ERIC AND AMY SILK PALACE - THE FACEBOOK SOURCE FOR YOUR DAILY FIX OF GOVERNMENT CORRUPTION
In my previous post on the hooks vs laws relating to the Bloomberg defamation trial I made the point some people form their opinion from fragmented information flows where short, striking details travel further than full explanations ever can. Folks perhaps cannot comprehend the complexities, or too lazy to check and verify, succumb to cognitive bias and believe the constructed narrative.
In the past few weeks I see a frenzied sharing on such "Corrupt Legislation" from a particular Facebook site called "Eric and Amy Silk Palace". It has just been taken down a couple of days ago. You get a daily dose of the most contemptuous, vile and libellous, allegations. It's amazing it has taken the authorities so long to take it down. If there is a local hand behind this, which I suspect there is, we can expect some legal action ahead.
If you are on Facebook, chances are you would have seen some of the posts of Eric & Amy (E&A) because folks just share like darn crazy. The amplification is unreal. Because E&A is painting a "Corrupt Legislation" of Singapore Inc. Each post is "Breaking News", things you never heard before.
I wonder how does Singapore score so high in the world intelligence index and have so many people believing and sharing E&A's posts. All I see are rhetorics and wild allegations, not one shred of evidence. I tried to educate Facebook friends but had the kitchen sink thrown at me. The site is a high-frequency rhetoric-driven allegation feed that relies on repetition and emotive language rather than verifiable evidence. It is a narrative-amplification page -- closer to propaganda or harassment.
For this type of "news" sharing posts, you can separate them into 3 categories :
A. Whistleblowing -- you see specific claims + evidence, and the writer takes certain risks.
B. Advocacy/critique -- you see strong opinions + some reasoning.
C. Smear/propaganda -- where you see repetition + emotional language + little or no evidence.
E&A posts are in class C.
This post of mine you are reading is Class B.
Let me go a bit in detail characteristics of the Class C type and you can see if E&A's post line up exactly:
1. Repetition without new evidence -- When the same allegation is recycled "every which way", it usually signals that the goal isn't to inform but to imprint a narrative through volume.
2. Escalating tone (vile, libellous rhetoric) -- The language matters. Once it shifts from claims to insults, moral condemnation, and character attacks, it's less about accountability and more about emotional activation -- anger, disgust, tribal alignment.
3. Absence of substantiation -- Serious allegations of corruption normally come with documents, timeliness, witnesses, or at least internally consistent claims. Without that , it is just assertion masquerading as fact.
4. Single-theme fixation -- Daily posting on one grievance suggests agenda-driven communication, not open inquiry. It can also indicate personal vendetta (keep this word in mind - you will see why I ask you to later), ideological campaigning, or coordinated messaging.
Don't get me wrong. I have no interest in the topic. Two posts are enough to turn me off. Pure nonsense, don't be suckered, don't waste my time. But someone asked me for my views and I promised to take a look. Plus also I think many have been suckered, and for those who may be saved, I blog.
I will not go into details of E&A's claims, but just in brief to expose the leap of audacity of the claims.
Eric & Amy are Chinese nationals who have been in Singapore for many years.
Apparently Amy had altercations on 23,24,25 Oct 2019 with one M/s Juan Lingjiao in Lucky Plaza. She made a police report, police refused to take action. The Public Prosecutor refused to take action. She brought a private prosecution against Juan. She lost her case in 2022. Sometime later, the couple were deported due to immigration issues..
