Ladies and Gentlemen,
It is not only that Lee Kuan Yew's one party state's judges use the law as a political tool to silence dissent, they even falsify the record as well. Take the following law report from Singapore about me, Singapore Law Watch (2011)07Jan, they carefully distort the facts into the record, and put it out as a law report, which lawyers in the island would rely as precedent. This precedent is patently false in many respects, and completely distorts the facts, which unless checked with other sources, becomes the truth.
This way history is re-written and Lee's political opponents are carefully shown to future generations as evil. At least that is what they hope.
It reminds one of the horrors of George Orwell's Department of Information in "1984", where history is carefully written and re-written to show Big Brother as God and Goldstein the the enemy, the epitome of evil.
But thankfully, Lee Kuan Yew in his determination to destroy democracy, has in fact managed to show the island in very bad light, for those who wish to know, and such distortions and lies, which managed to go down very well in the past, are having a very hard time now.
What has happened, as per my version of things, are appended below the report of Singapore Law Watch, another state controlled law report.
Singapore Law Watch
Disciplinary tribunal finds lawyer guilty
 07 Jan_ST
Title: Disciplinary tribunal finds lawyer guilty
Source: Straits Times
Legal News Archive
A DISCIPLINARY tribunal appointed by the Chief Justice has found former Singaporean lawyer Gopalan Nair guilty of contempt of court and misconduct.
As a result, the 60-year-old, who is a US citizen and lives in California, faces possible disbarment in Singapore.
The tribunal, in its report dated Dec 28, found Mr Nair guilty of the five charges brought against him by the Law Society of Singapore. Its case was presented by lawyer Peter Low.
Two charges relate to a July 2008 incident here when he was allegedly abusive to police officers. He was later fined $3,000 for disorderly behaviour and hurling expletives at police officers. Three other charges relate to posts in his blog in 2008, which the tribunal found amounted to contempt of court.
Mr Nair wrote posts in 2008 impugning the integrity of two High Court judges. In another post, he announced that he was defying an undertaking given to a district judge to remove two posts which related to his being in contempt of court. He said that he was standing by what he had written.
The tribunal's report said, in parts, that Mr Nair's authorship and posting of blogs amounted to scandalising the courts, or demonstrated 'his utter contempt towards the court'. It also said his conduct was not befitting a lawyer.
In September 2008, Mr Nair was sentenced to three months' jail for remarks in one of the blog posts, which were found to have scandalised the judiciary and insulted a High Court judge.
Mr Nair was not present for the hearings of the tribunal, which was initiated in September 2009.
The tribunal report noted that he had been notified and had the Immigration and Checkpoints Authority's permission to re-enter Singapore if he applied to do so.
The tribunal, made up of Senior Counsel Toh Kian Sing and lawyer Tan Jee Ming, recommended disciplinary action against Mr Nair.
He will be referred to a Court of Three Judges, and could face disbarment, be barred from applying for a practising certificate here, or face censure or other punishments.
He moved to the United States in the early 1990s and became a US citizen in 2004. He stopped practising here but has remained on the rolls.
Mr Nair responded to the tribunal's report in a blog post on Tuesday saying, among other things, that it ignored his various requests - such as for paid air travel and accommodation - and he could conclude only 'that they simply did not want me to appear at their hearing'.
This is not the first time Mr Nair has been found guilty of misconduct by a disciplinary committee. In 1992, he was suspended from practice for two years for remarks about former attorney-general Tan Boon Teik.
1. In 2008 Mr. Nair wrote posts impugning the integrity of 2 High Court Judges.
I have written numerous blog posts criticizing Singapore judges both during, before and after 2008. I find it an honor to do it, because Singapore judges are corrupt dishonest and permit themselves to be used as political tools to silence dissent against Lee Kuan Yew.
