SUM 1438 - The IMH's Strike-Out - My Reply Affidavit - Singapore Supreme Court Lawsuit

 

IN THE GENERAL DIVISION OF THE HIGH COURT OF THE REPUBLIC OF SINGAPORE

Between

Frank Lee

(FIN No. REDACTED)

...Claimant

And

1. Institute of Mental Health
   (Singapore UEN No. 52930996C)

2. Ministry of Health
   (Singapore UEN No. T08GA0015H)

3. Lawrence Shyun Tsai Wong
   (NRIC No. Not Known)

4. Ye Kung Ong
   (NRIC No. Not Known)

5. Lucien Wong
   (NRIC No. Not Known)

6. Phyllis REDACTED
   (NRIC No. REDACTED)

7. Charmaine REDACTED
   (Hong Kong ID No. Not Known)

8. Laura REDACTED
   (NRIC No. Not Known

9. Lynette REDACTED
   (NRIC No. REDACTED)

...Defendants

Reply Affidavit in Response to Strike-Out Application

I, Frank Lee (Fin No. REDACTED) of REDACTED, affirm and state as follows:

1. I am the Plaintiff in this action.

2. Where the facts set out in this affidavit are within my personal knowledge, they are true. Where they are not within my personal knowledge, they are true to the best of my knowledge, information and belief.

Table of Contents

• The Law – Pages 3-5

• Pui Yee’s Contempt of Court – Pages 5-8

• Why was I sent to the IMH? – Pages 8-9

• Mark’s Notes – Pages 9-13

• I can no longer lose this lawsuit – Pages 13-14

• Why was I really confined to the IMH? – Page 14

• SUM 1144 – Page 15

• Evidence – Page 15

• Conclusion – Page 16

• My response to the AGC’s strike-out application – Pages 16-18

• E-Litigation – Pages 18-19

• Oath before Commissioner – Page 19

• Appendices – Pages 20-30

• Exhibits – Pages 31-145

• Police Reports – Pages 146-248

The Law

1) I’ll first address the legal grounds of the strike-out application.

2) It discloses no reasonable cause of action or defence.

• 2a) Not only am I asking for reasonable action, I am asking for extremely reasonable action, considering that I have been the victim of severe human rights violations, among other countless crimes.

• 2b) I’m asking that the truth is shared with Phyllis, who has no idea what was done to her, to me, or to our relationship, and who was told by whom she likely believed were experts to set boundaries with me and apply for a restraining order against me, among I suspect a host of other things that should come out during discovery.

• 2c) And I’m asking that the court order the IMH to stop violating Singapore’s Constitution.

• 2d) I’m asking that an end is put to violations of Singapore’s Constitution and for the truth. An injunction and a declaration. That’s it.

• 2e) Be glad that I’m not suing for money because I refuse to steal from all Singapore Citizens, most of whom have not hurt me, for what psychiatry and a few dozen bad apples have done to me.

• 2f) If asking for money were to be the only way in which this lawsuit could continue, I would, but upon receipt I would immediately transfer it back to the IRAS. If the IRAS refunded it, I’d withdraw it from the bank and light it on fire, so that it’d be returned to Singapore Citizens via deflation.

• 2g) And yes, I can sue to put an end to what the IMH is doing to Singapore Citizens, unless the Supreme Court wants to deny the existence of empathy. If I were married with children and the IMH was continuously confining and torturing my wife or my children, no one would question that I’d be hurt by that and that I’d be suing to make it stop. Is it up for debate whether it’s possible that I feel terrible for Singapore Citizens who are victims of crimes that were also committed against me?

3) It is an abuse of process

• 3a) I can understand Pui Yee’s and the IMH’s legal team’s perspectives on this to some extent.

• 3b) I disagree, and I will explain my actions, but if a just Supreme Court Judge were to explain to me face-to-face why it deems that some of my actions in HC/OC 324/2026 are unreasonable, and asks me to do something differently that’s reasonable, I will at least listen and be open to having a conversation. And if I agree that the ask is reasonable, there’s a good chance I’ll comply, just like I dropped the AGC as a defendant when an AGC employee asked me to. I’m a very reasonable person.

• 3c) I don’t feel the need to respond in detail to opinions that I am not allowed to affect change through a civil lawsuit, and that I am undermining statutory laws, because:

1. i) Sometimes society is wrong, like Nazi German society which believed Jews were inferior beings, and sometimes the law is wrong, like laws on slavery in the past that stated that some human beings were livestock. There has to be a way for individuals to bring these sorts of matters to the general public’s attention, that doesn’t require amassing a massive following. Being disliked / unpopular doesn’t equal to being wrong.

   ii) I am not undermining statutory laws, I am pointing out violations of statutory laws and Singapore’s Constitution.

   iii) The Government Proceedings Act Article 5 essentially states that the government can be held responsible through legal proceedings. I don’t exactly see the IMH as part of the otherwise great Singapore government, but it is on paper.

You can also ask yourself what a law really is. It’s a rule voted into existence by a tiny minority of people, usually a long time ago. People make mistakes. There has to be a method for individuals to question whether laws are right.
Moreover, the MHCTA is useless anyway because the existence of “disorders of a mind” is a belief. It’s like having a law governing “unicorn” farms or for predetermining who goes to “heaven” and who goes to “hell”.

• 3d) As for adding the other defendants:
  
  The other defendants are perfectly capable of deciding for themselves whether they want to be a part of this lawsuit or not.
  
  The IMH is doing its best on behalf of psychiatry to contain the information within this lawsuit and to prevent it from reaching others. It wouldn’t do this if my lawsuit said:
  
  “The world is flat.”
  
  or
  
  “Rocks float on water.”
  
  Because it’s not too difficult to disprove these, and so it wouldn’t matter if that information were to spread.
  
  The fact that the IMH is attempting to prevent the information about psychiatry contained within this lawsuit, and my accounts of what goes on at the IMH, from reaching others, proves that the IMH is scared of this information getting out, and is a strong indication that I am speaking the truth.
  
  Perhaps most importantly, the IMH attempting to cut the other defendants out of this lawsuit on their behalfs is further proof that the IMH interferes in relationships. This is exactly what it did to me and my personal relationships. It isolated me in its facilities, and then talked to others behind my back to paint a false picture of me to them, which destroyed all but one of my relationships.

  Psychiatry wants to be in control of “reality” and what the truth is, especially when it comes to unique individual human beings and their private relationships.
  
  Appendices A to D on pages 20-29 contain letters I sent to the AGC regarding the involvements of four of the other defendants.

4) It is in the interest of justice to do so

• 4a) It just isn’t.

• 4b) All criminals love for it to be in the best interest of justice that lawsuits against them are dismissed, but that doesn’t make it so.

• 4c) The fact that this is included as a ground for this strike-out application, means that this strike-out application is at least partially frivolous.

• 4d) More details in the next section.

Pui Yee’s Contempt of Court

5) Pui Yee lied in a sworn statement

Pui Yee has stated under point #31 in her affidavit in which she swore to be truthful:

“At best, the Claimant may be alleging that the care and treatment he received at IMH has in some way fallen below the standard of care.”

Is Pui Yee unable to read? Even a statement like:

“The Claimant is alleging that the care and treatment he received at IMH has in some way fallen below the standard of care.”

Would be a joke, but:

“At best, the Claimant may be alleging...”

Pui Yee has lied and is attempting to manipulate the court in her favor. You can’t have read through my SoC and state this. PUI YEE HAS LIED IN A SWORN STATEMENT. Her only defense is insanity and claiming that she is unable to read and comprehend English.

Pui Yee needs to be held in contempt of court for this.

This contempt of court is particularly bad because it directly invalidates and diminishes severe crimes that were committed against me.

If Pui Yee had admitted to what she and her colleagues did to me and had apologized, that’d have been one thing, but she continues to lie and dismiss the crimes committed against me, and is attempting to deceptively get the court on her side.

This is not a lie about some contract between two companies, which are entities without feelings. This is a horrible lie diminishing the real hardships of a real human being who is somehow still alive after all that was done to him.

6) Pui Yee’s belief that is at best an opinion, but more likely a lie

Under Point #30 in her affidavit:

“Finally, I verily believe that it is in the interests of justice for the Claimant’s entire claim in OC 324 to be struck out in its entirety.”

Pui Yee has lost all credibility. Freedom to believe is a thing, but this is really an opinion, not a belief.

Furthermore, you can:

• Verily believe that there are dragons in China.

• Verily believe that there are mermaids in the sea.

• Verily believe that Elon Musk is an alien.

• Verily believe that confinement and involuntary brain alteration help their victims.

But there has to be some sort of baseline for what you’re allowed to put in a sworn statement. If you can’t back up your sworn statements, even if they are beliefs or opinions, at some point you need to be held accountable.

Stating that you “verily believe that it is in the interests of justice for my entire claim to be struck out in its entirety.” without providing anything to base this ridiculous statement on strips you of any credibility you may have had.

I’ll repeat: All criminals love for it to be in the best interest of justice that lawsuits against them are dismissed, but that doesn’t make it so.

