Ladies and Gentlemen,
To say Singapore is a terrible place is an understatement. The most important thing to be happy is not a million dollars. It is to be able to be who you are, think what you want, believe in what you want and most importantly the chance to be yourself.
In Singapore it is not possible to be yourself. Not possible to have common sense. Truth is what they tell you. And over a period of time, you slowly begin to believe the nonsense you are forced to believe. 2 and 2 is no longer 4. It may be 5 or 6 or anything they want you to believe.
Singapore is a dictatorship. And the laws and social conduct of the island is tailored to prop up the dictatorship of the Lee family. Laws in order to have any legitimacy have to be at least be based on common sense. Not in Singapore. In Singapore the laws generally have no basis under common sense. They are legislated by a Kangaroo Parliament in order to secure the island dictators, ie. the Lee family and their henchmen.
Let me give you an example. In any society, it would not be illegal to hold a peaceful protest anywhere. We are not harming anyone. After all we are human beings and being human beings, we have the right to criticize, as long as we do not harm anyone or break any laws. Not in Singapore. In Singapore, even though it is obviously legal to hold a sign up and say "Down Down the prime Minister" it is illegal under Singapore laws. You will be arrested even if that is all you did. The government argument is such activity will disrupt public order although there is no logical proof of this. But your common sense tells you that no disorder will occur if you just did this. So the reason why you have such a law is obvious. The dictator of the island does not want anyone to threaten his position.
Another example. If you call the Prime Minister corrupt, you will be arrested. But the truth is, he is corrupt. He is the highest paid politician in the world in a city state which is one third the size of New York City! By any reckoning this is obviously corruption. The man and his cronies are simply minting money. But if you did call him corrupt, you will be sued in his Kangaroo Courts, imprisoned and bankrupted. But common sense would tell you there is nothing wrong in calling a politician corrupt if he is indeed one. Not in Singapore. If you did you will be destroyed. His henchmen in the government and the courts would make sure of that.
The Singapore dictatorship has a set of laws designed to ensure you just obey, regardless of whether it makes any common sense or if it is good for the country.
Let me set out the nonsense in the island
1. You are told the Constitution is sacrosanct. The basis of all laws. The Constitution clearly allows free speech. But the state has abrogated this right. It is no longer true that the Constitution is sacrosanct. it is not. And you are required to believe it.
2. Peaceful assembly is protected under the Constitution. But in Singapore it is not so. You need a police permit. And even if you applied for one, you will never get it. And the people have accepted this prohibition.
3. Under the Constitution, there has to be rule of law. But in Singapore every judge is appointed by the state and required to use the law to silence all dissent. So you no longer have rule of law. But you are required to say it exists. You have Kangaroo courts. And the people accept it.
4. Under the Constitution, you have the right to a free press. But every single newspaper is state controlled. You no longer have a free press. But you are told to say you have a free press.
5. The rulers are all from the Lee Kuan Yew family except for obvious cases such as the Tamil Shanmugam who is not ethnic Chinese. This is nepotism. But if you said so, you would be sued jailed and bankrupted. You have to say there is no nepotism.
6. Everyone under the Constitution has to be treated equally. But not in Singapore. If you are seen as a critic your picture is displayed in the state controlled press. You will be fired from your job. No one would ever employ you. Many critics have been reduced to make a living on the streets of Singapore by selling their own books. The ordinary Singaporean simply accepts this. It appears they support the government persecution of critics. They are unable to think that this is injustice.
Over a period of time,. when you are required to believe this nonsense under pain of punishment, you slowly begin to believe the government nonsense. You slowly begin to lose your logic under this constant brainwashing. Just as in Orwell's 1984 when Winston finally believed that Big Bother was kind and good, in Singapore people have finally begun to believe that there is no nepotism, there is indeed rule of law, Singapore is indeed a democracy and a paradise and anyone who criticizes is indeed insane. That is what they want you to believe and they have in fact succeeded.
The island society has been successfully brainwashed because otherwise they would not be able to continue.
This brainwashing permanently destroys your reasoning, your logic and common sense. it affects everyone in the island from the parents to their children.
This is why I strongly recommend that you should leave the island for your own sakes and the sakes of your children. You do not want to destroy your children's normal reasoning ability because this is what happens in this one party police state created and run to keep the Lee family entrenched safely in power.
Singaporeans have over the years become willing hypocrites who openly state the government line but privately think otherwise. Or their minds have been brainwashed over the years by threats of punishment and the need to obey that they have indeed begun to actually believe in this government nonsense. Either way it is very bad. In order for you to live your lives to the fullest, you have to be able to have self determination and the ability to think and formulate opinions and personal beliefs as normal human beings. This is not possible in Singapore island. And that is why if you can, you should leave the country for your own mental state of mind.
It is internationally known that the island's workforce has the lowest productivity among countries. The government understands this and has tried over the years to raise it without any success at all. This comes as no surprise. For a doctor to excel in his work, he has to first of all love his work. Secondly he has to know that he will be left alone as long as he obeys the laws. But the laws of Singapore are weird. He cannot criticize the government, he cannot question authority, he cannot associate with opposition politics, but yet he has to excel in his work. This doctor is no longer a normal human being. In order to live in the island, he has to cultivate this disgusting split personality. In his work, he has to think like a normal human being, but when it comes to his social side, he has to think like the way the dictators want him to. Even if he knew otherwise, he has to say that free speech can only be allowed if you have a government permit! In the end, in an unpleasant life like this, he either becomes very unproductive or if he can help it he leaves. And as to how successful he is does not depend on how good he is at his work. It depends on how much he supports the dictatorship.
If you like what I write please disseminate this post widely in social and other media to allow the widest audience access to it.
Gopalan Nair
Attorney at Law
Fremont San Francisco California
Email nair.gopalan@yahoo.com
Tel 510 491 8525
Thursday, August 24, 2017
Saturday, August 5, 2017
Singapore one party state is foolish to charge Li Shengwu with contempt of court
Ladies and Gentlemen,
It is widely reported that the one party state authoritarian government of Singapore run by Lee Kuan Yew's son Lee Hsien Loong has commenced contempt of court proceedings against Lee Kuan Yew's grandson Li Shengwu, who is the son of the Prime Minister's brother.
This is a spill over from the recent disagreement between the 2 siblings of the Prime Minister and him over the will of the late Lee Kuan Yew as to what to do with his house 38 Oxley Road Singapore where Lee Senior lived for half a century.
And now it is quite evident by this action of contempt of court against the son of his adversary, his brother Lee Hsien Yang that the Prime Minister is escalating the controversy, which is going to hurt the Prime Minister and his one party state government much more than anyone else.
The contempt charges against the Prime Minister's brother's son who happens to be permanently living and working in Harvard University Boston Massachusetts USA arises out of a Facebook post which he wrote in which he said that the Singapore courts are compliant and that the foreign media tends to self-censor their reports on the country because of a fear of being sued.
Although anyone who knows Singapore's one party authoritarian dictatorship knows that Li could not have been more correct, regardless of whether or not his statement was true, the Singapore government can do nothing to him and they are simply wasting their time with this court action in the island of Singapore.
