Ladies and Gentlemen,
Singapore state controlled newspaper Straits Times online edition of Jan 03, 2010 has the story "Chief Justice urges criminal lawyers to be ethical". In it, the Chief Justice of Singapore Chan Sek Keong, a Lee Kuan Yew minion, says that criminal lawyers should no longer appeal criminal cases unless meritorious, because otherwise their actions would be considered "unethical".
As this Chief Justice is merely an errand boy for Lee Kuan Yew to do his bidding, a statement such as this coming from him, can be taken categorically as coming from Big Brother himself, Lee Kuan Yew. And another thing, even though the language does not appear entirely mandatory, you can take it from me, that when Singapore's Chief Justice says this, it is nothing short of an order from Big Brother himself.
And what this means for criminal lawyers in Singapore, if you could even call them that, is this, no more appeals for the ordinary Singaporean "non entities", which make up the majority of Singaporeans. From now on, they should be thankful to their master Lee Kuan Yew for whatever punishment they get, rather than thinking they are any smarter and wasting these Glorious Judges time. I guess they have to remember what they are, as Lee Kuan Yew has once referred to them as "digits" and therefore as "digits" they should know their own place.
The intent behind this order from Lee Kuan Yew should be quite clear to anyone. From now on, even the handful of vestiges of an individuals independence, such as the right to appeal, will be taken away and from now on in Singapore, you are a complete slave.
And I guess, knowing the craven fear that all Singaporeans live under, especially their lawyers, who today watch quietly uncomplaining while Lee Kuan Yew abuses their
constitution, the vast majority of them would as I predict, take this to be an order from Big Brother and do exactly as they are told, which is, don't appeal under any circumstances. And the few who dare to challenge it in their folly would find a series of false disciplinary actions facing them to force them to come down to earth. After all, to appeal is to be "unethical".
And I can tell you what this means. The poor victims of Lee Kuan Yew's legal system are going to suffer even more from their arbitrary discriminating justice. And I believe I am qualified to tell you this, as someone who had practiced law in the island for 10 years and also as Lee Kuan Yew's prisoner in 2008 for criticizing one of his judges, Belinda Ang Saw Ean, in this blog.
This is how bad the Singapore criminal system is. Firstly, the defendant when arrested is not told what he is being arrested for except to be told that it is under Section 248 or whatever number of the Singapore Penal Code which naturally he has never heard of. After he is taken to the station he is kept overnight while he is interrogated without the benefit of an attorney. The next day, his detention is extended while more questions are put to him, all without his attorney. In other words throughout his detention in police custody he is denied legal representation.
From personal experience, I can tell you that all defendants would either confess or implicate themselves totally. The police always use coercion threats or inducements to get what they want, and the poor defendant without any idea of criminal law is always the victim. After they have got what they want in a full and complete confession, now for the first time, the defendant is released and permitted to have a counsel. Frankly if you ask any Singapore criminal lawyer, having one after all this is simply useless. The Defendant has already hanged himself, so to speak, with his own rope, metaphorically speaking.
And now the lawyer's only avenue is to go to court and do the impossible, which is to argue that all those confessions were all involuntary, when the Defendant himself has signed a statement to say they were!
And by the way, there are no jury trials in Singapore. What you have is a judge who is so terrified of his boss, Lee Kuan Yew, that it is almost impossible for him to say the police were wrong. And by the way, if you happen to have the misfortune of being known as an opposition politician supporter, you simply had it.
Lee Kuan Yew's Singapore has no respect for the constitution, no respect for the prohibition against unlawful searches and seizures, no respect for the the law against coerced confessions, in other words no respect for all the niceties of freedom that the civilized world cherishes so much. In their way of thinking, you are lucky that you are not taken out to the yard after 5 minutes and shot, as they do perhaps in the Peoples Republic of China, and therefore you should be thankful and stop complaining.
But this is not the whole story. It is not true that everyone should not appeal, only that the vast majority of Lee Kuan Yew's "digits" should not. There are others in Singapore who are not "digits" and you know who I mean, Lee Kuan Yew's high ranking Peoples Action Party members, foreign bank managers and CEOs of foreign companies and editors of the Singapore state controlled press. These privileged classes in the event of finding themselves in trouble, should not only appeal, but they are encouraged to do it.
You must have been following the capers of these privileged class, one of which are foreign bankers. There was a story of an Englishman who got out of his car and literally beat up a local Singaporean in a road rage incident. You guessed it. He appealed his prison sentence and got away with a small fine. Another Englishman who badly beat up a taxi driver for not taking him to where he wanted. Again there was an appeal resulting in a small fine. Another incident of a Scots engineer who was so drunk, he drove off in someone else's truck and when apprehended, beat up the policemen. You are right again, appeal followed by a fine.
Recently Lim Kay Tong, the Singapore actor, whose sister, a doctor was found dead drunk in her car in the middle of Pan Island Expressway at midnight, in the middle lane with all lights switched off and sleeping in the drivers seat. Once again, although the lower court sentenced her to over a year in jail, she appealed and you are quite right, she walked away with a small fine.
And the case that beats them all is that of the Chinese woman editor of the Singapore state controlled newspaper Sin Chew Jit Poh. At the junction of Bradell Road and Bukit Timah Road, while driving her car, she ran over a motorcyclist who had the right of way on Green, permanently maiming the rider and killing the Filipina pillion rider, who happened to be a maid. The investigation revealed that she was talking on her cell phone and ran a Red light and was looking for something in her bag, while driving. The lower court sentenced her to 1 1/2 years in jail, a well deserved punishment. In the end she did not go to jail at all, not even a day! She appealed and walked away with a small fine. The judge gave some lame excuse of her being under stress!
I can tell you in all these cases, had it been a helpless Singaporean before his own courts, there would have been no mercy at all. But as it seems there is one law for the well connected and another for the ordinary dispensable Singaporean "digit".
And if this was not bad enough, this new ruling by the Chief Justice has made Singaporeans now well and truly, just slaves, at the complete discretion of Lee Kuan Yew and his minion judges.
Gopalan Nair
39737 Paseo Padre Parkway, Suite A1
Fremont, CA 94538, USA
Tel: 510 657 6107
Fax: 510 657 6914
Email: nair.gopalan@yahoo.com
Blog: http://singaporedissident.blogspot.com/
Your letters are welcome. We reserve the right to publish your letters. Please Email your letters to nair.gopalan@yahoo.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.
Sunday, January 2, 2011
Saturday, January 1, 2011
Singapore, a Comunist Chinese city.
Ladies and Gentlemen,
A close look at the Peoples Republic of China and Singapore will reveal surprising similarities, and I don't mean just how their people look.
Communist China does not claim to be a democracy but Singapore does, yet they are both exactly the same when it comes to government. In China, the Communist Party always rule while in Singapore, it is Lee Kuan Yew's People Action Party, always. Although it's Constitution claims free and fair elections every 5 years and every man and women a free and secret vote, nothing can be further from the truth. The Constitution of Singapore is the biggest piece of fraudulent paper that Lee sells to the world, which the world is slowly beginning to realize.
In Communist China, Xinhua News Agency as in Singapore, Singapore Press Holdings, the newspapers TV and radio are completely state controlled and tools of the government to advance national interest by telling you what you should know and concealing what you should not. In both countries, as expected, there is completely no investigative journalism, which means you will never hear of the state's shortcomings but only exaggerated claims of grandiose achievements. It is not only an insult to your intelligence but a deliberate harm inflicted on your mind for the benefit of Lee Kuan Yew and his government on the alleged claim that it is good for the country.
Singapore and and Communist Chinese children unlike their western counterparts are often seen as intimidated and afraid to question authority or to express their opinions publicly choosing instead to be introverted and shy. This sort of behaviour is encouraged by their teachers and parents who live in fear of their governments as protest against government actions can lead to reprisals and punishment. This sort of life under suppression and repression should not be something that any parent should desire for their children.
Singaporeans just as their Communist Chinese counterparts are not an equal partner in government but just slaves to comply with any government demand on the claim that it is in the national interest. In this way individual rights are completely denied in preference to so-called national interest. As an example, if your house or land has to be pulled down because they want to build a highway, or if you were paid completely inadequate compensation or none at all for it, you just have to accept it. If you were dismissed from your government job unfairly, just accept it. If your private employer dismissed you on the orders of the government, just accept it. Simply put, you have no rights. The laws on the books don't mean a thing. You are wrong and Lee Kuan Yew or his Singapore government is always right, get it into your thick head.
In both countries you have to understand to shut your mouth and do as you are told. The courts and the law are there to serve Lee Kuan Yew and his Peoples Action Party. They are also there to serve Lee Kuan Yew's supporters. So if you want to help yourself at the expanse of others, join the Peoples Action Party and become an official card carrying member. It helped in Franco's Spain, it helps in Communist China, it helped in Hitler's Germany and it also helps in Lee Kuan Yew's Singapore.
If you don't care of such things as rights, if it does not matter to you that Lee Kuan Yew and his family steal your taxpayers money to the tune of $3.7 million a year which they call salary, if it does not matter to you that you have no rights whatsoever because the courts and the judges work for Lee Kuan Yew alone, if it does not matter that the police can pick you up anytime they want and beat you anytime they want, if you don't care that you are fed only propaganda and not news, if you are happy with a life such as this, Singapore can be an excellent place to live. After all it has running trains, running buses and working telephones, things you may not enjoy in nearby Jakarta.
I also understand that Germany under Hitler from 1933 to 1938 also achieved great economic success. But as in Singapore of today, the Germans then were nothing but slaves to Hitler. Card carrying members of the Nazi Party just as card carrying members of Lee Kuan Yew's Peoples Action Party were the preferred citizens over others.
When I read daily of great Chinese achievements of more highways and even more high speed trains, just as in tiny Singapore of more highways and glass towers, I ask myself whether all this success is worth anything when you have slaves, dummies and ignorant morons as citizens. Just as you hear of the Chinese praising their government for these construction achievements and the average Singaporean moron who is happy to have a job and the mass transit trains, you begin to understand that is all that they want.
In both countries today, you have citizens so ignorant as to be unaware of such things as individual rights, quite content to serve a master that would continue to give them jobs, build more highways and even higher glass towers.
There are other thinking human beings who have the understanding to realize that these things alone don't matter much without rights. Unfortunately such citizens which the country needs the most have all left for Australia and other Western countries to bring up children and live; in countries where they are respected and have rights. To replace them, Lee Kuan Yew's Singapore have brought in hordes of people who have nothing more in their heads beyond a job and the high rise buildings. Without sufficient numbers of thinking and discerning individuals, I see no future for Singapore because just the modern trains and the glass towers are simply not enough.
Of course on a daily basis you cannot miss the sanguine uplifting mood of the Singaporean media reporting even more achievements upon achievements. But then you know all that is nothing more than just propaganda, with hardly any truth in it. As the saying goes, such totalitarian regimes looked good until the last 5 minutes.
