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

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

______________

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

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

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

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

 

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

Part I

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Part II

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Part III

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

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

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

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

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

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

Part IV

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Part V

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

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

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

35.  Thank you.

Letter to UN Human Rights Office for South-East Asia ( July 1, 2017)

From: Yan Jun
Sent: Saturday, 1 July, 2017 10:32
To: ohchr.bangkok@un.org
Cc: PM Office (pmo_hq@pmo.gov.sg) <pmo_hq@pmo.gov.sg>; Hong Kong Customs and Excise Department (customsenquiry@customs.gov.hk) <customsenquiry@customs.gov.hk>; agc@agc.gov.sg; CPIB (CPIB_Info@cpib.gov.sg) <CPIB_Info@cpib.gov.sg>; Alejandro Ponce (The World Justice Project) <aponce@worldjusticeproject.org>; Liao Ran (Transparency International) <rliao@transparency.org>; Sofie Arjon Schutte (U4 Anti-corruption resource centre) <sofie.schuette@cmi.no>; Srirak Plipat (Transparency International) <srirak@transparency.org>; Yuri Fedotov (United Nations Office on Drug and Crime) <yury.fedotov@unodc.org>; 'Freedom House' <info@freedomhouse.org>; Human Rights First <feedback@humanrightsfirst.org>; info@article19.org; information@ishr.ch; Jennifer Jokstad <jokstad@un.org>; mail@globalwitness.org; 'Mayda Chan (International Amnesty) ' <mayda.chan@amnesty.org>; 'Mickey Spiegel (Human Right Watch)' <spiegem@hrw.org>; 'Phil Robertson (Human Right Watch)' <RobertP@hrw.org>; Lian He Wan Bao <wanbao@sph.com.sg>; Lian He Zao Bao <zblocal@sph.com.sg>; news@theindependent.sg; Shin Min Daily (shinmin@sph.com.sg) <shinmin@sph.com.sg>; The Online Citizen (theonlinecitizen@gmail.com) <theonlinecitizen@gmail.com>; The Straits Times (stforum@sph.com.sg) <stforum@sph.com.sg>; Voices (Today) <voices@mediacorp.com.sg>; Hong Kong Journalists Association (hkja@hkja.org.hk) <hkja@hkja.org.hk>; Ming Pao (mingpao@mingpao.com) <mingpao@mingpao.com>; Oriental Daily News (news@odn.on.cc) <news@odn.on.cc>; SCMP (letters@scmp.com) <letters@scmp.com>; Singtao Daily (localnews@singtao.com) <localnews@singtao.com>; The Standard (editor@thestandard.com.hk) <editor@thestandard.com.hk>; Taipei Times (letters@taipeitimes.com) <letters@taipeitimes.com>; Taiwan news (service@taiwannews.com.tw) <service@taiwannews.com.tw>; The China Post (webmaster@mail.chinapost.com.tw) <webmaster@mail.chinapost.com.tw>; United Daily News (newspro@udn.com) <newspro@udn.com>; 'Apple Daily' <news@appledaily.com.tw>; Asia times <special@atimes.com>; Jon Fasman (Economists) <jonfasman@economist.com>; Keith Bradsher (New York Times) <kebrad@nytimes.com>; 'Linus Chua (Bloomberg)' <lchua@bloomberg.net>; Patrick McDowell (The Wall Street Journal) <patrick.mcdowell@dowjones.com>; 'Philip Bowring (The South China Morning Post)' <philip@bowring.net>; 'Reporters Without Borders (RWB)' <asia@rsf.org>; Rico Hizon (BBC) <ricohizon@gmail.com>; Roberto Coloma (Agence France-Presse) <Roberto.Coloma@afp.com>; 'Seiff Abby (Freelance Corrrespondent)' <aseiff@gmail.com>; 'The Huffington Post' <scoop@huffingtonpost.com>; Reform Party <Unknown>
Subject: Protests and grand corruption in Singapore

Dear The UN Human Rights Office for South East Asia,

I refer to my letter of 17 March 2017 (see below). That letter was copied to the UNs. I would appreciate it if the UNs pays attention to my protests against the institutionalized corruption in Singapore, or the basic right to freedom of speech and expression in Singapore.

My earlier letter

In that letter, I mentioned my continued protests against judicial corruption in Supreme Court. On March 27, I went to Orchard Road, the retail and entertainment hub of Singapore, to stage a protest but cancelled it at the last minute because of technical issues.

At that time there were serious concerns in Singapore about fake news (see here). It was clear that my corruption allegations could be easily treated as fake news if no hard evidence was provided. For that reason, I have prepared a YouTube video “Why should PM Lee Hsien Loong resign over abuse of power?” and explained in detail how the Singapore government has managed to engage in grand corruption and at the same time maintain its reputation of being corruption free (See here for video and here for transcript).  All information is on my blog (http://2helixsg.blogspot.sg/ ).