7) Pui Yee’s reference to Medical Negligence under point #31

I understand that Pui Yee and her colleagues wish for this to be a medical negligence claim, so that they can continue to live in their own worlds believing that they are doctors, and that what they did to me wasn’t all that bad, but this is obviously not a medical negligence claim. Refering to what was done to me as medical negligence is a crime against me.

But in my opinion this statement from Pui Yee, as highly questionable as it is, can be explained away by stupidity/delusion and does not rise to the level of an obvious lie and contempt of court.

8) Another lie by Pui Yee & What was done to Phyllis and I

Under point #29, Pui Yee states that:

By the Claimant’s own admissions in the SOC, Phyllis no longer wishes to have anything to do with him and/or these proceedings (see for example, paragraphs 139(d) to 139(m) of the SOC). ”

I have never admitted this, or even stated this. Why did Pui Yee choose the word “admissions”? Am I on trial here? It certainly feels like Pui Yee is accusing me of things.

This is a blatant lie by Pui Yee. Not only that, but it’s a real stretch for Pui Yee, whom I assume has never even met Phyllis, to state that she is able to know Phyllis’ desires based on her actions. Even I, having gotten to know Phyllis intimately over 3+ years, won’t claim to be able to know her desires based on her actions. Only Phyllis herself knows her own desires.

The most you can do is believe a person when it tells you it has a desire. You can NEVER know for certain. At best you can make inferences from the actions of a person you know intimately.

Pui Yee has stated that I’ve said things that I’ve never said, and has taken words and actions of Phyllis to mean things that they simply do not mean. This isn’t the first time IMH personnel has done this.

As per point #174 of my SoC, Phyllis also supposedly told the IMH that I showing up to her house and workplace was against her wish, at the same time as she had moved her clothes back into my apartment, was sleeping at my apartment, visited me twice at the IMH, and bought the cute figurine for my bedroom, a picture of which can be found in Exhibit #12 on page 59.

The bottom line is that Phyllis acting nervously around me and walking away from me on February 19^th, can in no way be inferred to mean that she wishes to have nothing to do with me. Although I was careful not to push anything that day, because she did walk away from me.

Nor can Phyllis saying “whatever you got yourself into this time, leave me out of it” be inferred to mean that she wishes to have nothing to do with me. If Phyllis wished to have nothing to do with me, why wouldn’t she just tell me so?

Clearly, Phyllis still has feelings relating to me, or else she wouldn’t act like this. Obviously looking at Phyllis’ words and actions from the outside, it appears as though she seeing me now invokes unpleasant feelings, and perhaps even traumatic memories. However, this is unsurprising given everything in my SoC. The question with an obvious answer is what the cause of these unpleasant feelings and traumatic memories is.

Imagine you have a dog and you really love the dog. If every time it comes to you, a 3^rd party kicks it violently, and the 3^rd party is a powerful institute, you may at some point decide to stay away from the dog, so that it stops being hurt, and because resistance seems futile. (I = dog, Phyllis = you, 3^rd party = the IMH)

THIS IS EXACTLY WHAT WAS DONE TO PHYLLIS AND I. CLEARLY ON NOV 21^st 2024 I WENT TO PHYLLIS AND ON APRIL 17^th 2025 I WENT TO PHYLLIS, AND I WISH I HAD ONLY BEEN KICKED OR EVEN MURDERED, BECAUSE WHAT WAS DONE TO ME WAS FAR WORSE THAN MURDER.

I believe that Phyllis has become scared to interact with me, in the fear that I will be locked up and tortured again, and I don’t blame her, because I am too. However, you can never stop me from doing my best for Phyllis no matter the immense pain you inflict upon me, which from my perspective at this point in time is making sure she understands what was done to her, to I, and to our relationship.

If you believed that your best friend had killed him/herself, but in fact he/she was murdered by your parents, you’d want to know, right? (I = your best friend, Phyllis = you, your parents = the IMH)

Yes... this is how cosmically fucked up the things done to Phyllis and I are. Psychiatry is evil beyond most people’s comprehensions.

9) It appears that Pui Yee hates most human beings

Pui Yee is fighting to continue psychiatry’s deceit of the human population, and is fighting to continue the illegal unconstitutional confinement and involuntary alteration of large numbers of human beings.

10) I can all but factually state that Pui Yee hates Phyllis

Pui Yee is doing her best to keep the truth as to what she and her colleagues did to Phyllis and I from reaching Phyllis.

11) Pui Yee hates me a lot

This statement stands alone, because I am the sole authority on who hates me, but there exists independently verifiable evidence to support this:

• As per point #9, Pui Yee appears to hate most human beings. People who hate most human beings hate me.

• As per point #10, unless Phyllis were to state otherwise, Pui Yee hates Phyllis. Individuals who hate Phyllis really hate me. Nothing enrages me more than individuals who hate (and hurt) Phyllis.

• Pui Yee has stated that my confinements, tortures, rapes, mutilation, alteration, and the hateful reports that the IMH has issued on me, “at best may have fallen below a standard of care”.

• Pui Yee has falsely stated that I’ve admitted that Phyllis no longer wants anything to do with me, and also that my accounts of torture, rape, and such are lies, unless torture truly were to barely fall below the standard of care at the IMH. Pui Yee is CRIMINALLY twisting my words to support her own narrative. IMH personnel has a track record of creating its own false truth, which I also pointed out under point #175 in my SoC.

12) Why was I sent to the IMH?

The police doctor’s referral form on page 29 of Pui Yee’s affidavit is difficult to read, but I can make out:

• Claims that girlfriend was trying to kill herself.

• Coherrent.

• Answers appropriately.

• Speech normal.

If I recall correctly, I spoke to this doctor at around 4AM. About 30 hours prior I had seen my only emotional connection show up with five clear knife cut marks on each of her wrists. About 12 hours prior I had desperately tried to save her life. Then I had been arrested and tossed in jail by the police. And now I was running on ~24 hours without sleep.

Why didn’t others believe me when I told them Phyllis was suicidal? Why didn’t others put themselves in my shoes for one moment and consider what I was going through? Why did this police doctor decide that I needed to be brought to the IMH in spite of being coherrent, answering appropriately, and having “normal speech”? I was INCREDIBLY composed given my circumstances.

The police doctor noted that there was nothing wrong with me, and referred me to the IMH anyway... WHY?

13) Mark’s Notes

On top of having seen Phyllis show up with knife cut marks on July 17^th, and the stressful events on July 18^th, I had now been without sleep for nearly 36 hours, and I had spent the entire afternoon handcuffed in a waiting room with 6 police officers. Moreover, I still believed Phyllis was most likely dead given how suicidal she had been the day before.

In spite of all of this, judging from Mark’s notes, I was very coherrent, outside of maybe the statement that I thought Phyllis had called the police because she thought that I was suicidal. I understand how that may have made no sense to Mark.

Let’s analyze Mark’s notes together.

I never use the word “erratically”, I’m pretty sure I said Phyllis hadn’t acted like her normal self.

To Mark’s follow-up asking for specifics, I replied:

“I’ve known Phyllis for a few years so I know she wasn’t the same.”

This answer makes no sense if I had said Phyllis had acted erratically, but it makes perfect sense if I had said that she hadn’t acted like her normal self.

Furthermore, why did Mark ask so many follow-ups? It’s clear from the initial get-go of this conversation that Mark simply didn’t believe anything I told him.

Self-harm marks and loud + shouting are plenty examples of even “erratic” behavior had I used that word.

Nonetheless, Mark demanded further details wanting to know exactly what Phyllis had said, which shows that Mark simply didn’t believe me and wanted to disprove my initial statement.

Mark also appeared unable to comprehend my statement that I was tired, and seemed to want me to admit to him that I had trouble recollecting things, presumably because that’d in his mind indicate mental problems that he could confine me for, so that his colleagues could play doctor on me.

My memory of my conversation with Mark isn’t accurate enough to factually deny having said these things. I know I confirmed in my statement to the police at Cantonment that I had kept Phyllis in my bedroom in an attempt to calm her down.

It’s possible that I told Mark that I didn’t confine her to my house, because I confined her to my bedroom, which I suppose means I also confined her to my house, but I was exhausted and Mark kept demanding more answers out of me when I had already answered his question about what had happened the prior day, so please excuse my mistake, assuming these notes are accurate.

Why is Mark asking what a random unknown therapist thinks about me? Isn’t he an expert and shouldn’t he be coming to his own independent conclusion? Asking for such information is only going to bias him. This is evidence that Mark doesn’t know what he’s doing, or at least that he is not confident in what he’s doing. If you’re a doctor and you understand what you’re doing, you examine and diagnose and find proof, but psychiatrists “diagnose” by analogy, by consensus, and by 3^rd party statements, which is also evident from the IMH’s reports on me.

“Denies persecutory delusions”

“Denies grandiouse delusions”

“Denies thought disturbance”

“Denies hearing voices”

“Denies visual hallucinations”

“Denies use of illicit substances”

Why did Mark ask me such irrelevant questions, and then didn’t believe my answers?

