My email dated Jun 12, 2021 to World Psychaitric Association regarding the political abuse of psychiatry in Singapore

 Attachment: WPA_attachment

From: Yan Jun

Sent: Saturday, 12 June 2021 11:03
To: World Psychiatric Association (wpasecretariat@wpanet.org)
Cc: AGC (AGC@agc.gov.sg); CHIA Jin Ming Benjamin (SPS, B cluster); Daniel FUNG (IMH); Eng Chye Tan (uprsec@nus.edu.sg); FAISAL Bin Mustaffa (SPS, B4); HOONG Wee Teck (SPF); K Shanmugam (Minister for Home Affairs); LEE Chien Earn (CGH); LOH Hong Wai (SPS, B5); Middle East Institute (contact.mei@nus.edu.sg); Nigel Tan Choon Kiat (NTU); ONG Ye Kung (MOH); PM Office (pmo_hq@pmo.gov.sg); QSM_STATE (STATECOURTS) (STATECOURTS_QSM@StateCourts.gov.sg); SHIE Yong Lee (shie_yong_lee@pris.gov.sg); SPF Feedback Shared (SPF) (SPF_Feedback_Shared@spf.gov.sg) ; Subra SURESH (NTU); SUPCOURT QSM (SUPCOURT); Tan Bin Kiat (SPS, B2); TAN Chun-Yuan Avryl (SPS, B3); TAN Wee Teck; Tiah LING (CGH); 广东省人民政府(service@gd.gov.cn); Chief Executive's Office_HK (ceo@ceo.gov.hk); HK Customs and Excise Department (customsenquiry@customs.gov.hk); Alejandro Ponce (The World Justice Project); Sofie Arjon Schutte (U4 Anti-corruption resource centre); Buscaglia Edgardo (Columbia University); Garry Rodan (Murdoch University); Matthew Stephenson (mstephen@law.harvard.edu); S.T. Quah Jon (National University of Singapore); Silverstein Gordon (Yale University) ; Susan Rose Ackerman (Yale University); David Kaye (dkaye@law.uci.edu); 'Freedom House'; info@article19.org; mail@globalwitness.org; 'Mickey Spiegel (Human Right Watch)'; 'Phil Robertson (Human Right Watch)'; Yu Hah Ming (mingyu.hah@amnesty.org); Gail Davidson (Lawyers Rights Watch Canada); International Association of Judges; Talia Dove (International Bar Association); Lian He Wan Bao (wanbao@sph.com.sg); news@theindependent.sg; Online Citizen (Singapore) (theonlinecitizen@gmail.com); Shin Min Daily (shinmin@sph.com.sg); Straits Times (stforum@sph.com.sg); Today (voices@mediacorp.com.sg); Zao Bao (zblocal@sph.com.sg); editor.sh@sinarharian.com.my; estherng@thestar.com.my; newscentre@chinapress.com.my; Ming Pao (mingpao@mingpao.com); Oriental Daily News (news@odn.on.cc); SCMP (letters@scmp.com); Singtao Daily (localnews@singtao.com) ; The Standard (editor@thestandard.com.hk); United Daily News (newspro@udn.com); 'Apple Daily'; Jon Fasman (Economists) ; Keith Bradsher (New York Times); 'Linus Chua (Bloomberg)'; 'Philip Bowring (The South China Morning Post)'; Reporters Without Borders (dbastard@rsf.org); Rico Hizon (BBC); Roberto Coloma (Agence France-Presse); 'Seiff Abby (Freelance Corrrespondent)'; Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal (cfaenquiries@hkcfa.hk); Supreme Court of Canada (reception@scc-csc.ca); Supreme Court of India (supremecourt@nic.in); Supreme Court of New Zealand (supremecourt@justice.govt.nz); The Privy Council (enquiries@supremecourt.uk); Indonesia Embassy (singapura.kbri@kemlu.go.id); Myanmar Embassy (ambassador@myanmarembassy.sg); Philippines Embassy (philippine.embassy.singapore@gmail.com); Thailand Embassy (thaisgp@singnet.com.sg); Vietnam Embassy (vnemb.sg@mofa.gov.vn); Argentina Embassy (consulares_eisia@mrecic.gov.ar); Brazil Embassy (brasemb.cingapura@itamaraty.gov.br); Russia Embassy (russian_embassy@singnet.com.sg); South Africa Embassy (singapore.consular@dirco.gov.za); South Korea Embassy (korembsg@mofa.go.kr); Turkey Embassy (embassy.singapore@mfa.gov.tr); Canada Embassy (spore@international.gc.ca); German Embassy (info@singapur.diplo.de); Italy Embassy (ambasciata.singapore@esteri.it); Japan Embassy (infoculture@sn.mofa.go.jp); US Embassy (singaporeusembassy@state.gov)
Subject: Political abuse of psychiatry in Singapore