Gopalan Nair
39737 Paseo Padre Parkway, Suite A1
Fremont, CA 94538, USA
Tel: 510 657 6107
Fax: 510 657 6914
Email: nair.gopalan@yahoo.com
Blog: http://singaporedissident.blogspot.com/
Your letters are welcome. We reserve the right to publish your letters. Please Email your letters to nair.gopalan@yahoo.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.
A close look at the Peoples Republic of China and Singapore will reveal surprising similarities, and I don't mean just how their people look.
Communist China does not claim to be a democracy but Singapore does, yet they are both exactly the same when it comes to government. In China, the Communist Party always rule while in Singapore, it is Lee Kuan Yew's People Action Party, always. Although it's Constitution claims free and fair elections every 5 years and every man and women a free and secret vote, nothing can be further from the truth. The Constitution of Singapore is the biggest piece of fraudulent paper that Lee sells to the world, which the world is slowly beginning to realize.
In Communist China, Xinhua News Agency as in Singapore, Singapore Press Holdings, the newspapers TV and radio are completely state controlled and tools of the government to advance national interest by telling you what you should know and concealing what you should not. In both countries, as expected, there is completely no investigative journalism, which means you will never hear of the state's shortcomings but only exaggerated claims of grandiose achievements. It is not only an insult to your intelligence but a deliberate harm inflicted on your mind for the benefit of Lee Kuan Yew and his government on the alleged claim that it is good for the country.
Singapore and and Communist Chinese children unlike their western counterparts are often seen as intimidated and afraid to question authority or to express their opinions publicly choosing instead to be introverted and shy. This sort of behaviour is encouraged by their teachers and parents who live in fear of their governments as protest against government actions can lead to reprisals and punishment. This sort of life under suppression and repression should not be something that any parent should desire for their children.
Singaporeans just as their Communist Chinese counterparts are not an equal partner in government but just slaves to comply with any government demand on the claim that it is in the national interest. In this way individual rights are completely denied in preference to so-called national interest. As an example, if your house or land has to be pulled down because they want to build a highway, or if you were paid completely inadequate compensation or none at all for it, you just have to accept it. If you were dismissed from your government job unfairly, just accept it. If your private employer dismissed you on the orders of the government, just accept it. Simply put, you have no rights. The laws on the books don't mean a thing. You are wrong and Lee Kuan Yew or his Singapore government is always right, get it into your thick head.
In both countries you have to understand to shut your mouth and do as you are told. The courts and the law are there to serve Lee Kuan Yew and his Peoples Action Party. They are also there to serve Lee Kuan Yew's supporters. So if you want to help yourself at the expanse of others, join the Peoples Action Party and become an official card carrying member. It helped in Franco's Spain, it helps in Communist China, it helped in Hitler's Germany and it also helps in Lee Kuan Yew's Singapore.
If you don't care of such things as rights, if it does not matter to you that Lee Kuan Yew and his family steal your taxpayers money to the tune of $3.7 million a year which they call salary, if it does not matter to you that you have no rights whatsoever because the courts and the judges work for Lee Kuan Yew alone, if it does not matter that the police can pick you up anytime they want and beat you anytime they want, if you don't care that you are fed only propaganda and not news, if you are happy with a life such as this, Singapore can be an excellent place to live. After all it has running trains, running buses and working telephones, things you may not enjoy in nearby Jakarta.
I also understand that Germany under Hitler from 1933 to 1938 also achieved great economic success. But as in Singapore of today, the Germans then were nothing but slaves to Hitler. Card carrying members of the Nazi Party just as card carrying members of Lee Kuan Yew's Peoples Action Party were the preferred citizens over others.
When I read daily of great Chinese achievements of more highways and even more high speed trains, just as in tiny Singapore of more highways and glass towers, I ask myself whether all this success is worth anything when you have slaves, dummies and ignorant morons as citizens. Just as you hear of the Chinese praising their government for these construction achievements and the average Singaporean moron who is happy to have a job and the mass transit trains, you begin to understand that is all that they want.
In both countries today, you have citizens so ignorant as to be unaware of such things as individual rights, quite content to serve a master that would continue to give them jobs, build more highways and even higher glass towers.
There are other thinking human beings who have the understanding to realize that these things alone don't matter much without rights. Unfortunately such citizens which the country needs the most have all left for Australia and other Western countries to bring up children and live; in countries where they are respected and have rights. To replace them, Lee Kuan Yew's Singapore have brought in hordes of people who have nothing more in their heads beyond a job and the high rise buildings. Without sufficient numbers of thinking and discerning individuals, I see no future for Singapore because just the modern trains and the glass towers are simply not enough.
Of course on a daily basis you cannot miss the sanguine uplifting mood of the Singaporean media reporting even more achievements upon achievements. But then you know all that is nothing more than just propaganda, with hardly any truth in it. As the saying goes, such totalitarian regimes looked good until the last 5 minutes.
Gopalan Nair
39737 Paseo Padre Parkway, Suite A1
Fremont, CA 94538, USA
Tel: 510 657 6107
Fax: 510 657 6914
Email: nair.gopalan@yahoo.com
Blog: http://singaporedissident.blogspot.com/
Your letters are welcome. We reserve the right to publish your letters. Please Email your letters to nair.gopalan@yahoo.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.
Monday, December 27, 2010
Singapore Law Society vs Gopalan Nair, a silenced Singaporean Law Society
Ladies and Gentlemen,
I don't think there is another case anywhere in the world than this, where a country's Law Society claims a lawyer had misbehaved, commences proceedings against him with a loud fanfare and extensive publicity in their state controlled press, designed to humiliate and discredit him, but when that lawyer stands up to them, they instead cringe and is completely silenced. This is exactly what is happening in this case of Law Society of Singapore vs Gopalan Nair.
I have the following important questions for the Singapore Law Society in this case:
1. The main charge against me in these proceedings is for criticizing Singapore Judge Belinda Ang Saw Ean in this blog dated May 29, 2008, for which I was tried and convicted in September 2008. If they felt that my writing the blog was unethical, why did they not commence disciplinary proceedings against me then?
Why did something that was not offensive then suddenly become actionable conduct several months later? Are they so inefficient or inept not to see unethical conduct for several months after it happens?
In fact after I returned to California in November of that year, they still did nothing, choosing to commence proceedings only after I withdrew the apology in this blog, given in the Singapore court and re-posting the 2 blog posts which I had deleted under orders of the court.
Was the reason for commencing proceedings some five months later, because I decided to break my undertaking to the Singapore court or was it a genuine claim of unethical conduct? Or was it because their ego was so hurt that it was a knee jerk reaction of lashing out at someone willing to snub his nose at them, something they have never experienced in their one party dictatorship, where fear alone rules the day?
2. The Singapore Law Society is facing the same problem above mentioned in every one of the charges against me. The dilemma they face is how to proceed when your cause has been shown to have no merit at all.
3. And why is the Singapore Disciplinary Committee not giving their verdict even though their Law Society have filed their final submissions in November of this year? What is causing this additional delay? As Singapore propaganda claims to have efficiency in legal administration, meaning speed, with cases decided almost at breakneck speed, why then in this case alone is justice going at snails pace?
4. There can only be the following reasons for their hesitation. For one, they have found a very difficult victim in Gopalan Nair. He has put every single fact about this abuse of the law in the Internet. For once, the cat is out of the bag, and they have now to justify to the world their actions, which they find difficult under any circumstance.
So instead of proceeding now, they hope to delay this even longer in the hope that this episode which appears to have taken an unexpected turn, occasioned by an unwilling victim, would dull and fade in the minds of Singaporeans and the world, and perhaps some long time later, when people no longer remember, they will then proceed and have me disbarred.
But the problem the Singapore government faces is the fact that I am not going to allow them to get away so easily. I am going to constantly remind the public of the abuse of the law in this case, and it is going to remain a thorn on the side of this one party dictatorship and their state controlled judiciary and their Law Society for as long as it takes.
Since the Singapore Law Society is an extension of the one party state government under whose orders they commence politically motivated disciplinary proceedings such as this to silence dissent, I would ask the reader to write to the following government officers and the Law Society President for a well deserved explanation:
Singaporean Attorney General Sundaresh Menon, Tel: (65) 63325950, Email: shirleyne_chan@agc.gov.sg
Singapore Minister of Law, K Shanmugam, Tel: (65) 63328810, Email: k_shanmugam@mlaw.gov.sg
Singaporean Minister for Home Affairs, Wong Kan Seng, Tel: (65)64786000 Email: wong_kan_seng@mha.gov.sg
Singapore Law Society President, Wong Meng Meng, Wong PartnershipLLP, 1 George Street, #20-01, Singapore 049145, Tel: (65)64168000, Email: mengmeng.wong@wongpartnership.com
These people who take advantage of a state controlled legal system to destroy Lee Kuan Yew's political opponents hate anyone challenging their actions.
I urge those within and outside of Singapore to stand up to these bullies. Please demand answers and hold them accountable.
The more they delay the greater their loss of credibility. As it is, despite several months since they have commenced this, they have become as quiet as a mouse. Thank you and a Happy New Year.
Gopalan Nair
39737 Paseo Padre Parkway, Suite A1
Fremont, CA 94538, USA
Tel: 510 657 6107
Fax: 510 657 6914
Email: nair.gopalan@yahoo.com
Blog: http://singaporedissident.blogspot.com/
Your letters are welcome. We reserve the right to publish your letters. Please Email your letters to nair.gopalan@yahoo.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.
I don't think there is another case anywhere in the world than this, where a country's Law Society claims a lawyer had misbehaved, commences proceedings against him with a loud fanfare and extensive publicity in their state controlled press, designed to humiliate and discredit him, but when that lawyer stands up to them, they instead cringe and is completely silenced. This is exactly what is happening in this case of Law Society of Singapore vs Gopalan Nair.
I have the following important questions for the Singapore Law Society in this case:
1. The main charge against me in these proceedings is for criticizing Singapore Judge Belinda Ang Saw Ean in this blog dated May 29, 2008, for which I was tried and convicted in September 2008. If they felt that my writing the blog was unethical, why did they not commence disciplinary proceedings against me then?
Why did something that was not offensive then suddenly become actionable conduct several months later? Are they so inefficient or inept not to see unethical conduct for several months after it happens?
In fact after I returned to California in November of that year, they still did nothing, choosing to commence proceedings only after I withdrew the apology in this blog, given in the Singapore court and re-posting the 2 blog posts which I had deleted under orders of the court.
Was the reason for commencing proceedings some five months later, because I decided to break my undertaking to the Singapore court or was it a genuine claim of unethical conduct? Or was it because their ego was so hurt that it was a knee jerk reaction of lashing out at someone willing to snub his nose at them, something they have never experienced in their one party dictatorship, where fear alone rules the day?
2. The Singapore Law Society is facing the same problem above mentioned in every one of the charges against me. The dilemma they face is how to proceed when your cause has been shown to have no merit at all.