Seriously... illicit substances, and perhaps hearing voices, could be explained away as standard procedural questions, but grandiouse delusions and persecutory delusions? Why did he think it relevant to ask these questions?

Furthermore, who asks someone whether they have delusions? The answer will never be yes, because if a person were to know that a belief that it holds is false... then wouldn’t that mean that the person doesn’t believe it? Does anyone believe things it knows to be false? Is that even possible?

Further furthermore, why would Mark ask me these questions, and then when I tell him no, note down that I “deny” it? Even after I had told him no, Mark still believed I had all these things, in spite of a complete and utter lack of evidence.

(This is similar to Pui Yee using the word “admissions”. It feels like I’m on trial defending myself against psychiatrists accusing me of seeing the world differently than they do, as if that’s a crime.)

This is madness... how could Mark believe these things about a person he had just met, when that person who had lived and experienced all 300,000+ hours of his own life had just told him that these are false...

I have no answer for this, because I find it impossible to believe that human beings as dumb as Mark exist. My best guess is that Mark wanted to have reasons to confine me, so that he and his colleagues get to have jobs and can delude themselves that they’re doing something positive for the world.

I disagree about the casually on and off dating, because Phyllis and I had started talking about spending our lives together in May, but she not being my girlfriend was a valid perspective.

I also much prefer not labeling my relationships, but society asks for labels, and referring to Phyllis as my girlfriend to the police and IMH personnel made the conversations simpler. We had been sleeping together 2-3 nights per week just about every week for 3+ years.

Phyllis misremembered numerous things:

• She talked about having stayed with me over the weekend, but an event I detailed under point #49 in my SoC that happened only five days prior during that weekend on July 14^th, Phyllis stated was back in June. And she misremembered I having gone out with friends, I went out for 30-60 minutes while ex-housekeeper Vilma was there.

• Phyllis misremembered coming over the 2^nd week of June, it was June 3^rd when she came over and stayed for a week and half. It was primarily the 1^st week of June, as per point #44 in my SoC.

• Phyllis said that we had stopped talking since the 2^nd week of June until the prior weekend, but we had had a video call in late June (point #46 in my SoC), and she had also come over Thursday night on July 11^th.

• Phyllis hadn’t come over the day before on the 18^th as she told Mark, Phyllis had come over the night of July 17^th and slept over.

All of these are proof that Phyllis’ memory was severely affected on July 19^th. She misremembered two things that had happened in the prior five days.

Although it’s possible that Phyllis didn’t remember about her suicidality either, to me the more likely explanation for Phyllis saying she wasn’t suicidal to Mark is that she simply didn’t feel safe enough with him to share this with him. Phyllis had only shared about it with me, and only after 3 years of knowing me, 1.5 years after having become suicidal.

I most definitely did not want to be confined.

“have to be admitted” is a logically impossible statement from Mark. You can only “admit”, meaning to allow to enter, a person if it wants to enter. This sentence from Mark essentially means that “I had to want to enter”. Mark forced me into wanting something that I didn’t want, which might be the worst crime in existence. You don’t want this? Well... too bad... you need to want it.

I don’t remember this, but given the situation and my exhaustion, it’s possible that I decided not to fight against this forced confimenent and instead decided to pick my battles and fight against the brain-altering drugs that I did not want to take, but that were injected into me a few hours later anyway.

Moreover, if I was “admitted” out of my own volition, why was I physically assaulted, restrained to a bed, and injected with brain-altering drugs a few hours later when I attempted to go into the hallway?

........ this is the shit that goes on inside the IMH and psychiatric facilities like it, more aptly referred to as Involuntary Human Alteration Facilities, worldwide.

Please, I beg you, help me put an end to these crimes as soon as possible.

This proves that if anyone was sick in its brain / head / mind on July 19^th, it was Mark, not I.

Frank: I’ve never been suicidal.

Phyllis: Frank has never done anything to hurt himself.

Mark: Frank is not overtly suicidal.

... look... if you refuse to believe a person who has lived and experienced all 300,000+ hours of his own life, and his closest connection who has spent ~10,000 hours with him, and just start making shit up and telling the entire world that your delusions are the truth in spite of an overwhelming amount of evidence to the contrary, you are running an evil religion.

You can’t take these people, and by these people I mean psychiatrists, seriously whatsoever.

I wonder whether if I had told him that I was a male human being, and Phyllis had told him that I had never gone for a sex change operation or been to space, Mark would have noted “not overtly female alien”.

Irrelevancy is subjective.

What the heck are “thought insertion” and “thought broadcasting”?

This case should not go to trial, because the IMH has already lost it and has no ground to stand on whatsoever, so dragging this on any longer than necessary is financial theft from Singapore Citizens (via their government) who are going to be on the hook for the IMH’s legal fees.

But if it does somehow go to trial, I would loooove for a psychiatrist to explain to the court what the heck “thought insertion” and “thought broadcasting” are without claiming that it’s using psychic powers to play doctor on human beings.

I can no longer lose this lawsuit

14) First proof that my confinements were illegal and unconstitutional

MHCTA says:

The IMH says:

All Form 1s and Form 2s submitted into evidence by the IMH state “on account of suspected mental disorder”. As per the MHCTA, suspicion of mental disorder (if disorders of a mind were to exist) were not enough grounds to confine me.

15) Second proof that my confinements were illegal and unconstitutional

MHCTA says:

Phyllis says:

The IMH says:

Translation: Phyllis told the IMH that I had never done anything to hurt her, but the IMH deemed that it was necessary for her protection that I be locked up anyway.

Add to this Phyllis’ post-it note that she wrote for me while I was confined in exhibit #5 on page 38, and this lawsuit is now simply unloseable for me.

16) Why was I really confined to the 

IMH?

Your guess is as good as mine.

(Okay... technically mine is probably better, because I have more information available to me, but at least I didn’t put in my affidavit that illegal confinement, torture, rape, involuntary brain alteration, relationship interference, and more, were “at best maybe below standard of care”. Makes you wonder what standards of care are in place at the IMH, doesn’t it?)

But this lawsuit needs to end soon, because the IMH is guilty of stealing money from Singapore Citizens via their government in a futile attempt to protect itself from the inevitable outcome of this lawsuit.

Not to mention that crimes like the ones that were committed against me, are committed daily against hundreds of Singapore Citizens.

17) SUM 1144

Under point #16 in her affidavit, Pui Yee states that the injunctions I seek in my SoC and SUM 1144 are not exactly the same. This is correct. You can find the explanation for this on page 131 of my SoC, which includes my 41-page affidavit “The Truth About Psychiatry” in support of SUM 1144.

Under point #34 in her affidavit, Pui Yee states that the orders I am seeking through my Judgment in Default of Defence are not the same as what I asked for in my SoC. This is false. They are exactly the same.

In Pui Yee’s affidavit, points #6-9 appear to be her defence to my 41-page affidavit. She appears to be saying:

“This is the way things are done. Don’t question it. Look at the MHCTA. Everything we are doing is very lawful. Please just trust our words for it.”

It appears to me as though the 1^st defendant does not intend to contest SUM 1144.

At least say something about the fact that psychiatry considers it to be a sign of a mind disease remediable via brain-altering drugs when a woman says no to sexual advances, as per Appendix E on page 30.

I’m not a judge, but I think SUM 1144 has won via no contest.

Evidence

18) I’ve attached 27 police reports to this affidavit on pages 146-248.

19) I’ve also attached 32 exhibits to this affidavit containing pieces of evidence that prove portions of what I’ve written in my SoC. These can be found on pages 31-145.

20) Once again, every single word in my SoC is truthful and accurate, minus honest mistakes. I understand that most parties in lawsuits and lawyers on behalf of them attempt to twist the truth in their favors, but I do not do this. I do not see the point.

21) I am also going to submit the July 18^th 2024 4-minute voice recording to the court, which recorded some of when I kept Phyllis in my bedroom to save her life. Obviously it cannot be attached to this affidavit. Please pay close attention to both of our tonalities when listening to it, so that you can confirm my statements in my SoC under point 58a) to 58f).

22) And I will submit the video of my physical assault at Raffles Place with fake subtitles and tampered audio on April 17^th 2025 to the court as well.

23) And I will also submit a video of my trashed apartment shot on April 12^th 2025. Phyllis chose to sleep in the spare bedroom of this trashed apartment during my 3^rd confinement.

24) Lastly, I want to make it clear that before a strike-out application can even be considered by the court, CCTV footages of my tortures and rapes need to be submitted into evidence and need to be taken into consideration by the court.

25) Conclusion

Ask yourself why the IMH filed a strike-out application. It’s because it doesn’t have a viable defence. Even less so now that it has submitted pieces of evidence into the record that prove that it has violated Singapore’s Constitution.

If the statements in my SoC were false. If I wasn’t restrained to beds. If I wasn’t injected with and forced to swallow brain-altering drugs. If I wasn’t tortured. If psychiatry is scientific. If psychiatrists are doctors. Yadiyadiyada. Why doesn’t some IMH employee just come forward and say so? All I’ve heard Pui Yee say is: “the MoH recognizes us as doctors, so we’re doctors”. This is called deflecting blame.

