The Judicial corruption: the 7th letter to PM Lee Hsien Loong (08 December 2016)

Attachment 1:Police Charge

Attachment 2: Patient abuse in the IMH 

From: Yan Jun [mailto:medp1128@hotmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, December 08, 2016 14:13
To: Lee Hsien Loong (PM)
Cc: Yuri Fedotov (United Nations Office on Drug and Crime); Liao Ran (Transparency International); Srirak Plipat (Transparency International); Alejandro Ponce (The World Justice Project); The World Justice Project; Silverstein Gordon (Yale University) ; Li-ann Thio (Natiaonal University of Singapore); Garry Rodan (Murdoch University); Buscaglia Edgardo (Columbia University); S.T. Quah Jon (National University of Singapore); Susan Rose Ackerman (Yale University); isktan@ntu.edu.sg; info@article19.org; 'Freedom House'; mail@globalwitness.org; ohchr.bangkok@un.org; Jennifer Jokstad; information@ishr.ch; feedback@humanrightsfirst.org; 'Mickey Spiegel (Human Right Watch)'; 'Phil Robertson (Human Right Watch)'; 'Mayda Chan (International Amnesty) '; info@icj.org; info@cmja.org; Elizabeth Andersen (American Bar of Association); International Association of Judges; Gail Davidson (Lawyers Rights Watch Canada); Talia Dove (International Bar Association); Debbie Olsen; The Privy Council; Supreme Court of South Africa; Supreme Court of New Zealand; Federal Court of Malaysia; The Caribbean Court of Justice; Supreme Court of India; Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal; Supreme Court of Canada; Australia High Court; The Straits Times; Shin Min Daily; Lian He Wan Bao; Lian He Zao Bao; The Online Citizen (Singapore); news@theindependent.sg; 'Seiff Abby (Freelance Corrrespondent)'; Rico Hizon (BBC); 'Philip Bowring (The South China Morning Post)'; 'Linus Chua (Bloomberg)'; Gopalan Nair (Blogger); 'Apple Daily'; Asia times; 'Reporters Without Borders (RWB)'; Patrick McDowell (The Wall Street Journal); Keith Bradsher (New York Times); Jon Fasman (Economists) ; Roberto Coloma (Agence France-Presse); Vijay Joshi (Associated Press); 'The Huffington Post'; 'Reform Party'; 'Singapore People's Party'; Workers' Party; 'Singapore Democratic Party'; Vietnam Embassy; Myanmar Embassy; Laos Embassy; Thailand Embassy; Philippines Embassy; Indonesia Embassy; US Embassy; UK Embassy; Japan Embassy; Italy Embassy; German Embassy; Australia Embassy; Canada Embassy; Turkey Embassy; South Korea Embassy; South Africa Embassy; Saudi Arabia Embassy; India Embassy; China Embassy; Brazil Embassy; Argentina Embassy; Russia Embassy; 'Singapore Prison Service'; SUPCOURT Registry (SUPCOURT); STATECOURTS QSM (STATECOURTS); K Shanmugam (Minister for Law); Jessie TEO (PA to Chief Justice); 'Hui Agnes YAO (PA to Attorney-General)'; Connie CHAN (PS to the PM); qsm@imh.com.sg; enquiries@smc.gov.sg; agc@agc.gov.sg
Subject: The Rule of Law or Hypocrisy

Dear Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong,

I refer to the email I sent to the PM on 8 July 2016.

In that email, I claimed systematic violations of the fundamental human rights in Singapore caused by the judicial corruption on the part of the Supreme Court. In addition, I questioned whether the PM would resign from the post if my corruption allegation was true. Here is the newest evidence of the judicial corruption in a broader sense on the part of the Attorney-General (A.G.).   

My 3^rd protest and the unexpected release

On 14 June 2016, I was convicted of unlawful protests and was sentenced to imprisonment for holding up two signs stating “No Judiciary corruption in the Supreme Court of Singapore” outside the Istana and the Parliament house without a permit. On 21 June, I was out on bail to wait for the appeal that was later scheduled for 21 October at 10am.

At around 4pm on 20 October, I staged the 3^rd protest without a permit on the public road (Napier Road) right outside the US Embassy in Singapore by holding up two signs. One sign stated “No Judiciary corruption in the Supreme Court of Singapore” and the other sings stated “PM Lee Hsien Loong, Resign”.

Police arrested me on the spot and charged me with protesting without a permit as usual in the police station [1]. I chose not to bail out and requested to be charged in court. On the morning of 21 October, the police released me unconditionally and 3 police officers drove me from the police station to the Supreme Court to ensure I attended the appeal hearing on time. I questioned the officers why didn’t bring the case to the court but there was no answer. If the case had been brought before the court, the 3^rd protest could have been reported by the media.   

