Ladies and Gentlemen,
I have just received an Email with court documents from Singapore Law Society titled very appropriately "Plaintiff's skeletal submissions". If they carry on in this manner making a fool of themselves in these proceedings, they will in deed turn into skeletons.
Their legal profession has been reduced to less than 3,500 lawyers or so, caused by resignations en masse because anyone with any self respect wants nothing to do with a profession that is used as Lee Kuian Yew's political weapon.
The island itself is turning into a skeleton, as far as it's valuable skilled citizenry goes, as mounting emigration has turned into a flood for Australia and the West. The vacuum is being filled by Chinese peasants from China who have no knowledge of English, let alone any skills.
The Law Society of Singapore which is in effect an arm of Lee Kuan Yew's Singapore government, asks that I be disbarred from practicing law in the island for the following reasons:
1. It says the 1992 order against me, of suspension from practicing law in Singapore for 2 years appears to have no deterrent effect upon me.
As a recap this is what happened in the 1992 case. Recall JB Jeyaretnam was found guilty and struck off the Singapore Bar on Lee's trumped up charges, namely check fraud and making a false affidavit relating to it. When JB Jeyaretnam appealed his striking off to the appeal court in London, the House of Lords, they not only categorically stated that JB Jeyaretanm was not guilty of anything, they also said Lee Kuan Yew's Singapore government was guilty of deliberately misusing the law to hound harass and punish an innocent man who was not guilty of anything. You can call it a slap right across the face of Lee Kuan Yew and his so called Rule of Law.
When JB Jeyaretnam landed at Changi Airport jubilant on his return from London, London's Privy Council judgement in hand, there was a crowd including me ready to welcome him. Immediately, since the highest court of the land had declared him innocent, he wrote an appeal to the President of Singapore for a pardon.
The Attorney General of Singapore then, Tan Boon Teck, on behalf of the Singapore President refused the pardon, stating among other things that Jeyaretnam had committed serious offenses, even though just a few days ago, the London Appeal court had declared him innocent! Furthermore another reason for his refusal of a pardon was because Jeyaretnam had not shown "remorse, contrition or repentance for the crimes he had committed" although it beats me how someone could show any of these emotions for crimes he never committed!
Another of this reasons for the pardon refusal, was that he was "not given an opportunity to appear" at the London hearing. This statement was patently false. One of the judges at the appeal in London, I believe it was Lord Bridge, had specifically asked the lawyer for the Singapore Law Society in court whether the Singapore Attorney General was aware of the proceedings and whether he had applied to intervene. Only after the lawyer had specifically stated that they were aware and had not made any application to intervene, did the court proceed in their absence. In the light of these facts, it was impossible for Singapore attorney General to say "he was not given an opportunity to appear".
I read these ridiculous reasons for the Attorney Generals refusal of the pardon in the Straits Times, a Singapore state controlled newspaper.
I wrote a letter to the Attorney General asking that he explain his claim that he was not given an opportunity to appear. His reply was that he was not a party to the case, and that if I wanted any information, I should write to Jeyaretnam himself. Not satisfied with this answer, I wrote again to him that I demanded a proper answer within 14 days, and failing that I will distribute this correspondence between him and me to the entire Singapore legal profession.
His response was that I had falsely accused him, that I had "threatened" him and therefore he was reporting me to the Law Society for discipline. I understand that the Law Society had themselves decided that I had not committed any wrongdoing but as there was a procedure in place where the Attorney General could insist on proceedings regardless of the Law Society's findings, that is what he did.
The proceedings against me commenced in 1989 or 1990. The disciplinary proceedings was heard by the late retired judge Choor Singh who was willing to bend over backwards or even forwards if it pleases Lee Kuan Yew. The hearing itself was interesting. The late Jeyaretnam was my counsel. Madan Assomull who was clearly working in tandem with the judge was, expectedly, getting his way over everything. In fact the case turned out as a battle between JB Jeyaretanm and his arch enemy the Attorney General who was the principle witness for the prosecution, much less about me, which by the way I did not mind at all.
There was one hilarious moment which I will never forget. One of our main witnesses at trial was Martin Thomas QC, who practices in London, JB Jeyaretnam's lawyer at his London appeal who was kind enough to appear at my Singapore trial, as he happened to be in the vicinity by chance, either on his way or returning from vacation at Tioman Island, Malaysia.
Thomas told the court that the London judges had asked counsel for the Singapore law Society whether "the Singapore authorities" were aware of the proceedings, not specifically whether the Singapore Attorney General was aware. Pouncing on this as an opportunity, Assomull began repeatedly asking Thomas QC, whether the Judges could have meant someone other than the Singapore Attorney General, since after all they used the words "Singapore authorities", not "Singapore Attorney General".