It’s because everything in my SoC is true and accurate, minus honest mistakes.

I believe that most of psychiatry’s victims’ brains are so destroyed by the involuntary brain alterations that they lack the power to fight back, and that the ones who do manage to fight back are bought off with money and made to settle.

Well... not I. I will not rest until all these evil facilities worldwide are shut down. I’m not exactly left with anything else to do, since my life was completely and utterly destroyed. My current plan is to launch a US Supreme Court lawsuit after I stop these attrocities in Singapore. Afterwards, probably Canada or Hong Kong or something.

Almost 10M human beings are confined to Involuntary Human Alteration Facilities every single year. Some of them are locked up and deprived of the most basic freedoms for years or even decades.

Let Singapore be the first country to stand up and say no to this evil.

26) My response to the AGC’s strike-

out application

Four AGC employees have asked on behalf of the MoH, Lawrence, Ye Kung, and Lucien that the entire action be struck-out. They do not represent the other five defendants, and so they cannot ask for the action to be struck-out in its entirety. They are waaaay overstepping boundaries.

They have not provided any grounds for their strike-out application, other than refering to Pui Yee’s affidavit, which I’ve already addressed, so all I’ll do here is briefly reiterate why I believe this action should not be struck-out against the four of them.

MoH

I am now clearly seeking something reasonable from the MoH through this lawsuit as per my letter in Appendix B on pages 22-23.

Article 5 of the Government Proceedings Act clearly states that the government can be held accountable even for neglect. I am holding it accountable for not adequately protecting Singapore Citizens from psychiatry, and for allowing psychiatry to commit severe daily crimes against hundreds of them.

I believe that the MoH doesn’t know better, so my current goal is to educate it via sharing information, in the hopes that it’ll use that information to do the right thing.

I’ve already offered to mediate and talk. I don’t see why MoH employees can’t sit down and talk to me, or respond to me via email, so that we can come to an agreement as to whether psychiatry, and especially the IMH, are beneficial or detrimental to the health of Singapore Citizens.

As it stands, the MoH is enabling the crimes against Singapore Citizens that I’ve laid out in this lawsuit. The MoH has the power to do something, and it has the responsibility to protect Singapore Citizens from something that’s clearly to the detriment of their healths.

I’m holding the MoH accountable for its neglect of the healths of Singapore Citizens on this front. I trust that it’s doing great work on many other fronts.

Lawrence, Ye Kung, and Lucien

I have strong objections to the AGC representing Lawrence, Ye Kung, and Lucien as explained in Appendices C & D on pages 24-29.

It would go against the AGC’s own website’s FAQ, and there is a clear conflict of interest.

This conflict of interest is already apparent, because I do not believe that the AGC employees have communicated to Lawrence, Ye Kung, and Lucien my offers. I’ve offered them SGD50k, SGD20k, and SGD20k respectively, for a few hours of their times.

(I believe most individuals would jump at the opportunity to be sued by me. So far, I’ve offered three individuals SGD20k-50k for a few hours of their times, and I’ve told four individuals that over time I’ll make it so that they won’t have to work anymore.)

As for Lucien, my settlement offer is clearly more beneficial to him than getting this potentially dismissed through a strike-out application. This all-but-proves that the AGC employees are doing what they deem to be in the best interest of the government, which they have little insight into, because they aren’t the government. They’re just four employees at the AGC.

If these four AGC employees were to not have communicated my offers to Lawrence, Ye Kung, and Lucien as I suspect, that would constitute a serious breach of ethical duties on their parts.

It is entirely true that at this point in time I am not seeking reasonable action (or any action) against Lawrence, Ye Kung, and Lucien, but if they were to be removed as defendants, it would need to come from them, not from four AGC employees supposedly on behalf of them, hopefully on behalf of the government, but seemingly more so on behalf of psychiatry.

A government’s sole obligation is to act in the best interests of its citizens, which I have been saying for a decade now Singapore’s government is better at than any other government that I know of.

Asking that this lawsuit be dismissed in its entirety is from my perspective clearly not in the best interests of Singapore Citizens, and so these four AGC employees asking the court to dismiss this action in its entirety is proof that they’re moreso acting in psychiatry’s best interests than in the best interests of Singapore Citizens / Singapore’s government.

The bottom line is this:

• It’s in psychiatry’s best interest that this lawsuit is dismissed in its entirety.

• I strongly believe that it’s in the best interests of Singapore Citizens as a whole that this lawsuit continues in its entirety, and ideally goes to Summary Judgment soon to minimize waste of court resources and financial theft from Singapore Citizens by the IMH.

• I have a hard time wrapping my mind around how it could not be in Lucien’s best interest to send me an email asking I drop him as a defendant and claiming his easy SGD20k.

• I think it’d be incredibly disappointing if Lawrence and Ye Kung refused to spend a few hours of their times looking into this matter given the generous compensations I’ve offered for their times.

27) E-Litigation

Can I (but really all self-represented litigants) please have access to E-Litigation, so that:

1. I don’t have to spend hours at the service bureau each time I need to file something. I’ve spent an entire day at the service bureau before just to submit a 1-page document, and I’ve spent four hours there to submit a PCQ.

2. I don’t have to pay thousands of dollars to submit things to the court.

3. I’m not at the mercy of mistakes made by service bureau employees, who usually ask me to check for mistakes before submitting, but mistakes still slip through when it’s not I who wrote many of my submissions. Many submissions I can’t type up at home, because service bureau procedure is to re-do them from scratch. I believe that service bureau employees mean well, but they are no more trained in legal matters than self-represented litigants are.

4. So that I don’t have to waste so much paper printing 200+ page affidavits.

5. So that I don’t have to waste the time of Singaporeans who ferry me to and from the Supreme Court via Grab.

6. So that pictures and images in my submissions come through properly. I fear that they won’t show as well after they’ve been printed by me and scanned by service bureau employees. Perhaps this time I’ll try asking them if I can give them the files via a USB stick.

7. So that it’s easier to meet court deadlines. I have three days to write this reply affidavit, and one morning to get it sworn before a commissioner. If the service bureau happens to be busy Friday afternoon, I’ll miss the court deadline.

Self-represented litigants are forced to pay for something that’s to their detriments.

If the court were to allow self-represented litigants access to E-Litigation, and hired a few employees (perhaps the current service bureau employees) to sift through non-lawyer submissions and provided feedback on mistakes made by self-represented litigants, not only would many resources be saved as per the above points, the court would get direct feedback from self-represented litigants on some of its processes that can be improved upon.

e.g. If 90% of submissions of a certain type all make the same mistake, it’ll be clear to the court that there’s something going on. Maybe the court’s guides / communications are unclear, or the process may just be entirely wrong.

Appendix A – Letter to the AGC on April 24^th

Andrea, Bharat, Grace, Vincent,

I thank you for your response, and I appreciate your point #4 acknowledging some of the things I’ve been through.

Although “unsatisfactory inpatient experiences” makes me think you’re working for psychiatry rather than the Singapore government. You’re not even representing the IMH, so I’m not sure why you’re trying to defend it with a statement like this. This is essentially rubbing salt in my wounds.

Before I respond in detail (in separate emails), I first want to be fully transparent with you about what I’m doing.

Full transparency about what I’m doing

I understand that you and the individuals and entities you are representing have certain perspectives, and I trust that you all are doing what you believe to be best for yourselves, your loved ones, and for Singapore/Singapore citizens based on those perspectives.

However, I also have a perspective, one which is very different from yours. My perspective is that of having been confined to the IMH for 8 weeks, what that was like for me, and what I saw other victims in there experience.

Although you have no way to verify it, I assure you that everything in my SoC is true and accurate, minus honest mistakes. I could sue the Singapore Government for an insane amount of money for what was done to me by a remote branch of it (the IMH), but I have no desire to do that for the following reasons:

1. Even Daniel Rouquette will probably not lie about the fact that I’ve been calling the Singapore government the best government in the world for a decade. Although these days I refer to it as the least bad government in the world. A matter of perspective.

2. If I successfully sued the Singapore government for money, that money would come out of the pockets of Singapore citizens, most of whom have not hurt me. If anything, most of them have been very kind to me and have given me a home for the past 5.5 years.

What/whom I do care about are human beings, which Singapore citizens are. I can’t live knowing that the things that were done to me are being done to hundreds of others here in Singapore every single day, and hundreds of thousands across the world.

As I’ve mentioned, these things include:

1. Involuntary brain alterations

2. Horrid confinements in violation of Singapore’s constitution

3. From my experience even torture and acts best described as rape

I don’t see how anyone benefits from human beings being the objects of these. I guess technically some (psychiatrists and employees + shareholders of pharmaceutical companies) make money off of this, but if you make money off of things like this, your job needs to disappear.

