by arrest is entitled to take proceedings before a court for an independent judicial examination on the lawfulness of the arrest”.

 

My requests

I would appreciate it if the Working Group forwards this petition to the Singapore government through diplomatic channels for an official response. It is a fact that the Supreme Court of Singapore has refused to respond to the criticism of its judgment of [2014] SGCA 60 and has persistently declined to admit that its judgment is correct. In addition, the Supreme Court hasn’t officially declare its judgment of [2014] SGCA 60 as final.

 

I hope that the Working Group reports the outcome of this investigation to the United Nations Commission on Human Rights, which has the mandate to examine and monitor and publicly report on human rights situations in a specific country, as a general cause of arbitrary arrest in Singapore. 

 

This petition will be sent by mail, email and fax. I copy this email to the Registry of the Supreme Court of Singapore (
SUPCOURT_Registry@supcourt.gov.sg) and the Attorney-General’s Chambers of Singapore (agc@agc.gov.sg). If the Working Group needs further information, please let me know by email. 

 

Thank you for your attention. I am looking forward to hearing from you at your earliest convenience.

 

Regards,

 

Yan Jun

(Singapore NRIC: S7684361I)

 

[1]: Body of Principles, at Principle 7(3) “Any other person who has ground to believe that a violation of this Body of Principles has occurred or is about to occur shall have the right to report the matter to the superiors of the officials involved as well as to other appropriate authorities or organs vested with reviewing or remedial powers”.(See attached file: Petition to the UNs Working Group_Yan Jun_20160218.pdf)

Report of loss of luggage to Grab Malaysia on Nov 12, 2019 (ticket No. 108490468)

From: Kishore a/l Kanaga Singam (Grab Support) <support@grab.com>
Date: Tue, Nov 12, 2019 at 7:45 PM
Subject: [Grab] Re: I need help finding my lost item
To: Yan <husband.sg@gmail.com>

 

##- Please type your reply above this line -##

Your request (108490468) has been updated. To add additional comments, reply to this email.

Kishore a/l Kanaga Singam (Grab)

Nov 12, 19:45 +08

Dear Valued Passenger,

Greetings from Grab,

Thank you for your email to report on your lost item.

The driver inform have return the item at the apartment guard house (guard room).

We're certainly aiming to surpass your expectations from Grab and will use your feedback to make your next Grab much better.

Please let me know if there's anything else I can help with.

We apologies for the inconvenience caused.

Thank you for supporting Grab.

Regards,
Kishore Kanaga Singam
Grab Customer Experience

 

Grab Support (Grab)

Nov 12, 19:19 +08

Hi Yan,

We are still reaching out to the driver and we'll get back to you as soon as possible.

Meanwhile, reply to this email if you need any further assistance.

Your sincerely,
Grab

 

Yan

Nov 12, 18:51 +08

Describe the item (as detailed as possible): i lost a big luggage at the back of the car. i called the driver 10minutes after i got out of the car but thete was no response.

Update now and unlock new features!


2020年10月30日星期五

My email to Privy Council dated May 27, 2015 for assistance against judicial corruption

 Attachment: Yan Jun's bundle of evidence


From: Yan Jun [mailto:medp1128@gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, May 27, 2015 4:31 PM
To: The Judicial Committee of the Privy Council
Cc: SUPCOURT Registry (SUPCOURT); AGC_Civil ; Ministry of Law of Singapore; Mickey Spiegel (Human Rights Watch); Gail Davidson (Lawyers Rights Watch Canada); Alejandro Ponce (World Justice Project); Transparency International; IMD World Competitiveness Center; Helen Boaden (BBC); Jon Fasman (The Economist); Jeremy Grant (Finacial times) ; Patrick McDowell (The Wall Street Journal)
Subject: An unusal request to the Privy Council from Singapore (Concerns over the practice of the Rule of Law in Singapore)

 

Dear The Judicial Committee of the Privy Council,

 

With great respect, I turn to the Privy Council for help.