Li Shenwu has stated clearly that he has no intention of returning to Singapore. And if he does not return to Singapore, Singapore's contempt of court judgement, which we are quite sure they will obtain, is no better than a piece of scrap paper. Contempt of court order is not an extraditable offense and the Singapore government cannot apply to have Li return to Singapore if he does not wish to do so. Even if they attempt to do it, they would have to do it through US courts who we know will never send him back to Singapore against his will to a banana pariah island such as this. After all we have the right of freedom of speech in America which we cherish to death.
The consequences of charging Li while he is in the US will not only result in failure for the one party regime in the island, it will have far wider repercussions against the regime. Firstly this episode will reiterate to the world what the island is, a one party state with no rule of law and no freedoms. Secondly it would mean that Li would never be able to return to the island as long as the Prime Minister his uncle remains in power because if he ever returns, the Prime Minister will throw the book at him. This will help to entrench the hated and animosity between the family members of the Prime Minister and himself. Second it would mean that Li's father Lee Hsien Yang, the Prime Minster's brother and his family will leave the island forever to avoid victimizations at the hands of the Prime Minister, thereby becoming enemies for life. And with the ongoing steadily entrenched feud, the brother would try to do whatever he can to destroy the Prime Minister and vice versa. And the beauty of it all is that as long as Li's parents and himself remain outside the island, there is simply nothing the Prime Minister can do to hurt them. The Prime Minster can take his inevitable contempt order and shove it up, you know where.
And what he appears not to understand is the obvious, or at least he pretends not to know. Just because you sue someone for contempt of court for criticizing your judiciary does not make it independent. In fact your need to constantly sue people each time one criticizes in fact shows the contrary, that you indeed have a "compliant" judiciary which takes orders from the Prime Minister and his government. Because if you really had an independent judiciary, you have no need to sue people each time they criticize. A judiciary which asks how high when told to jump.
Li already knows that all this theatrics carried on against him is a total waste of time. The Prime Minister can stand on his head if he wants in Singapore and still nothing is going to happen to Li Shengwu. So my advice to the Singapore Prime Minister is to stop this theatrics of commencing contempt of court proceedings against Li when he is not physically within your Orwellian island. For Heavens sake, get that into your head. Being in America Li is free. And you cannot touch him, ever. So don't waste your time. You are not fooling anyone. You are only making a fool of yourself.
Just as you can't do anything to me for writing these blogs because I live in a country, USA that respects freedom of speech and they will not demand that I be returned to your one party state Singapore for any trumped up contempt charges.
Gopalan Nair
Attorney at law
Fremont San Francisco California
Tel: 510 491 8525
Email: nair.gopalan@yahoo.com
It is widely reported that the one party state authoritarian government of Singapore run by Lee Kuan Yew's son Lee Hsien Loong has commenced contempt of court proceedings against Lee Kuan Yew's grandson Li Shengwu, who is the son of the Prime Minister's brother.
This is a spill over from the recent disagreement between the 2 siblings of the Prime Minister and him over the will of the late Lee Kuan Yew as to what to do with his house 38 Oxley Road Singapore where Lee Senior lived for half a century.
And now it is quite evident by this action of contempt of court against the son of his adversary, his brother Lee Hsien Yang that the Prime Minister is escalating the controversy, which is going to hurt the Prime Minister and his one party state government much more than anyone else.
The contempt charges against the Prime Minister's brother's son who happens to be permanently living and working in Harvard University Boston Massachusetts USA arises out of a Facebook post which he wrote in which he said that the Singapore courts are compliant and that the foreign media tends to self-censor their reports on the country because of a fear of being sued.
Although anyone who knows Singapore's one party authoritarian dictatorship knows that Li could not have been more correct, regardless of whether or not his statement was true, the Singapore government can do nothing to him and they are simply wasting their time with this court action in the island of Singapore.
Li Shenwu has stated clearly that he has no intention of returning to Singapore. And if he does not return to Singapore, Singapore's contempt of court judgement, which we are quite sure they will obtain, is no better than a piece of scrap paper. Contempt of court order is not an extraditable offense and the Singapore government cannot apply to have Li return to Singapore if he does not wish to do so. Even if they attempt to do it, they would have to do it through US courts who we know will never send him back to Singapore against his will to a banana pariah island such as this. After all we have the right of freedom of speech in America which we cherish to death.
The consequences of charging Li while he is in the US will not only result in failure for the one party regime in the island, it will have far wider repercussions against the regime. Firstly this episode will reiterate to the world what the island is, a one party state with no rule of law and no freedoms. Secondly it would mean that Li would never be able to return to the island as long as the Prime Minister his uncle remains in power because if he ever returns, the Prime Minister will throw the book at him. This will help to entrench the hated and animosity between the family members of the Prime Minister and himself. Second it would mean that Li's father Lee Hsien Yang, the Prime Minster's brother and his family will leave the island forever to avoid victimizations at the hands of the Prime Minister, thereby becoming enemies for life. And with the ongoing steadily entrenched feud, the brother would try to do whatever he can to destroy the Prime Minister and vice versa. And the beauty of it all is that as long as Li's parents and himself remain outside the island, there is simply nothing the Prime Minister can do to hurt them. The Prime Minster can take his inevitable contempt order and shove it up, you know where.
And what he appears not to understand is the obvious, or at least he pretends not to know. Just because you sue someone for contempt of court for criticizing your judiciary does not make it independent. In fact your need to constantly sue people each time one criticizes in fact shows the contrary, that you indeed have a "compliant" judiciary which takes orders from the Prime Minister and his government. Because if you really had an independent judiciary, you have no need to sue people each time they criticize. A judiciary which asks how high when told to jump.
Li already knows that all this theatrics carried on against him is a total waste of time. The Prime Minister can stand on his head if he wants in Singapore and still nothing is going to happen to Li Shengwu. So my advice to the Singapore Prime Minister is to stop this theatrics of commencing contempt of court proceedings against Li when he is not physically within your Orwellian island. For Heavens sake, get that into your head. Being in America Li is free. And you cannot touch him, ever. So don't waste your time. You are not fooling anyone. You are only making a fool of yourself.
Just as you can't do anything to me for writing these blogs because I live in a country, USA that respects freedom of speech and they will not demand that I be returned to your one party state Singapore for any trumped up contempt charges.
Gopalan Nair
Attorney at law
Fremont San Francisco California
Tel: 510 491 8525
Email: nair.gopalan@yahoo.com
Wednesday, July 5, 2017
Singapore's 38 Oxley Rise and the Prime Minister's Parliamentary Clown Show
Ladies and Gentlemen,
Let me introduce myself first. I am a Singaporean by birth, and opposition politician and lawyer. I have now now more than 30 years of experience in law. I practiced law in Singapore for 10 years while I was an opposition politician with the Workers Party while JB Jeyaretnam was at the helm.
I was repeatedly harassed with all sorts of accusations of legal impropriety, charged for contempt of court and finally suspended from practicing law for 2 years after I left the island permanently in 1991 for alleging that the then Attorney General Tan Boon Teik was not altogether honest when he claimed he "was not given an opportunity to be heard" at the London Privy Council hearing to determine whether JB Jeyaretnam, also a lawyer should be disbarred.