3. And why is the Singapore Disciplinary Committee not giving their verdict even though their Law Society have filed their final submissions in November of this year? What is causing this additional delay? As Singapore propaganda claims to have efficiency in legal administration, meaning speed, with cases decided almost at breakneck speed, why then in this case alone is justice going at snails pace?
4. There can only be the following reasons for their hesitation. For one, they have found a very difficult victim in Gopalan Nair. He has put every single fact about this abuse of the law in the Internet. For once, the cat is out of the bag, and they have now to justify to the world their actions, which they find difficult under any circumstance.
So instead of proceeding now, they hope to delay this even longer in the hope that this episode which appears to have taken an unexpected turn, occasioned by an unwilling victim, would dull and fade in the minds of Singaporeans and the world, and perhaps some long time later, when people no longer remember, they will then proceed and have me disbarred.
But the problem the Singapore government faces is the fact that I am not going to allow them to get away so easily. I am going to constantly remind the public of the abuse of the law in this case, and it is going to remain a thorn on the side of this one party dictatorship and their state controlled judiciary and their Law Society for as long as it takes.
Since the Singapore Law Society is an extension of the one party state government under whose orders they commence politically motivated disciplinary proceedings such as this to silence dissent, I would ask the reader to write to the following government officers and the Law Society President for a well deserved explanation:
Singaporean Attorney General Sundaresh Menon, Tel: (65) 63325950, Email: shirleyne_chan@agc.gov.sg
Singapore Minister of Law, K Shanmugam, Tel: (65) 63328810, Email: k_shanmugam@mlaw.gov.sg
Singaporean Minister for Home Affairs, Wong Kan Seng, Tel: (65)64786000 Email: wong_kan_seng@mha.gov.sg
Singapore Law Society President, Wong Meng Meng, Wong PartnershipLLP, 1 George Street, #20-01, Singapore 049145, Tel: (65)64168000, Email: mengmeng.wong@wongpartnership.com
These people who take advantage of a state controlled legal system to destroy Lee Kuan Yew's political opponents hate anyone challenging their actions.
I urge those within and outside of Singapore to stand up to these bullies. Please demand answers and hold them accountable.
The more they delay the greater their loss of credibility. As it is, despite several months since they have commenced this, they have become as quiet as a mouse. Thank you and a Happy New Year.
Gopalan Nair
39737 Paseo Padre Parkway, Suite A1
Fremont, CA 94538, USA
Tel: 510 657 6107
Fax: 510 657 6914
Email: nair.gopalan@yahoo.com
Blog: http://singaporedissident.blogspot.com/
Your letters are welcome. We reserve the right to publish your letters. Please Email your letters to nair.gopalan@yahoo.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.
Thursday, December 23, 2010
Law Society of Singapore vs Gopalan Nair, two plus two is fifty eight!
Edited 12/25/2010
Ladies and Gentlemen,
The Singapore Law Society had set out its arguments to the Disciplinary Committee on why I should be disbarred. The following are my extracts of their written Closing Submissions dated Oct 19, 2010 with my responses. The Singaporean Disciplinary Committee have not yet come to a decision even though it has been more than 2 years since the incident involving Singapore Judge Belinda Ang Saw Ean in 2008.
The lawyer representing the Singapore Law Society, who makes the following arguments is Peter Cuthbert Low, a local Singapore Chinese lawyer with an English sounding name of Colin Ng and Partners, 36 Carpenter Street, Singapore 6323 8383, Email: peterlow@cnplaw.com. If you outraged, disturbed or amused, or all of them, give him a piece of your mind.
So as not to forget what I am accused of, I set out the following:
Charge 1. Between the 26th of May 2008 and the 28th of May 2008, I was in a courtroom in the High Court Singapore, having just arrived from San Francisco, to observe the defamation case for damages between Lee Kuan Yew and Dr. Chee Soon Juan, his victim.
The judge appointed to do the dirty work for Lee Kuan Yew, was a woman Judge Belinda Ang Saw Ean who conducted, what was to be for 3 days, a mockery of justice, a charade and a Stalinist show trial.
Both Lee Kuan Yew's lawyer Davinder Singh in collaboration with the Judge appeared as if they there to give anything the former wanted, to shut up Dr. Chee completely. Every single thing he said was ruled out, every argument declared irrelevant or improper, repeatedly threatened with contempt charges, and in the end as was expected she not only awarded Lee Kuan Yew whatever he wanted, she also sent Dr. Chee and his sister to jail for contempt for their temerity to have asked the Singapore Superman Lee Kuan Yew even the handful of questions they did.
After having listened to that shameful travesty of justice, you might have thought that the trial of the Rabbit who Stole the Tart in Alice in Wonderland was a far fairer trial than this. I was nauseated with the spectacle of this woman judge Belinda Ang Saw Ean bending so low and so shamelessly for Lee Kuan Yew.
Naturally I was angry, which red blooded human being wouldn't. So on May 29, 2008 in this blog, I wrote the post titled "Singapore. Judge Belinda Ang's Kangaroo Court", in which I had mentioned a number of clear egregious instances of bias by this Judge and added the words "The judge Belinda Ang was throughout prostituting herself during the entire proceedings, by being nothing more than an employee of Mr. Lee Kuan Yew and his son and carrying out their orders." These words were a correct use of the English language, as "prostituting oneself" in all dictionaries means the abuse of authority by an officer for dishonest or base means as Judge Belinda Ang Saw Ean so shamelessly did. Please read this blog post of May 29, 2008.
The blog's contents were not only proper in this egregious outrage of a judge publicly misusing the law, it was also necessary to be said. I stand by what I said and will gladly say it again. And again.
In a trial that lasted 11 days, for writing this blog I was charged and convicted of insulting a public servant and sent to prison for 3 months.
Nowhere in the world would I be disbarred for criticizing a disgraceful judge such as this in a blog, except I suppose in Singapore.
Charges 2 and 3. The next 2 charges refers to an incident near Little India, a district in Singapore frequented by Indians on July 4th 2008, American Independence Day, when I was accosted by about 6 men, not in uniform who demanded to know who I was and demanded to see my identity card while accusing me of "knocking" on their police car which was about 30 feet away. Not knowing who they were I naturally refused when I was abruptly assaulted, violently tackled, pinned to the ground, causing me injuries to the face and damage to my glasses. Subsequently they concocted a story that I had hurled abuses at them and behaved in a rowdy (disorderly) manner. In a trial that lasted as long as 18 days, I was eventually found guilty and sentenced to a fine of $3,000.00. I paid the fine.
The Singapore Law Society’s Lawyer’s charge prominently features the following obscenities which they claim I said "F***ck off. You policemen don't waste my time F***king time, "B***tard" etc etc.” What this lawyer for the Law Society is trying to do is to highlight these words and argue that a lawyer who loses his temper and yells vulgarities as policemen should be disbarred. Although I never said any of this, which is a product of their desperate imagination to make me look bad, I would like to tell him that losing one's temper with policemen and yelling at them with vulgarities is not a ground for disbarring a lawyer in any part of the world, except perhaps Lee Kuan Yew's Singapore.
I never did any of what they have said. The only reason I can imagine for my arrest and conviction, was because they knew who I was and therefore an excellent opportunity for them to claim that I was a rowdy character, which would make their Belinda Ang Saw Ean case due to be heard soon, much easier for them. Even though their state controlled newspapers reported that 25 members of the public had watched my arrest, the only witnesses Sargent Vickneswaran Sockalingam, the Police Investigating Officer produced at trial were the 5 police officers who one after the other repeated exactly what was required to be said in a well rehearsed manner. For all you want they could have all said that I sang the latest Michael Jackson tunes and danced the Tango and the judge would still have accepted it.
Charge 4. After I was convicted in the Judge Belinda Ang Saw Ean case and staying in prison, about November 12, 2008, just one week before my release, the police visited me and told me that I am now facing more charges, this time for contempt of court for remarks I made during my trial for yelling at policemen, because, according to them, I had made certain remarks that had offended the integrity of the courts, statements such as "these are politically motivated charges", and comments of similar nature! Naturally I was surprised why they were coming up with this now, since earlier the judge himself took no action when I was in court. If he was unhappy, surely the right thing for him to do was to charge me in his presence! Since he never took any action himself then, which we can assume to mean that he was not unhappy, how is it they come up with it weeks or months later! That is why I keep repeating that this is a classic Kangaroo court.
I did believe that the charges before the court in the yelling case was politically motivated and that is why I said it. I would say it again if necessary, because that was the truth. At no time did I personally insult the judge which is what is necessary for a contempt charge.
Nevertheless I was brought to court the next day from prison in chains and asked to answer to these new contempt charges. Not wanting to stay a day longer in jail, I apologized and promised not to repeat any such criticism again and offered to delete 2 blog posts about that court hearing in this blog. In other words I did anything the judge wanted so as not to prolong my detention and in return no more jail time was imposed. I was released the next week after having spent 2 months in prison for the Belinda Ang Saw Ean case, and returned to California.
However since I had no intention to apologize nor delete those blog posts, which I did so that my detention will not be extended, immediately after I returned to California on Nov 2008, I retracted my apology in this blog, and re-posted the 2 blog posts which were earlier removed.
In this charge, I am accused of reneging on the apology and re-posting the 2 blog posts after my return to California.
Charge 5 again refers to a blog post I wrote after I returned to California concerning Singapore Judge Judith Prakash who had sentenced 3 men to jail sentences just because they wore T shirts with pictures of a Kangaroo dressed in judicial robes.
It is titled "Judith Prakash. Another Kangaroo Judge" of Nov 30, 2008. The men were found in the vicinity of the Belinda Ang Saw Ean's court. They did nothing objectionable, did not chant any slogans or do anything else illegal. Wearing T shirts with pictures of Kangaroos is not a contempt of court. In this blog post, in addition to stating the facts I wrote the words:
" Judge Judith Prakash of the Supreme Court Singapore had prostituted herself in her capacity as a judge hearing the Kangaroo T shirt case on November 24, 2008 by being nothing more than an employee of Lee Kuan Yew and his son, whom he appointed Prime Minister. By her actions in sending these young men to prison and making them pay crippling court costs of $5,000.00 each, she has shamefully disgraced herself, her office of a judge, disgraced the Singapore Constitution and disgraced Singapore." The charge refers to this.
Failure to provide discovery: Singapore's Law Society Lawyer has sent me a bundle among other papers titled Complainants Bundle of Authorities Volume 3, but he has not sent Volume 1 or 2 if these were supposed to be sent. The bundle has some cases but he conveniently leaves out cases which are clearly inapplicable, but refers to passages from them anyway, a highly disgraceful practice .