 

Dear World Psychiatric Association (WPA),

 

I am writing to draw WPA’s attention to the abuse of psychiatry in Singapore.

 

According to the article titled Ending political abuse of psychiatry, the General Assembly of WPA adopted the Declaration of Hawaii in 1977 to condemn the use of psychiatry for non-medical purposes.

 

The facts

Since 2016, the State Courts of Singapore have ordered me to undergo standard two-week psychiatric evaluations in Institute of Mental Health (IMH) 5 times in response to my protests against the judicial corruption and later on espionage in Singapore­.

 

Dr. Derrick Yeo was the only psychiatrist who testified in person in court. On Jan 19, 2021 in a cross-examination, I gave up all the privileges I had in court and then claimed that Singapore’s legal system was totally corrupt. I requested both the Prosecution and the judge to charge me with contempt of court. Since they both chose to remain silent, Dr. Yeo had to admit that my claims of judicial corruption in Singapore was not delusional.

                                              

I have set out all the psychiatric reports issued by IMH and the relevant Records of Appeal on my blog. 

 

My request to IMH

In article “Understanding delusions”, the author stated “A delusion is a belief that is clearly false and that indicates an abnormality in the affected person’s content of thought. The key feature of a delusion is the degree to which the person is convinced that the belief is true. A person with a delusion will hold firmly to the belief regardless of evidence to the contrary.” 

 

Judicial corruption and espionage could take place in any country. Any government that is held accountable for its own actions must respond to a fair criticism, let alone repeated protests. While the Supreme Court and the police are in a position to deal with my claims, they have kept silent since my first protest in 2016.

 

It is evident that IMH has by default seen any allegation of judicial corruption or espionage as delusional, unless Singapore government publicly confirms these allegations.  

 

So far I still have no idea what delusion I am suffering from. I would request Dr. Daniel Fung, the CEO of IMH, to justify the inconsistencies in the 5 official reports issued by the IMH.

 

My request to WPA

In my email dated Nov 1, 2020 to the UN Chief, I gave a detailed account of the espionage conducted by Malaysian and the US government in Johor Bahru (JB) of Malaysia. While espionage could seriously damage the reputation of a government, the judge deliberately stopped Dr. Derrick Yeo and police officer Spencer Tan from answering my question about whether those espionage activities were a delusion. In addition, Dr. Yeo didn’t touch these espionage activities in his report.

 

I still stand by all my claims.

 

I would appreciate it if the WPA can pay attention to the political abuse of psychiatry in Singapore by assessing the merit of the official reports issued by IMH. For that reason, I am to copy this email to the international community.

 

Thank you.

 

Regards,

Yan Jun

My email dated Apr 22, 2013 to Prof. Leong Wai Kum regarding a fundamental misunderstnading about the family law in Singapore

 

Attachment: Entitlement v the interest of the union

 

From: yan jun
Sent: Monday, April 22, 2013 2:49 PM
To: lawlwk@nus.edu.sg
Subject: Concerns about "Elements of family law in Singapore 2013"

 

Dear Prof. Leong,

 

I appreciate all your work on family law. However, I am a little bit worried about the theories used to award the maintenance to the wife during marriage in your book “Elements of Family in Law in Singapore (2^nd Edition, 2013, or Elements 2013)”. With due respect, I would consider the reasoning faulty because the theories used for divorce cannot be used during the course of marriage due to the changes in the spouses duties and rights.