The appeal

The appeal was dismissed on 21 October by Justice Chan Seng Onn on the grounds that “the district judge’s findings were correct both in law and fact”.

With regard to the district judge’s finding that “the State Courts do not have the jurisdiction to deal with any sustentative constitutional challenge”, Justice Chan didn’t respond to my constitutional arguments but dismissed them without justification. With regard to the police’s controversial decision not to bring the case to court after my 3^rd protest, Justice Chan ruled that the inconsistency was unrelated to the appeal. With regard to the time to release the Grounds of Decision, Justice Chan didn’t answer.

On 18 November, I was replied by the Supreme Court that my further appeal to the Court of Appeal was possible but there would be no written Grounds of Decision as the oral judgment was already given [2].

Equality before the law and the role of the A.G.

In 1994 Michael Fay case, the government declined the then US president Bill Clinton’s appeal to grant Fay clemency from caning on the grounds of the principle of the equality before the law. Now the government has declined to prosecute me for unlawful protest simply because of a specific protest location. I am confused how the US embassy as a building has compromised the fundamental principle upheld by the government in enforcing the law to maintain the public order. 

The A.G. has a role to uphold the rule of law and acts as the guardian of the public interest. No matter the police dropped the charge on their own decision or on public prosecutors’ order; the current A.G. ought to take responsibility for the police’s controversial decision.  

On 25 November, the Prime Minister’s Office announced that the current A.G. Mr. VK Rajah, the former Judge of Appeal, was to step down on 14 January 2017 upon reaching the retirement age of 60 years (See here). The succeeding A.G. is 63 years of age and the retirement age for a Supreme Court judge is 65 years. The current A.G. is still in the middle of a 3-year term. It is clear that the current A.G. Mr. VK Rajah won’t face impeachment and trial even if the police’s controversial decision is a result of the abuse of prosecutorial power.

Patient abuse in psychiatric institutions   

In my July email, I claimed that the Supreme Court had legitimized the arbitrary arrest by the police for investigative purposes so the police could lawfully arrest a suspect, interrogate him and release him if no evidence of an offence was found.  

In my opinion, psychiatrists are even more dangerous than policemen in the sense that they have unfettered discretion about whether to admit a person to a mental hospital and that they can abuse a patient’s privilege of the writ of habeas corpus, a right that is constitutionally guaranteed against unlawful detention.

In April this year, I was diagnosed by the Institute of Mental Health (IMH) with having no delusional disorder after a standard psychiatric assessment. Recently the IMH diagnosed me with delusional disorder without conducting a formal interview and finally kicked me out of the hospital after I staged a hunger strike [3]. I made a police report but police replied affirmatively that no investigation would be carried out into this matter.    

The fact that I stood the trial showed clearly that I had capacity to give consent for medical interventions. I do not accept the recent diagnosis because the IMH didn’t obtain consent from me so the diagnosis is unlawful. I will withhold my consent to a psychiatrist so if anyone suspects me of having a mental illness, he can easily call the police and subject the matter of involuntary hospitalization to the court.

My requests

I would like to request the PM to address 3 issues in public to defend the government’s international reputation of being corruption-free.

The 1^st issue is about the apparent injustice demonstrated in the police’s controversial decision. The justification is supposed to include the opinion of both A.G. Mr. VK Rajah and Justice Chan Seng Onn on the lawfulness of my 3^rd protest.

This issue clearly falls into the category of domestic politics so the Western media is not supposed to touch on it due to “gazetting” (See here). The international organizations such as World Justice Project and Transparency International do not carry out independent investigations and the outcome of their perception-based survey is highly influenced by the media reports on corruption-related matters. It will be unfair for the rest of the world if the government’s questionable conduct is not reported by the local media.

The 2^nd issue is about the correctness of my corruption allegation. Against strong objections, the government recently passed the Administration of Justice (Protection) Bill (See here). I stand by my allegation and would request the government to take action against me to show the necessity of this newly passed Act.

The 3^rd issue is the patient abuse in respect of involuntary admissions. It seems to me that Changi Prison and the IMH are not responsible for wrongful restraints and confinement specified in the Panel Code (s339-340) even if they willfully commit such offences in order to cover up their misdiagnoses.

Here is the additional evident to show the Supreme Court’s bias in favor of the government at the level of Judge of Appeal [4]. It is reasonable for me to conclude that the legal system ranked 9^th globally in 2016 in terms of Rule of Law index is run by Rule by Law for the government’s interests. 

My Plan

I am going to continue my protests against judicial corruption in public areas outside these embassies: British High Commission, France Embassy, China Embassy and Russian Embassy, before the coming Christmas.

Thank you.

Regards,

Yan Jun

(S7684361I)

[1] Attachment 1(Police Charge) p.1-3.