As you know JB Jeyaretnam was completely vindicated by the Lords in their scathing judgement which said in essence that the Singapore courts where nothing more than Kangaroo courts.
Subsequently in 2008 while on a visit to Singapore, I had written a blog criticizing Judge Belinda Ang Saw Ean for politically abusing the courts to punish an innocent man, opposition politician Chee Soon Juan.
For that they sent me to jail for 3 months. After I returned to the US I wrote another blog making the same criticism against another judge Judith Prakash for sending 3 men to jail for being present near her court wearing T Shirts emblazoned with the picture of Kangaroos in judicial robes in reference to the Chee Soon Juan case. Just for that!
After that the Singapore authorities commenced disciplinary proceedings to have me disbarred from practicing law in Singapore. Not that it mattered as I was not living in Singapore then. Like clockwork, the required punishment was rendered and I was disbarred in Singapore.
As an active practicing lawyer in California the state bar ethics required that I report any claims of transgressions anywhere in the world. So I duly reported the fact that I was disbarred in Singapore. Not surprisingly, the State Bar of California not only failed to make any ruling on my letter, they simply ignored my letter altogether! I never received an acknowledgment that they even received my letter even though the post office confirms they delivered it! That is how much the State Bar of California thinks of Singapore and it's courts! Anyway I continue to be in good standing at the Bar in California not having missed a day of practice. I also continue to be in good standing at the Bar of England and Wales. So much for that.
If indeed Singapore authorities feel so strongly as to have me disbarred in the island, should they not press the State Bar of California to require that I answer these charges. You guessed it. They have not done anything. Perhaps they are not so sure they will succeed in American jurisdictions! We have the rule of law here.
The maelstrom that is going on now in the island concerns 38 Oxley Road Singapore a house that was left by the late Lee Kuan Yew, Singapore's previous dictatorial prime minister who has been falsely credited in turning Singapore from a "fishing village" to a great metropolis.
If anyone knows Singapore they should know that far from being a fishing village, as far back as the late 19th century the British who had colonized the island had already turned it into the most advanced highly developed shipping and bustling trading port in the region. In fact Lee Kuan Yew was in fact a curse not a boon to the island and without him we would have perhaps become a shining democracy instead of a dictatorship it has become.
Now the question of 38 Oxley Road Singapore. As a lawyer let me tell you about the law of wills. And I will add that what I am about to say does not require someone with 30 years of experience as I have. Even a first year law student of wills can tell you that. It is simply trite. Just basic.
About 2 weeks ago, the Prime Minister's siblings had accused him of denying the will of their father Lee Kuan Yew in relation to his house. In the will he expressly stated that upon his death the house should be demolished and in the event that his daughter continues to live there, demolished after she leaves. This clause was very clear.
And below this clause which we call the "Demolition Clause" he inserted a "Saving Clause". This clause stated that in the event his intention cannot be carried out the executors could find alternative means to dispose of the house. The reasons he cited among others in the saving clause was such things as the denial of planning permission or the laws of Singapore preventing the demolition.
The place to decide on the disposition of assets upon death of anyone, including a former Prime Minister is the probate court, not Parliament not select committees, not speeches by the Prime Minister son of Lee Kuan Yew, not anyone else. That has to be understood.
The duty of the probate court is essentially to give effect to the wishes of the testator. If the testator wishes to give his property to a dog house, it should still be respected. If it is to be demolished, so it must. That much has to be clear.
Second an explanation of his "saving clause". Lawyers add saving clauses in contracts and wills to ensure that if the first preference of the contract or will cannot be carried out for some unforeseen reasons, then it can be distributed according to the testator's second choice. This always relates to unforeseen circumstances. For instance if one leaves all his money to his old school in Swatow China but in the event that the Communists take over the country as in 1949 and the school is destroyed, the testator can state the money should be given to his children according to his wish in the saving clause. Perfectly understandable.
Or for instance if you make a contract with the Germans and you fear the Nazi Party will form the government thereby making your contract illegal, you could state that the terms change to deal with that emergency.
But Lee Kuan Yew adding that saving clause did not in any way mean that he meant anything other than what he exactly intended, that is, the house should be demolished upon his death or after his daughter had vacated from the house.
In any case at the time Lee Kuan Yew made the will, there was no impediment in destroying the house. No laws prevented it. One never knows what the situation should be if his daughter chose to live in it for many years and then vacated. But in any case planning laws or government laws does not usually prevent a house from being demolished, unless of course something totally out of the ordinary happens, such as the entire island will sink into the sea if they did it! You can see my point of course. The saving clause meant in reality nothing. Unless you have an unusually vivid imagination, such as Martians landing in the island, if the house was demolished, whether now or 20 years from now, there is absolutely nothing to tear the house down.
Lee Hseing Loong the million dollar Prime Minister followed in his tail by a bevy of lawyers knows that he has a right to challenge the will in the probate court proceedings. He has even said that somehow his father, himself a lawyer and a member of parliament at the time did not, believe it or not, understand the will. If so why did he not challenge it? We know that he never did and let it stand, which means he accepted that that was the last will and testament of Lee Kuan Yew as written.
But instead of challenging it in court, he now holds this clown show in parliament to debate the will! Parliament is no place to decide a will, it is the court and he knows that too well, yet he makes a fool of us all by this clown show in Parliament.
But if you have followed this cunning, or rather dumb might I add, Prime Minister in parliament, he was suggesting that the saving clause allowed him to preserves the house since according to him, his fathers wishes were, believe it or not, "not very clear" and that he had left the issue of demolition "open".
What bloody humbug is that for Heaven's sake! It is plain English. It says demolish. The saving clause in no way changed the testator's intention, which was that the house should be demolished. Simple as that! Basic first year Law of wills and laws of contract. No need for Rumpole of the Bailey to tell you that.
What has transpired during the long rambling tooth pulling pain of the Prime Minister in Parliament was a disgraceful attempt to treat us all as bloody idiots. We know that the will states what it states and that is that. No manner of subterfuge or sophistry can change that.
Now let me come to demolition of a different kind, the demolition of his political opponents in Singapore's disgraceful history. Singapore is rightly called by many as the apex defamation regime.
Which means, if you ever dare to criticize the Prime Minister or his PAP ministers, he will unleash his Kangaroo Judges upon you. You will as the sun rises tomorrow, be either sued and bankrupted in hundreds and thousands of dollars and in many instances imprisoned as well!
The argument they use to sue all and sundry is apparently an old Chinese cultural belief that if you are a political leader and if you are criticized, you will lose your moral authority to rule and therefore in order to uphold your legitimacy, you have no choice but to sue and bankrupt your political opponent.
Naturally in this way, all possible criticism against you or your government is destroyed and you can rule over your docile timid silenced population ever after. You can see how well this has worked for him looking at Singapore's history.