My continued protests

It seems to me that United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime has agreed with Transparency International on its legal definition of grand corruption (see here). As explained in my video, the Terrex issue, or the Terrex conspiracy, is a typical example of grand corruption. In this corruption case, the Singapore Prime Minister knowingly and voluntarily joined the political conspiracy to violate China’s sovereignty in an attempt to rescue its unsavoury reputation.

To support my YouTube video, I will stage a protest at the central square outside Raffle Place MRT station at 12 noon on July 3, 2017. I encourage the Attorney-General’s Chambers to take legal action against me if the government denies my allegations against the Prime Minister.

My allegations of abuse of power

After my protest, I will inform the international community that the Terrex issue is a conspiracy. I will also request the Singapore government to justify this serious violation of international law and the grand corruption in Singapore. I think it is necessary to let the international community know the institutionalized corruption in Singapore because the corruption situation cannot change from within.

I copy this letter to the famous Corruption Practices Investigation Bureau (CPIB_Info@cpib.gov.sg) so the UNs and the international press can see clearly whether the CPIB is in a position to handle a grand corruption case directly involving the prime minister of Singapore, or the officer to whom the director of the CPIB reports.

Singapore Prime Minister will address the abuse of power claims made by his siblings in the Parliament on July 3, 2017 to protect the integrity of the government (see here). I hope that the PM adheres to the equality before the law and mentions my allegations of abuse of power against him on the same day and address this issue later in public. Selectively addressing allegations of abuse of power in the parliament is itself an act of abuse of power. 

Thank you.

Regards,         

Yan Jun

(Singapore NRIC: S7684361I)

From: Yan Jun [mailto:medp1128@hotmail.com]
Sent: Friday, 17 March, 2017 15:41
To: Gan Kim Yong (Minister for Health) <gan_kim_yong@moh.gov.sg>
Cc: IMH QSM (IMH) <qsm@imh.com.sg>; The AGC(SG) <agc@agc.gov.sg>; Mayda CHAN (International Amnesty) <mayda.chan@amnesty.org>; Freedom House <info@freedomhouse.org>; Human Rights First <feedback@humanrightsfirst.org>; Jennifer Jokstad <jokstad@un.org>; Mickey Spiegel (Human Right Watch) <spiegem@hrw.org>; Office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights (South East Asia) <ohchr.bangkok@un.org>; Phil Robertson (Human Right Watch) <RobertP@hrw.org>; The International Service for Human Rights <information@ishr.ch>; Lian He Wan Bao <wanbao@sph.com.sg>; Lian He Zao Bao <zblocal@sph.com.sg>; Shin Min Daily <shinmin@sph.com.sg>; The Independent (SG) <news@theindependent.sg>; The Online Citizen (Singapore) <theonlinecitizen@gmail.com>; The Straits Times <stforum@sph.com.sg>; Voices (Today) <voices@mediacorp.com.sg>; Apple Daily (TW) <news@appledaily.com.tw>; Asia times <special@atimes.com>; Gopalan Nair (Blogger) <nair.gopalan@yahoo.com>; Jon Fasman (Economists) <jonfasman@economist.com>; Keith Bradsher (New York Times) <kebrad@nytimes.com>; Linus Chua (Bloomberg) <lchua@bloomberg.net>; Patrick McDowell (The Wall Street Journal) <patrick.mcdowell@dowjones.com>; Philip Bowring (The South China Morning Post) <philip@bowring.net>; Reporters Without Borders (RWB) <asia@rsf.org>; Rico Hizon (BBC) <ricohizon@gmail.com>; Roberto Coloma (Agence France-Presse) <Roberto.Coloma@afp.com>; Seiff Abby (Freelance Corrrespondent) <aseiff@gmail.com>; The Huffington Post <scoop@huffingtonpost.com>; Reform Party <info@reform.sg>; Singapore Democratic Party <sdp@yoursdp.org>; Workers' Party <hammer@wp.sg>
Subject: Feedback and an inquiry

Dear Minister for Health Gan Kim Yong,

1.      I refer to Dr. Amy Khor’s parliamentary speech on 10 March 2017 regarding improvements in community care for mental health (See here).

Dr. Amy Khor ‘s plan

2.      Dr. Khor highlighted two measures in her plan: first, the selection and training of the Front-line staff members from Housing and Development Board (HDB), National Environment Agency (NEA) and Singapore Police Force (SPF) to identify and respond to people with mental health issue; second, the strengthening of “post-care” support for the Institute of Mental Health (IMH) patients.