 

The Elements 2013 sees the husband’s duty to maintain his wife during marriage as a liability, which means a wife is entitled to apply to the Court for maintenance. This is wrong as analyzed in an online essay. The other widely accepted belief is that the wife’s misconduct cannot be used as defense, as discussed in the judgment by learned Magistrate Deniel Koh in famous Palvit Singh v Sawaran Singh [1990] 1 MLJ lvii.

 

In my opinion, the problem can be traced in the landmark paper published 25 years back that “Surely if a man may be ordered to maintain his wife despite the fact that she misconducted herself during the course of the marriage there is all the more reason to make him maintain her while she is still his wife” (29 Malaya Law. Rev. 56 (1987) at page 62).

 

The spouses have completely different rights and duties during their marriage and after its termination. By common sense, a former husband needs to provide maintenance to his needy ex-wife living with a new partner; however, there is no way for a husband to provide maintenance to his wife living with a third party as his duty is to “safeguard the interests of the union” and to prevent his wife from cohabitating with others. If a husband provided maintain to his misbehaved wife during marriage, he would further act against “the interests of the union” set by s46(1). Please find the attached for more details.

 

Thank you very much for your consideration. I am looking forward to hearing from you soon. If possible, I would appreciate it I have a chance to talk in person to you or your assistant about my concerns at your earliest convenience on Bukit Timah campus.

 

Regards,

Yan Jun

(An alumnus of NUS)

 

***DISCLAIMER*** The sender of this email is an alumnus of National University of Singapore (NUS). Kindly note that NUS is not responsible for the contents of this email, and views and opinions expressed are solely the sender's.

 

The Supreme Court's email dated Mar 13 to me regarding the payment out

 

The direction to Account-General for payment out: Here

The file attached to my email dated Mar 11, 2013: Att_20120310

 
 
From: SUPCOURT Registry (SUPCOURT) <SUPCOURT_Registry@supcourt.gov.sg>
Sent: Tuesday, 19 March 2013 12:50 pm
To: medp1128@gmail.com
Cc: ISTANA Feedback (ISTANA) <ISTANA_Feedback@istana.gov.sg>
Subject: RE: Request to the President: Professionalism in the Court
 
Attention : Mr Yan Jun
DCA 20/2011 – Yan Jun v. Liu Tian
Dear Sir,
 
                We refer to your email dated 13 March 2013 addressed to His Excellency, the President of Singapore.
 
2.            In respect of the refund of the security deposit, please file your Direction to the Accountant-General for Payment Out with the Supreme Court Registry. Upon acceptance of the filing, you may then approach the Accountant-General for payment out of the security deposit.
 
3.            As for the rest of your email, we have responded to you in our earlier reply of 13 March 2013.  We re-iterate that as we have responded to these other matters repeatedly, we will not be engaging in any further correspondence on the same.
 
Thank you.
 
Lee Gek Boon
For Registrar
Supreme Court, Singapore
cc : President’s Office, Istana
 
From: Yan Jun [mailto:medp1128@gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, 13 March, 2013 4:29 PM
To: Kok Fatt LEE (ISTANA)
Cc: SUPCOURT Registry (SUPCOURT); AGC (AGC); aware@aware.org.sg; organising@wp.sg; stonline@sph.com.sg; tnp@sph.com.sg; wanbao@sph.com.sg; Connie CHAN (PMO)
Subject: Re: Request to the President: Professionalism in the Court
 
Dear Mr. President,

1.     Thank you very much for your attention to my email regarding the professionalism in the Court. 

2.     I have received the response and am disappointed about it because my complaint hasn’t been handled by an agency independent of the High Court.     

3.     Every appellant is entitled to a fair trial. In the response, the High Court has justified that, based on the absence of legal representation, His Honour got the power to turn an appeal into a “dialogue to ascertain both parties’ respective positions with regard to appeal”. However, the law doesn’t require the representation by lawyers in a suit. 

4.     The response failed to justify how His Honour got the power to, against my will, prevent me from accepting the option he offered to send DCA 20/2011 back to lower court. My security was detained so technically I lost the appeal. 

5.     The High Court claimed that I alleged against His Honour but, upon my request, hasn’t specified these allegations and proves them spurious. Now the Court has refused to engage any further correspondence with me. 