[2] Attachment 1, p.4. Para 2-3.

[3] Attachment 2 (Patient abuse in the IMH)

[4] Attachment 1, p.6-7. Para 4-8.

The Judicial corruption: the 6th letter to PM Lee Hsien Loong (08 July 2016)

From: Yan Jun [mailto:medp1128@hotmail.com]
Sent: Friday, July 08, 2016 14:08
To: Lee Hsien Loong (PM)
Cc: STATECOURTS_QSM@statecourts.gov.sg; agc@agc.gov.sg; 'Connie CHAN (PS to the PM)'; 'Hui Agnes YAO'; 'Jessie TEO'; 'K Shanmugam (Minister for Law)'; 'Roger Tan (IMH)'; 'Singapore Prison Service'; 'SUPCOURT Registry (SUPCOURT)'; Alejandro Ponce (The World Justice Project); Liao Ran (Transparency International); Sofie Arjon Schutte (U4 Anti-corruption resource centre); Srirak Plipat (Transparency International); Yuri Fedotov (United Nations Office on Drug and Crime); Buscaglia Edgardo (Columbia University); Garry Rodan (Murdoch University); Li-ann Thio (Natiaonal University of Singapore); S.T. Quah Jon (National University of Singapore); Silverstein Gordon (Yale University) ; Susan Rose Ackerman (Yale University); Article 19; Freedom House; Global Witness; Human Rights First ; Jennifer Jokstad; 'Mayda Chan (International Amnesty) '; Mickey Spiegel (Human Right Watch); Phil Robertson (Human Right Watch); The International Service for Human Rights; Commonwealth Magistrate and judges Association; Debbie Olsen; Elizabeth Andersen (American Bar of Association); Gail Davidson (Lawyers Rights Watch Canada); International Association of Judges; International Commission of Jurists; 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; Reform Party; Singapore Democratic Party; Singapore People's Party; Workers' Party; Indonesia Embassy; Laos Embassy; Malaysia Embassy; Myanmar Embassy; Philippines Embassy; Thailand Embassy; Vietnam Embassy; Australia Embassy; Canada Embassy; German Embassy; Italy Embassy; Japan Embassy; UK Embassy; US Embassy; Argentina Embassy; Brazil Embassy; China Embassy; India Embassy; Russia Embassy; Saudi Arabia Embassy; South Africa Embassy; South Korea Embassy; Turkey Embassy
Subject: Comments on the PM's essay "Fight against corruption"

Dear Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong,

I refer to the PM’s essay “Fight against corruption: Singapore's experience” (Straits Times May 14, 2016). With respect, I think the essay is misleading and it is appropriate to replace the “corruption” in the title with “petty corruption”.

The content of the essay

In the essay, 4 factors including the development of an anticorruption culture (the 4^th factor) were set out as the Government’s experience. The central role played by Corrupt Practices Investigation Bureau (CPIB) was highlighted. An impressive example of how the Government transparently handled the rumour about two top officials was given to show the highest standards of integrity that the Government was committed to uphold. 

The weakness of the essay (grand corruption)

The main weakness is that the essay only touched on the petty corruption (corruption involving smaller sums and typically more junior officials) but not the grand corruption (corruption involving substantial amounts of money and usually high-level officials). It is the grand corruption that matters most. The 1.7 million case mentioned in the essay is not a grand corruption case.

Although there are not reports on the grand corruption in Singapore, the international community has frequently cast doubts on the independence of Singapore’s judiciary. In last November, solid evidence of judicial corruption in the Supreme Court was submitted to both the Government and the international community. In March and April of this year, two public protests were staged (See Straits Times report 14 April 2016) after all other procedures to address this issue had been exhausted. 

The protester (or me) was arrested and was suspected of suffering from a mental illness such as persecutory delusional disorder and was remanded in the Institute of Mental Health (IMH) for assessments. No mental disease was found. 

So far the Government has neither confirmed nor denied the corruption allegation in public. Given the fact that the judicial and political corruption are mutually reinforcing [1], it is safe to expect that the serious political corruption, if any, will be disclosed in the future.

The PAP’s anticorruption culture

As for the unusually effective anticorruption culture developed by the Government, Samuel Huntington, the late social scientist, explained this cultural change in his book “Culture Matters (2000)” by saying “politics did change a culture and save it from itself” and further raised a question “Can politics "save" a society from itself permanently?” [2]

While how politics changed a culture by the PAP Government was not explained in detail in the book, in the face of new evidence, one can easily figure out that the mechanism includes judicial corruption at a large scale. One of the most established models in political science is that democracy is a direct effect of economic development but the spectacular economic development guided by the undemocratic PAP Government stands out as an anomaly to this model. One plausible explanation is that the economic development is not founded on justice.