Purpose of this letter

3.      I am writing to give feedback to the Ministry of Health (MOH) on Dr. Khor’s plan and inquiry about whether the after-care support is applicable to me, a post-discharge patient from the IMH. 

4.      After my public protest in April 2016 against judicial corruption in the Supreme Court, the police raised the question whether I was suffering from delusional disorders. I was subjected to a standard psychiatric evaluation by the IMH but the official report released on 27 April 2016 gave a negative answer.

5.      In November, Dr. Dhanesh Kumar of the IMH reversed the official report and diagnosed me with “delusional disorder”, without even conducting a psychiatric interview. The IMH has deliberately refused to justify its opposing diagnoses and has declined to respond to my two complaints made in May and December 2106.

My continued protests and my question

6.      I certainly will continue my protests until the government handles my corruption allegation in public. The police are in a position to treat me as a post-discharge patient and provide me with strengthened psychiatric support under the present plan so my voice can be effectively silenced.  

7.      When police arrest me for “illegal” protest activities in the future, both the police and I face the same difficulty in having a reliable psychiatric report regarding my mental health to rely on. I understand that there are large numbers of government critics who have been put in jail all over the world. 

My suggestions

8.      With regard to the Front-line staff members, I am concerned about the legal basis for the active identification of people with mental illness and the false-positive identification rate.

9.      An ordinary person can easily recognize patients with severe psychiatric disorders and for those with mild mental illness, they always prefer to keep their mental conditions private because they are frightened about professional and personal discrimination.

10.   I graduated from medical school and lived with hospitalized patients in the IMH for one month. I am quite sure that that no matter how much training they receive, officers from HDB, NEA or SPF are unable to correctly identify people with mild mental disorders on the one hand, and to keep false positive rates reasonably low on the other hand.

11.   With regard to the support for discharged patients, I would suggest that the MOH pays at least equal attention to support provided by the IMH to its inmates in respect of psychiatrists’ professional competence and integrity. 

12.   Regarding the diagnosis on me of “Narcissistic traits, Querulous behavior"” made on 27 April, the IMH didn’t respond to my written challenge but hide the name of the psychiatrist and the grounds of his diagnosis to me. Regarding the diagnosis of “delusional disorder” made in November, the IMH refused to justify the serious breach of ethical guidelines committed by Dr. Dhanesh for not obtaining my informed consent for treatment.

13.   In addition, the IMH, the MOH and the Singapore Medical Council have acquiesced to my claim of patient abuse that I suffered during my detention in the IMH. So the authorities’ consent to my claim of patient abuse in psychiatric care can be reasonably inferred on the basis of the authorities’ obligations to respond to complaints (See here).  

The root cause

14.   Because of a lack of freedom of speech and of the press, this unpleasant situation is maintained or may have been improved to some extent without making my alleged misconduct public.

15.   There is a widely accepted justification for restrictions on freedom of speech and expression in Singapore, by which freedom is treated as “a liberty of being able to walk the streets freely, particularly if you’re a woman or a child, at any time of the night” (See here and here). This justification is false because such freedom/liberty/safety is founded on the assumption that the government upholds people’s fundamental right against arbitrary arrest or detention by the police.

16.   The fact is that the government has turned a blind eye to this fundamental right to cover up a serious mistake made by a top government official 30 years ago. The Supreme Court’s bias in favor of the government in my suit is the root cause of my corruption allegations and protests. 

My request

17.   I would appreciate it if the MOH responds to my questions raised in paragraph 3 and 7.

18.   The IMH has every detail of my complaints and criticisms. Recently I informed the international community that the government may have deliberately caused the Terrex detention issue (See here). If IMH stands by its diagnosis of delusional disorder made in November, please request them for their comments on my analysis of Terrex detention issue.

19.   Thank you.

Regards,

Yan Jun

(Singapore NRIC: S7684361I)

The return of Terrex vehicles: a matter of compromise?

From: Yan Jun [mailto:medp1128@hotmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, February 23, 2017 14:47
To: medp1128@hotmail.com
Cc: Patty PY MAK; Hong Kong Customs and Excise Department ; PM Office; MINDEF; Eugen Tan (Singapore Management University); Tan Cheng Han (National University of Singapore); Hong Kong Journalists Association; Ming Pao; Oriental Daily News; SCMP; Sing Tao Daily; The Standard; Lian He Wan Bao; Lian He Zao Bao; Shin Min Daily; The Independent (SG); The Online Citizen (Singapore); The Straits Times; Voices (Today) ; Taipei Times; Taiwan news; The China Post; United Daily News; Apple Daily (TW); 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; Workers' Party
Subject: The outome: the return of the Terrex vehicles

Dear the Press and the organizations,

I refer to my email of 7 February 2017 to the Chief Executive of Hong Kong with regard to the return of the Terrex vehicles. I am writing this letter for the sake of completeness.