6.     I will forward my reply to the Private Secretary to Prime Minister. 

7.     I will continue voicing my opinion to protect my rights to a fair trial to the international press if local news agencies are not interested.   

8.     Thanks again for your attention and patience. 

Regards,
Yan Jun
 
On Wed, Mar 13, 2013 at 12:34 PM, SUPCOURT Registry (SUPCOURT) <SUPCOURT_Registry@supcourt.gov.sg> wrote:
Attention : Mr Yan Jun
DCA 20/2011 – Yan Jun v. Liu Tian
Dear Sir,
 
We refer to your email dated 7 March 2013.

 

2.         The Registry has responded to you repeatedly since 23 July 2012 on the issues you have raised in respect of the hearing of DCA 20/2011. Please let us reiterate the position. When you first appeared for the DCA hearing before the Honourable Justice Chao Hick Tin, who upon seeing that both you and your estranged wife were unrepresented, engaged both of you to ascertain your respective positions at the conclusion of which both of you clearly and readily agreed to the course suggested by the Judge, which is, to withdraw the appeal on a certain express understanding.  Both you and your estranged wife had also indicated to the Judge that you would be proceeding to divorce. The audio recording of the hearing bears this out. 

 

3.         You should therefore appreciate our position that we are unable to consider your request for re-opening of your case without a formal application filed in accordance with the applicable rules and procedures and that the transcripts of the hearing would be available upon request and payment of the prescribed fees.

 

4          We regret to inform that unless there are new issues raised in your email, we will not be engaging in any further correspondence with you. Thank you for your understanding.
 
Lee Gek Boon
For
Registrar
Supreme Court, Singapore
cc : President’s Office, Istana
 
 
On Mon, Mar 11, 2013 at 11:05 AM, Yan Jun <medp1128@gmail.com> wrote:
 
Dear Mr. President,

1.     I would like to request the President for your attention to professionalism in the Court. I also request the President to urge the High Court to explain in public how an Honorable Judge got power to influence an appellant’s decision making during an appeal. 

2.     My appeal DCA 20/2011 was heard on 1 Feb 2012 before Honourable Judge Chao Hick Tin. His Honour persuaded me to withdraw the appeal when I clearly accepted the option to send the case back to lower court. Finally, I withdrew the appeal under the influence of His Honour during the appeal. My security deposit was detained. 

3.     On 22 June 2012, I expressed my concern to the High Curt about the due process of DCA 20/2011 and was informed on 27 June to apply for “Note of Evidence” ^I. On 16 Aug I was informed that “no notes of evidence are available for this matter” ^II . 

4.     On 12 July His Honour classified DCA 20/2011 as “an interactive dialogue (as both of you were unrepresented) to ascertain the parties' respective positions with regard to the appeal” ^III, so DCA 20/2011 was technically not an appeal. On 23 July the appeal was classified as “a proceeding other than trial” because the court advised me to apply for “transcript for proceedings other than trial” ^IV. In addition, “both parties agreed to take the course suggested by the Judge” ^V . 

5.     A dialogue and a proceeding are different in nature, so these replies gave me an impression that the nature of an appeal is determined not by law but by an Honourable hearing Judge. I also doubt if a Judge is allowed to suggest the parties. 

 6.     Rules of Court 55D specifies that an appeal to the High Court from the Subordinate Courts shall be by way of rehearing, so an appeal is a trial by default and every appellant is entitled to a fair trial. I don’t think His Honour was able to deny me my rights for a fair trial and replaced it with the opposite. It is self-evident that I am not in a position to apply for “transcript for proceedings other than trials”. 

7.     If the High Court holds that an appellant is not entitled to a fair trial and an Honorable hearing Judge is allowed to influence an appellant’s or his counsel’s decision-making, I would appreciate it if the High Court lists several examples. His Honor is the only person in the position to justify the absence of a fair trial for DCA 20/2011; however, all my requests in this regard have been ignored. 