Continuously for the last 58 years since independence countless Singaporeans, including me, who have criticized his rule have all been silenced and his party, the erstwhile Lee Kuan Yew, Goh Chock Tong and now the son of Lee himself have all ruled with total impunity.
Now comes suddenly and a peasant surprise indeed, his siblings have come out with charges previously unthinkable. After all who would have dared to stand up to Augustus Cesar and expected to have another breath.
But then his accusers are not the ordinary subjugated silenced Singaporean. It is none other than his own brother and sister, members of the elite no less and persons in important positions of authority. They have called out Lee Hsien Loong the Prime Minister at his actions. They have accused him of, no less, "lying" to Parliament, "misleading" Parliament, "not telling the truth" "using his power to hurt them" "nepotism" "Big Brother" and the attacks continue.
Naturally following the uncontroverted unquestioning rule for everyone in Singapore to follow, including his siblings who we must be assume not to be above the law, the natural consequences of uttering these accusations, under the Singaporean understanding of lawsuits, is for him to immediately sue his brother and sister for millions of dollars thanks to his puppet Kangaroo judges, and put them away forever. After all what about the Chinese adage. But no. He has said he will not sue because, he claims, they are his brother and sister! Wait a minute, one rule for the rest of us peasants and another rule for his family members. It therefore seems that only his family members are entitled to freedom of expression but no one is.
One rule for some, another for others. Unfortunately for all of us, we were not lucky enough to be part of his family. Otherwise we too can enjoy freedom of expression.
I remember since my days as a lawyer in Singapore the terror he showed to anyone who criticized. JB Jeyaretnam was repeatedly sued for defamation, in the hundreds of thousands of dollars, jailed and disbarred and bankrupted. He has since died.
Tang Liang Hong an opposition politician was sued for defamation of character just because he lodged a police report in the 2007 elections and driven out of the country.
Chee Soon Juan was repeatedly sued and bankrupted and now reduced to selling his books along the Singapore sidewalk to make a living.
I was charged with contempt of court in 1991 general elections all because I said the manner Subordinate courts appointed their judges should be more fair and independent.
Now after having crushed all and every dissent in the island with an iron hand with his Kangaroo judges, does it not seem rather hollow the grandiose claims he makes of protecting his honor. Where is honor now after his own brother had called him a "liar".
Having you seen the clown show that is going on in Parliament about this. Every single member of parliament is quietly sitting like lifeless tombstones or as if they were in a church in quiet meditation.
Their faces all carry a sense of fear and if they are minded to speak they stand up meekly and utter nothing more than squeaks lest the Emperor Prime Minister and his puppet Speaker be displeased. It reminded me of watching some Hitler's Nazi Trials against some Jews who were accused of some transgression. Were they to speak even a little more, the Judge roars at them and threatens the firing squad instantly. It is a shame. Watch for yourself.
I think the man is finished now. No one can take him seriously. He is now seen as just a confirmed coward, who dares to go after the small man simply because he can get away with it, but fears to face others more his equal.
Gopalan Nair
Attorney at Law
San Francisco bay Area, California
Tel: 510 491 8525
Email: nair.gopalan@yahoo.com
Let me introduce myself first. I am a Singaporean by birth, and opposition politician and lawyer. I have now now more than 30 years of experience in law. I practiced law in Singapore for 10 years while I was an opposition politician with the Workers Party while JB Jeyaretnam was at the helm.
I was repeatedly harassed with all sorts of accusations of legal impropriety, charged for contempt of court and finally suspended from practicing law for 2 years after I left the island permanently in 1991 for alleging that the then Attorney General Tan Boon Teik was not altogether honest when he claimed he "was not given an opportunity to be heard" at the London Privy Council hearing to determine whether JB Jeyaretnam, also a lawyer should be disbarred.
As you know JB Jeyaretnam was completely vindicated by the Lords in their scathing judgement which said in essence that the Singapore courts where nothing more than Kangaroo courts.
Subsequently in 2008 while on a visit to Singapore, I had written a blog criticizing Judge Belinda Ang Saw Ean for politically abusing the courts to punish an innocent man, opposition politician Chee Soon Juan.
For that they sent me to jail for 3 months. After I returned to the US I wrote another blog making the same criticism against another judge Judith Prakash for sending 3 men to jail for being present near her court wearing T Shirts emblazoned with the picture of Kangaroos in judicial robes in reference to the Chee Soon Juan case. Just for that!
After that the Singapore authorities commenced disciplinary proceedings to have me disbarred from practicing law in Singapore. Not that it mattered as I was not living in Singapore then. Like clockwork, the required punishment was rendered and I was disbarred in Singapore.
As an active practicing lawyer in California the state bar ethics required that I report any claims of transgressions anywhere in the world. So I duly reported the fact that I was disbarred in Singapore. Not surprisingly, the State Bar of California not only failed to make any ruling on my letter, they simply ignored my letter altogether! I never received an acknowledgment that they even received my letter even though the post office confirms they delivered it! That is how much the State Bar of California thinks of Singapore and it's courts! Anyway I continue to be in good standing at the Bar in California not having missed a day of practice. I also continue to be in good standing at the Bar of England and Wales. So much for that.
If indeed Singapore authorities feel so strongly as to have me disbarred in the island, should they not press the State Bar of California to require that I answer these charges. You guessed it. They have not done anything. Perhaps they are not so sure they will succeed in American jurisdictions! We have the rule of law here.
The maelstrom that is going on now in the island concerns 38 Oxley Road Singapore a house that was left by the late Lee Kuan Yew, Singapore's previous dictatorial prime minister who has been falsely credited in turning Singapore from a "fishing village" to a great metropolis.
If anyone knows Singapore they should know that far from being a fishing village, as far back as the late 19th century the British who had colonized the island had already turned it into the most advanced highly developed shipping and bustling trading port in the region. In fact Lee Kuan Yew was in fact a curse not a boon to the island and without him we would have perhaps become a shining democracy instead of a dictatorship it has become.
Now the question of 38 Oxley Road Singapore. As a lawyer let me tell you about the law of wills. And I will add that what I am about to say does not require someone with 30 years of experience as I have. Even a first year law student of wills can tell you that. It is simply trite. Just basic.
About 2 weeks ago, the Prime Minister's siblings had accused him of denying the will of their father Lee Kuan Yew in relation to his house. In the will he expressly stated that upon his death the house should be demolished and in the event that his daughter continues to live there, demolished after she leaves. This clause was very clear.
And below this clause which we call the "Demolition Clause" he inserted a "Saving Clause". This clause stated that in the event his intention cannot be carried out the executors could find alternative means to dispose of the house. The reasons he cited among others in the saving clause was such things as the denial of planning permission or the laws of Singapore preventing the demolition.
The place to decide on the disposition of assets upon death of anyone, including a former Prime Minister is the probate court, not Parliament not select committees, not speeches by the Prime Minister son of Lee Kuan Yew, not anyone else. That has to be understood.
The duty of the probate court is essentially to give effect to the wishes of the testator. If the testator wishes to give his property to a dog house, it should still be respected. If it is to be demolished, so it must. That much has to be clear.