 

My request

I would request the Privy Council, in the interest of justice, to examine the correctness of a final judgment (Yan Jun v Attorney-General of Singapore 2014 [SGCA] 60) made by the Court of Appeal of Singapore. I am aware that the Privy Council has no authority to touch on the judgment.

 

Reason for my request

My unusual request is caused by the unusual conduct of the Supreme Court (SC) of Singapore. On the one hand, the SC has repeatedly refused to admit the correctness of this judgment; on the other hand, the SC has pressed me to accept it. According to the Rule of Law, the law must be clear, and the government and its officials must be accountable under law. In fact, I have already conclusively prove the judgment wrong.

 

Singapore was ranked No. 10 in World Justice Project (WJP) Rule of Law index 2014. I understand that it is very hard to convince an ordinarily prudent person of the content of this letter, so a reliable way is for this person to independently evaluate the merits of the judgment (2014 [SGCA] 60, Attachment p.22-66) and the merits of my comments/criticism on it (The Appellant’s comments on the Judgment, Attachment p.67-74). With great respect, the judgment is more than unreasonable but it irrational.

 

Significance of the judgment

This judgment has denied the arrested person’s fundamental right to be produced before the Court for independent judicial examination on the reason for the arrest (or an individual’s Constitutional right against the arbitrary arrest and detention). While it was held that an individual’s right against arbitrary arrest and detention must be balanced against police investigation for public interest purposes, no post-arrest investigation is required because the reason for the arrest has already been established before the arrest.

 

Based on Presumption of Innocence, any warrantless arrest is illegal and must be subjected to independent judicial examination on the legality of the arrest. Singapore law minister conformed in 2008 that the Presumption of Innocence was a core principle of the government’s commitment to the Rule of Law. (Para 16 of the oral answer)

 

The 48 hours after the arrest are used for police investigation or for laying formal charge against the suspect, on the contrary, the 48 hours provide the police with flexibility to overcome the unavoidable delays in order to subject the suspect to independent examination, so way the suspect will be protected from arbitrary arrest and detention by the police.

 

Duty of the Privy Council

I understand that the Privy Council has no duty to consider my request. This case concerns with the individual’s fundamental right to liberty (Article 9 of the Universal Declaration of Human right), so I would greatly appreciate it if the Privy Council considers my request in the interest of justice. 

 

I stand by every word in this letter. To show the truthiness of the content, I copy in on this email a number of agencies including the SC, Singapore Ministry of Law, Press, the human rights organizations and Research organizations on the Rule of Law.    

 

Thank you very much for patience and attention.

 

Regards,

 

Yan Jun

(Singapore NRIC: S7684361I)

 

*******************

 

The following account is about the course of the case. It is not meant for the Privy Council but for the Press and the organizations on the Rule of Law and the human rights.

 

I hope that the human rights organizations (Human Rights Watch, Lawyers Rights Watch Canada) pay attention to the individual’s right against arbitrary arrest and detention in Singapore. The research organizations (World Justice Project, Transparency International, IMD, International Bar Association) may wish to examine the SC’s adherence to the Rule of Law in order to strength the rule of law. 

 

Source of the evidence

1.      The evidence included in this email comes from my first-hand experience of a false arrest case against the Singapore police/government. I have represented myself so have contacted directly the SC and the Attorney-General’s Chambers (the AGC, or the defendant).

 

Basic information

2.      There is only one English report of this case, the AsiaOne’s online report Man seeks $1.22m in damages from A-G for wrongful arrest, malicious prosecution. Basically, on 19 July 2007, I called police for assistance but two police officers refused to take my report but instead arrested me for an offence of “Breach of Personal Protection Order (PPO)”. It was later discovered that the PPO was a temporary order and had already expired two weeks before the arrest and I didn’t used any violence. So I brought a suit against the Police. For details, please see Para 1-15 of 2014 [SGCA] 60 , or the attached Yan Jun’s Bundle of Evidence at Page 27-30, Para 1-15.

3.       

 

Case #

Time and Venue

Judge

Outcome

1st hearing

S

257/2013

High Court

(3 Jul, 2013)

Assistant Registrar(AR)

Striking out most of my claims due to limitation period for filing the case.