What this lawyer is trying to argue: Other than a lot of verbiage about the meaning of statutes and such like which is nothing more than a waste of print paper, he says, because of an English case, In re a Solicitor (1960)2 QB 212, he argues that like that English lawyer I should be disbarred. He conveniently fails to provide the full law report, but the little he provides about it goes like this. The lawyer was convicted in 1956 of 2 cases of indecent assault under Sec 34(15) of the Metropolitan Police Act and given the maximum sentence possible. The Singapore Law Society conveniently fails to state what exactly these 2 serious indecent assaults in 1956 involved. Did they involve molesting young children or molesting multiple women in broad daylight? What indecent assaults did he do? For this the lawyer was suspended from practice for 2 years. Subsequently in 1959, he was charged with insulting behavior where a breach of the peace occurred, for which he was disbarred, but again Singaporean Law Society lawyer provides no more details.
Either he takes us all for a bunch of fools or he himself is one. This English case has as much relevance to may case as a lion is similar to a mouse or a sparrow to an eagle, or bloody murder to pickpockets.
For one I have not committed 2 serious cases of indecent assault on anyone and I unlike the English lawyer is a Singapore dissident and democracy activist working hard to topple the Lee Kuan Yew regime. I am working in the public interest for a just cause unlike that English lawyer. Instead of facing disciplinary proceedings, I should be honored and appreciated for my work, which I happy to state ordinary Singaporeans and the rest of the world do.
Singaporean Law Society then refers to another case to justify my disbarment which he again conveniently fails to provide either the full law report or the full facts. In Law Society of Singapore vs Wong Sin Yee, he was charged and convicted of assaulting another as well as saying the words "why you call your father, call Lee Kuan Yew or f*****ing police". Except to say that this man assaulted someone, he did not say how many bones he broke, whether the man lost consciousness, why did he beat the man, was it premeditated, was it related to his client etc. Again this case has no comparison to mine. I have not assaulted anyone. And neither have I yelled at anyone. And even if I yelled at anyone, it cannot possibly be a ground for disbarring anyone.
Again, the Singaporean Law Society's lawyer argues that in Law Society Singapore v Tham Yu Xian Rick (1999) 3 SLR (R) 68, the fact that the offense was unrelated to his professional work did not matter. But here again, except to say this, he conveniently fails either to provide the full law report on this case or to give us the facts. For all we know, Tham Yu Xian may have raped several women and even though raping several women was not part of his law practice, surely he can be disbarred. But I have not raped several women, if in fact Tham Yu Xian Rick actually did it. Here again we see the Singapore Law Society's dishonesty in selectively concealing the facts by relying on mere sentences taken out of context to further their case.
The Singaporean Law Society Lawyer then cites the case of Re Knight Glen Jeyasingham (1994) 3 SLR(R)366, where Jeyasingham was convicted under Section 6(c) of the Prevention of Corruption Act of using a false vehicle invoice to deceive his principle for which he was disbarred. Although the Law Society lawyer does not give any further information, it is common knowledge that Jeyasingham was a senior member of the Attorney Generals office who suddenly fell out of grace with Lee Kuan Yew government after which through a surprising series of events daily reported in the state controlled press, he was charged with criminal offices involving criminal breach of trust, which involved misusing his authority and office of Public Prosecutor, convicted of crimes and disbarred. Again Jeyasingham’s case of using a false vehicle invoice to deceive his principle has absolutely nothing to do with my case, no similarity whatsoever.
The Singaporean Law Society Lawyer then refers to the case of Re Hilborne (1983 to 1984)SLR(R)322, where "Hilborne marched unannounced and without prior appointment into the private chamber of a Judge alone, was discourteous rude and insolent to the late judge. He threatened to report the judge to high authority and addressed the judge in an angry manner". Hilborne was asked to show cause but since he was an Englishman returned to England and had nothing more to do with Singapore or their legal system. I on the other hand have not been discourteous to any judge in any courtroom or chambers. I did write a blog post in this blog about Belinda Ang Saw Ean. This case of Hilborne has absolutely no relevance to mine, again an instance of comparing of apples with oranges.
The Singaporean Law Society lawyer refers to another politically motivated case against me which was decided in 1993, at which time I was already in California. The case is Re Gopalan Nair (1993)1SLR375. The background to this case is as follows. In the late 1980s, JB Jeyaretnam was a staunch critic of Lee Kuan Yew. This is what happened. Lee Kuan Yew sued Jeyaretnam for several hundred thousands of dollars for defamation and won, as he always does.
Unable to pay Lee Kuan Yew, Jeyaretnam's Workers Party was made bankrupt. Jeyaretnam was trying to raise funds to pay this, because otherwise he too would be bankrupt. He asked the public for donations and asked me to be his trustee for the funds which I gladly agreed.
Among the many checks from donors, were 2 checks for small amounts about $100 or so payable to the Workers Party. Jeyaretnam had asked them to change the name of the payee from Workers Party to Jeyaretnam because, if the money went to Workers Party which was under bankruptcy, Jeyaretnam would not receive the money since it would go the Government Trustee. It appears the 2 gladly changed the payee's name to Jeyaretnam. As a result of this, even though the law was very clear that the money does not belong to Workers Party until they receive it, and the drawer of the check is free to change the name of the payee anytime, the Singapore court found Jeyaretnam guilty of criminal breach of trust and convicted him. The Government (or Lee Kuan Yew’s argument), believe it or not, was that once the drawer of the check writes a payee’s name, any attempt to change it to someone else is a breach of trust against the original payee!
Secondly, arising from these 2 checks, Jeyaretnam did not disclose these funds in his financial declaration of the Workers Party since this money did not belong to the party, but the court found that the money was indeed that of the party and convicted him of making a false declaration.
As a result Jeyaretnam was convicted of these false criminal offenses and disbarred. Jeyaretnam appealed his disbarment to the Privy Council in London. The parties to the case were JB Jeyaretnam and the Singaporean Law Society.
At the commencement of the London hearing the Judges had specifically asked the lawyer for the Singaporean Law Society in the 1980s, whether the Singapore Attorney General was aware of the hearing and whether he wanted to be heard, since the court was going to look into the legality of Jeyaretnam's alleged crimes. The answer the judges got from the Law Society lawyer was that the Singapore Attorney General, Tan Boon Teik was aware of the hearing and had not filed any request to appear in the proceedings. Satisfied with that the court went on the hear the case.
At the conclusion of the hearing their Lordships in London correctly stated the law that Jeyaretnam was not guilty of any crimes and made the following scathing attack on Singapore's corrupt legal system,
"Their Lordships have to record their deep disquiet that by a series of misjudgments, the appellant and his co-accused Wong, have suffered a grievous injustice. They have been fined, imprisoned and publicly disgraced for offences of which they are not guilty. The appellant, in addition, has been deprived of his seat in Parliament and disqualified for a year from practicing his profession. Their Lordships order restores him to the roll of advocates and solicitors of the Supreme Court of Singapore, but, because of the course taken by the criminal proceedings, their Lordships have no power to right the other wrongs which the appellant and Wong have suffered. Their only prospect of redress, their Lordships understand, will be by way of petition for pardon to the President of the Republic of Singapore."
This was a slap in the face for Lee Kuan Yew and a public humiliation of monumental proportions to his legal system which for the first time told the world that Lee Kuan Yew uses the law with the collaboration and connivance of his judges, prosecutors and the police to abuse the law for his political ends.
When Jeyaretnam returned from London with the verdict, he was certainly in high spirits. He could resume his practice and the English court vindicated his good name and showed Lee Kuan Yew and his government as nothing more than a tin pot dictatorship.
As the law then stood, although the London court could reinstate Jeyaretnam to the Singapore Bar, they could not reverse the criminal convictions against him since Singapore law only allowed criminal cases to appeal up to the Singapore High Court and no more. Therefore the only avenue available to Jeyartenam to clear his name was a request for a pardon from the President of Singapore.
Jeyaretnam did proceed to apply for a pardon which the President of Singapore denied through his Attorney General, Tan Boon Teik. Tan's letter as to why he refused the pardon was published in Singapore's state controlled press. His reasons were that 1)"because JB Jeyaretnam did not show remorse repentance and contrition for the crimes he committed, the President will not pardon him" and 2) because he (Tan Boon Teik) was not given an opportunity to appear at the London hearing the verdict of the court is flawed. But surely there is something wrong here. If in fact the London's Privy Council had said he is not guilty of any crimes, how does one show "remorse, repentance and contrition" for a crime one did not commit! If in fact anyone should show "remorse repentance and contrition" it should surely be Lee Kuan Yew himself for the crimes he committed by disgracefully misusing the law to destroy his political opponents.
This is where I come in. Naturally I was very angry reading Tan Boon Teik's response. So I wrote to Tan asking him why he says Jeyaretnam committed crimes when the Privy Council categorically stated that he was innocent and why did he say that he was not given an opportunity to appear in the London court when the Judges clearly asked about this and were told he did not want to appear. Tan's first response to me was that he was not involved and that if I needed answers I should ask Jeyaretnam. Not satisfied with his answer which was clearly unresponsive, I sent him another very polite letter telling him that his statements were contrary to the facts and that he should explain himself, otherwise I will make public the correspondence between him and me within 14 days. Not receiving any further response from him, I faxed my letters to him and his to me to all lawyers in Singapore.
The Singapore Law Society through the insistence of Tan brought charges, which were that I threatened the Attorney General demanding responses and threatening to publish them, that I threatened the Attorney General to give me satisfactory replies within a stipulated time and that I falsely accused the Attorney General of not wanting to be heard at Jeyaretnam's trial in London. After a prolonged Disciplinary hearing which lasted several months in Singapore, in which Martin Thomas QC, Jeyaretnam's London lawyer and Rose QC, the Singapore Law Society's London Counsel also gave evidence, I was found guilty. Before the matter came to the High Court of Singapore for sentencing, soon after I was found guilty, I left Singapore permanently in disgust, not wanting to practice in a Kangaroo court system like this. In 1993 when I was already in California, the matter came before three judges in the High Court, 2 of them being Yong Pong Howe and GP Selvam who suspended me from practice for 2 years.
There could not have been a greater travesty of justice than this. There is obviously nothing wrong for a lawyer to write a letter to an Attorney General demanding an explanation and telling him that if an explanation is not received within a stipulated time, those letters would be publicly distributed. I did not threaten to harm him or do anything to him. Yet surely this "threat", which they call a “threat” which was to publish correspondence for the public to know and telling him that what he said about not having a chance to appear in the London court was untrue cannot possibly be unethical. Yet the Singapore Law Society is trying to use my own case for being suspended for 2 years from practicing law just because I demanded answers from the Attorney General to have me disbarred!
From that moment, I made up my mind that I am going to fight this dictatorship for as along as I can which is why these proceedings are going on.
The Singaporean Law Society Lawyer then refers to the case of Ravi Madasamy (2007)2SLR(R) 300, where Madasamy admitted to a number of occasions where he had shown disrespect to a judge/judges before whom he appeared for his clients. He was suspended from practice for this for one year. Madasamy's case is nowhere similar to mine, again a case of comparing apples to oranges. I was never discourteous to any judge before whom I appeared. I wrote a blog post criticizing Judge Belinda Ang Saw Ean's egregious absence of integrity as a judge and I stated with all decorum and civility in my "yelling at policemen case" that the case brought against me was politically motivated. Madasamy on the other hand decides to be disrespectful to the judge before whom he appears in court.