In my earlier email, I requested the Chief Executive to give a straight answer to the question of whether or not the Hong Kong authorities accept the state immunity defence raised by the Singapore government.

On 17 Feb, the Chief Executive’s Office informed me that my question was passed along to the Customs and Excise Department. On 20 Feb, the Hong Kong Commissioner of Customs and Excise Roy Tang informed me by email that “We will not comment on the handling of a specific case, particularly if the investigation might lead to criminal prosecution.”(please see below) I didn’t see an answer to my question.

I respect the HKSAR’s decision but still stand by my objective analysis in my earlier email.

Thank you for your attention to this matter.

Regards,

Yan Jun

(Singapore NRIC:S7684361I)

From: Yan Jun [mailto:medp1128@hotmail.com]
Sent: Monday, February 20, 2017 18:43
To: rtang@customs.gov.hk
Subject: RE: The return of the Terrex vehicles

Dear Commissioner of Customs and Excise Roy Tang,

Thank you for your reply in response to my letter of 7 February 2017 to the Chief Executive.

My earlier letter

In that letter, I mentioned that the Hong Kong authorities had acquiesced to the state immunity defence raised by the Singapore government in the Terrex detention issue. My question was whether the Hong Kong authorities accepted the state immunity defence or not. While having an obligation to respond to this defence, the HKSAR has made no comments on it.   

Your reply

With respect, I didn’t see an answer in your reply.

It was stated that “We will not comment on the handling of a specific case, particularly if the investigation might lead to criminal prosecution”. It seems to me that the HKSAR has taken detentions of foreign state-owned property as of its own right and such detentions cannot be illegal.

If a policeman arrests a person on suspicion of a breach of any law, the legal basis for the arrest must be provided as of police’s obligation, regardless of whether the arrest will lead to criminal prosecution. The arrest and the subsequent detention can be without legal basis.

If solid evidence had been provided at the very beginning of the incident that the decision on the unloading was made by a shipping company officer who was of unsound mind, the detention of the vehicles would have been illegally long. I use this hypothetical example to show that the HKSAR could be wrong.

My position

I wrote to the Chief Executive in the interests of justice and I had no intention of giving anyone hard time.

I fully understand the HKSAR’s position and respect its decision. I still stand by my objective analysis in my earlier letter.

Thanks again for your reply.

Regards,

Yan Jun

(Singapore NRIC: S7684361I)

From: rtang@customs.gov.hk [mailto:rtang@customs.gov.hk]
Sent: Monday, February 20, 2017 11:53
To: Yan Jun
Cc: Patty PY MAK
Subject: The return of the Terrex vehicles

        Dear Mr Yan,

        I refer to your mail of 7 February 2017 to the Chief Executive.Ÿ        

     As an active and responsible trading partner in the global economy, the HKSAR is committed to complying with international standards of strategic trade control and Hong Kong implements a robust control system to achieve that.

        Import, export and transshipment/transit of strategic commodities in breach of licensing requirement are criminal offences punishable under the Hong Kong law.  The action by the Hong Kong Customs on 23 November 2016 was taken because there was a suspected breach of the Hong Kong laws.

        We will not comment on the handling of a specific case, particularly if the investigation might lead to criminal prosecution.  


        Roy Tang
        Commissioner of Customs and Excise


----- Forwarded by Enquiry CEO/CEO/HKSARG on 17/02/2017 07:44 PM -----

From:        Enquiry CEO/CEO/HKSARG
To:        Yan Jun <medp1128@hotmail.com>,
Date:        17/02/2017 06:26 PM
Subject:        Re: The return of the Terrex vehicles: a matter of compromise?

---

Dear Sir/Madam,

I refer to your email of 7 February to the Chief Executive. I am authorized to reply on his behalf.  We have relayed the matter raised to the Customs and Excise Department.  A reply will be given to you in due course.

