From: Yan Jun
Sent: Wednesday, February 3, 2016 11:10 AM
To: Workers' Party
Subject: Informal enquiry about raising an issue in the Parliament
Dear
Workers’ Party,
I am
writing to enquire about the possibility of raising an issue of judicial
corruption in the Parliament by the WP.
I turn to
the WP for assistance due to the government’s non-action to my corruption
allegations. One belief of the WP is that “The government must live up to
its responsibilities and promises. We hold the government accountable to you
and ensure good governance”.
The
facts
I wrote
to PM Lee Hsien Loong by email 4 times (3 Nov 2015, 25 of Nov 2015, 4 Dec 2015
and 21 Jan 2016) and requested for investigations into judicial corruption in
the Supreme Court. While the emails were copied to a large number of
organizations including the WP, there has been no response from the government
with regard to the investigations.
On 30 Nov
2015 the AGC dismissed my corruption allegation as spurious in an official
warning letter (The AGC’s warning letter), however, the AGC hasn’t
brought contempt proceedings against me even after I posted a video entitled “Judicial Corruption in Singapore”
on YouTube on 20 January 2016. If the AGC has stood by their position on the
absence of judicial corruption, the AGC must take action against me to clear
the government’s name.
In the
wrongful arrest case ([2014] SGCA 60) I brought against the police, the Supreme
Court issued an order to punish the victim and to award the police. There is no
way to explain this unjust order. After I informed the various organizations of
the official explanation in The AGC’s warning letter, the international
community must a clear picture of whether there is corruption in the Supreme
Court. The issue of judicial corruption cannot be denied and that explains the
government’s unresponsiveness to my requests for investigations.
The
significance of the issue
Judicial
corruption denies citizens impartial settlement of disputes with the
authorities. Now the message the government has delivered is that the
corruption is tolerated in Singapore.
The other
issue worth noting is the Court of Appeal’s (CA) interpretation of the Article
9(4) of the Constitution. It is self-evident that the interpretation has
contradicted the international law and has legitimized arbitrary arrest. It is
a fact that even the CA has refused to admit that its interpretation is
correct. however, I prefer not to elaborate it at this point.
My
intention
I have no
intention to bring any trouble or difficulty to the WP. Judicial corruption is
a serious allegation so it is understandable that both local and international
press are extremely cautious about touching on this issue. Even if I cannot get
any external assistance or advice, I will still continue with my efforts to
attract public intention to my corruption allegations because the international
community is aware of them so the allegations cannot be denied.
However,
I would appreciate it if the WP considers my informal enquiry seriously so the
people in Singapore know that the WP will and is able to let ordinary people’s
voice be heard in the parliament. In other words, the government is held
accountable to its actions and decisions by the opposition party in real case.
If the WP
is interested in this email, I am wondering whether I can get some advice from
the WP in an informal gathering/meeting. If not, please ignore this email.
Thank you
for your attention. I am looking forward to hearing from the WP at its earliest
convenience.
Regards,
Yan Jun
(Singapore
NRIC: S7684361I)
********************
From: Yan Jun [mailto:medp1128@hotmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, 21 January, 2016 3:58 PM
To: Lee Hsien Loong (PM)
Cc: AGC CIVIL (AGC); Connie CHAN (PS to the PM); Hui Agnes YAO (PA to
Attorney-General); Jessie TEO (PA to Chief Justice); K Shanmugam (Minister for
Law); Parliament Speaker; STATECOURTS_QSM@StateCourts.gov.sg; SUPCOURT Registry (SUPCOURT); Tony
Tan (President); Alejandro Ponce (The World Justice Project); Judicial Reform
Network in the 21st Century (JRN21); Liao Ran (Transparency International);
Sofie Arjon Schütte (U4 Anti-corruption resource centre); Srirak Plipat
(Transparency International); David Dadge (United Nations Office on Drug and
Crime); Mickey Spiegel (Human Right Watch); Nicholas Bequelin (Amnesty
International); Office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights (South East
Asia); Phil Robertson (Human Right Watch); The International Service for Human
Rights; Yuri Fedotov (United Nations Office on Drug and Crime); Commonwealth
Magistrate and judges Association; David W Rivkin (International Bar
Association); Elizabeth Andersen (American Bar of Association); Gail Davidson
(Lawyers Rights Watch Canada); International Association of Judges;
International Bar Association's Human Rights Institute; International
Commission of Jurists; Mark Ellis (International Bar Association); Talia Dove
(International Bar Association); Australia High Court; Federal Court of
Malaysia; Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal; Supreme Court of Canada; Supreme
Court of India; Supreme Court of New Zealand; Supreme Court of South Africa;