The Singaporean Law Society Lawyer has several more pages and passages where he states that I had shown no remorse, that I had no respect for the Singapore courts and that I had breached my undertaking to the court in Singapore when I withdrew my apology which I gave to the judge for the contempt charges. Yes I have no respect whatsoever for this puny tin pot tyrant's courts in Singapore which has now undoubtedly become the laughing stock of the world. You now have only 3,000 lawyers or less left in a country of 5 million and very soon with even more leaving; you will have to represent both sides of the argument.
Lee Kuan Yew, I can tell you is a fool. Abusing the law to stay in power is simply counter productive. It simply will not work.
This Internet is not good for the one party dictatorship which this Singapore lawyer is trying to protect. This blog post is going to be read throughout the world, mainly by Singaporeans Americans Australians and the rest of the world. It is not going to look good for the one party state with an 88 year despot who will die anytime soon.
I am waiting for the Disciplinary committee to make its finding which they have not yet done although it has been more than 2 years since the accusation, the delay very probably is because they don't know what to do now. With the Internet and everything about this case in the open, they are hard pressed to come up with a justification for disbarment, which is what they want to do. As the saying goes, I have got them by the neck.
And furthermore once the Committee decides, the matter would have to go the court which will decide the punishment.
I am not going to stop this work. I am thankful to God for this opportunity to fight the one party state which retains power by abusing the law.
As my case continues to unfold in public, I expect even more Singapore lawyers to either leave the profession or leave the country entirely in disgust as they have been doing to the present pathetic state of less than 3,000 lawyers. This is a pressure the one party state cannot possibly withstand.
This issue will continue to be alive and will be read in places as far away as Israel and Byelorussia. And what is written in this blog will exist for the world to read in perpetuity, which surely has to be very bad news for Lee Kuan Yew’s one party state and it’s state controlled judiciary.
And finally one piece of advice to this Singapore establishment. Pick your victims carefully, and try to avoid those such as myself who have an education and are passionate about such things as freedom. They may not roll over and act dead as you expect. Some of them may fight back, and in this day of the Internet, it may be you, not him that gets hurt.
Gopalan Nair
39737 Paseo Padre Parkway, Suite A1
Fremont, CA 94538, USA
Tel: 510 657 6107
Fax: 510 657 6914
Email: nair.gopalan@yahoo.com
Blog: http://singaporedissident.blogspot.com/
Your letters are welcome. We reserve the right to publish your letters. Please Email your letters to nair.gopalan@yahoo.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.
Ladies and Gentlemen,
The Singapore Law Society had set out its arguments to the Disciplinary Committee on why I should be disbarred. The following are my extracts of their written Closing Submissions dated Oct 19, 2010 with my responses. The Singaporean Disciplinary Committee have not yet come to a decision even though it has been more than 2 years since the incident involving Singapore Judge Belinda Ang Saw Ean in 2008.
The lawyer representing the Singapore Law Society, who makes the following arguments is Peter Cuthbert Low, a local Singapore Chinese lawyer with an English sounding name of Colin Ng and Partners, 36 Carpenter Street, Singapore 6323 8383, Email: peterlow@cnplaw.com. If you outraged, disturbed or amused, or all of them, give him a piece of your mind.
So as not to forget what I am accused of, I set out the following:
Charge 1. Between the 26th of May 2008 and the 28th of May 2008, I was in a courtroom in the High Court Singapore, having just arrived from San Francisco, to observe the defamation case for damages between Lee Kuan Yew and Dr. Chee Soon Juan, his victim.
The judge appointed to do the dirty work for Lee Kuan Yew, was a woman Judge Belinda Ang Saw Ean who conducted, what was to be for 3 days, a mockery of justice, a charade and a Stalinist show trial.
Both Lee Kuan Yew's lawyer Davinder Singh in collaboration with the Judge appeared as if they there to give anything the former wanted, to shut up Dr. Chee completely. Every single thing he said was ruled out, every argument declared irrelevant or improper, repeatedly threatened with contempt charges, and in the end as was expected she not only awarded Lee Kuan Yew whatever he wanted, she also sent Dr. Chee and his sister to jail for contempt for their temerity to have asked the Singapore Superman Lee Kuan Yew even the handful of questions they did.
After having listened to that shameful travesty of justice, you might have thought that the trial of the Rabbit who Stole the Tart in Alice in Wonderland was a far fairer trial than this. I was nauseated with the spectacle of this woman judge Belinda Ang Saw Ean bending so low and so shamelessly for Lee Kuan Yew.
Naturally I was angry, which red blooded human being wouldn't. So on May 29, 2008 in this blog, I wrote the post titled "Singapore. Judge Belinda Ang's Kangaroo Court", in which I had mentioned a number of clear egregious instances of bias by this Judge and added the words "The judge Belinda Ang was throughout prostituting herself during the entire proceedings, by being nothing more than an employee of Mr. Lee Kuan Yew and his son and carrying out their orders." These words were a correct use of the English language, as "prostituting oneself" in all dictionaries means the abuse of authority by an officer for dishonest or base means as Judge Belinda Ang Saw Ean so shamelessly did. Please read this blog post of May 29, 2008.
The blog's contents were not only proper in this egregious outrage of a judge publicly misusing the law, it was also necessary to be said. I stand by what I said and will gladly say it again. And again.
In a trial that lasted 11 days, for writing this blog I was charged and convicted of insulting a public servant and sent to prison for 3 months.
Nowhere in the world would I be disbarred for criticizing a disgraceful judge such as this in a blog, except I suppose in Singapore.
Charges 2 and 3. The next 2 charges refers to an incident near Little India, a district in Singapore frequented by Indians on July 4th 2008, American Independence Day, when I was accosted by about 6 men, not in uniform who demanded to know who I was and demanded to see my identity card while accusing me of "knocking" on their police car which was about 30 feet away. Not knowing who they were I naturally refused when I was abruptly assaulted, violently tackled, pinned to the ground, causing me injuries to the face and damage to my glasses. Subsequently they concocted a story that I had hurled abuses at them and behaved in a rowdy (disorderly) manner. In a trial that lasted as long as 18 days, I was eventually found guilty and sentenced to a fine of $3,000.00. I paid the fine.
The Singapore Law Society’s Lawyer’s charge prominently features the following obscenities which they claim I said "F***ck off. You policemen don't waste my time F***king time, "B***tard" etc etc.” What this lawyer for the Law Society is trying to do is to highlight these words and argue that a lawyer who loses his temper and yells vulgarities as policemen should be disbarred. Although I never said any of this, which is a product of their desperate imagination to make me look bad, I would like to tell him that losing one's temper with policemen and yelling at them with vulgarities is not a ground for disbarring a lawyer in any part of the world, except perhaps Lee Kuan Yew's Singapore.
I never did any of what they have said. The only reason I can imagine for my arrest and conviction, was because they knew who I was and therefore an excellent opportunity for them to claim that I was a rowdy character, which would make their Belinda Ang Saw Ean case due to be heard soon, much easier for them. Even though their state controlled newspapers reported that 25 members of the public had watched my arrest, the only witnesses Sargent Vickneswaran Sockalingam, the Police Investigating Officer produced at trial were the 5 police officers who one after the other repeated exactly what was required to be said in a well rehearsed manner. For all you want they could have all said that I sang the latest Michael Jackson tunes and danced the Tango and the judge would still have accepted it.
Charge 4. After I was convicted in the Judge Belinda Ang Saw Ean case and staying in prison, about November 12, 2008, just one week before my release, the police visited me and told me that I am now facing more charges, this time for contempt of court for remarks I made during my trial for yelling at policemen, because, according to them, I had made certain remarks that had offended the integrity of the courts, statements such as "these are politically motivated charges", and comments of similar nature! Naturally I was surprised why they were coming up with this now, since earlier the judge himself took no action when I was in court. If he was unhappy, surely the right thing for him to do was to charge me in his presence! Since he never took any action himself then, which we can assume to mean that he was not unhappy, how is it they come up with it weeks or months later! That is why I keep repeating that this is a classic Kangaroo court.
I did believe that the charges before the court in the yelling case was politically motivated and that is why I said it. I would say it again if necessary, because that was the truth. At no time did I personally insult the judge which is what is necessary for a contempt charge.
Nevertheless I was brought to court the next day from prison in chains and asked to answer to these new contempt charges. Not wanting to stay a day longer in jail, I apologized and promised not to repeat any such criticism again and offered to delete 2 blog posts about that court hearing in this blog. In other words I did anything the judge wanted so as not to prolong my detention and in return no more jail time was imposed. I was released the next week after having spent 2 months in prison for the Belinda Ang Saw Ean case, and returned to California.
However since I had no intention to apologize nor delete those blog posts, which I did so that my detention will not be extended, immediately after I returned to California on Nov 2008, I retracted my apology in this blog, and re-posted the 2 blog posts which were earlier removed.
In this charge, I am accused of reneging on the apology and re-posting the 2 blog posts after my return to California.
Charge 5 again refers to a blog post I wrote after I returned to California concerning Singapore Judge Judith Prakash who had sentenced 3 men to jail sentences just because they wore T shirts with pictures of a Kangaroo dressed in judicial robes.
It is titled "Judith Prakash. Another Kangaroo Judge" of Nov 30, 2008. The men were found in the vicinity of the Belinda Ang Saw Ean's court. They did nothing objectionable, did not chant any slogans or do anything else illegal. Wearing T shirts with pictures of Kangaroos is not a contempt of court. In this blog post, in addition to stating the facts I wrote the words:
" Judge Judith Prakash of the Supreme Court Singapore had prostituted herself in her capacity as a judge hearing the Kangaroo T shirt case on November 24, 2008 by being nothing more than an employee of Lee Kuan Yew and his son, whom he appointed Prime Minister. By her actions in sending these young men to prison and making them pay crippling court costs of $5,000.00 each, she has shamefully disgraced herself, her office of a judge, disgraced the Singapore Constitution and disgraced Singapore." The charge refers to this.
Failure to provide discovery: Singapore's Law Society Lawyer has sent me a bundle among other papers titled Complainants Bundle of Authorities Volume 3, but he has not sent Volume 1 or 2 if these were supposed to be sent. The bundle has some cases but he conveniently leaves out cases which are clearly inapplicable, but refers to passages from them anyway, a highly disgraceful practice .
What this lawyer is trying to argue: Other than a lot of verbiage about the meaning of statutes and such like which is nothing more than a waste of print paper, he says, because of an English case, In re a Solicitor (1960)2 QB 212, he argues that like that English lawyer I should be disbarred. He conveniently fails to provide the full law report, but the little he provides about it goes like this. The lawyer was convicted in 1956 of 2 cases of indecent assault under Sec 34(15) of the Metropolitan Police Act and given the maximum sentence possible. The Singapore Law Society conveniently fails to state what exactly these 2 serious indecent assaults in 1956 involved. Did they involve molesting young children or molesting multiple women in broad daylight? What indecent assaults did he do? For this the lawyer was suspended from practice for 2 years. Subsequently in 1959, he was charged with insulting behavior where a breach of the peace occurred, for which he was disbarred, but again Singaporean Law Society lawyer provides no more details.