In summary, instead of sueing the Singapore government for money in return for the things that were done to me by a branch of it, I want to put an end to involuntary brain alterations in Singapore and these violations of Singapore’s constitution. And I have committed SGD10M of my own money (page 2 of my 41-page affidavit) in case I were to somehow be wrong about psychiatry.

Instead of suing Singapore for money, I am putting up money to protect Singapore.

I care about Singapore citizens, and so I want to protect them from psychiatry.

I think it needs to be a bare-minimum requirement for doctors to be able to prove the existence of that of which they claim to be a doctor. Psychiatrists cannot prove the existence of the human mind, and therefore they are not doctors, and therefore the IMH is not a hospital.

Unless you can refute the above paragraph, I am going to continue pushing for reform that protects Singapore citizens from psychiatry, because it is the right thing to do.

My Response

I will respond in separate emails.

Frank

Appendix B – Letter to the AGC on April 24^th regarding the MoH

Andrea, Bharat, Grace, Vincent,

My position regarding the MoH hasn’t changed.

Amendments

I seek the following things from the MoH through this lawsuit:

1. I seek that the MoH revoke the IMH’s license on the grounds that it is not a hospital, and on the grounds that psychiatry is not a form of medicine.

2. I seek that the MoH ban psychiatrists and psychologists from having offices in hospitals, on the grounds that they are not doctors.

3. I seek that the MoH ban psychiatrists from prescribing brain-altering drugs, on the grounds that they are not doctors. Only neurologists should be allowed to prescribe such drugs.

If you do not consent to I adding these to the SoC, I will have to ask the court for permission.

Mediation

My offer to mediate with the MoH still stands. I would very much like someone to explain to me the MoH’s position that psychiatrists are doctors and the IMH is a hospital. If someone were to be able to provide me with sound arguments proving that they are, then I’ll probably change my stance and remove the MoH as a defendant.

What probably happened

The Institute of Mental Health can be traced back to something called the “Insane Hospital”, established in 1841, 22 years after Stamford Raffles founded Singapore. It was renamed to “Lunatic Asylum” in 1861.

* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Institute_of_Mental_Health_(Singapore)

Over time this has morphed into the modern Instute of Mental Health and received hospital accreditation from the MoH. Why? Probably because a handful of MoH employees believed that psychiatry is a form of medicine and that these sorts of institutes are hospitals because the rest of the world believed as such. I suspect that they themselves did not analytically analyze whether psychiatry is actually a form of medicine, because it’s not, and Singaporeans today still pay for this past mistake.

The Institute of Mental Health is simply a modernized, socially-accepted version of what was created almost 200 years ago as a place to lock up people thought to be insane and lunatics. Which in essence are people whom have done nothing wrong but who are disliked and/or found annoying by others.

Point #5 in your letter Referenced AG/CIV/L/AGC/2026/7

I hear you when the four of you say that the courts are not the appropriate forum to determine matters of healthcare policy and/or legislative reform.

I generally agree, but this isn’t a matter of wanting more healthcare subsidies for poor people or wanting something be done about long hospital waitlists. This is a matter wherein every single day hundreds of Singapore citizens are the victims of involuntary brain alterations and illegal confinements in violation of their country’s constitution.

This is urgent. There is no time for I to become a citizen, join the PAP, get elected, speak in parliament, and hope that enough others agree with me.

I am doing whatever I can to put an end to these attrocities committed against Singapore citizens as soon as I can. If the majority finds it not entirely appropriate, please excuse me, but appropriateness is unimportant when human beings are the victims of involuntary brain alterations.

I’ll quote the 1956 Government Proceedings Act back to you. Under Point 5 it says:

Subject to the provisions of this Act, the Government shall be liable for any wrongful act done or any neglect or default committed by any public officer in the same manner and to the same extent as that in which a principal, being a private person, is liable for any wrongful act done

I interpret this as “the government can be held accountable for wrongful acts, neglect, and such”.

If psychiatrists aren’t doctors as I claim, then the MoH is in the wrong, and I think it’s perfectly reasonable for I to hold it accountable through a civil lawsuit.

I’m not even asking it for compensation. All I’m asking is that it does the right thing and take appropriate measures to protect Singapore citizens from psychiatry, which is detrimental to their health.

Conclusion

Instead of wasting resources on a lawsuit, let’s resolve this out of court and work together to come to a consensus on these:

1. Is psychiatry a form of medicine?

2. Are psychiatrists doctors?

3. Is the IMH a hospital?

4. Is psychiatry beneficial or detrimental to the health of Singapore citizens?

Please, get some subject matter experts at the MoH to talk to me about these. I’m willing to listen to sound, logical arguments that refute my 41-page affidavit “The Truth About Psychiatry”, but I haven’t heard any yet.

Frank

Appendix C – Letter to the AGC on April 18^th regarding Lawrence, Ye Kung, and Lucien

Andrea, Bharat, Grace,

I’ve taken a look at the Government Proceedings Act from 70 years ago. I see that under Article 24 (2) (a) it states that you, as legal officers, may appear on behalf of Lawrence, Ye Kung, and Lucien, by virtue of their positions in the government.

I acknowledge that this law from 70 years ago states that you may act on behalf of them in this Supreme Court lawsuit.

However, I am going to fight against this, because I strongly believe that you appearing on behalf of them would be the wrong thing to do, for multiple reasons.

But before I get into those, I want to first point out to you that you “may” act on behalf of them. You do not have to. You have a choice.

1) Singapore’s Public Interest

This lawsuit clearly outlines a very serious problem in Singapore, namely psychiatry.

Thousands of Singapore citizens are locked up in the IMH each year, and they are the victims of involuntary brain alteration.

I hope that you can agree with me that, at a minimum, psychiatric drugs alter people’s brains.

Furthermore, although we can argue over the percentage of the IMH’s victims that is forced to take these drugs, the IMH will not deny that some Singapore citizens at the IMH are forced to take these drugs.

From what I saw, every person in the mixed gender mood disorder unit I was in in Nov/Dec ‘24 was forced to take drugs. About 30 people.

And every single person in Wards 32A/B that I was in in Jul/Aug ‘24 and Apr/May ‘25 was forced to take drugs, with no exceptions. That’s ~40 people, and another ~40 people for the female equivalent of that ward.

This means that I can personally factually state that every single day at least 100 human beings, most of whom are Singapore citizens, have their brains altered against their wills by the IMH. I can quote their right to refuse healthcare, but you don’t need laws to understand that this is very wrong.

Moreover, they (and likely hundreds of others in different wards) are confined in violation of Article 9 (1) of Singapore’s Constitution. They are not allowed to:

• Go home

• Freely see their loved ones

• Go outside

• Exercise

• Shower when they want to

• Brush their teeth when they want to

• Eat when and what they want to

• Use their phone when they want to

• etc.

I have personally spent ~8 weeks confined to the IMH, so please take it from me that thousands of Singapore citizens suffer severely at the hands of the IMH each and every year.

As explained in Appendix F in the SoC (Letter to Lawrence), this is the #1 most important issue in Singapore today.

Not to mention that tens/hundreds of thousands of additional Singapore citizens are deceived by private psychiatrists.

I know I can singlehandedly get the Supreme Court to make the changes necessary to protect Singapore from psychiatry without the involvement of Lawrence, Ye Kung, and Lucien, but I believe that that would be wrong.

The injunction against the IMH that I am seeking through this lawsuit will have a big (in my opinion positive) impact on Singapore. There are reasons why Lawrence, Ye Kung, and Lucien hold the positions they do. I have never met any of them, but I assume they are all very capable in fulfilling the roles they fulfill for Singapore.

It’d be wrong if big decisions regarding the IMH and psychiatry were to be made by a Supreme Court judge, based on arguments from me and an employee of Legal Clinic. At the very least, Ye Kung should be part of the decisions, and arguably so should Lawrence.

As for Lucien, it’s a fact that, every single day, the IMH is guilty of hundreds of violations of Singapore’s Consitution, and guilty of hundreds of crimes of involuntary brain alteration.

Although Lucien does not have to take part in this lawsuit, he should be made aware of this matter, and this is the simplest way I know how to make sure that he is made aware of it.

It is simply the right thing to do. Singapore’s Attorney-General should know about this large number of crimes, so that he can take steps to make sure that the law in Singapore is upheld, and steps that ensure Singapore citizens are protected.

2) Lawrence’s, Ye Kung’s, and Lucien’s Agency

I know that Andrea stated on Friday that you have received instructions to represent the three of them.

I believe that you’ve received instructions, but I do not believe that those instructions come from Lawrence, Ye Kung, and Lucien.

I definitely don’t believe you’ve been in contact with Lawrence and Ye Kung, and I also find it highly unlikely that you told Lucien he’s a defendant in a Supreme Court lawsuit, and his response was “go defend me”.

Although the law from 70 years ago states that you may appear on behalf of them and act for them, even without having spoken to them, this is incredibly wrong.

This is like being allowed to log into someone’s brokerage account and buy stocks on behalf of a person without having spoken to it.

This violates Lawrence’s, Ye Kung’s, and Lucien’s agency. This law from 70 years ago states that you may speak for them and make decisions for them, but it’d be incredibly wrong if you did so.

