Wednesday, December 9, 2009

Gopalan Nair. Singapore's bully boys find themselves in a pickle!

Ladies and Gentlemen,

Lee Kuan Yew and his bully boys now finds themselves inextricably in a pickle.

Whichever way they turn, they simply cannot escape the consequences of their reputation being lowered a mile lower to the depths of Burma and North Korea, by my impending disbarment from practicing law in Singapore.

Regardless of how bad or good I am, Singapore has, you will agree, to disbar me from the Rolls of Lawyers there.

It is part of their regular practice, of sending a signal to all other lawyers that they should obey their Singaporean masters.

Also they cannot ever say I am not guilty since this will inevitably send another signal to Singaporeans lawyers that it is OK to openly criticize the government and their judiciary.

The third signal they have to send to all Singaporeans is not to become meddlesome like Gopalan Nair. Therefore my disbarment is a forgone conclusion, you can take that as a fact.

But now for the first time, I am going to put all this on the Internet.

Singaporeans as well as everyone else are going to read why I was disbarred, and in this situation, they will have a very hard time justifying it.

Therefore, the predictable result is the exposure, yet again, of the abuse of the rule of law in the island by the rulers to further their political ends.

This is what I have been trying to prove all along, and the Singapore Law Society advised by the Lee Kuan Yew and his minions are helping me to do exactly that.

Now look at the convictions and my record and ask yourselves whether this is the sort of person who should be disbarred.

Present Charges:

Charge 1 and 2: A false accusation that in Little India, Singapore, I shouted abuses at police officers, knocked on police cars and behaved disorderly by waving my arms and shouting.

This is entirely false and the evidence at the trial clearly proved my innocence.

Entirely for the sake of argument, even if I did what they say, which is denied, is a lawyer to be disbarred for this? I think not.

Charge 3.
I was convicted of criticizing Judge Belinda Ang Saw Ean in my blog after I had observed her trial in Singapore in the Lee Kuan Yew vs Dr. Chee case.

The judge's behaviour is set out in my blog post of May 29, 2009 where the various instances of bias on her part have been set out.

I had also said in the same blog post that "Belinda Ang had prostituted herself in her position as a judge in that case by behaving as nothing more than an employee of Lee Kuan Yew to do his bidding".

The word "prostituting" means in Websters and all other dictionaries to mean abusing one's authority or profession for personal gain or a dishonest purpose.

This was exactly what she was shamefully doing.

The description of this woman was correct.

Is it fair to disbar Gopalan Nair for correctly describing this woman's conduct during the trial?

Charge 4. Writing similar language about Judge Judith Prakash for sending 3 young men to jail terms for contempt of court merely for wearing T shirts with a picture of a Kangaroo in judicial robes within the courts precincts but not within any particular court.

There was no contempt of any court at all under the constitution or under the laws of contempt.

Should I be disbarred for writing a factually and legally correct observation of her abuse of the law as a judge?

Charge 5: While I was in jail, new charges of contempt of court were brought for my having made such statements as " I have no confidence that I will receive justice in this court" during my earlier trial for the false charge of shouting abuses at police officers (an accusation which I totally deny).

Should I be disbarred from the Singapore Law Society for saying something that I honestly believed in?

I apologized to the judge and promised not to write anything critical of the Singapore government and their judges as was requested by the prosecutor.

I also agreed to delete a few blog posts.

The prosecutor had indicated that if I did this, he will not ask that my detention be extended.

In order to get out of prison, I apologized and promised to do what they wanted.

Since my return to California, I withdrew the apology given and put up the offending blog posts and have continued to criticize the Lee Kuan Yew government their minions and their ever willing judiciary.

I see nothing wrong in that. Should I be disbarred for that?

Previous instances:

1. I was suspended for 2 years merely for publicizing correspondence between myself and the former Attorney General of Singapore about a matter of public interest and controversy.

I also accused him of not telling the truth.

Is this a sign of bad character or that of an upright citizen who cares for the interest of Singapore and the reputation of their legal system?

2. I was fined $8,000.00 for making an election rally speech in Bukit Merah in 1991 promising to change the system of appointment of Subordinate Court judges from the then system under the Legal Service Commission.

Is there any impropriety in that? And is this a sign of bad character or a sign of commendable and honorable conduct?

The reader is asked to read my earlier posts for details of these cases.

The plight of the Singapore Law Society carrying out the government's orders:
Their difficulty is this.

They will have to provide precedents and authority why a person such as myself deserves to be disbarred.

This is where they are going to be in an inescapable rut.

It is going to be impossible to justify my disbarment based on any similar authority.

Their past practice of using totally irrelevant cases which had no nexus whatsoever to the case at hand can no longer work now.

With the Internet through this blog, their arguments are going to be exposed for what they are worth.

So come on, you bullies. I am ready for a challenge.

Let us see who is going to win this contest before the judge and juries made up of the entire world, not just the Lee Kuan Yew lackeys in Singapore!

