Inside the alternative reality of 'sovereign citizens'

They say governments are illegitimate and laws do not apply to them. Yet, they want access to what countries provide.

Sovereign citizens, also known as "sovcits", have had their claims labelled as strange or dangerous.

Sovcits recently gained prominence in the media, with many making headlines around the world for refusing to comply with measures to deal with the pandemic.

They took to the streets in Melbourne last month and again yesterday, protesting against the wearing of masks and lockdowns. About a week ago, 20 sovcits tried to seize a historic castle in Scotland to protest against lockdown measures there.

Law Minister K. Shanmugam commented on the movement earlier last year when a video of a Singaporean woman claiming to be sovereign and refusing to wear a mask at Shunfu Mart was shared widely on social media.

"Such people should not live within society - she should not expect any of the benefits that come from this system of governance, including her security, medical care, other benefits," he said.

The 41-year-old was jailed for two weeks and fined $2,000 for failing to wear a mask in public and being a public nuisance.

The day she was sentenced on May 7, Briton Benjamin Glynn, 40, was caught on video refusing to wear a mask on the train.

He too claimed to be a sovcit, and was sentenced on Wednesday to six weeks' jail for two counts of not wearing a mask, and one count each of harassment and being a public nuisance. Glynn has since been deported.

The police are now investigating a 51-year-old Singaporean woman who claimed to be a "living woman" on the day of Glynn's trial, shouting "kangaroo court" during the proceedings.

Like Glynn, she said she has no contract with the Singapore Government, and said the authorities thus had no right to tell her what to do.

Singapore Management University law don Eugene Tan believes many sovcits make the argument that they are sovereign only when they get into legal trouble.

"There are significant logical gaps in their arguments, and the reality is that the rules continue to bind them," he said.

"I'm not convinced that those who assert this sovereign argument completely stick to it, or even understand the implications and what it actually means."

National University of Singapore sociologist Tan Ern Ser said sovcits reflect "an extreme form of polarisation in society amidst a social condition, such as the pandemic".

"While most people are willing to put up with the inconveniences of complying with safe distancing measures, there are those who take it to extremes and decide they live in an alternative reality where the rules do not apply to them," he said.

However, he noted that sovcits have created their own communities and are not as sovereign as they believe themselves to be.

"If sovcits see themselves as part of a community, (albeit) with their own reality, they would ironically still need to abide by some set of rules or norms in their own community," he said.

In Glynn's case, he tried to introduce as his counsel a man who called himself an "advocate of Kingdom Filipina Hacienda". The so-called kingdom has a social media presence and a website where it spells out its purported history.

Describing itself as an autocratic sovereign monarchy, it has as its head a woman described as "Queen of the Motherland", and claims to be the "New Philippines" as of March 2008.

A picture of the woman forms part of the website's banner, which also features a modified flag of the Philippines.

An incomplete address in Eunos is listed on one of its social media pages, and is purportedly where the "kingdom's" embassy can be found.

The group claims sovereignty on the basis of divine empowerment and the principles of "common law". But for all its claims and hundreds of pages of legalese, Kingdom Filipina Hacienda holds the legal recognition of, at best, an unregistered fan club here.

Associate Professor Eugene Tan, who specialises in and researches constitutional law, explained that Singapore's sovereign status is declared in the Proclamation of Singapore signed by then Prime Minister of Singapore Lee Kuan Yew in 1965.

It was also endorsed by then Malaysian Prime Minister Tunku Abdul Rahman, recognising Singapore's sovereignty.

Prof Eugene Tan said this recognition is essential, and sovcits who make proclamations with similar wordings have no power to their claim because they do not have the same recognition.

"If all the people of Singapore decide to recognise you as a sovereign, carve out Coney Island for you, then in a way, yes, you can be sovereign," he said.

"But otherwise, are you really in a position to stake that claim? Do you have the means to protect and defend that sovereignty? If no one recognises it, then your sovereignty is dead."

Sovcits often refer to what they call the "common law", claiming that their rights are based on this set of laws. But they are ill-defined and can be interpreted wildly differently from one sovcit to another.

The Sunday Times found that many sovcits register themselves on unrecognised "common law court" websites, declaring themselves as "living people" who abide by the principles of "causing no harm, no loss or injury to others", and not consenting to statutory laws. One such site allows those who register to purchase a "withdrawn consent" card for £7 (S$13).

Other items that can be purchased online from such unrecognised organisations include a birth certificate, motor vehicle ownership and court order for tax annulment, each for £9.

One site even propagated the use of a common law court currency for sovcits.

But the currency turned out to be cashback points, which can be obtained by purchasing more items from the website.

There appears to be a very small group of sovcits in Singapore who are vocal on social media. None of those contacted was willing to speak to The Sunday Times.

Their social media accounts contain numerous posts propagating conspiracy theories, such as the earth being flat and that 5G networks send out mind-control waves.

The pandemic has been the most-discussed topic, with many sovcits claiming it is a farce by companies and governments to make money.

One sovcit here who sharply turned down a request for an interview was engaged in long-drawn discussions with other sovcits outside of Singapore.

These discussions, which were filmed and uploaded, involved them talking about their legal rights, and the arguments they could purportedly make as sovcits before a court of law.

They claimed that the court would have no choice but to accept the arguments.

The videos of these discussions ranged from about 15 minutes to as long as two hours.

Asked if sovcits here are a threat, Prof Eugene Tan said they can be.

"They could say 'people of a certain race are a real threat to me, and I'm going to exterminate them', claiming their survival depends on it," he said.

In an article published on the security website Just Security, Associate Professor Christine Sarteschi noted that well-known sovcit Terry Nichols was behind one of the deadliest domestic terrorism attacks in the United States - the Oklahoma City bombing in 1995.

She also pointed out that the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the Department of Homeland Security had released in May a national security report listing "sovereign citizen violent extremists" as being among a grouping of anarchist and militia extremists who were said to have presented the greatest threats of violence in 2017.

However, Associate Professor Tan Ern Ser does not think more people will buy into the movement in Singapore.

"Given that sovcits constitute probably a minute minority, at least in the Singapore case, I'd argue that they are more of a nuisance than a threat," he said.