After a point Thomas had had enough. He replied "Of course the judges meant the Singapore Attorney General when they said Singapore Authorities. I don't think they were interested to know whether the Hong Kong Fire Brigade were interested in these proceedings"! That was the end of this line of questioning for Assomull!
In any case the Law Society found me guilty, in 1991. At that time I had decided I wanted nothing more to do with a legal profession such as this, and packed my bags and left for San Francisco, California in December 1991. While I was already in the USA, in 1992, this case went before the High Court of Singapore in absentia, which confirmed the judgement. Judges Yong Pong Howe, G Pannirselvam and another Chinese judge, whose name I cannot remember, ordered that I be suspended from practicing law for 2 years. This suspension really did not effect me, since I was already in the USA. At the time I was also a member of the English Bar up till now in good standing.
Coming back to the present case against me, the Singapore Law Society states that one reason why I should be disbarred from Singapore is because "the previous order of suspension in 1992 had no deterrent effect on me as seen from my further blog posts".
Let me remind the Singapore government that a man will be deterred by punishment only if he knows that he did something wrong. Since I did no wrong in the 1992 matter, I see no reason why I should be deterred. They further say "the Defendant had shown no remorse (the 1992 matter) for his misconduct". True I have no remorse. It is an oxymoron to demand remorse for completely lawful, nay admirable conduct.
2. In another part, they say it is necessary to have me disbarred "to protect the good name of the Singapore profession". I am not sure how many ordinary people out there would agree that the Singapore legal profession has any name at all, let alone a good name.
3. There are various other portions where it states such things as "using offensive language is unbecoming" which I have denied ever using at anyone (I believe they are referring to the yelling at policemen charge), and that according to them I lack the qualities of a lawyer.
4. As an authority to disbar me for contempt of court, they refer to the 2006 case of Chee Soon Juan, Herzberg Daniel in 2009 (I don't know who he is) and the recent case of Alan Shadrake who was sent to jail for 6 weeks. I would have thought that if these are the only cases they rely on, Chee Soon Juan and Alan Shadrake, both well respected men of principle, morals and courage, I should be applauded, not punished. Of course this is not how a morally bankrupt country is expected to behave or think.
5. Another reason they say that I should be disbarred is the fact that I was sent to jail for 3 months for criticizing Judge Belinda Ang Saw Ean! You can see for yourself here whether I should have been jailed for having written what I did about Belinda Ang Saw Ean.
6. Further, they rehash want has been said so far, that a) I had repeatedly committed contempt of court 2) that I had undermined the judiciary on 3 different occasions in 6 months 3) that I had breached the undertaking I had given to the Singapore judge 4)that my "cavalier" attitude can be seen from my blog posts 5) that I persist in undermining the Singapore judiciary in my blog posts.
7. They attach with their document my recent blog post dated July 16, 2011, "Law Society of Singapore vs Gopalan Nair, trial date July 25, 2011. A brief rehash of what it's about"
From these proceedings, I am not sure whether Singapore is aware of whom they are dealing with or are they deliberately trying to pretend not to know who I am. I would like to tell them this. They are dealing with a man who is not prepared to live a life in submission to Lee Kuan Yew because I really do not have to. I live in a free country and practice in a jurisdiction where there is the rule of law, where I do not have to live my life saying one thing in public and another in private. And there is no need for me to pretend that Singapore has the rule of law when it has none, and neither can anyone force me to do it.
Another thing they fail to understand that not every lawyer in the world are the sort you find in Singapore. No lawyer from any other democracy will be prepared to submit to a jurisdiction such as this and respect it when it has no integrity whatsoever.
Your Singapore courts can do and say anything you want. I am judged not by you, whose judgements don't mean a thing but by the real courts of the world, such as those in the USA and the UK.
And finally, since the bad guys, according to the Singapore government in their submission, are Alan Shadrake, JB Jeyaretnam and Chee Soon Juan whose cases are used to justify disbarring me from Singapore law practice, I should have no complaints whatsoever, as I would be among such illustrious men; heroes such as this. Tell me how many of you out there can claim to be compared to Chee Soon Juan, JB Jeyaretnam or Alan Shadrake? I should be proud. Very proud indeed.
I am writing this at 6.40 pm on Saturday, July 23, 2011, which is 9.40am Sunday morning July 24, 2011. My case will be heard in the High Court Singapore on Monday morning Singapore time tomorrow. I have an airline ticket departing tonight midnight San Francisco, which I am still contemplating using, which will take me into Singapore early morning Monday the day of the hearing.
I am toying with the idea of whether to come. It is only a short 30 minute drive to San Francisco Airport's long term parking along 880 North Freeway, San Mateo Bridge, 101 North Freeway, past San Carlos Airport and into San Francisco Airport, park and into the International Terminal. I may or may not come. If I do, I will walk into the courtroom precisely 5 minutes before 10 am.
As the Singapore government appears to read every word written here, they have been warned.
Attorney at Law
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 firstname.lastname@example.org 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.