Of course, I don't think I would have found myself in this much trouble in Singapore had I not been a member of the opposition since 1984 and ever since then been a unwavering critic of Singapore's bully boys. Do you?

Gopalan Nair
39737 Paseo Padre Parkway, Suite A1
Fremont, CA 94538, USA
Tel: 510 657 6107
Fax: 510 657 6914

Your letters are welcome. We reserve the right to publish your letters. Please Email your letters to And if you like what I write, please tell your friends. You will be helping democracy by distributing this widely. This blog not only gives information, it dispels government propaganda put out by this dictatorial regime.


jlow said...

I always find myself elated after reading your blog pls don't wait too long before your next blog post

Anonymous said...

Good job Atty. Gopalan Nair.


Anonymous said...

Punishing you is to set example for all Singapore practicing lawyers and including his one big family and some PAPies members who practice law too. LKY feared the rebellion from his own family than an outsider like you. LKY feared his grand children might rebel against their 'Ah Kong' and children do grow up and as adults they too have a mind of their own.

Keep up and keep pushing and annoy the PAPies and one day a hero will surfaces to end the Leegime which may come from his own blood line, you never know yeah!

Anonymous said...

US envoy in rare criticism of Singapore
By John Burton in Singapore

Published: October 12 2005 11:05 | Last updated: October 12 2005 12:02

The outgoing US ambassador to Singapore has criticised the city-state's restrictions on free speech in a rare public rebuke by a US official of one of Washington's closest Asian allies.

Ambassador Frank Lavin said Singapore's 20th-century political model may prove inadequate for the 21st century, warning that the government "will pay an increasing price for not allowing full participation of its citizens."

Anonymous said...

Honorary Doctorate for Lee Kuan Yew at the Australian National University (ANU): "outrage"

The decision to confer the degree on Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew in March was strongly criticised within and without the university by academics, students and others on human rights grounds and was reported by the international media. Reuters (22/3) described the reaction as one of academic "outrage". Critics referred to Singapore's execution of Australian Nguyen Van Tuong after a trial that did not live up to international standards, to Singapore's restrictions on freedom of speech, assembly and association, and to penalties imposed on the political opposition. Canberra Times (30/3) reported that "Lee Kuan Yew laughed off student protests and a storm of criticism....About 60 students gathered outside the hall and about a quarter of the seats inside remained empty". Australian Foreign Minister Alexander Downer defended the decision to confer the degree because Lee was "a great regional leader".

The Hon. David Kilgour J D, former Canadian Secretary of State for Asia-Pacific, wrote to ANU President Ian Chubb that he was "horrified" at the plan.(22/3) Academic Hilary Charlesworth, director of ANU's Centre for International Governance and Justice, contrasted Lee Kuan Yew with Nelson Mandela, a previous recipient of ANU's honorary doctorate. (SMH 23/3) Australia's Young Labor Left protested outside the hall where the ceremony was held, calling it "atrocious". ( 23/7) John Tan,a psychology lecturer in Singapore, who had taken part in the Freedom Walk on International Human Rights Day, 10 December, criticised the ANU for conferring an honorary doctorate on Lee Kuan Yew despite his "anti-human-rights record". (ANU?) Law Students for Social Justice was preparing a legal challenge to declare the honour invalid on the grounds that correct procedures were not followed in coming to the decision to award him the degree. Australian Institute director Clive Hamilton said the award was an embarrassment and offensive, out of keeping with ANU Law School's renowned expertise on international and human rights law. Taipeh Times (18/4) reported "That the ANU could impugn its reputation for excellence in Asian studies and human rights law to further the ambitions of its two top officers is surprising enough. That these men should ram through the award by shelving university processes of review and then praise Lee's 'integrity...commitment to the causes of peace and prosperity and international statesmanship' is downright contemptible. But credit where credit is due: Lee would applaud their methods

Anonymous said...

Charge 1 & 2 is to defame you Mr Gopalan that is to ruin your character and reputation. Of course they are false. The regime has resorted to lies countless times.

Charge 3 & 4 is because you dared speaking up the truth! lol

Charge 5 is because you dared speaking up your mind.

They are excuses by the pathetic regime to justify what otherwise couldn't and of course they have to resort to lies and twisting the truth.


Anonymous said...

Dear Gopalan,

Singapore police are bloody sissy crybabies. Just because I projected a firm voice when rebuking them, I have labelled as "shouting abuses" and "disobeying the authorities".

I do not remember Singapore censoring the Aussie "Where the bloody hell are you?" tourism campaign. OK, so that campaign has gone to the "shrimp on the barbie"

But has Singapore police learnt a thing or 2 about international visitors and human rights?

Perhaps, they can learn a thing or 2 from the Hongkong Police.

Anonymous said...

Singaporeans want their daddy. What happens now when daddy crosses over to the great beyond?