8.     On 16 November 2012, Attorney-General’s Chambers (AGC) replied to my complaint as: “the Attorney-General’s Chambers is not in a position to assist you. In this regard, we note that you have also addressed your email to the Family Court Registry. “ 

9.     In reply dated 3 March, the court “(without formal application) is unable to consider the request for your case to be re-opened after your withdrawal ^“ VI. However, my withdrawal is a result of His Honour’s persuasion during the appeal, which was not supposed to take place. In addition, this time the court used “re-open” instead of “re-trial” that they repeatedly used in January, suggesting that the court then considered DCA 20/2011 to be a trial ^VII. 

 

10.  In the same reply, the High Court stated that “you have raised certain allegations against the Honourable Judge who heard the matter in DCA 20/2011, which are without basis” ^VIII. I would like the High Court to specify my allegations, if any, and justify why they are spurious. 

11.  DCA 20/2011 is simple but of public interest in that it challenges a wide-spread concept in family law. If this concept is proven wrong, all the maintenance orders made in the past for the wife during their marriages may be called into question. Please see an online essay  for details.   

12.  Without getting their consent, I forward this letter to AGC, Association of Women for Action and Research and Worker’s Party not for assistance but simply to show that I have made a request to the President. 

13.  I am happy to be interviewed by the Press and will continue voicing my opinion to protect my rights to fair trial. 

14.  I thank the President for his attention to this matter. I am looking forward to hearing from the President at his earliest convenience.  

 

 

Regards,
Yan Jun

 

 Notes :
      I.         Attachment,  Page 4, Paragraph 3
    II.         Page 5, Para 2.
   III.         Page 1, Para 2
  IV.         Page 2, Para 3 and Page 3
    V.         Page 2, Para 2
  VI.         Page 6, Para 2
VII.         Page 9, Para 2
VIII.         Page 6, Para 3

 

AGC's reply dated May 17, 2013 regarding the issue of the warning letter to me

 

The attached file to my email dated May 17, 2023: The warning letter

 

 From: AGC (AGC) <AGC@agc.gov.sg>

Sent: Friday, 17 May 2013 5:29 pm
To: Yan Jun <medp1128@gmail.com>
Cc: AGC (AGC) <AGC@agc.gov.sg>
Subject: RE: Response to the warning letter from Aedit Abullah SC for Attorney-General

 

Message Classification: Unclassified

 

Dear Sir,

 

We refer to your email 17 May 2013.

2          We would like to reiterate the warning as set out in our letter dated 6 May 2013.

 

Yours faithfully,

 

 

LI Jin Haw (Ms)
Quality Service Manager

Attorney-General's Chambers, Singapore

Warning: If you are not the intended recipient of this email, please notify the sender and destroy it. As it may contain confidential or official information, do not retain it or disclose its contents to any person as doing so may be an offence under the Official Secrets Act

 

From: Yan Jun [mailto:medp1128@gmail.com]
Sent: Friday, 17 May, 2013 2:16 PM
To: AGC (AGC)
Cc: SUPCOURT Registry (SUPCOURT)
Subject: Response to the warning letter from Aedit Abullah SC for Attorney-General

 

Dear AGC,

1.     I refer to the attached warning letter sent by Aedit Abullah SC for Attorney-General on 6^th may 2013. I just read it. 

2.     Without supporting evidence, I was accused in the warning letter of making spurious allegations in my correspondence with the Istana and the action will be taken against me for making such allegations. If AGC thinks so, please go ahead. 

3.     I do not think my allegations spurious and do not accept your warning letter. 

4.     When I first reported this issue, AGC relied on 16 November 2012 that “AGC is not in a position to assist you.” The “spurious allegation” was first used in High Court’s reply to me on March 7 2013 but the High ignored my request for justification for “spurious allegation” in my letter to the Istana.

 5.     Now my issue with the High Court is over. If the warning letter is exposed to the public so the issue with the High Court gets revisited, that is my intention and I am not responsible for it. 

6.     Sending warning letter without justification amounts to intimidation. I would request AGC to justify why my allegations are spurious so sending such a letter does not fall into abuse of power.    