Second an explanation of his "saving clause". Lawyers add saving clauses in contracts and wills to ensure that if the first preference of the contract or will cannot be carried out for some unforeseen reasons, then it can be distributed according to the testator's second choice. This always relates to unforeseen circumstances. For instance if one leaves all his money to his old school in Swatow China but in the event that the Communists take over the country as in 1949 and the school is destroyed, the testator can state the money should be given to his children according to his wish in the saving clause. Perfectly understandable.
Or for instance if you make a contract with the Germans and you fear the Nazi Party will form the government thereby making your contract illegal, you could state that the terms change to deal with that emergency.
But Lee Kuan Yew adding that saving clause did not in any way mean that he meant anything other than what he exactly intended, that is, the house should be demolished upon his death or after his daughter had vacated from the house.
In any case at the time Lee Kuan Yew made the will, there was no impediment in destroying the house. No laws prevented it. One never knows what the situation should be if his daughter chose to live in it for many years and then vacated. But in any case planning laws or government laws does not usually prevent a house from being demolished, unless of course something totally out of the ordinary happens, such as the entire island will sink into the sea if they did it! You can see my point of course. The saving clause meant in reality nothing. Unless you have an unusually vivid imagination, such as Martians landing in the island, if the house was demolished, whether now or 20 years from now, there is absolutely nothing to tear the house down.
Lee Hseing Loong the million dollar Prime Minister followed in his tail by a bevy of lawyers knows that he has a right to challenge the will in the probate court proceedings. He has even said that somehow his father, himself a lawyer and a member of parliament at the time did not, believe it or not, understand the will. If so why did he not challenge it? We know that he never did and let it stand, which means he accepted that that was the last will and testament of Lee Kuan Yew as written.
But instead of challenging it in court, he now holds this clown show in parliament to debate the will! Parliament is no place to decide a will, it is the court and he knows that too well, yet he makes a fool of us all by this clown show in Parliament.
But if you have followed this cunning, or rather dumb might I add, Prime Minister in parliament, he was suggesting that the saving clause allowed him to preserves the house since according to him, his fathers wishes were, believe it or not, "not very clear" and that he had left the issue of demolition "open".
What bloody humbug is that for Heaven's sake! It is plain English. It says demolish. The saving clause in no way changed the testator's intention, which was that the house should be demolished. Simple as that! Basic first year Law of wills and laws of contract. No need for Rumpole of the Bailey to tell you that.
What has transpired during the long rambling tooth pulling pain of the Prime Minister in Parliament was a disgraceful attempt to treat us all as bloody idiots. We know that the will states what it states and that is that. No manner of subterfuge or sophistry can change that.
Now let me come to demolition of a different kind, the demolition of his political opponents in Singapore's disgraceful history. Singapore is rightly called by many as the apex defamation regime.
Which means, if you ever dare to criticize the Prime Minister or his PAP ministers, he will unleash his Kangaroo Judges upon you. You will as the sun rises tomorrow, be either sued and bankrupted in hundreds and thousands of dollars and in many instances imprisoned as well!
The argument they use to sue all and sundry is apparently an old Chinese cultural belief that if you are a political leader and if you are criticized, you will lose your moral authority to rule and therefore in order to uphold your legitimacy, you have no choice but to sue and bankrupt your political opponent.
Naturally in this way, all possible criticism against you or your government is destroyed and you can rule over your docile timid silenced population ever after. You can see how well this has worked for him looking at Singapore's history.
Continuously for the last 58 years since independence countless Singaporeans, including me, who have criticized his rule have all been silenced and his party, the erstwhile Lee Kuan Yew, Goh Chock Tong and now the son of Lee himself have all ruled with total impunity.
Now comes suddenly and a peasant surprise indeed, his siblings have come out with charges previously unthinkable. After all who would have dared to stand up to Augustus Cesar and expected to have another breath.
But then his accusers are not the ordinary subjugated silenced Singaporean. It is none other than his own brother and sister, members of the elite no less and persons in important positions of authority. They have called out Lee Hsien Loong the Prime Minister at his actions. They have accused him of, no less, "lying" to Parliament, "misleading" Parliament, "not telling the truth" "using his power to hurt them" "nepotism" "Big Brother" and the attacks continue.
Naturally following the uncontroverted unquestioning rule for everyone in Singapore to follow, including his siblings who we must be assume not to be above the law, the natural consequences of uttering these accusations, under the Singaporean understanding of lawsuits, is for him to immediately sue his brother and sister for millions of dollars thanks to his puppet Kangaroo judges, and put them away forever. After all what about the Chinese adage. But no. He has said he will not sue because, he claims, they are his brother and sister! Wait a minute, one rule for the rest of us peasants and another rule for his family members. It therefore seems that only his family members are entitled to freedom of expression but no one is.
One rule for some, another for others. Unfortunately for all of us, we were not lucky enough to be part of his family. Otherwise we too can enjoy freedom of expression.
I remember since my days as a lawyer in Singapore the terror he showed to anyone who criticized. JB Jeyaretnam was repeatedly sued for defamation, in the hundreds of thousands of dollars, jailed and disbarred and bankrupted. He has since died.
Tang Liang Hong an opposition politician was sued for defamation of character just because he lodged a police report in the 2007 elections and driven out of the country.
Chee Soon Juan was repeatedly sued and bankrupted and now reduced to selling his books along the Singapore sidewalk to make a living.
I was charged with contempt of court in 1991 general elections all because I said the manner Subordinate courts appointed their judges should be more fair and independent.
Now after having crushed all and every dissent in the island with an iron hand with his Kangaroo judges, does it not seem rather hollow the grandiose claims he makes of protecting his honor. Where is honor now after his own brother had called him a "liar".
Having you seen the clown show that is going on in Parliament about this. Every single member of parliament is quietly sitting like lifeless tombstones or as if they were in a church in quiet meditation.
Their faces all carry a sense of fear and if they are minded to speak they stand up meekly and utter nothing more than squeaks lest the Emperor Prime Minister and his puppet Speaker be displeased. It reminded me of watching some Hitler's Nazi Trials against some Jews who were accused of some transgression. Were they to speak even a little more, the Judge roars at them and threatens the firing squad instantly. It is a shame. Watch for yourself.
I think the man is finished now. No one can take him seriously. He is now seen as just a confirmed coward, who dares to go after the small man simply because he can get away with it, but fears to face others more his equal.
Gopalan Nair
Attorney at Law
San Francisco bay Area, California
Tel: 510 491 8525
Email: nair.gopalan@yahoo.com
Tuesday, June 27, 2017
Sunday, April 30, 2017
Why severe punishments for Singapore National Service dodgers will be counter-productive
Ladies and Gentlemen,
I was reading the article "Clearing the Air on NS dodgers" in Singapore's state controlled newspaper Straits Times of May 1, 2017 http://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/clearing-the-air-on-ns-dodgers. The Singapore government has decided that punishments meted out in the past were unduly lenient and because the birth rate continues to fall, severe stress is placed on the Singapore Army to maintain its numbers. Therefore they have decided that the best way to solve this problem is to heighten punishments, obviously because they believe that severe punishments would therefore persuade anyone thinking of defaulting to think twice.