The Caribbean Court of Justice; The Privy Council; Lian He Wan Bao; Lian He Zao
Bao; Shin Min Daily; The Online Citizen (Singapore); The Straits Times; Yawning
Bread; The Huffington Post; Asia times; Goplan Nair (Blogger); Jon Fasman
(Economists) ; Keith Bradsher (New York Times); Linus Chua (Bloomberg); Patrick
McDowell (The Wall Street Journal); Reporters Without Borders (RWB); Rico Hizon
(BBC); Roberto Coloma (Agence France-Presse); Seiff Abby (Freelance
Corrrespondent); The Guardian; Reform Party; Singapore Democratic Party;
Singapore People's Party; Workers' Party; Brunei Embassy; Indonesia Embassy;
Laos Embassy; Malaysia Embassy; Myanmar Embassy; Philippines Embassy; Thailand
Embassy; Vietnam Embassy; Australia Embassy; Canada Embassy; France Embassy;
German Embassy; Italy Embassy; Japan Embassy; UK Embassy; US Embassy; Argentina
Embassy; Brazil Embassy; China Embassy; India Embassy; Mexico Embassy; Russia
Embassy; Saudi Arabia Embassy; South Africa Embassy; South Korea Embassy;
Turkey Embassy; Buscaglia Edgardo (Columbia University); Garry Rodan (Murdoch
University); Li-ann Thio (Natiaonal University of Singapore); Matthew
Stephenson (Harvard University); S.T. Quah Jon (National University of
Singapore); Silverstein Gordon (Yale University) ; Susan Rose Ackerman (Yale
University)
Subject: Judicial Corruption and the Rule by Law in Singapore
Dear Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong,
I refer to my emails to the PM dated 3 November and 25
November 2015.
“Spurious” allegations
In these emails, I made serious corruption allegations
against the Supreme Court and requested the PM to initiate an investigation
into this matter. On 30 November, the Attorney-General’s Chamber (the AGC)
dismissed my allegations as spurious and warned me of Contempt of Court
proceedings if I continued to make these allegations (See attachment 2). On 4
December I wrote to the PM to stand by my position but the AGC didn’t take any
action against me.
I have enough reason to believe that the Government is
covering up its misdeed, so I posted a video entitled Judicial corruption in
Singapore on You Tube to get the message across to the general public.
The real issue: an uncorrupt government or not?
The Supreme Court’s actions in the present case have
raised a question: Does Singapore really have an uncorrupt government or the
Government’s excellent reputation is an artefact?
In social science, it has been widely assumed that the
level of corruption correlates negatively with the level of democracy so a
least corrupt country is supposed to be fully democratic. Singapore is
generally treated as an anomaly because of its undemocratic PAP government.
I would say the Government’s corruption-free
reputation is an artefact because “corruption in the judiciary ensures that
corruption remains beyond the law in every other field of government and
economic activity in which it may have taken root”. In theory, judicial
corruption can cover up corruption-related situations involving bribery,
embezzlement, extortion, nepotism and fraud. As Transparency International
pointed out, “without an independent judiciary, graft effectively becomes
new ‘rule of law’”.
For the sake of prudence, a number of local and
international social scientists specialized in corruption or rule of law are
copied in on this email.
Grand judicial corruption
“Judicial corruption includes any inappropriate
influence on the impartiality of the judicial process “so bias serves as a
good indicator of judicial corruption. In this police wrongful arrest case, the
Supreme Court clearly revealed an actual bias in favor of the Government by
issuing an unjust order to punish the victim (me) and to award the perpetrator
(the police).
Judicial corruption can be divided into petty and
grand corruption and the latter involves the highest levels of government.
Given the fact that the Chief Justice was informed of the unjust order but
didn’t intervene, it is clear that the corruption in the Supreme Court falls
into the category of grand judicial corruption.
The past case and concerns
Without assistance from external authorities, it is
almost impossible to prove there is grand corruption in a given legal system.
In the present case, the late PM Lee Kuan Yew misinterpreted one of the most
fundamental human rights (right against arbitrary arrest) in 1984. The mistake
is self-evident so no external authority is required.
The last time that the Supreme Court’s act of the
grand corruption was uncovered was back in 1988 in J. B. Jeyaretnam case. Although the Privy Council ruled that Jeyaretnam, an
opposition leader, “"have suffered a grievous injustice" by
"a series of misjudgments", the Supreme Court including the
then Chief Justice refused to remove Jeyaretnam’s conviction.
In July 2008, the International Bar Association's
Human Rights Institute (IBAHRI) released a 72-page report and concerned about “an actual or apparent lack of
impartiality and/or independence” of Singapore judiciary in cases involving
the ruling party. At Paragraph 5 of the response
letter, the Ministry
of Law dismissed the IBAHRI’s concern for lack of evidence to substantiate this
grave allegation.