Either he takes us all for a bunch of fools or he himself is one. This English case has as much relevance to may case as a lion is similar to a mouse or a sparrow to an eagle, or bloody murder to pickpockets.
For one I have not committed 2 serious cases of indecent assault on anyone and I unlike the English lawyer is a Singapore dissident and democracy activist working hard to topple the Lee Kuan Yew regime. I am working in the public interest for a just cause unlike that English lawyer. Instead of facing disciplinary proceedings, I should be honored and appreciated for my work, which I happy to state ordinary Singaporeans and the rest of the world do.
Singaporean Law Society then refers to another case to justify my disbarment which he again conveniently fails to provide either the full law report or the full facts. In Law Society of Singapore vs Wong Sin Yee, he was charged and convicted of assaulting another as well as saying the words "why you call your father, call Lee Kuan Yew or f*****ing police". Except to say that this man assaulted someone, he did not say how many bones he broke, whether the man lost consciousness, why did he beat the man, was it premeditated, was it related to his client etc. Again this case has no comparison to mine. I have not assaulted anyone. And neither have I yelled at anyone. And even if I yelled at anyone, it cannot possibly be a ground for disbarring anyone.
Again, the Singaporean Law Society's lawyer argues that in Law Society Singapore v Tham Yu Xian Rick (1999) 3 SLR (R) 68, the fact that the offense was unrelated to his professional work did not matter. But here again, except to say this, he conveniently fails either to provide the full law report on this case or to give us the facts. For all we know, Tham Yu Xian may have raped several women and even though raping several women was not part of his law practice, surely he can be disbarred. But I have not raped several women, if in fact Tham Yu Xian Rick actually did it. Here again we see the Singapore Law Society's dishonesty in selectively concealing the facts by relying on mere sentences taken out of context to further their case.
The Singaporean Law Society Lawyer then cites the case of Re Knight Glen Jeyasingham (1994) 3 SLR(R)366, where Jeyasingham was convicted under Section 6(c) of the Prevention of Corruption Act of using a false vehicle invoice to deceive his principle for which he was disbarred. Although the Law Society lawyer does not give any further information, it is common knowledge that Jeyasingham was a senior member of the Attorney Generals office who suddenly fell out of grace with Lee Kuan Yew government after which through a surprising series of events daily reported in the state controlled press, he was charged with criminal offices involving criminal breach of trust, which involved misusing his authority and office of Public Prosecutor, convicted of crimes and disbarred. Again Jeyasingham’s case of using a false vehicle invoice to deceive his principle has absolutely nothing to do with my case, no similarity whatsoever.
The Singaporean Law Society Lawyer then refers to the case of Re Hilborne (1983 to 1984)SLR(R)322, where "Hilborne marched unannounced and without prior appointment into the private chamber of a Judge alone, was discourteous rude and insolent to the late judge. He threatened to report the judge to high authority and addressed the judge in an angry manner". Hilborne was asked to show cause but since he was an Englishman returned to England and had nothing more to do with Singapore or their legal system. I on the other hand have not been discourteous to any judge in any courtroom or chambers. I did write a blog post in this blog about Belinda Ang Saw Ean. This case of Hilborne has absolutely no relevance to mine, again an instance of comparing of apples with oranges.
The Singaporean Law Society lawyer refers to another politically motivated case against me which was decided in 1993, at which time I was already in California. The case is Re Gopalan Nair (1993)1SLR375. The background to this case is as follows. In the late 1980s, JB Jeyaretnam was a staunch critic of Lee Kuan Yew. This is what happened. Lee Kuan Yew sued Jeyaretnam for several hundred thousands of dollars for defamation and won, as he always does.
Unable to pay Lee Kuan Yew, Jeyaretnam's Workers Party was made bankrupt. Jeyaretnam was trying to raise funds to pay this, because otherwise he too would be bankrupt. He asked the public for donations and asked me to be his trustee for the funds which I gladly agreed.
Among the many checks from donors, were 2 checks for small amounts about $100 or so payable to the Workers Party. Jeyaretnam had asked them to change the name of the payee from Workers Party to Jeyaretnam because, if the money went to Workers Party which was under bankruptcy, Jeyaretnam would not receive the money since it would go the Government Trustee. It appears the 2 gladly changed the payee's name to Jeyaretnam. As a result of this, even though the law was very clear that the money does not belong to Workers Party until they receive it, and the drawer of the check is free to change the name of the payee anytime, the Singapore court found Jeyaretnam guilty of criminal breach of trust and convicted him. The Government (or Lee Kuan Yew’s argument), believe it or not, was that once the drawer of the check writes a payee’s name, any attempt to change it to someone else is a breach of trust against the original payee!
Secondly, arising from these 2 checks, Jeyaretnam did not disclose these funds in his financial declaration of the Workers Party since this money did not belong to the party, but the court found that the money was indeed that of the party and convicted him of making a false declaration.
As a result Jeyaretnam was convicted of these false criminal offenses and disbarred. Jeyaretnam appealed his disbarment to the Privy Council in London. The parties to the case were JB Jeyaretnam and the Singaporean Law Society.
At the commencement of the London hearing the Judges had specifically asked the lawyer for the Singaporean Law Society in the 1980s, whether the Singapore Attorney General was aware of the hearing and whether he wanted to be heard, since the court was going to look into the legality of Jeyaretnam's alleged crimes. The answer the judges got from the Law Society lawyer was that the Singapore Attorney General, Tan Boon Teik was aware of the hearing and had not filed any request to appear in the proceedings. Satisfied with that the court went on the hear the case.
At the conclusion of the hearing their Lordships in London correctly stated the law that Jeyaretnam was not guilty of any crimes and made the following scathing attack on Singapore's corrupt legal system,
"Their Lordships have to record their deep disquiet that by a series of misjudgments, the appellant and his co-accused Wong, have suffered a grievous injustice. They have been fined, imprisoned and publicly disgraced for offences of which they are not guilty. The appellant, in addition, has been deprived of his seat in Parliament and disqualified for a year from practicing his profession. Their Lordships order restores him to the roll of advocates and solicitors of the Supreme Court of Singapore, but, because of the course taken by the criminal proceedings, their Lordships have no power to right the other wrongs which the appellant and Wong have suffered. Their only prospect of redress, their Lordships understand, will be by way of petition for pardon to the President of the Republic of Singapore."
This was a slap in the face for Lee Kuan Yew and a public humiliation of monumental proportions to his legal system which for the first time told the world that Lee Kuan Yew uses the law with the collaboration and connivance of his judges, prosecutors and the police to abuse the law for his political ends.
When Jeyaretnam returned from London with the verdict, he was certainly in high spirits. He could resume his practice and the English court vindicated his good name and showed Lee Kuan Yew and his government as nothing more than a tin pot dictatorship.
As the law then stood, although the London court could reinstate Jeyaretnam to the Singapore Bar, they could not reverse the criminal convictions against him since Singapore law only allowed criminal cases to appeal up to the Singapore High Court and no more. Therefore the only avenue available to Jeyartenam to clear his name was a request for a pardon from the President of Singapore.
Jeyaretnam did proceed to apply for a pardon which the President of Singapore denied through his Attorney General, Tan Boon Teik. Tan's letter as to why he refused the pardon was published in Singapore's state controlled press. His reasons were that 1)"because JB Jeyaretnam did not show remorse repentance and contrition for the crimes he committed, the President will not pardon him" and 2) because he (Tan Boon Teik) was not given an opportunity to appear at the London hearing the verdict of the court is flawed. But surely there is something wrong here. If in fact the London's Privy Council had said he is not guilty of any crimes, how does one show "remorse, repentance and contrition" for a crime one did not commit! If in fact anyone should show "remorse repentance and contrition" it should surely be Lee Kuan Yew himself for the crimes he committed by disgracefully misusing the law to destroy his political opponents.
This is where I come in. Naturally I was very angry reading Tan Boon Teik's response. So I wrote to Tan asking him why he says Jeyaretnam committed crimes when the Privy Council categorically stated that he was innocent and why did he say that he was not given an opportunity to appear in the London court when the Judges clearly asked about this and were told he did not want to appear. Tan's first response to me was that he was not involved and that if I needed answers I should ask Jeyaretnam. Not satisfied with his answer which was clearly unresponsive, I sent him another very polite letter telling him that his statements were contrary to the facts and that he should explain himself, otherwise I will make public the correspondence between him and me within 14 days. Not receiving any further response from him, I faxed my letters to him and his to me to all lawyers in Singapore.
The Singapore Law Society through the insistence of Tan brought charges, which were that I threatened the Attorney General demanding responses and threatening to publish them, that I threatened the Attorney General to give me satisfactory replies within a stipulated time and that I falsely accused the Attorney General of not wanting to be heard at Jeyaretnam's trial in London. After a prolonged Disciplinary hearing which lasted several months in Singapore, in which Martin Thomas QC, Jeyaretnam's London lawyer and Rose QC, the Singapore Law Society's London Counsel also gave evidence, I was found guilty. Before the matter came to the High Court of Singapore for sentencing, soon after I was found guilty, I left Singapore permanently in disgust, not wanting to practice in a Kangaroo court system like this. In 1993 when I was already in California, the matter came before three judges in the High Court, 2 of them being Yong Pong Howe and GP Selvam who suspended me from practice for 2 years.
There could not have been a greater travesty of justice than this. There is obviously nothing wrong for a lawyer to write a letter to an Attorney General demanding an explanation and telling him that if an explanation is not received within a stipulated time, those letters would be publicly distributed. I did not threaten to harm him or do anything to him. Yet surely this "threat", which they call a “threat” which was to publish correspondence for the public to know and telling him that what he said about not having a chance to appear in the London court was untrue cannot possibly be unethical. Yet the Singapore Law Society is trying to use my own case for being suspended for 2 years from practicing law just because I demanded answers from the Attorney General to have me disbarred!
From that moment, I made up my mind that I am going to fight this dictatorship for as along as I can which is why these proceedings are going on.
The Singaporean Law Society Lawyer then refers to the case of Ravi Madasamy (2007)2SLR(R) 300, where Madasamy admitted to a number of occasions where he had shown disrespect to a judge/judges before whom he appeared for his clients. He was suspended from practice for this for one year. Madasamy's case is nowhere similar to mine, again a case of comparing apples to oranges. I was never discourteous to any judge before whom I appeared. I wrote a blog post criticizing Judge Belinda Ang Saw Ean's egregious absence of integrity as a judge and I stated with all decorum and civility in my "yelling at policemen case" that the case brought against me was politically motivated. Madasamy on the other hand decides to be disrespectful to the judge before whom he appears in court.