The PAP Government’s anticorruption experience may not be a model for a country where there are opposition parties or different voices in the ruling party, because the grand corruption will be exposed so the strong effects of the negligible amount of petty corruption will be much reduced.

Corruption levels

According to The World Bank, corruption levels can vary within a country for different types. For example, there may be very little grand corruption in a country with a relatively clean elite, but a large amount of petty corruption in the lower offices of government [3]. The PAP Government has created a unique situation: a large amount of grand corruption with the judiciary but very little petty corruption in lower offices of government. 

Corruption is defined as “the abuse of entrusted power for private gain” and private gain certainly includes government interest, as contrast to the public interest. There are cases in which the courts ruled in favor of the government by denying citizens’ fundamental right against arbitrary arrest, the right to free speech and the right to a fair trial. That may partially explain why the city-state is extremely safe, orderly and well-organized under the PAP Government.

On 13 April 2016, the US Department of State released the Country Reports on Human Rights Practices for 2015. It was stated in section 1d that “The law prohibits arbitrary arrest and detention, and the government generally observed these prohibitions.” With respect, the statement is inaccurate because in 2014 the Supreme Court legitimized the arbitrary arrest by the police to cover up a fundamental mistake made by a top government official in 1984.[4] 

The Government’s denial of the right to free speech

The Government’s position on free speech was clearly set out in Chee Siok Chin  v MHA [2005] SGHC 216, a leading local case on the right to freedom of expression. Justice V. K. Rajah (as he then was), or the current Attorney-General (AG), was of the opinion that ”Permitting unfettered individual rights in a process that is value-neutral is not the rule of law. Indeed, that form of governance could be described as the antithesis of the rule of law – a society premised on individualism and self-interest.” (Para 52)

With respect, the judgment is flawed for two reasons. First, a citizen’s right to freedom of expression was solely treated as an individual interest in accordance with one’s own wish. This right is a public interest as well and is one of basic means through which the general public can supervise the operation of government. Indeed, the form of governance in which the public order is maintained at the expense of justice could be described as the Rule by Law- a society premised on authoritarianism. 

Secondly, the court overlooked the Singapore’s commitment to the Rule of Law, or an individual’s absolute right to justice. While the exercise of right to free speech always involves the balancing of competing public interest, the protection of public interest matters such as public order or national security or public morality or relations with other countries etc. must be carried out in accordance with the law. There are no competing social concerns to restrict the exercise of an individual’s absolute right to justice by way of public protests as a last resort to act against the judicial corruption. 

These questions have been brought up before the AG, the Public Prosecutor and the State Court in my written documents but haven’t been answered because I didn’t get a chance to ask these questions during the trial.

Corrupt legal system

If my corruption allegation is false, I should be charged with “Contempt of Court”. If it is true, the Government must allow the public protest after any other procedures to address this issue had been exhausted. It is a fact that the AGC, the police and the State Courts all refused to judge the truthfulness of the corruption allegation but instead sent me directly to psychiatric institute and the jail to solve the matter.  

After my mental state was diagnosed as healthy, I was still tortured in the institute because the IMH has wrongfully believed that its staff members had authority to apply medical restraint (both physical and chemical) on every person remanded in custody for psychiatric assessments, no matter he is a real patient or a person of sound mind (See here). Although a letter for investigations was sent to the court and copied to the Government and the media, nothing has happened. If a government conceals its deviate behaviors as prudent measures, it is not surprising that an image of good governance will be presented.

I was convicted of two charges of illegal protest and was sentenced to a fine of $5,000 in default three weeks' imprisonment. After the judgment was delivered on 16 June 2016, I was sent directly to the jail until I was out on bail pending appeal 6 days later. Here is the Grounds of Decision [5] and the local newspaper may wish to report it. 

Here is an observation made by a local law academic about the judiciary that I found objective:

The ruling People's Action Party (PAP) of Singapore legitimises its authoritarian political regime - and insulates it from substantive scrutiny - via a three-pronged strategy: first, through its tightly controlled media and communication channels; secondly, by delivering an admirable economic performance and, creating and maintaining an awe-inspiring standard of living; and thirdly - and most importantly - through its legal institutions. However, there are profound logical flaws and stark absences of consistency in the judgments that help secure this legal state of affairs. [6]

My question to the PM (resignation)

I stand by my corruption allegation and the contents of this letter. I certainly will continue with my public protests even if I will be put in prison for ever.

If my allegation is proven true, with great respect, will the PM resign over the corruption case to fulfill the PAP Government’s commitment to uphold the highest standards of integrity? I would appreciate it if the PM give an answer with yes or no.

Thank you for your attention and patience to read this letter.

Regards,

Yan Jun

(S7684361I)

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

[1] Global Corruption Report 2007, by Transparency International, p. xxiii. Para 7.