Yours sincerely,

(Patty Mak)
for Private Secretary to Chief Executive



From:        Yan Jun <medp1128@hotmail.com>
To:        "Leung Chun-ying (Cheif Executive) " <ceo@ceo.gov.hk>,
Cc:        "Lee Hsien Loong (PM)" <lee_hsien_loong@pmo.gov.sg>, "Hong Kong Customs and Excise Department " <customsenquiry@customs.gov.hk>, MINDEF <contact@ns.sg>, "Hui Agnes YAO (PA to Attorney-General)" <agnes_yao@agc.gov.sg>, "Eugen Tan (Singapore Management University)" <eugene@smu.edu.sg>, "Tan Cheng Han (National University of Singapore)" <lawtanch@nus.edu.sg>, "The AGC(SG)" <agc@agc.gov.sg>, "SUPCOURT QSM (SUPCOURT)" <SUPCOURT_QSM@supcourt.gov.sg>, "Department of Justice (HK)" <dojinfo@doj.gov.hk>, Hong Kong Bar Association <info@hkba.org>, "The Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal" <cfaenquiries@hkcfa.hk>, "China Embassy (SG)" <chinaemb_sg@mfa.gov.cn>, Hong Kong Journalists Association <hkja@hkja.org.hk>, Ming Pao <mingpao@mingpao.com>, Oriental Daily News <news@odn.on.cc>, SCMP <letters@scmp.com>, Sing Tao Daily <info@singtaonewscorp.com>, The Standard <editor@thestandard.com.hk>, "Lian He Wan Bao" <wanbao@sph.com.sg>, Lian He Zao Bao <zblocal@sph.com.sg>, "Shin Min Daily" <shinmin@sph.com.sg>, "The Independent (SG)" <news@theindependent.sg>, "The Online Citizen (Singapore)" <theonlinecitizen@gmail.com>, "The Straits Times" <stforum@sph.com.sg>, "Voices (Today) " <voices@mediacorp.com.sg>, Taipei Times <letters@taipeitimes.com>, Taiwan news <service@taiwannews.com.tw>, The China Post <webmaster@mail.chinapost.com.tw>, United Daily News <newspro@udn.com>, "Apple Daily (TW)" <news@appledaily.com.tw>, Asia times <special@atimes.com>, "Jon Fasman (Economists) " <jonfasman@economist.com>, "Keith Bradsher (New York Times)" <kebrad@nytimes.com>, "lchua@bloomberg.net" <lchua@bloomberg.net>, "Patrick McDowell (The Wall Street Journal)" <patrick.mcdowell@dowjones.com>, "Philip Bowring (The South China Morning Post)" <philip@bowring.net>, "Reporters Without Borders (RWB)" <asia@rsf.org>, "Rico Hizon (BBC)" <ricohizon@gmail.com>, "Roberto Coloma (Agence France-Presse)" <Roberto.Coloma@afp.com>, "Seiff Abby (Freelance Corrrespondent)" <aseiff@gmail.com>, The Huffington Post <scoop@huffingtonpost.com>, Reform Party <info@reform.sg>, "Singapore Democratic Party" <sdp@yoursdp.org>, Workers' Party <hammer@wp.sg>
Date:        07/02/2017 03:12 PM
Subject:        The return of the Terrex vehicles: a matter of compromise?

---

Dear Chief Executive Leung Chun-ying,

I refer to Singapore Prime Minister (PM) Lee Hsien Loong’s letter to Hong Kong Chief Executive in January 2017 with regard to the Terrex detention issue. (See here) I copy this email to PM Lee Hsien Loong.
 
The PM’s letter
In his letter, the PM reiterated the Singapore government’s legal position, or sovereign/state immunity defence, and requested for an immediate return of the Terrex vehicles.

The state immunity defence was based on international law and it suggested that the Singapore owned property automatically enjoyed the state immunity entitled to the Singapore government so the vehicles were protected by “sovereign immunity” and could not be legally detained by other countries. Given the fact that Hong Kong Apex Court ruled in a 2011 case that state immunity was absolute in commercial acts in Hong Kong, the PM reasoned that the seizure of the vehicles didn’t comply with both international and Hong Kong laws.

While the vehicles were unloaded in Hong Kong without a license, the breach of licensing requirements was a matter between the shipping company and the Hong Kong authorities only.  
 
Why do I write this letter?
The state immunity defence is seriously flawed due to the Singapore government’s misunderstanding of it. I am writing this letter in the interests of justice.

In the face of my criticisms raised on 20 January, the two legal academics who publicly advocated the state immunity defence (See here and here) responded with silence, so did the Singapore government including the Prime Minister’s Office and the Ministry of Defence (MINDEF).

Even worse is the fact that Singapore's Attorney-General (A.G.) Lucien Wong, who has a duty to defend the government’s legal position, has refused to stand by  this state immunity defence after he was clearly reminded that “silence on the part of the A.G. can be reasonably treated as acceptance of the criticism”. (See the email below dated 31 January 2017 at Paragraph 5)

In 2014, I conclusively proved Singapore Apex Court wrong in a constitutional case. Major Supreme Courts of the Commonwealth countries including the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal were aware of this matter in 2015 and 2016.
 
Flaws in the state immunity defence
The issue in the 2011 case was whether the state immunity was absolute or restrictive in commercial acts in Hong Kong. In sharp contrast, the issue in Terrex detention incident is whether state owned property automatically enjoys state immunity. To claim state immunity, the owner state must have an exclusive right to control its property and others have no right to do so. (See the email below dated 20 January 2017 for references)

Since the shipping company seemed to have made an independent decision to unload the vehicles without a license, the vehicles didn’t have state immunity because the Singapore government didn’t have a full control over them.