The Singaporean Law Society Lawyer has several more pages and passages where he states that I had shown no remorse, that I had no respect for the Singapore courts and that I had breached my undertaking to the court in Singapore when I withdrew my apology which I gave to the judge for the contempt charges. Yes I have no respect whatsoever for this puny tin pot tyrant's courts in Singapore which has now undoubtedly become the laughing stock of the world. You now have only 3,000 lawyers or less left in a country of 5 million and very soon with even more leaving; you will have to represent both sides of the argument.
Lee Kuan Yew, I can tell you is a fool. Abusing the law to stay in power is simply counter productive. It simply will not work.
This Internet is not good for the one party dictatorship which this Singapore lawyer is trying to protect. This blog post is going to be read throughout the world, mainly by Singaporeans Americans Australians and the rest of the world. It is not going to look good for the one party state with an 88 year despot who will die anytime soon.
I am waiting for the Disciplinary committee to make its finding which they have not yet done although it has been more than 2 years since the accusation, the delay very probably is because they don't know what to do now. With the Internet and everything about this case in the open, they are hard pressed to come up with a justification for disbarment, which is what they want to do. As the saying goes, I have got them by the neck.
And furthermore once the Committee decides, the matter would have to go the court which will decide the punishment.
I am not going to stop this work. I am thankful to God for this opportunity to fight the one party state which retains power by abusing the law.
As my case continues to unfold in public, I expect even more Singapore lawyers to either leave the profession or leave the country entirely in disgust as they have been doing to the present pathetic state of less than 3,000 lawyers. This is a pressure the one party state cannot possibly withstand.
This issue will continue to be alive and will be read in places as far away as Israel and Byelorussia. And what is written in this blog will exist for the world to read in perpetuity, which surely has to be very bad news for Lee Kuan Yew’s one party state and it’s state controlled judiciary.
And finally one piece of advice to this Singapore establishment. Pick your victims carefully, and try to avoid those such as myself who have an education and are passionate about such things as freedom. They may not roll over and act dead as you expect. Some of them may fight back, and in this day of the Internet, it may be you, not him that gets hurt.
Gopalan Nair
39737 Paseo Padre Parkway, Suite A1
Fremont, CA 94538, USA
Tel: 510 657 6107
Fax: 510 657 6914
Email: nair.gopalan@yahoo.com
Blog: http://singaporedissident.blogspot.com/
Your letters are welcome. We reserve the right to publish your letters. Please Email your letters to nair.gopalan@yahoo.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.
Wednesday, December 22, 2010
Law Society of Singapore vs Gopalan Nair, Whats happening!
Ladies and Gentlemen,
In several blog posts here, I have written about Lee Kuan Yew's Singapore Law Society actions to have me disbarred for criticizing their judge Belinda Ang Saw Ean's shameless exhibition in Singapore High Court in May 2008 by deciding Lee's defamation case against Dr. Chee Soon Juan in Lee's favor in nothing more than a Stalinist show trial.
Even though the incident was way back in May 2008, up till now, nothing much has happened. I am still waiting for the matter to come to court after more than 2 years! I suspect the government now finds itself in a bind. The fact that Singapore's Law Society which is supposed to be independent is in fact an extension of the one party state government is already well known and these proceedings which were intended to intimidate me to keep me silent, is simply not happening.
What is more, internationally respected organizations such as the United Nations, Reporter Without Borders, Committee to Protect Journalists and numerous other organizations and state governments have taken an interest in my case, which Lee Kuan Yew knows is untenable, because in nowhere in the world can you discipline someone for something such as this. It would only be seen as repression of critics who dare challenge Lee's one party state.
With the recent imprisonment of Alan Shadrake which has attracted universal denunciation from the free world for punishing free speech, Lee Kuan Yew finds that going after me now is untimely, and a bad mistake. I think that is the reason why he has not ordered his Law Society to proceed just now.
Only a cowardly government would stoop to such cowardly tactics to try to preserve their fast diminishing credibility in the eyes of the world.
I can assure you the one party state apparatus is reading every word that is written here, as you have seen how fast they arrested me in Singapore for writing that fateful Belinda Ang Saw Ean blog post in May 2008.
My question to the Singapore Law Society is this. What are they afraid of now? If you feel that I should be disbarred do it now. Stop this playing hide and seek. Let me remind you that you are losing your credibility by the minute for having waited this long since May 2008. Any other respectable Law Society in the world would have proceeded against me within a month or at most 2 months. If you haven't already, you are going to lose all your credibility if you wait any longer.
If it helps you to speed these proceedings I will repeat what I said about your Judge Belinda Ang Saw Ean in my May 2008 blog post which got me arrested here:
"The judge Belinda Ang was throughout prostituting herself during the entire proceedings, by being nothing more than an employee of Mr. Lee Kuan Yew and his son and carrying out their orders".
The words "prostituting yourself" means someone who is in authority abusing her power for a dishonest or base purpose. This is what Belinda Ang Sew Ean was doing so shamefully that day in court. She was disgracing the office of a judge in public by publicly abusing the law to benefit herself and Lee Kuan Yew her master.
So perhaps since I have repeated the objectionable words again in this blog (even though I have done the same numerous times before), will the Singaporean Law Society and the Singapore one party state government who are reading this please proceed to have this case fixed in court for hearing without any further delay.
You have got yourself in this fix through your own actions. Now I am going to hold you to account.
Gopalan Nair
39737 Paseo Padre Parkway, Suite A1
Fremont, CA 94538, USA
Tel: 510 657 6107
Fax: 510 657 6914
Email: nair.gopalan@yahoo.com
Blog: http://singaporedissident.blogspot.com/
Your letters are welcome. We reserve the right to publish your letters. Please Email your letters to nair.gopalan@yahoo.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.
In several blog posts here, I have written about Lee Kuan Yew's Singapore Law Society actions to have me disbarred for criticizing their judge Belinda Ang Saw Ean's shameless exhibition in Singapore High Court in May 2008 by deciding Lee's defamation case against Dr. Chee Soon Juan in Lee's favor in nothing more than a Stalinist show trial.
Even though the incident was way back in May 2008, up till now, nothing much has happened. I am still waiting for the matter to come to court after more than 2 years! I suspect the government now finds itself in a bind. The fact that Singapore's Law Society which is supposed to be independent is in fact an extension of the one party state government is already well known and these proceedings which were intended to intimidate me to keep me silent, is simply not happening.
What is more, internationally respected organizations such as the United Nations, Reporter Without Borders, Committee to Protect Journalists and numerous other organizations and state governments have taken an interest in my case, which Lee Kuan Yew knows is untenable, because in nowhere in the world can you discipline someone for something such as this. It would only be seen as repression of critics who dare challenge Lee's one party state.
With the recent imprisonment of Alan Shadrake which has attracted universal denunciation from the free world for punishing free speech, Lee Kuan Yew finds that going after me now is untimely, and a bad mistake. I think that is the reason why he has not ordered his Law Society to proceed just now.
Only a cowardly government would stoop to such cowardly tactics to try to preserve their fast diminishing credibility in the eyes of the world.
I can assure you the one party state apparatus is reading every word that is written here, as you have seen how fast they arrested me in Singapore for writing that fateful Belinda Ang Saw Ean blog post in May 2008.
My question to the Singapore Law Society is this. What are they afraid of now? If you feel that I should be disbarred do it now. Stop this playing hide and seek. Let me remind you that you are losing your credibility by the minute for having waited this long since May 2008. Any other respectable Law Society in the world would have proceeded against me within a month or at most 2 months. If you haven't already, you are going to lose all your credibility if you wait any longer.
If it helps you to speed these proceedings I will repeat what I said about your Judge Belinda Ang Saw Ean in my May 2008 blog post which got me arrested here:
"The judge Belinda Ang was throughout prostituting herself during the entire proceedings, by being nothing more than an employee of Mr. Lee Kuan Yew and his son and carrying out their orders".
The words "prostituting yourself" means someone who is in authority abusing her power for a dishonest or base purpose. This is what Belinda Ang Sew Ean was doing so shamefully that day in court. She was disgracing the office of a judge in public by publicly abusing the law to benefit herself and Lee Kuan Yew her master.
So perhaps since I have repeated the objectionable words again in this blog (even though I have done the same numerous times before), will the Singaporean Law Society and the Singapore one party state government who are reading this please proceed to have this case fixed in court for hearing without any further delay.
You have got yourself in this fix through your own actions. Now I am going to hold you to account.
Gopalan Nair
39737 Paseo Padre Parkway, Suite A1
Fremont, CA 94538, USA
Tel: 510 657 6107
Fax: 510 657 6914
Email: nair.gopalan@yahoo.com
Blog: http://singaporedissident.blogspot.com/
Your letters are welcome. We reserve the right to publish your letters. Please Email your letters to nair.gopalan@yahoo.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.
Tuesday, December 21, 2010
The need to confront Lee Kuan Yew's Singapore.
Ladies and Gentleman,
We should not forget the constraints under which Singaporeans live, which makes any suggestion of parliamentary elections a complete joke. If the opposition are under the illusion of winning seats, they must stop smoking whatever they are smoking right now, and come down to earth.
The entire media is controlled by Big Brother which completely ignores the opposition as if they do not exist making people completely ignorant of them. Only yesterday in California, I was at a laundrette talking to a Chinese Student from the Peoples Republic of China to whom I asked what he thought of the Nobel Prize going to Liu Xiabo, to which he had replied that he never heard of him before! The Chinese press is so tightly censored that the vast majority of Chinese have never heard of him, just as they have never heard of democracy, never heard of any rights and living in complete ignorant bliss!
It is as if they have completely given themselves up to their rulers and what is more surprising, they are very happy with it!
Although Singapore is not exactly Communist China, as far as information goes, it is not vastly different. The vast majority have heard of Dr. Chee Soon Juan but not exactly what he really is, but someone who is maligned, vilified and a pervert of sorts.
This manipulation of the press and denial of free and fair information is illegal under Singapore law, but as the people are either terrified or stupid or both, no one questions them and in this method, they prevent any honest democratic politician ever being elected.
As for the Chinese student I met in California, he seemed quite half dead, both in body and spirit. He was a frail looking character who wanted to return to China instead of living in California because he admitted having been brainwashed for 3,000years he cannot change. He had no complaint about his country, about what they did to his countryman Nobel Laureate, and as soon as he got his clothes out of the machine quietly wished me goodbye and left. Frankly he didn't seem very different from the average Singaporean.
And together with the abuse of the legal system with the judiciary controlled by Lee, the lack of workers rights, and the lack of any rights for that matter, Dr. Chee Soon Juan already knows even before stepping into the elections that he doesn't stand a chance in a million. Low Thia Khiang and Chiam See Tong are of course going to win because they have nothing to say about anything and if Kenneth, the late Jeyaretnam's son behaves the same as he is now, which is really nothing, he too will win, because that is exactly what Lee Kuan Yew wants. But Singapore has not and will not get any better with Low, Chiam and Kenneth because their presence in Parliament is useless. It is no different if instead of them, you added a few more cabinets.