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

 

Regards,

Yan Jun

(S7684361I)

My email dated Aug 8, 2023 to PM Lee Hsien Loong about Singapore's political sucession plan, 2023 Chinese balloon conspiracy, Wagner Mutiny intrigue and others

 

Attachment: How I discovered the balloon conspiracy

 

From: Yan Jun
Sent: Tuesday, 8 August 2023 11:04 am
To: Lee Hsien Loong (PM) <lee_hsien_loong@pmo.gov.sg>
Cc: AGC (AGC@agc.gov.sg) <AGC@agc.gov.sg>; CHEE Yam Cheng (Singapore Medical Council) <yam_cheng_chee@ttsh.com.sg>; CHIA Jin Ming Benjamin (benjamin_chia@pris.gov.sg) <benjamin_chia@pris.gov.sg>; Daniel FUNG (IMH) <daniel_fung@imh.com.sg>; Eng Chye Tan (uprsec@nus.edu.sg) <uprsec@nus.edu.sg>; FAISAL Bin Mustaffa (faisal_mustaffa@pris.gov.sg) <faisal_mustaffa@pris.gov.sg>; HOONG Wee Teck <hoong_wee_teck@spf.gov.sg>; K Shanmugam (Minister for Home Affairs) (k_shanmugam@mha.gov.sg) <k_shanmugam@mha.gov.sg>; Lee Chien Earn (CGH) <lee.chien.earn@singhealth.com.sg>; Middle East Institute (contact.mei@nus.edu.sg) <contact.mei@nus.edu.sg>; ONG Ye Kung (MOH) <ong_ye_kung@moh.gov.sg>; PM Office (pmo_hq@pmo.gov.sg) <pmo_hq@pmo.gov.sg>; SHIE Yong Lee (shie_yong_lee@pris.gov.sg) <shie_yong_lee@pris.gov.sg>; SPF Feedback Shared (SPF) (SPF_Feedback_Shared@spf.gov.sg) <SPF_Feedback_Shared@spf.gov.sg>; STATECOURTS_QSM@StateCourts.gov.sg; STB Feedback (STB) (stb_feedback@stb.gov.sg) <stb_feedback@stb.gov.sg>; Subra SURESH (NTU) <ntu-president@ntu.edu.sg>; SUPCOURT QSM (SUPCOURT) <SUPCOURT_QSM@supcourt.gov.sg>; TAN Chun-Yuan Avryl (SPS) <avryl_tan@pris.gov.sg>; TAN Wee Teck <tan_wee_teck@pris.gov.sg>; Online Citizen (Singapore) (theonlinecitizen@gmail.com) <theonlinecitizen@gmail.com>; Philip Bowring (The South China Morning Post) <philip@bowring.net>; China Press <newscentre@chinapress.com.my>; Soon Theen CHIN <chin_soon_theen@pris.gov.sg>; People's Gov_Guangdong (广东省人民政府) <service@gd.gov.cn>; Alejandro Ponce (The World Justice Project) <aponce@worldjusticeproject.org>; Sofie Arjon Schutte (U4 Anti-corruption resource centre) <sofie.schuette@cmi.no>; Buscaglia Edgardo (Columbia University) <ebuscaglia@law.columbia.edu>; FEBS Letters (febsletters@wiley.com) <febsletters@wiley.com>; Garry Rodan (Murdoch University) <G.Rodan@murdoch.edu.au>; Matthew Stephenson (Harvard University) <mstephen@law.harvard.edu>; medp1128@gmail.com; S.T. Quah Jon (National University of Singapore) <jonstquah@gmail.com>; Silverstein Gordon (Yale University) <gradpro.law@yale.edu>; Susan Rose Ackerman (Yale University) <susan.rose-ackerman@yale.edu>; David Kaye (dkaye@law.uci.edu) <dkaye@law.uci.edu>; 'Freedom House' <info@freedomhouse.org>; info@article19.org; Klaus Schwab <Klaus.Schwab@weforum.org>; mail@globalwitness.org; 'Mickey Spiegel (Human Right Watch)' <spiegem@hrw.org>; 'Phil Robertson (Human Right Watch)' <RobertP@hrw.org>; World Psychiatric