If the decision was made with the government’s consent or acquiescence, the vehicles certainly enjoyed state immunity (and it was absolute in Hong Kong). Given the fact that the sovereignty of Hong Kong/China was violated by such a wrongful act, Hong Kong authorities were in a position to lawfully detain the vehicles under Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts 2001 by the International Law Commission (ILC) of the United Nations.

If the state immunity defence is correct and state owned property is always “protected by sovereign immunity”, any country can legally recover the confiscated arms from Hong Kong customs even if this country deliberately orders a shipping company to unload the arms without a license. In order words, deliberate infringements of sovereignty can be legally committed in the name of a country’s sovereign/state right over the arms. This reasoning is self-contradictory.
 
Why did the breach of licensing requirements take place?  
There is plenty of speculation about the motives behind the seizure of the vehicles but I didn’t see a report analyzing the breach of licensing requirements.    

The infringement of sovereignty of a state is a very serious matter so such an infringement can only be explained by reason of malice, or the malice on the part of the shipping company in the present incident. If a judge conducts a one-sided cross-examination at a hearing, the only explanation is malice.

It is evident that MINDEF was in a position to decide whether the vehicles should be unloaded, or not, as a government matter before the vehicles arrived at Hong Kong. The shipping company was in a position to abide by rather than make such a decision.  

As such, the MINDEF ought to expressly state it if it considers that the misconduct on the part of the shipping company was caused by “incompetence, inexperience, lack of professionalism, reckless, honest mistake, negligence, or even gross negligence”. The MINDEF may wish to produce specific clauses of its contract with the shipping company to discredit my analysis.

I understand that the misconduct could be caused by any 3^rd party such as Hong Kong, Taiwan and mainland China.  
 
The return of Terrex vehicles: a matter of compromise
After the incident, the Singapore government put in little effort to identify the cause of it but persistently requested the Hong Kong authorities for reasons and legal basis for detention and finally, the head of the government stepped in. All these actions can be justified by the government’s faith in the rule of law.

However, this justification flatly contradicts the fact that the government responded with silence when its legal position came under criticism. On 20 January, or 4 days before Hong Kong announced its decision, I informed the academics, the Attorney-General’s Chamber (AGC) and MINDE of the flaws in the state immunity defence and provided the legal basis for the detention of the vehicles.

The AGC and MINDEF should be able to re-assess the merits of the government’s legal position on the same day; however, there has been no response to my 2 follow-up letters addressed directly to A.G. Lucien Wong (See the emails below dated 25 and 31 January 2017).

I think the government’s silence cannot be justified by reason of “incompetence, inexperience, lack of professionalism, reckless, honest mistake, negligence, or even gross negligence” but can only by the government’s deliberate intention to cover up the fundamental mistake it has made.

It seems to me that when accepted Hong Kong’s decision on 24 January, the government acted as if it had still defended its legal position. I am not sure whether the government would have repeated its demand for the legal basis for the detention of the vehicles if the state immunity defence hadn’t been proved false.    

It is clear to me that Singapore government intentionally gave hard time to the Hong Kong authorities but its pressurization failed unexpectedly and consequently, the issue was settled as a matter of compromise between two parties. Here is the latest news that disproves my opinion but I stand by my objective analysis because this the second time that the Singapore government has faced serious credibility problems at the international level within 3 months.
 
The consequence of the Hong Kong authorities’ decision
It appears to the world that the return of the vehicles is a victory for the Singapore government for upholding international law because the Hong Kong authorities acquiesced to the state immunity defence. As such, Hong Kong’s decision has set a dangerous precedent for all other countries that adhere to the doctrine of absolute state immunity.  
 
My requests
With respect, I would request the Chief Executive to give a straight answer with yes or no to the Singapore government’s state immunity defence in the interests of justice.

Since both parties claimed that the Terrex detention issue was a matter of law, I would request the Chief Executive to treat my letter seriously on the basis of equality before the law.

Hong Kong has both a strong tradition of free speech and a reputation for the rule of law. Given the fact that the Terrex detention issue has become public to the world, I would like to request the Hong Kong media to get to the bottom of this issue to protect Hong Hong’s reputation as a key international port and its commitment to the rule of law.