[2] Culture matters: how values shape human progress. Basic Books; 1 edition (May 18, 2000) by Lawrence E. Harrison, Samuel P. Huntington. p.xvi, Para 1.

[3] Introduction to Corruption, Youth for Good Governance, distance learning program. The World Bank. See  http://info.worldbank.org/etools/docs/library/35970/mod03.pdf

[4] Yan Jun v Attorney-General [2014] SGCA 60, Para 89-96. See http://www.singaporelaw.sg/sglaw/laws-of-singapore/case-law/free-law/court-of-appeal-judgments/15807-yan-jun-v-attorney-general-2014-sgca-60 . And The Appellant’s comments on the Judgment of [2014] SGCA 60, Para 15-27. See http://medp1128.blogspot.sg/2014/12/yan-juns-comments-on-judgement-of-2014.html

[5] Grounds of Decision, See https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BwYGzLoHxGOzamt5OXZTUUtxdFk/view?usp=sharing

Public Prosecutor’s Submission, See https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BwYGzLoHxGOzX3ljRTYwNmc3c2M/view?usp=sharing

Yan Jun’s Submission, see https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BwYGzLoHxGOzVEpCeTh6NHFBVU0/view?usp=sharing

[6] Tey Tsun Hang., “Criminalising Critique of the Singapore Judiciary"(2010), HKLJ. 40(3), 751-785. See https://singaporeconsensus.files.wordpress.com/2012/07/2011-criminalising-critique-of-the-singapore-judiciary.pdf

Criminalising Critique of the Singapore Judiciary

Criminalising Critique of the Singapore Judiciary: PDF

Source: https://singaporeconsensus.wordpress.com/

Grounds of Decision for Public Prosecutor v Yan Jun

Grounds of Decision: PDF

Public Prosecutor's submission: PDF

Yan Jun's submission: PDF

Forensic psychiatric report from the IMH: PDF
(No major mental illness. Narcissistic traits, Querulous behavior)

Letter to the Office of the Chief Justice for investigations

Forensic psychiatric report from the IMH: PDF 

From: Yan Jun [mailto:medp1128@hotmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, May 5, 2016 10:43 AM
To: shirleyne CHAN (Office of the Chief Justice)
Cc: Roger Tan (IMH); Ministry of Health (MOH); agc@agc.gov.sg; STATECOURTS QSM (STATECOURTS); SUPCOURT QSM (SUPCOURT); FJCOURTS Family Registry (FJCOURTS); Talia Dove (International Bar Association); Gail Davidson (Lawyers Rights Watch Canada); 'Freedom House'; 'Human Rights First '; 'Jennifer Jokstad'; 'Mayda Chan (International Amnesty) '; 'Mickey Spiegel (Human Right Watch)'; 'Office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights (South East Asia)'; 'Phil Robertson (Human Right Watch)'; 'The International Service for Human Rights'; 'Lian He Wan Bao'; 'Lian He Zao Bao'; 'Shin Min Daily'; 'The Online Citizen (Singapore)'; 'The Straits Times'; 'Apple Daily'; 'Asia times'; 'Jon Fasman (Economists) '; 'Keith Bradsher (New York Times)'; 'Linus Chua (Bloomberg)'; 'Patrick McDowell (The Wall Street Journal)'; 'Philip Bowring (The South China Morning Post)'; 'Reporters Without Borders (RWB)'; 'Rico Hizon (BBC)'; 'Roberto Coloma (Agence France-Presse)'; 'Seiff Abby (Freelance Corrrespondent)'; 'The Huffington Post'; 'Reform Party'; 'Singapore Democratic Party'; 'Singapore People's Party'; 'Workers' Party'
Subject: Request for investigations: Torture in detention

Dear the Office of the Chief Justice,

Case No. SC-903900-2016: Public Prosecutor v Yan Jun

1.      I am writing to report the torture I suffered in the Institute of Mental Health (IMH) and requested the court for investigations.

2.      The State Courts issued a remand order on 14 April 2016 to detain me in the IMH for two weeks for a psychiatric assessment, so the court owed me a duty of care to ensure my safety during the detention. However, when I returned to the Court on 28 April, the judge of the State Courts declined my request for investigations, without giving any justification.

3.      The remand order was reported by both the Straits Times and Channel News Asia.

Torture in the IMH

4.      The torture refers to the physical and chemical restraints (4-point restraint in bed and antipsychotic medication) imposed on me by the staff members of the IMH on 19 April 2016[1]. I already filed a formal letter of complaint to the CEO of the IMH but there is no reply. It should note that the use of restraints is not unusual because in one week time, I witnessed another two cases where physical and chemical restraints were used on individuals detained in the next door seclusion room. In my case, the torture was caused by the IMH’s misunderstanding of the law.

