Full Breakdown
Singapore Court Dismisses Man's Lawsuit Over Detention at Institute of Mental Health
5/22/2026, 8:08:58 PM
Lawsuit Dismissal and Court Findings
Frank Lee filed a civil action against the Institute of Mental Health (IMH), the Ministry of Health (MOH), the Attorney-General’s Chambers and the Prime Minister’s Office, seeking an injunction to bar any future confinement and a declaration of “the truth” about his treatment. On 22 May 2025 Justice Andre Maniam dismissed the claim, finding no reasonable cause of action and describing it as an abuse of process. Lee was ordered to pay S$47,000 to IMH and S$27,000 to the government defendants.
Official Statements & Judicial Reasoning
Justice Maniam emphasized that the burden of proof lies with the claimant, not with IMH, to show that the human mind or mental disorders do not exist. He noted that Parliament and the courts have long accepted these concepts, and that the Mental Health (Care and Treatment) Act is premised on their existence. The judge said Lee’s claim amounted to a “shocking abuse of process” and rejected the use of the suit merely to attract senior officials’ attention. He also affirmed that Lee’s detentions were based on health- or safety-related grounds.
Criticism and Opposition
Lee’s pleadings described psychiatry as “the most evil hoax in the history of mankind” and claimed that “hundreds of human beings” suffer at the hands of IMH staff. He sought an injunction to prevent similar confinement and attached an affidavit titled “The Truth About Psychiatry”. Lee also proposed settlements to the Attorney-General’s Chambers and the Prime Minister’s Office in exchange for personal acknowledgment, tactics the court deemed improper.
Timeline
- July 2024 – first IMH ward after arrest for alleged confinement of a woman.
- Nov-Dec 2024 – second IMH ward.
- Apr-May 2025 – third IMH ward.
- May 2025 – lawsuit heard; judgment delivered 22 May 2025.
Verbatim Quotes
- “the most evil hoax in the history of mankind” — Frank Lee, plaintiff
- “to prevent the things that were done to me from being done to others in Singapore” — Frank Lee, plaintiff
- “The claimant is wrong that the burden of proof rests on IMH to prove that there is such a thing as the human mind, and mental disorders, or to prove that the claimant has a mind or has or had a mental disorder,” — Justice Andre Maniam
- “If a litigant is dissatisfied with a registrar's decision, he does have a right to appeal; but to use that appeal not to genuinely seek relief in relation to the decisions under appeal, but rather to agitate for criminal action, dismissal, and for a change of registrar, is a shocking abuse of process,” — Justice Andre Maniam
Implications and Next Steps
The judgment reaffirms Singapore’s mental-health legal framework and clarifies that challenges to its existence must meet the established burden of proof. It also signals that courts will scrutinise suits perceived as primarily seeking publicity, potentially deterring similar actions against psychiatric institutions.