An actual bias in favor of the Government, or an
actual lack of impartiality and/or independence, has been unraveled in the
present case. In retrospect, the IBAHRI’s concern was both proportionate and
necessary.
Rule by law
While Singapore has a reputation for fairness in
commercial law, I am uncertain whether the rule of law is tailored to promote
economic development rather than to protect individual rights.
It is clear from my first-hand litigation experience
in the past 6 years that judicial misconduct is a big problem for all courts
including top legal officials. In my email to the PM dated 3 November 2015 at
Paragraph 14 to 17 (see email below), I set out the irregularities on the part
of Judge of Appeal Chao Hick Tin and the Chief Justice Sundaresh Menon. I can
talk more.
In my cases, I have solid evidence to prove that what
the courts upheld was not justice but a social order in which the priority was
given to the government’s interest, the dignity of the judgments and the
interest of the wife and the child. The biggest problem lied with the Office of Public
Affairs (OPA)/Office of
Chief Justice where the court officials had free rein to behave as they please
to intentionally cover up the judicial misconduct by way of flat denial.
Without giving any justification, the OPA on 11
November 2015 dismissed my complaint as baseless and stated “we will not
entertain any further baseless complaints of judicial misconduct from you and
will not tolerate any further unwarranted challenges”. I attached my
original complaint to this email (See attachment 1) and would encourage the OPA
to take action against me if it proves my complaint baseless in public.
Recently I was sued in the State Courts for “breach of
contract”. In response to my evidence that the plaintiff tampered with the
original document and used a photocopy of the tampered document to file this
case, both the plaintiff and the hearing judge adamantly refused to admit that
the photocopy was a genuine copy. The judge rejected my request to examine the
original document and forced me to accept the photocopy and made a cost order
against me.
If this judge is right, everyone can sue me for
“breach of contract” with a fake document. It is the plaintiff and the court
who bear the burden to ensure that a contract is a genuine copy so there is a
case. I didn’t think this judge had administered justice so I reported a
forgery offence to the police (No. A/20160107/2096). While a complaint of
judicial corruption was filed to the OPA, I am not sure there will be response
because the OPA “will not entertain any further baseless complaints of
judicial misconduct from you”.
Overall, I don’t think I can get justice because what
the courts has upheld is not the rule of law and the courts have forced me to
accept injustice to protect the dignity of the judgments most of the time. I
stand by my words.
My appeal to the international community
First, I would appeal to the intentional community for
intervention on the ground that Singapore government is unfortunately in
violation of Article 9 of Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR).
Singapore subscribes to the UDHR so is supposed to follow Article 9, or “no
one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest, detention or exile”, however,
the Court of Appeal has legitimized arbitrary arrest in its judgment of [2014] SGCA 60 (Para 89-96).
Second, I would appeal to the international legal
organizations for intervention to curb the grand judicial corruption and the
blatant violation of the rule of law in Singapore. I am not the first person to
criticize the Singapore judiciary (See Criminalising Critique of the Singapore Judiciary). The easiest way is to urge the AGC to take action
against me if it denies my corruption allegations.
My appeal to the opposition parties
One role of the opposition parties is to hold the
government accountable to the public. Since the Government hasn’t responded to
this grand corruption scandal in public, I would request the opposition parties
to raise this issue in the parliament. I am ready to testify in person and
would appreciate it if my request is considered carefully. This email is copied
to the president (tony_tan@istana.gov.sg) and the parliament speaker (halimah_yacob@parl.gov.sg).
As for why the Government has done well in
international anticorruption surveys, I explained briefly in the video Judicial corruption in Singapore (at 8m54s).
My request to the PM for investigations
Given the fact that Singapore has
reputation for zero tolerance against corruption, it is big news if the Supreme Court is proved
corrupt at large scale. I believe the whole world (ASEAN, G7, G20) is seriously
interested to find out whether the PAP government is really as clean as it
appears to be. In sharp contrast to the Courts’ image of upholding justice, my
6 years litigation experience shows the opposite of this image.
This is the 4th time I request to the PM
for investigations and this time, for an investigation in response to my
corruption allegations on You Tube. I think the Government ought to either
admit the judicial corruption or to take action against me to clear its name.
In the interest of justice, I encourage the Government to take action against
me so the issue of judicial corruption can be solved in public.
I would request the AGC to explain why it didn’t bring
contempt of court proceedings against me after I confirmed my corruption
allegations on 4 December 2015.
Thank you very much for your attention and patience to
read a long letter. I am looking forward to a definite answer from the PM.
Regards,
Yan Jun
(Singapore NRIC: S7684361I)