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

Regards,

Yan Jun
(Singapore NRIC: S7684361I)

******************
From: Yan Jun [mailto:medp1128@hotmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, January 31, 2017 15:05
To: Hui Agnes YAO (PA to Attorney-General)
Cc: agc@agc.gov.sg; MINDEF; PM Office; Eugen Tan; Tan Cheng Han; Voices (Today); Reform Party; Singapore Democratic Party; Workers' Party
Subject: Follow-up letter ( The return of Terrex : a matter of law or a matter of compromise)

Dear the Attorney-General Mr Lucien Wong,

1.      I refer to my email sent to the A.G. on 25 January 2016. The email was copied to various organizations.  

My criticism
2.      In this email, I challenged the state/sovereign immunity defence, or the government’s legal position, in the Terrex detention issue.

The AG’s duty
3.      Now the state immunity defence has become public to the world and the Hong Kong authorities seem to have accepted it. It is evident that the A.G. has a duty to defend the government’s legal position in the face of criticism.
4.      This point is particularly important because I copied the criticism email to the AGC on 20 Jan, or 4 days before the Hong Kong authorities announced its decision to return the Terrex vehicles to Singapore.

The government’s integrity
5.      I believe 1 day is enough for the AGC to assess the merits of state immunity argument. Now the vehicles already arrived in Singapore on 30 Jan (See here) but so far there is no response from the government. The silence on the part of the AGC/A.G. can be reasonably treated as acceptance of the criticism on the basis of the A.G.’s duty to defend the government’s legal position.  

6.      As a result, the integrity of the government is at stake. In this situation, the A.G./AGC is supposed to reiterate the government’s legal position if the government stands by it.

7.      Thank you. I am looking forward to hearing from you soon.

Regards,
Yan Jun
From: Yan Jun [mailto:medp1128@hotmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, January 25, 2017 11:19
To: Hui Agnes YAO (PA to Attorney-General)
Cc: agc@agc.gov.sg; Eugen Tan; Tan Cheng Han; Voices (Today); Reform Party; Singapore Democratic Party; Workers' Party; PM Office
Subject: The return of Terrex : a matter of law or a matter of compromise

Dear Attorney-General (A.G.) Mr Lucien Wong,

1.      I refer to my email copied to the AGC on 20 January 2017. (See email below) .
 
The challenge to the state immunity defence
2.      In this email, I challenged the state immunity defence that was raised by the government and was further backed by the law academics in the Terrex detention issue.

3.      The government’s position is clearly demonstrated in Defence Minster Dr. Ng’s parliamentary speech on 9 January and PM Lee’s letter to the Chief Executive C Y Leung of Hong Kong. (See here, Today 9 January 2017)
 
The response to my email
4.      While the email was sent to two law academics, A/P Eugene Tan of Singapore Management University (SMU) and Prof. Tan Chen Han of the National University of Singapore (NUS), it was copied to the AGC, newspaper Today, the Ministry of Defense (MINDEF) and the opposition parties.

5.      So far there is no response from any party.  
 
The consequences of the prevalence of the defence
6.      Hong Kong is one of the world’s most established transhipment ports, so its decision in this matter may serve as a dangerous precedent for all the countries that accept the doctrine of absolute state immunity.

7.      In other words, even if a state deliberately directs its contractor/shipping company to unload strategic commodities such as arms without a license in a sovereign state that adheres to absolute state immunity, this state is supposed to retrieve its arms legally on the ground of state immunity, regardless of the infringement of sovereignty it causes.  

8.      Such reasoning is apparently against the principle of equality of states in international law, or the foundation of the doctrine of absolute state immunity.  
 
My request
9.      I would request the A.G. to respond to my challenge on behalf of the government and to settle the issue of whether the state-owned property automatically enjoys state immunity.

10.  Given the fact that the government treats the Terrex detention issue as a matter of law (See here, ST 13 January 2017), the A.G. has an obligation to defend the government’s legal position.  

11.  What the AGC is supposed to do is simply to read the contract between the contractor/shipping company (APL) and the MINDEF. In this way, the issue concerning whether the shipping company is  in a legal position to make a decision independently on the unloading of the armored vehicles will be settled as a matter of law.
 
My response
12.  The government’s legal position is a very serious matter and now the vehicles at issues are to be returned soon. If there is no convincing answer from the A.G.(or the AGC) before the Terrex ICVs return to Singapore, it is reasonable for me to voice my opinion in the interests of justice.

13.  Thank you. I am looking forward to hearing from you soon.

Regards,

Yan Jun
 
From: Yan Jun [mailto:medp1128@hotmail.com]
Sent: Friday, January 20, 2017 10:46
To: Eugen Tan; Tan Cheng Han
Cc: Voices (Today); MINDEF; agc@agc.gov.sg; Reform Party; Singapore Democratic Party; Workers' Party
Subject: Terrex issue: State immunity vs Malice

Dear A/P Eugen Tan and Prof. Tan Cheng Han,

I refer to your brief analyses of state immunity in the article Sovereign immunity: An explainer (Today, 9 Jan 2017). With respect, I disagree with your  analyses.
 