Diagnosis

5.      I was diagnosed with “No major mental illness. Narcissistic traits, Querulous behavior” by a psychiatrist on 19 April 2016 [2] so I am fully responsible for my protests.

6.      While narcissistic personality disorder is characterized by exaggerated feelings of self-importance, I must say I held no regard for medical staff in the forensic ward of the IMH because of their questionable professional integrity, insufficient legal knowledge and poor analytic skills. 

7.      Querulous behavior refers to vexatious legal actions based on manifestly unfounded grounds. This diagnosis was based on numerous litigations I filed with the Family Justice Courts (FJCs) since 2009 but a psychiatrist certainly is not in a position to assess an individual’s legal knowledge. With great respect and honestly, it is me who identified serious flaws in the textbook  ”Element of Family Law in Singapore (2^nd Ed, LexisNexis, 2012)” and I also copied this letter to the FJCs. 

8.      With respect, I do not accept the diagnosis because it denies facts. It is a good idea for the psychiatrist to attend the trial fixed at Court 7 of the State Courts on 9 May 2016 at 9:30am [3] to check whether his diagnosis is correct. I already declined the DPP’s offer of 24-month probation or something. The offer was baseless because even at this point, I am still innocent.

State Court’s denial of my right to fair trial and hearing

9.      On 28 April in the hearing, I expressly claimed that the court denied my right to fair trial and hearing on the ground that the hearing judge prohibited me from challenging the lawfulness and the correctness of the remand order he issued on 14 April. There was no response from the court.

10.   It is a fact that the lawfulness of the arrest had not been examined in the first place by even the office of the Chief Justice (See email below) so the lawfulness of the remand order is called into question.

11.   According to Channel News Asia, the DPP reasoned “a psychiatric assessment would be crucial in determining if there was something preventing him from accepting and processing information that would be critical to his understanding the nature and consequences of his actions”.

12.   Unfortunately, a psychiatric assessment is meant to settle the issue of “how responsible one is for his actions” and in this case, it can be used to find out whether the protests were staged on my own volition or caused by my involuntary acts because someone whispered to me or ordered me to do so. I did apply for a protest permit. The right test to address the DPP’s concern is an intelligence test or a legal test.

13.   Since I submitted the evidence of the judicial corruption to the Government and the international community in November 2015, the DPP’s suspicion of “persecutory delusional disorder” was baseless. My corruption allegation is a matter of fact and of law so the truthiness of it must be assessed by legal but not medical professionals.  

14.   I stand by my allegation of judicial corruption and encourage the DPP to charge me with “contempt of court” to settle the issue of corruption in public. I will continue my protest against judicial corruption after all other remedies have been exhausted. 

15.   Thank you for your attention. I am looking forward to hearing from you soon.

Regards,

Yan Jun

(S7684361I)

[1] : Attached file, p. 1-5.

[2]: Ibid, p. 6.

[3]: Ibid, p. 7.

Torture in the Institute of Mental Health (IMH)

Facts

1.      On 14 April 1016, the State Courts issued a 2-week remand order to place me in the IMH for a psychiatric assessment. When I was admitted to the forensic ward of the IMH at around 10pm, I asked nurses for written regulations governing the rights and duties of the detained individuals and the IMH. No document was provided.   

The 1^st interview

2.      On the morning of 15 April, a psychiatrist interviewed me for the first time. I told him the course of my suit against the police for false imprisonment. In addition, I challenged the lawfulness of the remand order by pointing out that the lawfulness of the arrest hadn’t been determined by the court in the first place. In response to my request to write a letter (or a writ of Habeas corpus[1]) to the High Court Registry to review the legality of the detention, the psychiatrist suggested that I should do so after I was discharged from the IMH. I explained that an individual would not be in a position to write such a letter if he was released from the detention. There was no direct response from the psychiatrist.  

The transfer

3.      On the morning of 18 April, I managed to write the letter in front of a social worker Roger and a case manager but was told that the letter couldn’t be mailed out without the psychiatrist’s approval. While the case manager informed a nurse that she would get back to me later that afternoon, at dinner time (5pm) I checked with a nurse and found that she was gone. I checked with a senior staff member who later turned out to be a nurse clinician about the status of my letter (or whether it was mailed out) but the nurse clinician ignored me.  

4.      I explained to him that the request was made under my constitutional right so he was obliged to  respond to it; however, my explanation didn’t work. After I raised my voice to emphasize the absolute supremacy of constitutional rights, the nurse clinician simply made an order to send me to a single-bed room (seclusion room) that was specifically designed for troublemaker patients. I didn’t resist in any way and no explanation was provided to justify the transfer.