It is completely lawful to "impugn" the integrity of a judge such as Belinda Ang Saw Ean who so shamelessly abused her judicial office during the 3 day defamation trial of Lee Kuan Yew vs Dr. Chee Soon Juan. It is not just lawful to "impugn" her integrity in a case such as this, it is completely necessary to do it. And I will do it again because injustice has to be exposed very loudly. Who is it that said, it is a religious thing to condemn injustice. Please refer to my blog post of Thursday May 29, 2008 "Singapore. Judge Belinda Ang's Kangaroo Court".
2. The Tribunal's report said in parts that Mr. Nair's authorship and posting of blogs amounted to scandalizing the courts, or demonstrated his "utter contempt towards the court". It also said his conduct was not befitting a lawyer.
About my having scandalized the Singapore court and demonstrating utter contempt for it, I totally agree. Yes I intended to scandalize the Singapore court because it needed scandalizing, because as the word suggests, it is a scandal for a system such as this that claims to have the rule of law but in fact breaks every single one of it's rules. And yes, I only have contempt for such a legal system which is a mere extension of the government rubber stamping it's decisions, exactly as what the Communist Chinese one is.
As for conduct not befitting a lawyer, I totally disagree. A lawyer should have the courage to stand up to judges who subvert the law for political ends and such action by a lawyer is in keeping with the highest traditions of the Bar. It is those Singapore lawyers who meekly remain silent and do nothing in the face of this shameful disgrace who are acting with such conduct.
3. Mr. Nair was not present for the hearings of the tribunal which was initiated in September of 2009. The Tribunal report noted that he had been notified and had the Immigration and Checkpoints Authority's permission to re-enter Singapore if he applied to do so.
This part is a clever distortion of the facts to completely falsify what happened. I have an American passport and ordinarily I would not need a visa to enter Singapore. However in my case, after I had the pleasure of Lee Kuan Yew's jail in Singapore for 2 months, at Changi Airport at the time of my departure, Singapore authorities stamped a deportation order in my passport, meaning unlike any other American I needed a visa to enter Singapore and if I did without permission, jailed for up to 2 years. You see, about this part, this Singaporean Law Report is nakedly silent. So I, unlike any other American can never enter Singapore without a visa, which I needed if I wanted to attend my trial in Singapore.
So several months before the hearings, I had written to Audrey Lim Yoon Cheng, who was alleged to be the Secretary of this disciplinary Tribunal to arrange for a visa. Her position however was all along that this had to be done by me and she will do nothing to facilitate my travel to Singapore. Accordingly I wrote to the Immigration Department several times and they never responded. I then wrote to the Attorney General of Singapore, the Minister of Law Singapore, the Minister of Home Affairs Singapore, not once but several occasions for permission to travel. None of them responded.
Then all of a sudden, keeping in mind that I live in California, and half way around the world from Singapore, about 10 days before the hearing, some woman from the Immigration Department writes to me with a form asking that I fill it up and get a Singapore sponsor for a visa. Since I did not have a Singapore sponsor, I told her so, whereupon she dropped the requirement of the sponsor, but by this time there was only 2 days or so left for the hearing.
But this related only to my applying to enter Singapore and even at this time, contrary to this Singaporean report no permission was given because I never applied. I don't have to tell you that it is impossible to travel to Singapore and be in a state of readiness for the hearing in 2 days!
Cleverly this report distorts the facts and tells bald shameless lies. It was not a case that I did not want to come; it was a case of their not wanting me to be there, because they only began discussing the visa 10 days or so before the hearings! .
Furthermore they never gave me immunity from arrest among other things, which I would come to below. Please see my blog post of Jan 04, 2011, Law Society of Singapore vs Gopalan Nair, Guilty! In absentia hearings.
4. "He moved to the United States in the early 1990s and became a US Citizen in 2004. He stopped practicing here but remained on the Rolls".
"He stopped practicing here but remained on the Rolls" is cleverly distorted to appear as if I remained on the Singapore Rolls by choice. This is how it is. To practice law there, you have to be on the Rolls and take out a practicing certificate. For lawyers who emigrate, even though you do not take out a practicing certificate, you still remain on the Rolls. So in my case, I was on the Rolls not because I did anything to facilitate it; you are on it automatically.