Then the Bloomberg trial opens. Eric And Amy Silk Palace appeared and FB posts started flowing She introduced her story. She claimed:
1. Police refused to file charges against Juan..
2. Public Prosecutor refused to charge Juan. But allowed her to proceed with private prosecution (means she had grounds)
3. Juan's lawyer switched video evidence
4. Jiang is the mistress of defence lawyer Kang.
5. Judge was biased - relied on defence's video, refused to allow her to call several other witnesses
6. Police was corrupt - refused to let her have their investigation report.
7. High Court twice denied her appeals -- covering up the case.
8. Court banned them from leaving Singapore for 32 months
9. She was handcuffed after trial.
10. ICA deported them - to prevent her from disclosing authorities covered up her case.
11. The gang of Chinese money launderers came against her because she refused to do some work for them.
12. The gang destroyed her files and evidence.
13. Juan is Shanmugam's mistress
Then followed a series of revelations of the Shanmugam's sale of the GCB. She connected all the dots. Shanmugam - Juan his mistress -- Police under him -- ICA under him -- Chinese gang attack her -- Shan received $88 million cash. The latest (after learning Jerry Soh is MD at Allen Gledhill and Dy Chairman of SLA) she jumps into the fray and up the ante. She knows "Judy", Jerry's wife, is connected to Chinese money laundering gang in Dalian, China. Throws in name like Chen Zhi of Prince Holdings Group. She claims "Judy" sent her a text (I can't remember what's it about - the site is down).
What The Private Prosecution Trial Revealed:
Amy is Huang Sining
Eric is her husband Wang Xin
Silk Palace is the name of their retail outlet in Lucky Plaza. (I recall there was a shop at B1 fronting Orchard Road, selling silk Chinese clothing)
Prosecutor-in-person: Huang Sining
Defendant : M/s Juan Lingjian
Defence Lawyer: Kang
Judge: Lee Li Choon
Judgement date: 9 September 2022
Decision : 8 Feb 2023 (17 day trial)
Ref: SGMC 6 (2023)
Note 1: Singapore allows private prosecution, where an individual or entity can initiate criminal proceedings without the Public Prosecution's involvement, often for smaller offences or when the state decides not to act. Private Prosecutors must file a Magistrate's Complaint and typically, the offence must be punishable by less than 3 years imprisonment or by a fine only. AG retains right to take over the case and stop it.
Note 2: E&A made lots of case references but I didn't see her mention SGMC 6 (2023). I received some brickbats from netizens when I asked where's the evidence. They said well, she disclosed lots of court case ref numbers. I asked did you check? -- no response. I managed to dig out this court decision myself.
It seems defendant also operates a shop in Lucky Plaza. The charges arose from some altercation in Oct 2019 in Lucky Plaza. Huang made a police report. SPF investigated but refused to press charges. Huang filed a Magistrate's Complaint and was allowed a private prosecution. She pressed 5 charges.
Criminal Intimidation (Penal code S503):
23 Oct 2019 in Lucky Plaza, Juan threatened Huang with intent to cause harm by uttering “I warn you, do not speak to my staff, and do not pass by my shop, or each time I see you I will hit you” The witness was her husband Wang Xin. But he was not present at the scene.
Decision - Charge dismissed. Her witness was her own husband. It transpired at the trial that witness was not present when those words were spoken.
1st Harassment (POHA S3(2)):
24 Oct 2019 in Lucky Plaza, Juan used insulting words with intent to cause
distress to the complainant, by saying “Your face, really, even $1
million of plastic surgery cannot make nice”.
Decision - Charge dismissed. Defence produced video as evidence. Huang objected claimg these were not authentic. She produced her own video. Judge found Huang edited by clipping her videos. Juan's fuller video showed Huang in fact started the altercation and Juan reacted. Huang's presentation was "tainted with dishonesty and malice and therefore, vexatious."
2nd Harassment (POHA 3(2)):
25 Oct 2019 at restaurant in Lucky Plaza, Juan used abusive behaviour towards Huang with intent to cause distress by spitting into the food of Huang.
Decision -- Charge dismissed. Huang's witness Cai Zengyan turned out to be an adverse witness. Judge: "Huang’s questioning of this witness was opposing and acrimonious. ...... it is obvious that this witness did not witness the act of harassment by Juan .. this charge is completely groundless, and therefore, frivolous."
Mischief (Penal code 425):
25 October 2019 near a restaurant in Lucky Plaza, Jiang snatched a handphone from Cai Zengyan and threw it to the ground twice. Damage estimated at $500+. That handphone belonged to Huang.