You’re not allowed to make decisions regarding Singapore’s Finances on behalf of Lawrence, Singapore’s Minister of Finance, so why should you be allowed to make decisions for him in a civil lawsuit?

3) The AGC’s Role

The following two screenshots are taken from the AGC’s FAQ on its website:

Lawrence, Ye Kung, and Lucien are not the government. They are private individuals, who are members of the public, and who work as employees for the government.

This FAQ on the AGC’s website is a lot more recent than the Government Proceedings Act from 70 years ago.

I like to think humanity is making progress, not going backwards. And so I suggest we go by the AGC’s website and not by a law from 70 years ago.

Furthermore, does anyone know where the Government Proceedings Act comes form? Was it copied from the British? Either way, the people who created that law are almost certainly dead at this point.

Does anyone really want to live by the rules of people from 70 years ago who are long dead? Or if they were copied from the British, does anyone really want to live by the rules created by people in another country hundreds of years ago? Or would it be better if we just go by the AGC’s current self-stated role in Singapore’s society? The AGC is allowed some autonomy and is allowed to make some choices for itself, no?

I say we ignore the law from 70 years ago.

4) Minor Points

The Government Proceedings Act only uses male pronouns as if women can’t hold government positions...

Is the AGC going to represent its Mail-Room Employee in court when it makes a mistake and gets sued?

Is the AGC going to represent the MoE’s Receptionist when it messes up and gets sued?

Is the AGC going to represent the Supreme Court’s Phone Support Employee when it screws up and gets sued?

Or is the AGC only going to represent certain government officials? If so, who decides which government officials do and which do not get AGC representation in civil lawsuits?

5) Conclusion

Let’s figure out a way to legally serve Lawrence, Ye Kung, and Lucien their court documents that takes up as little of their valuable time as possible. This would be simplest and most resource efficient for everyone.

You may not be able to help me serve Ye Kung and Lawrence, because neither works at the AGC, but if you are able to assist me in serving Lucien somehow, that’d be greatly appreciated.

If you are able to schedule me a 1-minute meeting with him, I think that’d be ideal. Or perhaps you can introduce me to a colleague who can? I’m also open to other ideas/suggestions.

Frank

Appendix D – Letter to the AGC on April 24^th regarding Lawrence, Ye Kung, and Lucien

Andrea, Bharat, Grace, Vincent,

I now believe you when you say that Lawrence, Ye Kung, and Lucien are personally aware of the existence of this lawsuit, but I have my doubts about the extent to which they are aware of “the issues I have raised in OC 324”.

What I want

What I want is for:

• Lucien to know about the hundreds of daily crimes of involuntary brain alteration and hundreds of daily illegal confinements in violation of Singapore’s constitution.

• Ye Kung to know about how psychiatry is causing severe harm to (the health of) Singapore citizens. Violations of their right to refuse healthcare and involuntary brain alterations are but two examples.

• Lawrence to know about what I have explained in my letter to him in the SoC is currently the #1 most important issue to Singapore citizens, and therefore Singapore.

If this wasn’t urgent, and/or just a matter of what I personally would like to see changed in Singapore, I’d go through other channels and hope that I could reach the three of them via their public meetings and such. But that’s not the case.

Every single day, hundreds of Singapore citizens are illegally confined and are the victims of involuntary brain alterations. The right thing to do is to make Lawrence, Ye Kung, and Lucien fully aware of this matter as soon as possible.

Conflict of Interest

If you were to represent the three of them, there would be a clear conflict of interest. You work for “the government” and the government pays your salary. What are you going to do when the interests of Lawrence, Ye Kung, and Lucien are not aligned with the government’s interests?

As such, I am not in agreeance with what you refer to as “the established legal position”, which is essentially the verbal decision of a single Supreme Court Registrar, whom I find very incompetent by the way.

I could and may appeal this court decision, but given the urgency of the situation and the difficulty in I personally serving Lawrence, Ye Kung, and Lucien, I am first going to propose the following solutions to you.

My settlement proposal for Lucien

My proposal to settle this lawsuit with Lucien is as follows.

If Lucien reads through the SoC, and personally sends me an email with a few paragraphs proving that he’s read through the SoC, and asks me to drop him as a defendant and compensate him SGD20k for his time, I will honor that.

This should take Lucien no more than 5 hours, which is SGD4k per hour, which is the equivalent of a SGD8M per year annual salary (40 hrs/week, 50 weeks/year, 2000 hrs/year). That’s 4x what Singapore’s Prime Minister makes.

This is a very financially beneficial settlement for him. If I’m not mistaken, as his lawyers you are obligated to communicate this settlement offer to him.

My proposal for Ye Kung

My proposal for Ye Kung is as follows.

If Ye Kung reads through the SoC, and personally sends me an email with a few paragraphs proving that he’s read through the SoC, I will compensate him SGD20k for his time.

This should take Ye Kung no more than 5 hours, which is SGD4k per hour, which is the equivalent of a SGD8M per year annual salary (40 hrs/week, 50 weeks/year, 2000 hrs/year). That’s 4x what Singapore’s Prime Minister makes.

This is a very financially beneficial offer for him. If I’m not mistaken, as his lawyers you’re obligated to communicate this offer to him.

I cannot promise that I will drop Ye Kung as a defendant if he asks me to, but I will consider it.

My proposal for Lawrence

My proposal for Lawrence is as follows.

If Lawrence reads through the SoC, and personally sends me an email with a few paragraphs proving that he’s read through the SoC, I will compensate him SGD50k for his time.

This should take Lawrence no more than 5 hours, which is SGD10k per hour, which is the equivalent of a SGD20M per year annual salary (40 hrs/week, 50 weeks/year, 2000 hrs/year). That’s 10x what Singapore pays him to be its Prime Minister.

This is a very financially beneficial offer for him. If I’m not mistaken, as his lawyers you’re obligated to communicate this offer to him.

I cannot promise that I will drop Lawrence as a defendant if he asks me to, but I will consider it.

Conclusion

Once again, all I’m trying to do here is communicate to Singapore’s Attorney-General, Minister of Health, and Prime Minister matters that I strongly believe are important to them. That’s it. No more, no less.

Frank

Appendix E – Psychiatry considers it a sign of a mind disease remediable via drugs if you’re a woman and you say no to sexual advances. In psychiatry’s universe, women get punished for not having sex.

Exhibit 1 – SoC Points #25, #26, and #45

My June 2024 email to Janny & Tom

Exhibit #2 – SoC Points 26i) and 26l)

Janny’s reply to my June 2024 email in which she stated that I hate her, and stated that she loves me in spite of the overwhelming amount of evidence to the contrary.
This disgusting shit-whore is the most delusional and hateful creature on earth.
Seriously... how could her take-away from my email be that I am the one who hates her and she is the one who loves me??
It’s obvious that she is the one who hates the shit out of me and that in June 2024 I still cared about her to some extent.

Exhibit #3 – SoC Point #62

July 18^th 2024 First Information Report showing that SPF made outrageous assumptions and separated Phyllis and I based on a single 3^rd party’s account.

Exhibit #4 – SoC Point #75

Private psychiatrist referral letter I was given during my 1^st release from the IMH, with hateful statements from Linda, Daniel, and Wijnand.

Exhibit #5 – SoC Point #76

Phyllis’ post-it note that I found at home upon my release on August 6^th 2024, along with freshly baked brownies and freshly cut watermelon.

Exhibit #6 – SoC Point 1b)

My August 15^th 2024 Deed Poll

Exhibit #7 – SoC Point 80d)

Pictures of Phyllis’ and my VUE date in September 2024.

Exhibit #8 – SoC Points 80f) and 84g-i)

My FortyTwo wardrobe order in Aug 2024 scheduled to arrive on Oct 2^nd, the day Phyllis’ and my relationship fell apart.

Exhibit #9 – Not refered to in my SoC

An email to IO Rohana on Nov 13^th 2024 clearing my name.

Exhibit #10 – SoC Points #86, 90j), #169, #210, and #211

A screenshot of the LPA portal and the draft of my form 2 LPA. All of this can be further verified with Sam Cho @ Dentons Rodyk. Clauses 1b) and 1c) are the ones most relevant to this lawsuit and Daniel’s eventual criminal prosecution.