Although for a handful few, this may be the reason not to abscond, I think for the vast majority it will have the reverse effect. It will give them a reason never to return to Singapore whereas if the punishment was lighter, they could still return to do their National Service and make amends with the government.
The main reason why the new strong arm tactics will not work is the fact that failure to do national service is not an extraditable offence. Singapore cannot force a national service defaulter living in a foreign country to return to Singapore through the extradition process used in criminal cases, that is, the arrest and removal of the defaulter by the foreign government to Singapore. As long as national service offense continues to be non-extraditable, the defaulter can stay as long as he wants abroad and remain safe. The only thing he cannot do is to return to Singapore. And in most cases, there is no great hardship to the defaulter in staying away. He can travel to every country in the world, as along as he doesn't step foot in Singapore.
Extradition laws are primarily a 2 way process. If there is an extradition law in force, both the foreign country and Singapore have to agree to make it an extraditable crime. Since many foreign countries that do have national service are unlikely to have their defaulters seek refuge in Singapore of all places, there is no benefit to them in signing extradition treaties with Singapore for national service. And even if there was such a treaty, it is not a question of simply arresting the defaulter and sending him home. He has a right to challenge his extradition in the foreign court and he could raise a long list of defenses why he should not serve, such as the lack of rule of law in Singapore, the lack of democracy, the lack of free speech and expression and so on. In the end even if there was an extradition law, it may turn out to be far more embarrassing to Singapore to even try to bring a man back. But all this is moot, since at present there is no extradition laws in place for national service.
In most cases of national service default, the defaulter usually has no incentive to return anyway, punishment or no punishment. In most cases, they are usually the children of foreigners who were temporarily working in Singapore. Since there are no strong ties to Singapore anyway, it is not hardship at all for them to continue living abroad.
How would a child of an English father and a Singapore Chinese mother who worked temporarily in Singapore island and left for England with the boy, who by the way has lived in Singapore only temporarily, be persuaded to return to Singapore just because he happened to be a Singapore citizen. Threatening him with long prison sentences is not going to make any difference at all since he is not intending to return to Singapore anyway.
And this threat of punishment will in effect have the opposite effect of actually increasing the numbers of defaulters, since it will tend to convince them never to return thereby causing the state to lose a valuable pool of citizens since the ones who have lived abroad have much greater skills and qualities than those who have never left Singapore. On the other hand, if punishments are lenient, many could even have a change of heart and return to work and live in Singapore, whereas that would be mostly unlikely when faced with the prospect of harsh punishments and long jail terms.
On the whole Singapore island national service policy has been a total failure. There is an inbuilt fault in the system. It is difficult for any intelligent young man to be persuaded to like Singapore national service where you live as if you were a slave, with no freedom of speech, expression or assembly, the rule of law or a free press. It is very hard for a Singaporean young man to be patriotic when the leaders are unashamedly corrupt to the tune of millions. The Singapore Prime Minister and his Ministers all pay themselves millions of dollars each year which they call salaries. How anyone could call an income of $3 million which is the Prime Ministers' salary beats me.
In the end, if the Singaporean ministers thought that beefing up the punishments for avoiding national service would discourage defaulters, I am sorry to say it will have the opposite effect. Thanks to the new laws of enhanced punishments, more defaulters will simply stay away.
Gopalan Nair
Attorney at Law
A Singaporean in Exile
Fremont San Francisco California
Tel: 510 491 8525
Email: nair.gopalan@yahoo.com
I was reading the article "Clearing the Air on NS dodgers" in Singapore's state controlled newspaper Straits Times of May 1, 2017 http://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/clearing-the-air-on-ns-dodgers. The Singapore government has decided that punishments meted out in the past were unduly lenient and because the birth rate continues to fall, severe stress is placed on the Singapore Army to maintain its numbers. Therefore they have decided that the best way to solve this problem is to heighten punishments, obviously because they believe that severe punishments would therefore persuade anyone thinking of defaulting to think twice.
Although for a handful few, this may be the reason not to abscond, I think for the vast majority it will have the reverse effect. It will give them a reason never to return to Singapore whereas if the punishment was lighter, they could still return to do their National Service and make amends with the government.
The main reason why the new strong arm tactics will not work is the fact that failure to do national service is not an extraditable offence. Singapore cannot force a national service defaulter living in a foreign country to return to Singapore through the extradition process used in criminal cases, that is, the arrest and removal of the defaulter by the foreign government to Singapore. As long as national service offense continues to be non-extraditable, the defaulter can stay as long as he wants abroad and remain safe. The only thing he cannot do is to return to Singapore. And in most cases, there is no great hardship to the defaulter in staying away. He can travel to every country in the world, as along as he doesn't step foot in Singapore.
Extradition laws are primarily a 2 way process. If there is an extradition law in force, both the foreign country and Singapore have to agree to make it an extraditable crime. Since many foreign countries that do have national service are unlikely to have their defaulters seek refuge in Singapore of all places, there is no benefit to them in signing extradition treaties with Singapore for national service. And even if there was such a treaty, it is not a question of simply arresting the defaulter and sending him home. He has a right to challenge his extradition in the foreign court and he could raise a long list of defenses why he should not serve, such as the lack of rule of law in Singapore, the lack of democracy, the lack of free speech and expression and so on. In the end even if there was an extradition law, it may turn out to be far more embarrassing to Singapore to even try to bring a man back. But all this is moot, since at present there is no extradition laws in place for national service.
In most cases of national service default, the defaulter usually has no incentive to return anyway, punishment or no punishment. In most cases, they are usually the children of foreigners who were temporarily working in Singapore. Since there are no strong ties to Singapore anyway, it is not hardship at all for them to continue living abroad.
How would a child of an English father and a Singapore Chinese mother who worked temporarily in Singapore island and left for England with the boy, who by the way has lived in Singapore only temporarily, be persuaded to return to Singapore just because he happened to be a Singapore citizen. Threatening him with long prison sentences is not going to make any difference at all since he is not intending to return to Singapore anyway.
And this threat of punishment will in effect have the opposite effect of actually increasing the numbers of defaulters, since it will tend to convince them never to return thereby causing the state to lose a valuable pool of citizens since the ones who have lived abroad have much greater skills and qualities than those who have never left Singapore. On the other hand, if punishments are lenient, many could even have a change of heart and return to work and live in Singapore, whereas that would be mostly unlikely when faced with the prospect of harsh punishments and long jail terms.
On the whole Singapore island national service policy has been a total failure. There is an inbuilt fault in the system. It is difficult for any intelligent young man to be persuaded to like Singapore national service where you live as if you were a slave, with no freedom of speech, expression or assembly, the rule of law or a free press. It is very hard for a Singaporean young man to be patriotic when the leaders are unashamedly corrupt to the tune of millions. The Singapore Prime Minister and his Ministers all pay themselves millions of dollars each year which they call salaries. How anyone could call an income of $3 million which is the Prime Ministers' salary beats me.