Decision - Charge dismissed. Huang failed to show any evidence of damage to handphone (no repair bill, photo etc). Defence produced a witness who said phone was working after the incident. Judge said charge "is legally and factually unsustainable and would not have commenced or continued."
Criminal Force (Penal code S350):
25 October 2019 near a restaurant in Lucky Plaza, Jiang hit Huan 3 times on her hand with a Huawei P30 Pro.
Decision - The judge did not mention her decision on this.
The whole case was thrown out on grounds it was "frivolous" and "vexatious". Cost - Huang to pay cost in full.
A Sense To The Personal Character Of Huang
1. Some of the character description by the judge
"personal vendetta", "vindictiveness", "vexatious in ... deliberately submitted misleading evidence", "malice and dishonesty in her prosecution", "copious written and oral submissions ...... mostly irrelevant matters and/or groundless allegations", "testimony... full of inherent inconsistencies as to be lacking in any credibility altogether", "bitter enmity towards Juan", "hell-bent on going after Juan".
2. Testimony of Huang's own witness Cai Zengyan:
In an altercation, Juan hurt Cai's hand slightly, something so minor that she ignored. Huang pestered her to press charges. Huang borrowed some money from Cai to pursue the case, pestered her to write a letter explaining how Juan hurt her. Huang said she will sue for $100,000 for Cai. This is Cai's testimony:
"...she came to my shop every day. Every day, day after day, to the extent that it’s affecting my work and my life..."
"So I replied her---to her message a few hours later. In---in my opinion because she’s just pestering me every day. I---I replied to her just to get her---get her off my back. In my subsequent message to her, I told her I do not want to sue Juan Lingjiao . I had nothing to do between her dispute with Juan Lingjian. In the subsequent message, I also said I will not take whatever money that shouldn’t be taken by me. I have printed all these messages and brought with me to Court today."
Always start with Motive. Everything else is just noiseUnlike Singaporeans who tune in to E&A Facebook's daily revelations and hold Eric and Amy up as champions voicing out the "Corrupt Legislation", my first reaction was what is their motive in going after Shanmugam?
As I was going through the court decision, I similarly asked what was Huang's motive for going through the hassle of pursuing a Private Prosecution over such a minor affair?
As I scrolled down SGMC 6 (2023), lo and behold, the Judge says:
"I therefore find that Huang’s commencement and/or continuation of prosecution proceedings against Juan is motivated out of ulterior motives or was for a collateral purpose."
It seems Huang and Jiang have been bad neighbours in Lucky Plaza, sniping at each other, eventually leading to the 3 altercations. Huang lodged a police report. Following which several un-named persons, possibly including Juan, reported some immigration issues of Huang to Ministry of Manpower. That must have gotten Huang and her husband into some very serious problem that eventually led to their deportation. She wanted to subpeona un-named persons to inquire into the circumstances of her problem with MOM. She saw Juan as the root cause leading to her serious problem with MOM which drove her "hell-bent" to seek vengeance.
Why The Mistress Claim
Why did Huang claim Juan is mistress of Kang, the defence lawyer? Then later mistress of Shanmugam? My dear Singapore audience of Eric and Amy - it's elementary.
She claimed Kang substituted edited videos. Why would a defence lawyer undertake an illegal act? Of course he would if the client is his mistress. She was trying to gaslight her audience who has no knowledge of the procedure of presenting evidence to the courts.
She claimed Juan is Shanmugam's mistress and in her mind she knows Singaporeans will reason - she mistress, he in charge of police, immigration, and probably mistaking the Courts too. Powerful man covers up everything for mistress!
Neighbour from HellThere is no great revelations to corruption or mis-use of power from someone writing from thousands of miles away in China. Huang is simply a neighbour from Hell to her fellow tenant Juan in Lucky Plaza.