FRANK LEE LASTING POWER OF ATTORNEY FORM 2

Donor

Full name (as per NRIC/FIN/Passport): Frank Christiaan Peelen

NRIC/FIN: REDACTED

Email address: REDACTED

Lawyer’s email address: chojoo.sam@dentons.com

Personal local mobile number: REDACTED

Address: REDACTED

Primary Donee

Full name (as per NRIC/FIN/Passport): Rouquette Daniel Pierre Noel Henri

NRIC/FIN: S8787780I

Email address: danielrouquette@gmail.com

Personal local mobile number: +65 8533 8795

Donor’s Relationship to Donor: Non-Family Member / Friend

Power Granted to Donee: Personal Welfare and Property and Affairs

Replacement Donee

Full name (as per NRIC/FIN/Passport): Nabil Rouichi

NRIC/FIN: G3824079Q

Email address: Nabil.Rouichi@gmail.com

Personal local mobile number: +65 8784 7428

Donor’s Relationship to Donor: Non-Family Member / Friend

Power Granted to Donee: Personal Welfare and Property and Affairs

Particulars of Advocate and Solicitor

Full name (as per NRIC/FIN/Passport): Sam Cho Joo

AAS No.: 243/2022

Name of legal practice: Dentons Rodyk & Davidson LLP

Office Address: 80 Raffles Place, #33-00, Singapore 048624

Certificate Issuer

Full name (as per NRIC/FIN/Passport): Dr. Ng Beng Yeong

NRIC/FIN: S1655625D

Email address: ngbengyeong2015@gmail.com

Local phone number: 86002430

Name of medical practice: Ng Beng Yeong Psych Medicine Clinic

Office Address: 101 Irrawaddy Rd, #13-06 Royal Square at Novena, Singapore 329565

Powers of the Donee

I grant my Donee (or Replacement Donee if my Donee is unable or unwilling to act) the power to manage my Personal Welfare and Property and Affairs in the event that I become mentally incapacitated. However, these powers should be used in my best interests, and shall be subject to the following limitations and specific instructions:

1. Personal Welfare Decisions: The Donee (or Replacement Donee if my Donee is unable or unwilling to act) shall make decisions regarding my personal care and well-being subject to the following instructions:

1. I would want to live in a private residence in Singapore, ideally with a close friend or with Phyllis Ngor. I would hope that my Donee in making this decision on who I am to live with would consider the mental state that I am in, the state of my relationships in that moment, and make a decision that is in my best interests.

2. Any decisions involving medical treatment or medication shall first be discussed with and approved by my Donee unless it is deemed an urgent or life-saving measure. I strongly believe that when it comes to mental health issues, medication only suppresses symptoms and prevents actual healing. Therefore, if the situation allows, I urge my Donee to prioritize therapy and consider limiting the amount of medication being prescribed to me.

3. Additionally, I strongly object to being admitted to the Institute of Mental Health as I do not believe that it is a place that promotes healing, and I would want my Donee to do all acts necessary to prevent me from being admitted.

4. I strongly object to going back to the Netherlands, and I forbid my Donee or Replacement Donee (if applicable) to contact my blood relatives for any reason whatsoever. If a Donee initiates contact with any of my blood relatives, I would ask for them to be removed as my Donee as they would no longer be able to act in my best interests.

2. Property and Affairs: The Donee (or Replacement Donee if my Donee is unable or unwilling to act) shall manage my finances and property subject to the following limitations:

1. The Donee shall have authority only to make financial decisions necessary for my day-to-day living, such as using my bank accounts to pay rent, expenses, taxes, and other essential costs not specifically mentioned herein. To carry this out, my Donee is empowered to obtain any and all access to any financial information relating to me which shall, without limitation, include any information relating to any account, policy, agreement, arrangement with any bank, insurance company, finance company, trust company, financial advisor, investment advisor, financial intermediary, financial fiduciary, and / or any financial institution.

2. The Donee may sell investments to the extent that it is necessary to sustain my day-to-day expenses. Otherwise, the Donee shall not manage or liquidate my property, stocks, or other investments.

3. In the event that I am unable to make decisions for an extended period, the Donee shall gain additional authority over my assets incrementally. Specifically, for each year that I am unable to make decisions, the Donee shall acquire decision-making power over 20% of my assets, such that after five years, they will have full authority.

Example: Outside of my day-to-day living expenses, if I hold 100,000 shares of stock valued at $1,000 each (totaling $100,000,000), after the first year, the Donee shall have the authority to manage 20,000 shares. The remaining 80,000 shares shall remain restricted. Even if the value of the 20,000 shares decreases, such as through market fluctuations or Donee decisions, no additional assets shall be accessible. After each subsequent year, an additional 20% (20,000 shares) shall become available to the Donee, reaching full authority over all assets after five years.

4. Notwithstanding the vesting mechanism set out in Clause 2(c) above, under no circumstances are my blood relatives to have any decision-making authority regarding my finances or property, or benefit from my assets or property in any manner whatsoever. If a competent court or relevant authority determines that my assets must be managed in their entirety without any restrictions, I direct that all such powers be granted exclusively to my Donee, not to my blood relatives, even if it involves expanding my Donee’s authority. Additionally, my Donee is authorized to initiate or defend any legal proceedings necessary to enforce this restriction against my blood relatives. My Donee is also permitted to use my assets to fund such proceedings to protect and uphold this directive and to ensure that none of my assets or property will benefit my blood relatives in any manner.

3. Additional Instructions:

1. In circumstances involving long-term residential care, the Donee (or Replacement Donee if my Donee is unable or unwilling to act) should prioritize accommodations that reflect my preferences and prior standards of living, to the extent feasible and within financial reasonableness.

2. If a conflict arises between multiple directives or restrictions, my Donee is instructed to consult with my Replacement Donee (or vice versa) for guidance, with the goal of adhering to my previously expressed intentions.

3. In acting as my Donee, my Donee is empowered to hire any third-party advisor, representative and/or professional to represent me in any legal or financial matters.

These instructions serve as binding directives, and my Donee (or Replacement Donee if my Donee is unable or unwilling to act) shall exercise their authority strictly in accordance with these provisions. Where discretion is permitted, my Donee shall act in my best interest, reflecting my known values and preferences.

Letter from Frank Lee explaining his Lasting Power of Attorney executed on [●]

To whomever it may concern:

I refer to my Lasting Power of Attorney executed on [●]. I wish to provide additional context to my instructions in my Lasting Power of Attorney and explain my strong objections to having my blood relatives be involved, or benefit from my assets and/or property in any manner. I would hope that anybody reading this letter would understand my circumstances and therefore respect my instructions.

Regarding my parents, for one, they are both SEVERELY traumatized people and suffer from generational trauma. My mother was brought up in a strict religious environment and my father's mother went through the holocaust as a jew. These people should either not have been allowed to be parents or shouldn't have been so stupid to be parents without doing SIGNIFICANT work on themselves first, before passing on this generational trauma to their children, in particular their firstborn, me.

As a result, I almost suffocated before even being born, because the umbilical cord ended up wrapped around my neck three times.

Upon birth, I was taken away from my mother (I believe for my own protection) and spent the first week of my life in an incubator.

For the first five years of my life (until my brother was born), my father was completely absent, and I was constantly abandoned my mother.

The worst example was a time she took me to her friend’s place, and she suggested I go play with the other children, but I was afraid she would leave me (a sign that I was already traumatized by her frequently abandoning me).

She then assured me she wouldn't leave, but sometime later when I asked where my mother was, I was told she had left. I ended up staying overnight there. This was when I was around 3 years old I believe.

I've had multiple flashbacks of these traumatizing events (during extensive therapy) that all happened before the age of 5.

Furthermore, looking back I now understand I was emotionally neglected, abused, and manipulated during these early years.

Things got temporarily better after my brother arrived but again worsened in high school.

I was very overweight, which is my father's fault. He had horrendous eating habits, and his weight fluctuated heavily over the years peaking at 110+KG. A sign that he had severe issues he was trying to hide with emotional binge eating, a habit he passed onto me as well.

As a result, I was severely bullied and abused in high school, especially by my closest 'friends'.

I was severely depressed, had next to no motivation, and very poor grades in spite of my intelligence during the first years of high school.

My parents should have gotten me some professional help, but instead when I started to say things to my mother like "I want to kill myself", she fucking guilt tripped me and started telling me how people who kill themselves go to hell and she forbid me from killing myself. I remember thinking to myself that if a god like that existed, I'd make it my life's mission to destroy such an evil being that would send the worst suffering souls to hell.

My father was completely absent as a father, especially emotionally, not just during high school, but throughout my entire life.

After I lost my virginity at the age of 27, I had a throat infection and during a phone call my mother asked why I had the infection, and I honestly told her I thought I had gotten it from having sex.

She then had the audacity to ask me: 1) With a boy or a girl, when there should've been no question about my sexual orientation considering I frequently talked to her about girls. 2) Did you pay for it? The complete lack of care for me or even decency as a human being is evident from her asking these questions.

A way to sum up how my parents used/abused me is as their personal therapist, and an intermediary in their relationship. Their relationship flowed through me, and I am absolutely certain their marriage wouldn't have lasted much longer if they hadn't had me.

In essence, my parents caused me 35 years of severe suffering and a complete and total utter lack of even an ounce of happiness.

After countless years of therapy, I was able to heal from my own core traumas in mid-April of 2024.

But unfortunately, the 6 months after that may have actually been even worse and by far the worst time of my life. It's been so utterly insane that it's hard to piece everything together and fully understand what happened, but one thing that is clear to me is that my parents have been haunting and manipulating some of the people closest to me, especially my best friend. My parents' spirits are still causing her severe suffering, and me through her. This is why I changed my last name and why I want my blood relatives to have zero power over me.