The 2^nd Interview

5.      On the morning of 19 April at around 9am, the psychiatrist interviewed me for the second time and he finally concluded that I didn’t suffer from a major mental disorder. However, he didn’t give a direct response to my request for an early release on the ground of my normal mental state[2]. I reported the transfer of me to the seclusion room to him and asked for a written justification but he simply treated the transfer as a “response” but not a “punishment”. Due to my persistence, the psychiatrist allowed me to write a complaint letter to the management of the IMH. I was sent back by the security guard to the seclusion room at around 10am.

3 questions

6.      From 10am to 1pm, I waited in the seclusion room to be called out to write the letter. I also talked to a number of nurses about the psychiatrist’s permission but they all replied that they were too busy to handle my request. In fact, what the nurses supposed to do was to provide me with a pen and a piece of paper so I could write the letter in front of the security guard only. I also requested the security guard to talk to the nurses on my behalf, there was still no response.

7.      At around 1pm, I asked 3 questions to a nurse who happened to pass the seclusion room. The first question was “Can I write the complaint letter?” This nurse declined my request on the ground of their busy work schedule. The second question was “Why did you give priority to other jobs assigned by the psychiatrist but not to my request?” This nurse simply replied that my request was “less important “and didn’t provide any justification. The third question was “When can I write the letter?” This nurse replied “I have no idea”.

Physical restraint

8.      Given the facts that I had waited for 3 hours and I had got the psychiatrist’s permission, I thought this nurse had denied me my constitutional right to freedom of expression so I kicked the lower part of the door continuously to express my unhappiness. The nurse set off the alarm and after a short while, over 10 persons gather outside the seclusion room. A male ward manager told me to get out of the room and they wouldn’t apply force on me. He told me to lie on a hospital bed and as soon as I did so, they immediately applied hand and feet restraints on me to tie me to the bed. I didn’t resist in any way but expressly told them of the psychiatrist’s diagnosis of my mental state. I also requested to see the psychiatrist, there was simply no response.

9.      I was placed inside the seclusion room and after a short while, a female doctor came and asked me whether I had got any injury. I told her what happened to me and expressly informed her of the psychiatrist’s diagnosis, however, she simply ignored me and left. A nurse told me that she was the only doctor I could talk to.

10.   From 1pm to 1:30am, for over 12 hours, I was restrained in bed and I kept shouting “release me” and “protest against the IMH for false imprisonment” and also condemned the nurses but no one dealt with my request. A nurse told me that “the harder you try, the less likely you will write the letter”. At 5pm, a nurse told me that he would release me on the condition that I would have dinner; I refused because I was on a hunger strike.

Chemical restraint

11.    At 1:30am of 20 April, 3 nurses came into the room to stop me from shouting. I expressly told them the psychiatrist’s diagnosis and asked them to justify the use of restraints. One nurse shouted at me that “You have no right” and added that “We come to release you but you talked so much so we don’t release you”. He suggested to his colleague that “if he continues to make noise, we give him a shot”. I immediately stopped making noise and requested for a release but they simply left. A few minutes later they came back and gave me an injection, regardless of my protest. When questioned why to give me a shot since I had already stopped making noise, a nurse answered “to make you rest well”.

12.   I was told that my blood pressure would be measured every 15 minutes in the first hour after the injection and I could only recall the first measurement. When I woke up in the morning, I found I was lying in a mattress on the ground. When I got up, I felt dizzy. I continued my hunger strike to protest against the hospital brutality until the dinner time of 22 April, when I was confirmed that my complaint letter wrote on 21 April was sent to the CEO of the IMH. There is no response.

The nurse clinician’s explanation

13.   I came across the nurse clinician and asked him for a written justification for his transfer order. On the morning of 22 April, he showed me a copy of internal regulations made by the IMH in which the rights and the duties of the IMH and the detained individuals were set out. He added that a detained individual was not allowed to have a copy of it.  

14.   With respect to the transfer order, he explained that it was meant to protect me because he believed that “other detained persons wanted to beat me after I raised my voice on 18 April”. When questioned why he didn’t put me in a multiple-bed room as the isolation had caused me great stress, he replied that I had attitude problems so must be isolated. With respect to the physical and chemical restraints applied on me, he explained that I should be more patient and allow for the nurses’ delayed response to my request due to their tight work schedules.

15.   When I pointed out that I was a normal person by telling him the psychiatrist’s diagnosis of my mental state, he paused for a second and answered that he needed to check with the psychiatrist. In addition, he insisted that the IMH had authority to give psychiatric treatment to everyone detained in the IMH under Criminal Procedure Code (CPC) regardless of their mental states, pursuant to the clause 1 of the regulations he produced. [emphasis added]

After the torture

16.   Despite my numerous requests to talk to the psychiatrist for his opinion on the restrains, he became not available for comment. The last time I saw the psychiatrist was on the morning of 19 April. On 25 April, exactly one week after I was put in the seclusion room, I was transferred to my original multiple-bed room. No justification was provided.  On 28 April, I reported the torture to the State Courts for investigations on the ground that the court owed me a duty of care to ensure my safety in the 2-week detention in the IMH. The judge rejected my request and directed me for independent legal advice, without providing justifications.