After Judgement in Sep 2022, Huang won't let go. The trial court tried to cover up. Huang attempted to appeal but Public Prosecutor refused to sanction. Huang then filed 3 applications for criminal motion and criminal revision against trial court decision. Ref HC/CM 60/2022, HC/CM 64/2022, and HC/CR 5/2022. High Court summarily dismissed the applications on 5 December 2022. Huang filed another criminal motion HC/CM 4/2023. HC summarily dismissed these too on 4 February 2023. She filed HC/OC/276(2023) on 10 May 2023.
After deportation to China on 11 May 2023, Huang still won't let go. The Bloomberg defamation trial gave her opportunity to pursue her personal grievance against Juan but now elevated onto the institutions and leaders. The government officials were all out to get her to prevent her from revealing what she knew. Shanmugam is the head of the snake. But don't ask her for evidence. The money laundering gang has destroyed that.
Up till today, she still won't let go. Her 7 Jan 2026 FB post from another account, she characterised her case against Juan thus:
"After an investigation by 10 police officers, criminal acts were confirmed, but the case was allegedly covered up by Senior Indian Minister Shanmugam, and the investigating officer was transferred.
One filing to rule allI really cannot tolerate one Facebook troll who told me "but she mentioned so many case numbers". That's his evidence! No verification, no understanding what the cases are! Every case reference number is one more hook for him. Let me dwell a bit on this.
The trial court decision mentioned HC/CM 60/2022, HC/CM 64/2022, HC/CR 5/2022, HC/CM 4/2023. These are appeals to her failed criminal case against Juan. All dismissed by the High Court without hearing. Oh boy, imagine the pettiness (a better word for bitchiness) placed before the High Court.
Then on 10 May 2023 Huang filed HC/OC/276/2023. Let me explain what these references mean:
* OC = Originating Claim (a Civil Suit)
So HC/OC/276/2023 has got nothing to do with the original case against Juan. It is a new Civil Suit. It is not rare when a criminal case fails, the complainant pivots to a civil case to seek compensation.
Huang claimed she filed on 10 May 2023 and the next day ICA deported her and hubby back to China. Netizens cry foul!. Her forceful deportation one day after court filing, money laundering, Shanmugam received $88m "cash" payment for a house sold to a buyer whose name is a secret, Shanmugam sitting on top of all the government agencies involved -- Mommy see, she connected all the dots!
But what is HC/OC/276/2023 all about? Is she pursuing a suit that will unravel all the secrets of Shanmugam that he tries to hide by getting the courts to shut down her cases and deporting her to China? That's what Singaporeans who visit her shrine at Eric And Amy Silk Palace for their daily dose of revelations are convinced with.
I was unable to dig up anything on HC/OC/276/2023. It's not on eLitigation. All filings, whether proceeded or not, sits in some registry. I have no access to Lawnet and there is a paywall. Just like the Jasmine Villa Settlement, the info is available, just that I have no access. It's privacy, not secrecy.
But I'll be damned. Huang gave herself away. In her FB post, Huang mentioned 8 defendants and specifically named 3 -- Singapore Ministry of Manpower (MOM), the Attorney‑General’s Chambers (AGC), and the MOM investigating officer. What does that tell you? The honorable trial Judge Lee Li Choon, had been spot on to suspect Huang's ulterior motive in her failed criminal case against Juan was to find out the circumstances for her being investigated by MOM which led to her deportation. That which she could not subpoena in the trial court, she now tries to do in a new civil case. She is on a fishing trip and taking credulous Singaporeans along with her. There's no unravelling of Shanmugam, money laundering, $88m cash, mystery buyer.
Eric And Amy Silk Palace sold credulous Singaporeans a self-validating propaganda loop. If the government takes down the Facebook Page, they are trying to hide something. If they don't take the site down, see? They cannot refute her because what she says is true. Heads she win, tails the government loses. You are not looking at evidence. You are inside a narrative.
For all those who sucked up everything from Eric And Amy Silk Palace, the Bridge of Singapore is for sale.
This platform has withdrawn it's subscriber widget. If you like blogs like this and wish to know whenever there is a new post, click the button to my FB and follow me there. I usually intro my new blogs there. Thanks.
Comments