5. Mr. Nair responded to the Tribunal's report in a blog post on Tuesday saying, among other things, that it ignored his various requests, such as for paid air travel and accommodation, and he could conclude only "that they simply did not want me to appear at their hearing".
This is a cleverly tailored partial half truth and partial concealment of the facts. What was the most important thing I asked for was immunity from arrest and prosecution if I entered Singapore, even if I received permission.
Since my return to USA I had written numerous blogs attacking the integrity of their judges and their legal system. In particular, I broke the undertaking I gave to a Singapore judge not to criticize and to remove critical blog posts, while I was held in Singapore against my will.
All these acts on my part renders me liable to arrest and imprisonment again if I entered Singapore and it would be suicidal for me to do it without some sort of immunity. For this guarantee, I wrote repeatedly to everyone including of course the Tribunal, the Attorney General and every other side kick that Lee Kuan Yew uses but I got no response. This fact appears totally concealed in this report.
If Singapore was serious in giving me a chance to defend myself, it would have been easy for them to give me this assurance so that this case can be fairly litigated.
In addition in a case such as this where Singapore is commencing proceedings, any other respectable legal body would have facilitated his travel, provide his reasonable living expenses to enter and remain in Singapore. To take a hypothetical case, what happens if the Defendant was impecunious, would they proceed in his absence and disbar him because he had no money to come? Their failure to provide a reasonable opportunity for me to attend clearly nullified the value of any judgement they come up in this case.
Please see my blog post of Jan 04, 2011, Law Society of Singapore vs Gopalan Nair, Guilty! In absentia hearings. .
6. This is not the first time Mr. Nair has been found guilty of misconduct by a disciplinary committee. In 1992 he was suspended from practice for 2 years for remarks about former Attorney General Tan Boon Teik.
The 1992 incident could not have been a greater misuse of the law. In brief, the case arose as a result of Tan Boon Teik claiming that JB Jeyaretnam was not entitled to a pardon resulting from his exoneration of all blame by the Privy Council London arising from his disbarment by the Singapore Court; his reason being that he was not given an opportunity to appear at the London hearing and that Jeyaretnam "had not shown repentance remorse and contrition for his crimes", an incredible statement, given the facts.
The real facts were that Tan Boon Teik did not want to attend the London hearing and therefore he lied about this. Secondly how can a man who was found innocent show remorse repentance and contrition. Surely it is an oxymoron. When I wrote to him asking him to explain he failed to do it. I then distributed the correspondence between him and me throughout the law firms in Singapore.
Surely there is nothing wrong in asking questions of Tan Boon Teik and neither is there anything wrong in telling him that what he was saying is contrary to the facts. For this I was suspended for 2 years. Please see my blog post of December 23, 2010, "Law Society of Singapore vs Gopalan Nair, two plus two is fifty eight!"
This report iin Singapore Law Watch is written by Tessa Wong. She is one of the remaining Singaporeans who profit any way they can because they do not have the courage or the ability to earn a living in an honest manner. In any case, she carefully remains Tessa Wong, not Tessa Wong Chin Seng, or Wong Keng Keng or whatever. I guess her plan like the many others there, is that when and if she is ever found out and asked to account, she would then cleverly claim that she never was Tessa Wong and she is Wong Ching Ching.
She belongs to a group of human beings who are not brought up in the belief that it is good to be honorable.
And a word of advice to this Singapore government of Lee Kuan Yew. In this day and age, you cannot win in a battle such as this. The truth always trumps the lie, and in this case, when you have an opponent such as me outside your island, there is nothing much you can do to silence him. You cannot arrest him, you cannot take away his job, you cannot harm his family, in short there is nothing you can do.
As for the man on the street in Singapore, your reputation is already rock bottom. And as for those who have an interest in matters such as this, thanks to you for making me famous, my blog would be visited for my side of the story. In the past the lies in this law report would have gone unnoticed because one could not refute it, but today, because of the Internet, I am able to give my side of the story and there is nothing you can do.
So by all means continue, but rest assured, I am going to have my say too.
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 email@example.com 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.