Discussions (torture vs normal psychiatric treatment)

17.   The use of physical and chemical restraint on me constituted a torture or psychiatric malpractice because I was already diagnosed as having a sound mind at the point when the restraints were applied.  The malpractice was caused by the IMH’s misunderstanding of the law. 

3 issues

18.   There are three issues in this case. The first issue is about the lawfulness of the IMH’s internal regulations which authorize its staff members to apply psychiatric treatments including restraints and seclusion to every detained individual under Criminal Procedure Code. The second issue is whether there was a breach of professional integrity on the part of the psychiatrist because he refused to free me from the seclusion room after his diagnosis.  The third issue is whether the staff members have breached their duty of care by not checking with the psychiatrist for his diagnosis and by their failure to observe the guidelines for the use of restraints and seclusion rooms.

  

19.   For the first issue, the clause which reads that “these [internal] regulations are applicable to each individual detained in IMH under Criminal Procedure Code” is apparently unlawful because it has contradicted the Constitution[3] and the Mental Health Act (CAP 178A)[4].In other words, the IMH’s internal regulations are only applicable to an individual who is diagnosed with mental illness or who is reasonably suspected of suffering from mental illness by a designated medical practitioner.

20.   It should note there are 3 types of persons detained in the IMH. The first type is the Real patients or those who have diagnosed as having mental illness. The second type is Patients To Be or those whose mental states are to be assessed by a psychiatrist. The third type is Normal persons or those who has been excluded from having mental illness by a designated medical practitioner. It is self-evident that a normal person’s right to liberty and body integrity is guaranteed by the Constitution, so psychiatric treatments including the restraints and seclusion are not applicable to normal persons like me. In fact, pursuant to s10(6) of the Mental Health Act, I should be released from the IMH on 19 April after the psychiatrist reached his diagnosis[5].

21.   For the second issue, the psychiatrist must provide justifications as to why I was put in the seclusion room after diagnosis. The psychiatrist, on behalf of the court and the IMH, owed me a duty of care so he needs to justify his inaction on the correctness and the lawfulness of the use of the physical and chemical restraints on me after the torture.

22.   For the third issue, the relevant nursing staff needs to answer the following questions:

a)      Given the fact that my 3 questions were apparently rational, why my kicking the lower part of the door made me an agitated patient so physical restraints were applied to me?

b)     The time limit for the application of physical restraints on an adult (usually it is 4 hours) ;

c)      Why didn’t the nurses consult with the psychiatrist about his diagnosis after the use of physical restraints?

d)     Why didn’t the female doctor assess my mental state on the spot in the seclusion room or consulted with psychiatrist for his diagnosis?

e)      Given the fact that I informed the nurses of the psychiatrist’s diagnosis at 1:30am on 20 April, by what authority did the nurse use chemical restraint on me without my consent?

Conclusion and request

23.   For the reasons set out above, I conclude that the physical and chemical restraints and the seclusion applied on me constitute a torture. I request the IMH for a public explanation. 

Yan Jun (S7684361I)

4 May, 2016

---

[1] Pursuant to Article 9(2) of the Constitution of Singapore which reads “Where a complaint is made to the High Court or any Judge thereof that a person is being unlawfully detained, the Court shall inquire into the complaint and, unless satisfied that the detention is lawful, shall order him to be produced before the Court and release him”. See http://statutes.agc.gov.sg/aol/download/0/0/pdf/binaryFile/pdfFile.pdf?CompId:62847936-2328-4409-aa97-2ff69536bc2a

[2] Pursuant to s10(6) and s2(1) of Mental Health Act (CAP 187A). s10(6) reads that “A person shall not be detained at a psychiatric institution for treatment unless —(a) he is suffering from a mental disorder which warrants the detention of the person in a psychiatric institution for treatment; and (b) it is necessary in the interests of the health or safety of the person or for the protection of other persons that the person should be so detained. s2(1) reads that “treatment” includes observation, inpatient treatment, outpatient treatment and rehabilitation”. See http://statutes.agc.gov.sg/aol/download/0/0/pdf/binaryFile/pdfFile.pdf?CompId:a623c1d9-a2ed-4de7-9ada-d3bc2f51027e

[3]Pursuant to Article 9(1) of the Constitution of Singapore which reads “No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty save in accordance with law.”

[4] Supra note 2.

[5] Ibid.