'Sovereign' woman convicted of failing to go to police station and court, spitting at police

SINGAPORE — A woman who made headlines for her behaviour during the trial of a fellow anti-masker was convicted by a court for charges of her own — for refusing to attend police investigations or turn up in court, and for spitting at police officers.

Lee Hui Yin, now known as Tarchandi Tan after changing her name last year, was convicted of five charges on July 10.

In a judgment made available on Saturday (July 15), District Judge Kow Keng Siong laid out the reasons for convicting the 53-year-old woman.

Tan had repeatedly defied orders to go to a police station for investigations and to attend court. This was related to investigations over an incident on Aug 18, 2021.

Tan had attended the trial of Briton Benjamin Glynn that day. When the trial was ongoing, she allegedly said "this is ridiculous kangaroo court" and directed a comment at District Judge Eddy Tham, saying "I do not respect the judge".

Glynn was given six weeks' jail in August 2021 for his offences which included not wearing a mask, and deported.

WHAT SHE DID

When police officers went to Tan's flat in August 2022 to deliver a notice requiring her to head to a police station, Tan shut the door on them.

The officers pasted the notice on her door, but Tan did not show up at the police station as required.

Instead, she sent an email to the police officer, saying: "I do not understand the offer to be investigated, nor do I agree to be investigated since the case has been over a year with no reason nor logic to follow up. There is clearly no victim and no summons to stand trial from Court Order."

She also stated "clearly" that she did not wish to "receive any more requests to contract from you nor any other representatives acting on behalf of the Central Police Provision, SPF, etc ..."

She then returned a notice that was sent to her by registered post to the police, with these words on the envelope: "Return to sender, No such person".

The police went to Tan's flat a second time and said they were there to deliver documents from the State Courts. Tan replied that she had "no business" with them, and that she "did not care".

Her partner, who was in the flat with her, told the officers that they were committing "criminal trespass", to which one of the officers responded incredulously: "Trespass? This is public area, common corridor."

Tan later sent a message to one of the officers, saying: "This case so long already... my ambassador says police will ENTRAP me".

The officer sent her a reminder to turn up at Police Cantonment Complex on Aug 31, 2022, otherwise a warrant of arrest would be issued against her.

In response, Tan accused the officer of "harassment" by throwing "paper into the house" and by sending her an "old letter" when "all the while it had been quiet for a year".

Another notice was issued to Tan, requiring her to attend court on Sep 15, 2022. She sent it back to the police, with these words written on the envelope: "Return to sender. No such person. Dead entity."

She sent an email on the eve of the court mention to several individuals including the police officer on her case, stating that she was a "sovereign individual" and not amenable to any law or obligation unless she had voluntarily consented to them.

She also said she could be said to have committed a crime only if she had "wilfully harmed or violated someone or someone's property without (that person's) consent".

She said she did not agree to be investigated since the incidents occurred over a year ago.

After Tan failed to show up in court, the district judge issued a warrant to arrest her, and four police officers turned up at her flat on Nov 10, 2022 to do so.

She resisted strongly and was finally cuffed and carried from her flat to the police car. In the car, she spat at two officers, with the spittle landing on one officer's cheek and hair, and on another officer's face.

She refused to go for a Covid-19 test when she reached the police station, but was eventually sent for medical examination later that same day.

Tan defended herself at trial. She said she was not obliged to obey any of the orders given to her, as she was a sovereign individual and the police had no basis to require her to go to the police station or to court.

She said she had "hissed" at the police officers in the car, but could not recall spitting at them.

JUDGE ON THE SOVEREIGN ARGUMENT

Judge Kow said the sovereign individual argument "is clearly misconceived".

"In my mind, there is absolutely no doubt that proponents and peddlers of the sovereign individual argument can be held criminally liable if they contravene the law," he said.

He said this argument has its roots in the United States. US proponents believe that the US Federal Government has no inherent power over individual citizens of the various states without their individual consent.

"To justify this belief, its proponents rely on various arguments centred around, among others, the Fourteenth and Sixteenth Amendments to the US Constitution, the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment, the US Uniform Commercial Code, as well as conspiracy theories that involve the US government and the US Federal Reserve Bank," said Judge Kow.

He said this argument has been "unequivocally and routinely rejected" by courts in the US and other common law jurisdictions.

"The accused has failed to provide any credible legal argument to show why the sovereign individual argument — which is based on the US Constitution and conspiracy theories and has been rejected in other jurisdictions — is applicable in Singapore," said Judge Kow.

"Under our system of government, parliament makes laws that all persons in Singapore must obey, the executive can exercise coercive powers provided by statutes, and the judiciary is the sole body empowered to make binding interpretations on the scope of these laws and powers. The sovereign individual argument ignores this legal position — a position that has been established for almost six decades since Singapore's independence and has never been in doubt."

He said that the practical effect of the sovereign individual argument is that its proponents are "above the law and can pick and choose what laws they want to obey and to enforce". 

"This cannot be right. Such an argument is contrary to the rule of law and is a recipe for anarchy," said Judge Kow.

He added that he had considered whether Tan's belief that she was sovereign suggests that the charges were caused or contributed by a mental disorder.

She was diagnosed with schizophrenia in 2012, and has been a patient at the Institute of Mental Health since 2003.

However, Judge Kow said he was satisfied that the offences were not caused or contributed by her schizophrenia. An IMH doctor said Tan was not suffering from the condition when she committed the offences, and that there was no causal or contributory link between her mental condition and her offences.

The doctor added that Tan's belief in sovereign ideas is not a delusion, as the belief is not held only by her, and there are others who believe in it as well.

The judge adjourned the case for mitigation and sentencing to a later date this year. CNA