The academics’ opinion
It was explained in the article that state-owned property automatically enjoys state immunity so the detention of the 9 armoured vehicles by Hong Kong authorities was supposed to be illegal.  

This argument is consistent with the government’s position that the vehicles ought to be returned on the basis of state immunity. While the unloading of the vehicles without a license is illegal, the government treats the wrongful act as a matter between the shipping company and the Hong Kong authorities. (See here)
 
The issue: Does state-owned property automatically enjoy state immunity?
My answer is in the negative. The privilege or the immunity that a state enjoys in respect of the equality of states refers to “the right to do something that other persons have no right to do” [1]. In consistent with this notion, the acquisition of state immunity is subject to the condition that a state has a full control of its property so other persons are unable to deal with it [2]. It is self-evident that stolen property doesn’t have state immunity.

At the heart of Terrex incident is who is responsible for the unloading of the armoured vehicles. The unloading of arms without a license in a state is against the international law because such an act infringes the sovereignty of the state. The consequence of the infringement of sovereignty is so disastrous that an act like this can only be explained by reason of malice.

If the academics are right, the government can legally recover the vehicles even if the Ministry of Defence (MINDEF) deliberately ordered the shipping company to unload the vehicles without a license.
 
Legal basis for the detention of the vehicles
If MINDEF is primarily responsible for the unloading, the vehicles certainly enjoy state immunity because the unloading was an act of governmental nature and the vehicles were under complete control of the government. However, it is clear that the sovereignty of China has been violated and as a result, Hong Kong authorities could legally detain the vehicles under Article 1 and 2 and 12 of the Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts 2001 by the International Law Commission (ILC) of the United Nations [3].

If the shipping company is primarily responsible for the unloading, the vehicles don’t enjoy state immunity because neither the shipping company nor the vehicles were under the control of MINDEF. In other words, MINDEF didn’t have an absolute privilege to deal with the vehicles and consequently, MINDEF is not responsible for the infringement of sovereignty of China.
 
Questions for MINDEF
While “Defence Minister Ng Eng Hen urged people not to speculate on reasons or impute motives as to why the vehicles were held (See here)”, it is evident that MINDEF ought to explain in public why the vehicles were unloaded without a license at Hong Kong in order to back its claim of state immunity. In fact, the decision with regard to the unloading of the vehicles, or not, is supposed to be exclusively made by MINDEF as a government matter. The shipping company’s duty is to abide by rather than make such a decision.    

If MINDEF treats the unloading as a genuine mistake such as gross negligence on the part of the  shipping company, it ought to voice its opinion in public. For the sake of prudence, MINDEF may wish to state that it had no intention of unloading the vehicles at Hong Kong due to lack of a license. In this way, MINDEF can completely get off the hook even if the incident was caused by the 3^rd party including Hong Kong and Taiwan and mainland China.    
 
Why I write this letter
Soon I will stage my 5^th public protests against the judicial corruption in the Supreme Court (See my letters to the PM Lee Hsien Loong on 8 July and 8 Dec 2016) but I am afraid that passersby may ask me about Terrex issue.  

Terrex issue has nothing to do with my protests so I have no comments on it in public but will refer the passersby to academics for clarification. While I can pass along my opinion to the press, I am not sure it will appear in the newspaper.

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

Regards,

Yan Jun

[1] Protection of officials of foreign states according to international law by Franciszek Przetacznik.  (Springer; 1983 Edition , ISBN: 9024727219). p.10. Para. 2. Or see State Immunity: A Vanuatu Perspective by J.D. Foukona. Para 2.1 See http://www.usp.ac.fj/index.php?id=13176&type=98  
[2] Trendtex Trading Corp. v. Central Bank of Nigeria [1977] 2 W.L.R. 356. Lord Denning's judgment under "Alter ego or organ of government". See: http://www.uniset.ca/other/css/19772WLR356.html
[3] International Law by Malcolm N. Shaw (7^th Edition, 2014) p.569, Para 2. Article 1 reiterates the general rule that every internationally wrongful act of a state entails responsibility. Article 2 provides that there is an internationally wrongful act of a state when conduct consisting of an action or omission is attributable to the state under international law and constitutes a breach of an international obligation of the state. Article 12 stipulates that there is a breach an international obligation when an act of that state is not in conformity with what is required of it by that obligation, regardless of its origin or character.

Disclaimers:
_________________________________________________________

This e-mail message (together with any attachments) is for the designated recipient only. It may contain information that is privileged for the designated recipient. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any use, retention, disclosure, copying, printing, forwarding or dissemination of the message is strictly prohibited. If you have received the message in error, please erase all copies of the message (including attachments) from your system and notify the sender immediately.