1st Appeal

RA 227/2013

High Court

(30 Aug, 2013)

High Court Judge

Dismissal, the AR’s order stands. (2013 [SGHC] 245)

2nd Appeal

CA 142/2013

Court of Appeal

(9 May, 2014)

Appellant Judge

Dismissal, the AR’s order stands. (Judgment 2014 [SGCA] 60 appeared online on 27 Nov, 2014)

Table. 1 The Course of the case S 257/2013

 

Substantive Rule of Law

4.      The Court of Appeal (CA), or the highest Court, reserved their decision for 6 months and informed me to collect the judgment on 28 November 2014 [Attachment, Page 3, Para 1]. On 3 December, I informed the CA by email that their judgment was seriously flawed and included my comments/criticism (The Appellant’s comments on the Judgment, Attachment, P 67-74) as an attachment[P 4, Para 2-3]. I also requested the CA to explain in public their Constitutional interpretation [P 4, Para 4]. On December 15, the SC replied that “the contents of the email and the attachment have been placed before the Court. The Court will not be responding to the comments found in the attachment” [P 5, Para 2].

 

Procedural Rule of Law (HC/OS 108/2015/Abuse of court process)

5.      On 2 Feb 2015, I filed HC/OS 108/2015 to re-open the case on the ground that the CA’s judgment was irrational[P 6, Para 1]. While the High Court  accepted my application, on 10 April a Judge dismissed it on the ground that a High Court judge had no authority to touch on the CA’s decision[P 8]. 

 

6.      This Judge’s reasoning is apparently wrong. If he had no authority to handle my application, first, he had no authority to dismiss/approve my application. Second, my application should not be accepted by the High Court in the first place. On 15 April, I complained to the Chief Justice about the High Court’s conflicting positions over their authority [P 9, Para 1] by pointing out the first [P 9, Para 2] and second [P 9, Para 3] issue. In addition, I also requested the Chief Justice to expressly state the correctness of the CA’s decision [P 9, Para 8].

 

7.      To my surprise, the SC didn’t give a straight answer in their reply dated 20 April but “reiterate our previous replies to you” [P 11, Para 1-2].However, in “their previous reply” dated 15 April, the SC didn’t give a clear answer [P 12, Para 2-3]. When I claimed on 19 May that HC/OS 108/2015 was an abuse of process [P14 , Para 5], the SC simply ignored my accusation [P 13, Para 1-4].

 

Right against arbitrary arrest and detention (48 Hours rule)

8.      While the former Prime Minister of Singapore explained in 1984 that the 48 hours in the Article 9(4) of the Constitution was meant to facilitate police investigation and the following actions such as laying formal charge against the suspect [See 2014 [SGCA] 60, Para 92, or Attachment, P 55, Para 92]. With great respect, the 48-hour is not for the police to gather information and to charge the suspect, but serves as a protective mechanism by subjecting the suspect to the Court to protect the suspect from arbitrary arrest and detention by the police.

 

9.      The CA’s interpretation has obviously contradicted the internationally accepted 48-Hour rule. Technically, people in Singapore may have been mistakenly denied of their Constitutional right against arbitrary arrest and detention for some 30 years as a result of an erroneous interpretation of the Constitutional back in 1984.   

 

Present situation

10.   On 6 May, I made it clear that I wouldn’t attend the following hearings because a litigant has right not to comply with an incorrect judgment [P 15 , Para 2 on attendance and P16, Para 3]. Both the SC and the AGC pressed me for my attendance. The SC ordered that the entire case will be struck out if I fail to attend the hearing on 28 May[P 17, Para 2]. The State Counsel claimed that the CA’s decision is “treated as correct, without any need for "the Supreme Court" to have "expressly stated the correctness of the CA's decision".” [P 21, Para 2, under 22 Apr 2015]. The Defendant told me that Counsel told me that “You are doing stupid thing. You are hurting yourself”. The Defendant may wish to explain why I am hurting myself by getting my own justice.   

 

11.   Thank you.

 

Yan Jun