Association (wpasecretariat@wpanet.org) <wpasecretariat@wpanet.org>; Yu Hah Ming (mingyu.hah@amnesty.org) <mingyu.hah@amnesty.org>; International Association of Judges <Judicial.Independence.wp@gmail.com>; Talia Dove (International Bar Association) <talia.dove@int-bar.org>; Lian He Wan Bao <wanbao@sph.com.sg>; Lian He Zao Bao <zblocal@sph.com.sg>; news@theindependent.sg; Shin Min Daily <shinmin@sph.com.sg>; The Online Citizen (Singapore) <theonlinecitizen@gmail.com>; The Straits Times <stforum@sph.com.sg>; Voices(Today) (voices@mediacorp.com.sg) <voices@mediacorp.com.sg>; editor.sh@sinarharian.com.my; estherng@thestar.com.my; newscentre@chinapress.com.my; 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>; United Daily News (newspro@udn.com) <newspro@udn.com>; 'Apple Daily' <news@appledaily.com.tw>; Jon Fasman (Economists) <jonfasman@economist.com>; Keith Bradsher (New York Times) <kebrad@nytimes.com>; 'Linus Chua (Bloomberg)' <lchua@bloomberg.net>; 'Philip Bowring (The South China Morning Post)' <philip@bowring.net>; Reporters Without Borders (dbastard@rsf.org) <dbastard@rsf.org>; Rico Hizon (BBC) <ricohizon@gmail.com>; 'Seiff Abby (Freelance Corrrespondent)' <aseiff@gmail.com>; Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal (cfaenquiries@hkcfa.hk) <cfaenquiries@hkcfa.hk>; Supreme Court of Canada (reception@scc-csc.ca) <reception@scc-csc.ca>; Supreme Court of India (supremecourt@nic.in) <supremecourt@nic.in>; Supreme Court of New Zealand (supremecourt@justice.govt.nz) <supremecourt@justice.govt.nz>; The Privy Council (enquiries@supremecourt.uk) <enquiries@supremecourt.uk>; Indonesia Embassy (singapura.kbri@kemlu.go.id) <singapura.kbri@kemlu.go.id>; Myanmar Embassy (ambassador@myanmarembassy.sg) <ambassador@myanmarembassy.sg>; Philippines Embassy (philippine.embassy.singapore@gmail.com) <philippine.embassy.singapore@gmail.com>; Thailand Embassy (thaisgp@singnet.com.sg) <thaisgp@singnet.com.sg>; Vietnam Embassy (vnemb.sg@mofa.gov.vn) <vnemb.sg@mofa.gov.vn>; Argentina Embassy (consulares_eisia@mrecic.gov.ar) <consulares_eisia@mrecic.gov.ar>; Brazil Embassy (brasemb.cingapura@itamaraty.gov.br) <brasemb.cingapura@itamaraty.gov.br>; Russia Embassy (russian_embassy@singnet.com.sg) <russian_embassy@singnet.com.sg>; South Africa Embassy (singapore.consular@dirco.gov.za) <singapore.consular@dirco.gov.za>; South Korea Embassy (korembsg@mofa.go.kr) <korembsg@mofa.go.kr>; Turkey Embassy (embassy.singapore@mfa.gov.tr) <embassy.singapore@mfa.gov.tr>; Jack Lilien <jack-lilien@uiowa.edu>; Alan Kay <alan-kay@uiowa.edu>; Chun-Fang Wu <chun-fang-wu@uiowa.edu>; Gary Gussin <gary-gussin@uiowa.edu>; Song Yi <Stephen.yi@austin.utexas.edu>; uicssahr@gmail.com; biology@uiowa.edu; president@uiowa.edu; daily-iowan@uiowa.edu
Subject: Singapore's political succession plan, 2023 Chinese balloon conspiracy, Wagner Mutiny intrigue and others