What we need is controversy, what we need is public disorder, what we need is civil disobedience; what we need is daily protests on the streets demanding a change for the better. What we need is the daily arrest of good people being paraded before the courts for doing nothing more than than exercising their constitutional rights. What we need is for the people to watch this government misusing their powers on a daily basis and there will come a time very soon, even tomorrow when the people will say no more. That is the moment that we want.
Remember there is sympathy in the ground, let us not forget that. Yes, very great sympathy. Many may not realise the extent of the abuse either because of ignorance or fear but at the same time there are many who are just waiting for the moment when they will break their chains and set themselves free.
There are many foreigners too in our midst who just deplore the state of the lives in Singapore. They too will join only if you did.
Controversy and public disorder is not wrong, it is essential when the government is abusing your every right. And daily instances in public of peaceful protests with stark images across the screen of police dragging away innocent people to jail is just what will change the entire island. You are not wrong in protesting against illegal and unconstitutional rules and laws.
I can assure you the elections will not change anything. What they will do is to place a few more goons for the impression of a democracy. And furthermore Lee is aware that there are many unhappy people today, and therefore make sure of rigging the elections any which way he can not to repeat the 1981 election result of the late JB Jeyaretnam's win. The true opposition, meaning Dr. Chee Soon Juan's SDP don't stand a chance in the world and the sooner we admit this fact the better.
The only hope I see for Singapore is Dr. Chee Soon Juan's Singapore Democratic Party but if they are simply going to contest elections and nothing more, the cows will eventually come home before any change happens.
Gopalan Nair
39737 Paseo Padre Parkway, Suite A1
Fremont, CA 94538, USA
Tel: 510 657 6107
Fax: 510 657 6914
Email: nair.gopalan@yahoo.com
Blog: http://singaporedissident.blogspot.com/
Your letters are welcome. We reserve the right to publish your letters. Please Email your letters to nair.gopalan@yahoo.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.
We should not forget the constraints under which Singaporeans live, which makes any suggestion of parliamentary elections a complete joke. If the opposition are under the illusion of winning seats, they must stop smoking whatever they are smoking right now, and come down to earth.
The entire media is controlled by Big Brother which completely ignores the opposition as if they do not exist making people completely ignorant of them. Only yesterday in California, I was at a laundrette talking to a Chinese Student from the Peoples Republic of China to whom I asked what he thought of the Nobel Prize going to Liu Xiabo, to which he had replied that he never heard of him before! The Chinese press is so tightly censored that the vast majority of Chinese have never heard of him, just as they have never heard of democracy, never heard of any rights and living in complete ignorant bliss!
It is as if they have completely given themselves up to their rulers and what is more surprising, they are very happy with it!
Although Singapore is not exactly Communist China, as far as information goes, it is not vastly different. The vast majority have heard of Dr. Chee Soon Juan but not exactly what he really is, but someone who is maligned, vilified and a pervert of sorts.
This manipulation of the press and denial of free and fair information is illegal under Singapore law, but as the people are either terrified or stupid or both, no one questions them and in this method, they prevent any honest democratic politician ever being elected.
As for the Chinese student I met in California, he seemed quite half dead, both in body and spirit. He was a frail looking character who wanted to return to China instead of living in California because he admitted having been brainwashed for 3,000years he cannot change. He had no complaint about his country, about what they did to his countryman Nobel Laureate, and as soon as he got his clothes out of the machine quietly wished me goodbye and left. Frankly he didn't seem very different from the average Singaporean.
And together with the abuse of the legal system with the judiciary controlled by Lee, the lack of workers rights, and the lack of any rights for that matter, Dr. Chee Soon Juan already knows even before stepping into the elections that he doesn't stand a chance in a million. Low Thia Khiang and Chiam See Tong are of course going to win because they have nothing to say about anything and if Kenneth, the late Jeyaretnam's son behaves the same as he is now, which is really nothing, he too will win, because that is exactly what Lee Kuan Yew wants. But Singapore has not and will not get any better with Low, Chiam and Kenneth because their presence in Parliament is useless. It is no different if instead of them, you added a few more cabinets.
What we need is controversy, what we need is public disorder, what we need is civil disobedience; what we need is daily protests on the streets demanding a change for the better. What we need is the daily arrest of good people being paraded before the courts for doing nothing more than than exercising their constitutional rights. What we need is for the people to watch this government misusing their powers on a daily basis and there will come a time very soon, even tomorrow when the people will say no more. That is the moment that we want.
Remember there is sympathy in the ground, let us not forget that. Yes, very great sympathy. Many may not realise the extent of the abuse either because of ignorance or fear but at the same time there are many who are just waiting for the moment when they will break their chains and set themselves free.
There are many foreigners too in our midst who just deplore the state of the lives in Singapore. They too will join only if you did.
Controversy and public disorder is not wrong, it is essential when the government is abusing your every right. And daily instances in public of peaceful protests with stark images across the screen of police dragging away innocent people to jail is just what will change the entire island. You are not wrong in protesting against illegal and unconstitutional rules and laws.
I can assure you the elections will not change anything. What they will do is to place a few more goons for the impression of a democracy. And furthermore Lee is aware that there are many unhappy people today, and therefore make sure of rigging the elections any which way he can not to repeat the 1981 election result of the late JB Jeyaretnam's win. The true opposition, meaning Dr. Chee Soon Juan's SDP don't stand a chance in the world and the sooner we admit this fact the better.
The only hope I see for Singapore is Dr. Chee Soon Juan's Singapore Democratic Party but if they are simply going to contest elections and nothing more, the cows will eventually come home before any change happens.
Gopalan Nair
39737 Paseo Padre Parkway, Suite A1
Fremont, CA 94538, USA
Tel: 510 657 6107
Fax: 510 657 6914
Email: nair.gopalan@yahoo.com
Blog: http://singaporedissident.blogspot.com/
Your letters are welcome. We reserve the right to publish your letters. Please Email your letters to nair.gopalan@yahoo.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.
Monday, December 20, 2010
Singapore's weird model children
Ladies and Gentlemen,
Singapore's state controlled propaganda sheet, Straits Times, which they call a newspaper has a story in it's online edition of Dec 19, 2010 titled "Leaving no child behind". Believe it or not, it praises a 7 year old child who decided that his recess time in school should be spent at the library, instead of playing as other normal children do! And what is more, he is set out as an example for other children to follow, which is, at recess don't play; instead go to the library and do more reading, at the age of 7!
Not too long ago in this blog, I wrote of another example of Singapore's weird best children, in that case a 7 year old child who decided to give all his money to charity, instead of keeping it for his own toys or candy!
In this Dec 19, 2010 story, a Malay child whose father is an odd job worker and a mother who is a housewife, suddenly it appears decided to change completely and become a bookworm at the age of 7, instead of being a normal child like any other and playing.
Any person from the rest of the world who is normal and sane, would rather send both of these children to the mental hospital because any 7 year old child who prefers doing research in the library or someone who would rather give up all his money to charity at that age would have thought these children are aberrations and mental cases who need treatment rather being held out as model children for others to follow.
When I was a 7 year old child my parents had a hard time keeping me indoors as all I had in my mind was play. And as for money, I never had enough of it for toys and whatever else. The Singapore authorities do not appear to realize that these are not traits that one would want in 7 year old children. God intended children to play and by forcing them to keep reading, which I think is what these parents are in fact doing, is actually torturing them and destroying their minds instead of developing it. In fact they are destroying their very childhoods. These tortured children do not grow up normal and end up with long term personal problems. Instead of brilliance they are producing misfits. Nut cases. The sooner the parents realize this the better.
Learning is a life long process. Cramming them with knowledge at an early age did not achieve anything. They have their entire lives to learn. At 7 they should be playing football, fighting and whatever else 7 year olds do. In my case, except for primary school when I did well, I was a total failure in Secondary school even though I finally caught up.
And that did not prevent me from becoming a lawyer, coming to America and being a lifelong thorn on the side of the Singaporean dictator Lee Kuan Yew of whom almost every other Singaporean is terrified out of his wits. Not bad for someone who spent most of his childhood daydreaming and playing, eh?
Gopalan Nair
39737 Paseo Padre Parkway, Suite A1
Fremont, CA 94538, USA
Tel: 510 657 6107
Fax: 510 657 6914
Email: nair.gopalan@yahoo.com
Blog: http://singaporedissident.blogspot.com/
Your letters are welcome. We reserve the right to publish your letters. Please Email your letters to nair.gopalan@yahoo.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.
Singapore's state controlled propaganda sheet, Straits Times, which they call a newspaper has a story in it's online edition of Dec 19, 2010 titled "Leaving no child behind". Believe it or not, it praises a 7 year old child who decided that his recess time in school should be spent at the library, instead of playing as other normal children do! And what is more, he is set out as an example for other children to follow, which is, at recess don't play; instead go to the library and do more reading, at the age of 7!
Not too long ago in this blog, I wrote of another example of Singapore's weird best children, in that case a 7 year old child who decided to give all his money to charity, instead of keeping it for his own toys or candy!
In this Dec 19, 2010 story, a Malay child whose father is an odd job worker and a mother who is a housewife, suddenly it appears decided to change completely and become a bookworm at the age of 7, instead of being a normal child like any other and playing.
Any person from the rest of the world who is normal and sane, would rather send both of these children to the mental hospital because any 7 year old child who prefers doing research in the library or someone who would rather give up all his money to charity at that age would have thought these children are aberrations and mental cases who need treatment rather being held out as model children for others to follow.
When I was a 7 year old child my parents had a hard time keeping me indoors as all I had in my mind was play. And as for money, I never had enough of it for toys and whatever else. The Singapore authorities do not appear to realize that these are not traits that one would want in 7 year old children. God intended children to play and by forcing them to keep reading, which I think is what these parents are in fact doing, is actually torturing them and destroying their minds instead of developing it. In fact they are destroying their very childhoods. These tortured children do not grow up normal and end up with long term personal problems. Instead of brilliance they are producing misfits. Nut cases. The sooner the parents realize this the better.
Learning is a life long process. Cramming them with knowledge at an early age did not achieve anything. They have their entire lives to learn. At 7 they should be playing football, fighting and whatever else 7 year olds do. In my case, except for primary school when I did well, I was a total failure in Secondary school even though I finally caught up.
And that did not prevent me from becoming a lawyer, coming to America and being a lifelong thorn on the side of the Singaporean dictator Lee Kuan Yew of whom almost every other Singaporean is terrified out of his wits. Not bad for someone who spent most of his childhood daydreaming and playing, eh?
Gopalan Nair
39737 Paseo Padre Parkway, Suite A1
Fremont, CA 94538, USA
Tel: 510 657 6107
Fax: 510 657 6914
Email: nair.gopalan@yahoo.com
Blog: http://singaporedissident.blogspot.com/
Your letters are welcome. We reserve the right to publish your letters. Please Email your letters to nair.gopalan@yahoo.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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