In the end, if the Singaporean ministers thought that beefing up the punishments for avoiding national service would discourage defaulters, I am sorry to say it will have the opposite effect. Thanks to the new laws of enhanced punishments, more defaulters will simply stay away.
Gopalan Nair
Attorney at Law
A Singaporean in Exile
Fremont San Francisco California
Tel: 510 491 8525
Email: nair.gopalan@yahoo.com
Wednesday, April 5, 2017
It's a bad idea to illtreat your own citizens. The Singapore one party police state should know this by now.
Ladies and Gentlemen,
Ever since the full independence of Singapore first from British and then from Malaysia, it has been a one party authoritarian dictatorship. Today there is no free press, no right to free speech, assembly or association and the judiciary are bunch of Kangaroos carrying out their leaders dictates. Naturally the intention of these dictators was of course that if you remove all critics, silence the opposition, you can continue to rule as corruptly as you want forever.
But it usually doesn't turn out that way. For every action there is a reaction. For every attempt to silence dissent, there are similar numbers acting against you. In the end common sense would always win. No one likes a repressive government. The people would retaliate and the state will slowly unravel. It may take some time but it will always happen. This is exactly what is happening to the one party authoritarian dictatorship of Singapore island today.
Singapore is too tiny to be able to withstand a sustained depressed economy. For a tiny island, if you do not have vibrant economic growth, you don't have the buffer that larger countries have to avoid collapse. Any major fluctuation will be the end.
In the 1980s the Lee Kuan Yew one party government of Singapore began their campaign to silence me. I had joined the opposition Workers Party and openly proclaimed my opposition to the regime. This is not ordinarily done. Most people in that island are afraid to openly state their opposition. And the Lee administration had to make sure that others will not be emboldened to do what I did. So they had to publicly destroy me through trumped up criminal charges and law professional discipline.
Not wanting to give the Lee administration the pleasure of abusing my rights, I chose to leave Singapore permanently for the United States. The effect of their actions actually backfired. Many lawyers were outraged by the abuse of legal process employed in this case. They could also witness the abuse of law against JB Jeyaretnam, the famous Lee opponent and more recently Chee Soon Juan. As a result of the indignation of anyone with common sense, and a sense of decency and fair mindedness, many lawyers and other professional left Singapore in disgust. In fact these actions intended to silence me and others has resulted and in fact continues to the be cause of one of the highest levels of brain drain in the world from the island of Singapore. The attacks against me has hurt the one party state in Singapore far more damage than it has cause any of us.
The one party authoritarian city state of Singapore I am sure were taken aback and surprised that I refused to crawl and submit in the face of their repression. Their experience in most cases had been that anyone who faced trumped up charges simply rolled over and crawled. Instead of pleading guilty to their trumped up charges to their utter surprise, I defended my self against every charge every time, and this put them to even more embarrassment in the eyes of their citizens who could clearly see the drawn out battle between them to unjustly punish me and my determination to resist at any cost.
The fact that I now live in California allows me to continue to criticize the Singapore government and invariably continue to hurt this regime. Reading this blog, even more Singaporeans leave the island, those already settled in the West continue to persuade others to join them. The end result is that the very best and brightest, since you need skills to settle abroad, leave the island leaving behind only those inferior and incapable of leaving Singapore island. My attacks against the Singapore administration has in fact resulted in the reduction in quality of the residents in Singapore island since those remaining behind are far inferior to those who have left. Because so many highly educated Singaporeans leave with no one to do the jobs, the administration is forced to bring in plane loads of Chinese national every year to fill the blanks. These new immigrants are given instant citizenship and made to feel Singaporean when in fact they are neither Singaporean or anywhere similar. For them it really doesn't matter if a donkey is the President since after all they are only there for a few more dollars. In 2015 elections 70% of the citizens in Singapore voted for this one party police state dictatorship. Since no one with any self respect or any intelligence would do that, it proves that the quality of citizens has so much declined that you have now citizens who really don't mind how they live.
There are many other ways in which this decay in the government is manifested. For the last decade you have seen economic growth either stagnant or a mere 1% or 2%. Why is it today so low as compared to the double digit growth numbers we had seen in the past. It is the same for the same reason. When you abuse your citizens' rights you get a bad reputation. And when you get a bad reputation, many countries with a sense of moral responsibly don't want to have anything to do with you. Many Scandinavian countries, bastions of freedom and democracy are fully aware of the repressive style of government in that city state and in fact some countries given a choice would prefer not to trade with Singapore at all. This explains partly why the economy continues to decline and hovers at the 1% or 2% growth rate maximum. And I take pride in continuing to make known to the world through these writings what Singapore really is and which has an adverse long standing effect on that Singaporean economy.
Another consequence of the repression is that today the island of Singapore has the lowest birth rate in the world. This happens to be major worry for these dictators who know that the rapid extinction of the Singaporean race through the lowest birth rate in the world and a very large elderly and dying population, would not bode well for Singapore. Without Singaporeans, they know that Singapore will be over. But despite all sorts of persuasion by dictators through tax incentives, large cash payments for childbirth and extended paid vacations for mothers, showing porn on state TV, instead of the birth rate rising, it is in fact falling and fast heading to near zero birthrate! Yes I take credit for this too, since it is the dissemination of the facts of the deplorable state of human rights in the island that has created the present dire situation and I intend to continue to write to expose this regime. I don't intend to stop.
Today the island struggles economically to survive thanks to my writings and the various efforts of other opposition advocates who result in exposing this administration for what it is.
I have been writing to encourage Singaporeans who have been persecuted for their political beliefs to seek a new life abroad in the West. Since I myself had obtained asylum in the US, I am a strong example for others to follows. I have been the contributory cause of many who have applied for asylum abroad. Recently we have had Amos Yee Pang Sang, a young man who had insulted religion with bad language in the island and has been granted asylum in the US. I know that he was encouraged to do this by reading my blogs. At present I am representing 3 other Singaporeans who have all applied for asylum in the US and all have told me that it was my blogs that made them do it. Han Hui Hui, a young woman who was repeatedly harassed victimized and persecuted has recently left for an unknown West European country for asylum. My blogs had an effect on her actions too. These are the people I know, whereas there are many others who have left Singapore on account of reading my blogs whom I do not know.
So on balance, if you ask who is hurt more out of this, me or the Singapore government, I can assure you that the Singapore government is hurt far more and will continue to hurt from the pages of these blogs. It is true that my writings have not created a revolution in the island but victory need not necessarily come out a revolution, it can also come from a slow and steady attrition to a steady downward slope towards eventual collapse.
I will continue to write exposing this regime. In the end, if given a choice of who you want to deal with, a democracy like Australia or New Zealand or a banana republic like Singapore, I think more countries slowly over the years would realize that it is morally comforting to and also economically safer to be dealing with democracies with the rule of law rather than to deal with banana republics which denies the rights of their citizens through corrupt state compliant Kangaroo courts.
Gopalan Nair
Attorney at Law
A Singaporean in Exile
Fremont San Francisco California
Tel: 510 491 8525
Email: nair.gopalan@yahoo.com
Ever since the full independence of Singapore first from British and then from Malaysia, it has been a one party authoritarian dictatorship. Today there is no free press, no right to free speech, assembly or association and the judiciary are bunch of Kangaroos carrying out their leaders dictates. Naturally the intention of these dictators was of course that if you remove all critics, silence the opposition, you can continue to rule as corruptly as you want forever.