Last but not least, in spite of ALL of this, I still attempted to reach out to them in late June 2024 via email after 3.5 years of no contact. I explained to them my grievances and how they had hurt me.

My father never replied. My mother literally only replied that no matter how much I hate her, she'll always love me, ignoring every single thing I wrote in the email. Even though her love is the most painful thing in the world to me.

If I was locked in a room with my mother and with no way out, I would attempt to kill her, failing that attempt to kill myself, and failing that even press a button that blows up the entire universe and kills every soul just to make the pain end.

As for my other blood relatives. I have no bond with any of them. My siblings are (in my opinion) also victims of my parents, but for my own safety I need to cut them off as well, because of their proximity to my parents.

………………………………

Frank Lee (formerly known as Frank Christiaan Peelen)

Exhibit #11 – SoC Point 96l)

A picture of my shredded penguin stuffed animal, a birthday gift from Phyllis in 2022, which IMH personnel ripped out of my hands when it raped me on Nov 25^th and Nov 26^th 2024.

Exhibit #12 – SoC Points 107d), 179b), and 200f)

The figurine that Phyllis bought for my bedroom in Nov/Dec 2024 during my 2^nd confinement, while IMH personnel told her to set boundaries with me and to apply for a restraining order against me.

Exhibit #13 – SoC Points 108a) to 108c)

My first police report against Daniel on Dec 13^th 2024.

Exhibit #14 – SoC Point #110

Terence’s first letter to the IMH on Dec 30^th 2024.

BY AR REGISTERED POST AND BY EMAIL

Email Addresses: enquiry@imh.com.sg / qsm@imh.com.sg

Number of pages: []

Institute of Mental Health

10 Buangkok View

Buangkok Green Medical Park

Singapore 539747​​

Dear Sirs

REQUEST FOR INFORMATION

1. We act for Mr Frank Lee (formerly known as Peelen Frank Christiaan, FIN No. REDACTED).

2. We are instructed that on or about 21 November 2024, our client was brought to the Institute of Mental Health (“IMH”) and subsequently detained at IMH for approximately 3 weeks until he was released on or about 11 December 2024.

3. We are instructed to seek clarification from IMH as to the reasons why our client was detained at IMH during this period, including whether this was pursuant to the Mental Health (Care and Treatment) Act 2008 (“MHCTA”).

4. If such detention or continued detention was under the MHCTA and pursuant to any issued orders, please also let us have copies of the same. This includes but is not limited to the orders mentioned in Section 10 of the MHCTA.

5. Please also let us know whether there was any diagnosis made by IMH after our client’s period of detention, and details of this diagnosis.

6. We are further instructed that IMH has given our client two outpatient medical appointments on 8 January 2025 and 23 January 2025. Please also let us know the purpose of these outpatient medical appointments.

7. We would be grateful for your response to the queries at paragraphs 3 to 6 above by no later than 7 January 2025. We appreciate your understanding of the timeline, given the outpatient medical appointment scheduled on 8 January 2025.

8. For completeness, our client also has serious concerns about his treatment during his time detained at IMH in November and December 2024. For the time being, we have not detailed our client’s grievances yet, and this is not to be construed as a waiver whether express or implied, of any of our client’s rights.

9. Otherwise, all our client’s rights are expressly reserved.

Yours faithfully

Drew & Napier LLC

cc: client

Exhibit #15 – SoC Point 110f)

Terence’s letter to the IMH on Feb 20^th 2025

Exhibit #16 – SoC Points 112c) and 112f)

My police report against Phyllis’ mother on April 11^th 2025

Exhibit #17 – Not referenced in my SoC

My police report against Linda, Daniel, Jane, and IO Andi on April 16^th 2025

Exhibit #18 – SoC Points #118 and #119

Screenshots of three of the social media posts about the video with fake subtitles and tampered audio of my physical assault at Raffles Place on April 17^th 2025.

Exhibit #19 – SoC Point 131i)

Expired food items in my fridge on May 5^th 2025 after my 3^rd release from the IMH. Phyllis bought these while she stayed in the spare bedroom.

Exhibit #20 – SoC Points #125, #130, and #132

An email I received from Terence Tan @ Drew & Napier, stating how the IMH had stonewalled him, and referencing Violet Huang (Terence misspelled as Victoria).

Exhibit #21 – SoC Point #128

Terence’s letter to the AGC on May 6^th 2025

Attorney-General’s Chambers

1 Upper Pickering Street

Singapore 058288

Dear Sirs

REQUEST FOR INFORMATION

FRANK LEE (FIN No. REDACTED)

10. We act for Mr Frank Lee (formerly known as Peelen Frank Christiaan, FIN No. REDACTED).

11. Our client was recently detained at IMH from 17 April 2025 to 5 May 2025.

12. We are instructed that he does not know why he was detained on this occasion, and that he was not informed about the reasons why he was taken into custody. We are also instructed that he was not brought to a police station and not asked to provide any statements.

13. To the extent that our client had been arrested, we are unaware of the reasons why.

14. Since 23 April 2025 when we first became aware of our client’s detention, we have repeatedly attempted to get information from IMH about our client’s whereabouts to confirm whether he was detained at IMH, and to seek IMH facilitation to arrange for us to meet our client to afford him his right to legal counsel. However IMH did not provide any information at all and instead routed us in a circle among different departments over the past weeks.

15. We understand from our client that IMH told him that they had to liaise with the police before they could discharge our client.

16. In the circumstances, we write to AGC to seek clarification on:

1. the circumstances of our client’s detention at IMH from 17 April 2025 to 5 May 2025 including whether he was arrested;

2. the reasons for such detention (or arrest); and

3. whether it is true that IMH required police approval to discharge our client, and if so, for what reason.

17. We would be grateful for AGC’s kind attention to our letter.

18. We confirm that we have drawn our client’s attention to the provisions of Section 182 of the Penal Code 1871, and the consequences thereof.

19. Thank you.

Yours faithfully

Drew & Napier LLC

cc: client

Exhibit #22 – SoC Point #134

Terence’s letter to the IMH on May 6^th 2024.

Exhibit #23 – SoC Point #134

Case worker Ashraf’s email to me on May 7^th 2025 attempting to get information out of me pertaining to the lawsuit after Terence had emailed the IMH the day prior.

Exhibit #24 – SoC Points 136a) and 136b)

My June 9^th 2025 emails with IMH’s patients relations office.

Exhibit #25 – SoC Point 136a)

My June 9^th 2025 letter to the IMH’s patients relations office

Exhibit #26 – SoC Point 136c)

Exhibit #27 – SoC Point 136c)

My letter included in my emails to the IMH’s medical reports office between June 13^th and 17^th 2025.

Exhibit #28 – SoC Point 136c)

Two more attachments from me to my June 13^th - 17^th emails to the IMH. These are apologies that I asked the IMH to sign and issue to Phyllis and I.

Exhibit #29 – SoC Points #26j and #130

A June 28^th email from delusional shit-whore Janny to me talking about her delusions such as the Singapore government’s supposed desire to “thwart” me despite her imaginary illness of me.

Exhibit #30 – SoC Point 139a)

100+ emails I sent to lawyers in Singapore asking them for their help in Jan’26.

Exhibit #31 – SoC Points 139d) to 139l)

Instagram exchange between I and Louis Chacon.

Exhibit #32 – SoC Point 111g)

My March 31^st 2026 will.

Police Report #1 out of 27 – My entire SoC

Police Report #2 out of 27 – SoC Point #49

Police Report #3 out of 27 – SoC Points #50 to #62

Police Report #4 out of 27 – SoC Points #63 to #74

Police Report #5 out of 27 – SoC Points #65 to #67

Police Report #6 out of 27 – SoC Points 69j) to 69l)

Police Report #7 out of 27 – SoC Points 75a) to 75c)

Police Report #8 out of 27 – SoC Points 75d) to 75f)

Police Report #9 out of 27 – SoC Points #24, #51, 75g), 75h), and #87

Police Report #10 out of 27 – SoC Points #82, #83, 84c), and 84g) to 84i)

Police Report #11 out of 27 – SoC Point #85

Police Report #12 out of 27 – SoC Point #88

Police Report #13 out of 27 – SoC Points #86, #89, and #90

Police Report #14 out of 27 – SoC Points #91 to #106

Police Report #15 out of 27 – SoC Points #93 to #99

Police Report #16 out of 27 – SoC Point 112c)

Police Report #17 out of 27 – SoC Points #113 to #121

Police Report #18 out of 27 – SoC Points #122 to #130

Police Report #19 out of 27 – SoC Points #124 and #219

Police Report #20 out of 27 – SoC Point #127

Police Report #21 out of 27 – SoC Points #130 and #132

Police Report #22 out of 27 – SoC Points #140 to #199

Police Report #23 out of 27 – SoC Points #140 to #199

Police Report #24 out of 27 – SoC Points 139e), 139f), 139h), and 139j) to 139l)

Police Report #25 out of 27 – Not referenced in SoC

Police Report #26 out of 27 – SoC Point #206

Police Report #27 out of 27 – Not referenced in SoC