 

Der PM Lee Hsien Loong, 

 

I am writing to check with the PM about Singapore’s political succession plan. I have enough reason to believe that PM Lee is going to announce his stepping down and the start of the Singapore’s GE in his National Day message to be broadcast today at 6:45pm.   

 

It is self-evident that PM Lee is using the current extra marital affairs as an excuse to avoid taking responsibility of David Roach espionage scandal and other international conspiracies. These extra marital affairs wouldn’t have been exposed to public if PM Lee has no intention of stepping down now. I didn’t have time to set out the details about how I caught David Roach.   

 

Singapore’s political succession plans 

Attached please find a readable document I prepared last night about the Government’s unsuccessful attempts to carry out its political succession plan.  

 

The 2023 Chinese balloon conspiracy 

I provided the conclusive evidence in the attached document to show that the 2023 Chinese balloon incident was a conspiracy organized by the US government. The shooting down of the balloon was not the cause but the outcome of the postponement of the US Secretary of State Antony Blinken’s Beijing trip. The purpose of Mr. Blinken’s Beijing trip was to help PM Lee carry out his political succession plan and shooting down the balloon was just as excuse to delay his Beijing Trip.  

 

I am 100% sure of my conspiracy allegation and encourage the FBI to release its report on the Chinese spy balloon incident. If I am right, FBI director Christopher A. Wray ought to resign. If I am wrong, I am happy to receive any punishment.  

 

There are other incidents such as the G7 Hiroshima conspiracy organized by President Biden. It is self-evident that President Biden, Secretary of State Antony Blinken, CIA director William J. Burns ought to step down.  

 

President Biden said on May 27, 2022 that Chinese President Xi Jinping told him on the night he was elected president that “things are changing so rapidly. Democracies require a consensus, and it takes time, and you don’t have the time”. President Biden said Xi was wrong.  

 

I think it is time for President Biden to call back and tell the world how many scandals can make a US President step down. I still stand by my opinion stated in my email dated May 26, 2022 that Kamala Harris is going to be the first US female President.  

 

Wagner Mutiny intrigue 

With regard to Wagner Mutiny, I reasoned that it was an intrigue carried on by the US government to save face due to its severely tarnished international standing. 

 

The racism in Iowa city (Alan Kay incident and Gang Lu incident)  

In middle 2005 I was unlawfully kicked out the department of Biology of UI by Dr. Alan Kay and finally left the US at the end of 2005. Now I am in a position to request President Biden to step down over different scandals.  

 

President Biden said that “fate has intervened his life many many times”. I think his fate to step down as a US President was determined 18 years ago and he has to blame the racism in UI.  

   

The US embassy 

As stated in the attached file, I have an obligation to check with the US embassy at 2pm today to find out its position on David Roach espionage scandal, The 2023 Chinese balloon conspiracy, Wagner Mutiny intrigue, and would request the US government to reopen Gang Lu case to address the issue of racism in UI. As usual, I would sit outside the US embassy for 5 minutes if the embassy officials refuse to talk to me.  

 

The election manipulation and my protest 

It is self-evident that now PM Lee is not in a position to step down and all the scandals mentioned above must be address by him before the start of the GE because the PAP Government has turned Singapore from an honest broker into a vicious conspirator. If PM Lee carries out his succession plan tonight, I will protest outside the US embassy tomorrow against PAP’s manipulation of the GE. 

 

Regards, 

Yan Jun 

(S7684361I) 

 

My email dated Aug 5, 2023 to the media about PM Lee Hsien Loong's political succession plan

 Attachment: IMG_20230805_123556

Yan Jun <medp1128@hotmail.com>

5/8/2023 2:15 pm

To: Lian He Wan Bao; Lian He Zao Bao; news@theindependent.sg; Shin Min Daily; The Online Citizen (Singapore); The Straits Times; Voices(Today) (voices@mediacorp.com.sg); editor.sh@sinarharian.com.my; estherng@thestar.com.my; newscentre@chinapress.com.my; Ming Pao (mingpao@mingpao.com); Oriental Daily News (news@odn.on.cc); SCMP (letters@scmp.com); Singtao Daily (localnews@singtao.com) ; The Standard (editor@thestandard.com.hk); United Daily News (newspro@udn.com); 'Apple Daily'; Jon Fasman (Economists) ; Keith Bradsher (New York Times); 'Linus Chua (Bloomberg)'; 'Philip Bowring (The South China Morning Post)'; Reporters Without Borders (dbastard@rsf.org); Rico Hizon (BBC); Roberto Coloma (Agence France-Presse); 'Seiff Abby (Freelance Corrrespondent)' Cc: medp1128@gmail.com

 

Dear Media,

 

I was released from Changi Prison this morning. PM Lee Hsien Loong is going to step down in about 2 weeks time.

 

Now I am living in Chinese library area of the NUS. 

 

Thanks.

 

Regards,

Yan Jun

(S7684361I)