But it usually doesn't turn out that way. For every action there is a reaction. For every attempt to silence dissent, there are similar numbers acting against you. In the end common sense would always win. No one likes a repressive government. The people would retaliate and the state will slowly unravel. It may take some time but it will always happen. This is exactly what is happening to the one party authoritarian dictatorship of Singapore island today.
Singapore is too tiny to be able to withstand a sustained depressed economy. For a tiny island, if you do not have vibrant economic growth, you don't have the buffer that larger countries have to avoid collapse. Any major fluctuation will be the end.
In the 1980s the Lee Kuan Yew one party government of Singapore began their campaign to silence me. I had joined the opposition Workers Party and openly proclaimed my opposition to the regime. This is not ordinarily done. Most people in that island are afraid to openly state their opposition. And the Lee administration had to make sure that others will not be emboldened to do what I did. So they had to publicly destroy me through trumped up criminal charges and law professional discipline.
Not wanting to give the Lee administration the pleasure of abusing my rights, I chose to leave Singapore permanently for the United States. The effect of their actions actually backfired. Many lawyers were outraged by the abuse of legal process employed in this case. They could also witness the abuse of law against JB Jeyaretnam, the famous Lee opponent and more recently Chee Soon Juan. As a result of the indignation of anyone with common sense, and a sense of decency and fair mindedness, many lawyers and other professional left Singapore in disgust. In fact these actions intended to silence me and others has resulted and in fact continues to the be cause of one of the highest levels of brain drain in the world from the island of Singapore. The attacks against me has hurt the one party state in Singapore far more damage than it has cause any of us.
The one party authoritarian city state of Singapore I am sure were taken aback and surprised that I refused to crawl and submit in the face of their repression. Their experience in most cases had been that anyone who faced trumped up charges simply rolled over and crawled. Instead of pleading guilty to their trumped up charges to their utter surprise, I defended my self against every charge every time, and this put them to even more embarrassment in the eyes of their citizens who could clearly see the drawn out battle between them to unjustly punish me and my determination to resist at any cost.
The fact that I now live in California allows me to continue to criticize the Singapore government and invariably continue to hurt this regime. Reading this blog, even more Singaporeans leave the island, those already settled in the West continue to persuade others to join them. The end result is that the very best and brightest, since you need skills to settle abroad, leave the island leaving behind only those inferior and incapable of leaving Singapore island. My attacks against the Singapore administration has in fact resulted in the reduction in quality of the residents in Singapore island since those remaining behind are far inferior to those who have left. Because so many highly educated Singaporeans leave with no one to do the jobs, the administration is forced to bring in plane loads of Chinese national every year to fill the blanks. These new immigrants are given instant citizenship and made to feel Singaporean when in fact they are neither Singaporean or anywhere similar. For them it really doesn't matter if a donkey is the President since after all they are only there for a few more dollars. In 2015 elections 70% of the citizens in Singapore voted for this one party police state dictatorship. Since no one with any self respect or any intelligence would do that, it proves that the quality of citizens has so much declined that you have now citizens who really don't mind how they live.
There are many other ways in which this decay in the government is manifested. For the last decade you have seen economic growth either stagnant or a mere 1% or 2%. Why is it today so low as compared to the double digit growth numbers we had seen in the past. It is the same for the same reason. When you abuse your citizens' rights you get a bad reputation. And when you get a bad reputation, many countries with a sense of moral responsibly don't want to have anything to do with you. Many Scandinavian countries, bastions of freedom and democracy are fully aware of the repressive style of government in that city state and in fact some countries given a choice would prefer not to trade with Singapore at all. This explains partly why the economy continues to decline and hovers at the 1% or 2% growth rate maximum. And I take pride in continuing to make known to the world through these writings what Singapore really is and which has an adverse long standing effect on that Singaporean economy.
Another consequence of the repression is that today the island of Singapore has the lowest birth rate in the world. This happens to be major worry for these dictators who know that the rapid extinction of the Singaporean race through the lowest birth rate in the world and a very large elderly and dying population, would not bode well for Singapore. Without Singaporeans, they know that Singapore will be over. But despite all sorts of persuasion by dictators through tax incentives, large cash payments for childbirth and extended paid vacations for mothers, showing porn on state TV, instead of the birth rate rising, it is in fact falling and fast heading to near zero birthrate! Yes I take credit for this too, since it is the dissemination of the facts of the deplorable state of human rights in the island that has created the present dire situation and I intend to continue to write to expose this regime. I don't intend to stop.
Today the island struggles economically to survive thanks to my writings and the various efforts of other opposition advocates who result in exposing this administration for what it is.
I have been writing to encourage Singaporeans who have been persecuted for their political beliefs to seek a new life abroad in the West. Since I myself had obtained asylum in the US, I am a strong example for others to follows. I have been the contributory cause of many who have applied for asylum abroad. Recently we have had Amos Yee Pang Sang, a young man who had insulted religion with bad language in the island and has been granted asylum in the US. I know that he was encouraged to do this by reading my blogs. At present I am representing 3 other Singaporeans who have all applied for asylum in the US and all have told me that it was my blogs that made them do it. Han Hui Hui, a young woman who was repeatedly harassed victimized and persecuted has recently left for an unknown West European country for asylum. My blogs had an effect on her actions too. These are the people I know, whereas there are many others who have left Singapore on account of reading my blogs whom I do not know.
So on balance, if you ask who is hurt more out of this, me or the Singapore government, I can assure you that the Singapore government is hurt far more and will continue to hurt from the pages of these blogs. It is true that my writings have not created a revolution in the island but victory need not necessarily come out a revolution, it can also come from a slow and steady attrition to a steady downward slope towards eventual collapse.
I will continue to write exposing this regime. In the end, if given a choice of who you want to deal with, a democracy like Australia or New Zealand or a banana republic like Singapore, I think more countries slowly over the years would realize that it is morally comforting to and also economically safer to be dealing with democracies with the rule of law rather than to deal with banana republics which denies the rights of their citizens through corrupt state compliant Kangaroo courts.
Gopalan Nair
Attorney at Law
A Singaporean in Exile
Fremont San Francisco California
Tel: 510 491 8525
Email: nair.gopalan@yahoo.com
Sunday, April 2, 2017
The mechanics behind why Amos Yee Pang Sang Singaporean hate speech proponent remains detained. His prospects are turning into suspect.
Ladies and Gentlemen,
My name is Gopalan Nair. My expertise in US Immigration law is as follows. I have been practicing US immigration law from my Fremont (San Francisco) California office for more than 20 years. My specialty is immigration including asylum and removal proceedings. My law firm is Gopalan Nair Attorneys at Law at 39737 Paseo Padre Parkway, Suite A2, Fremont, CA 94538. My phone number is 510 491 8525.
Most asylum applicants who apply for asylum from within the United States after having been admitted at a port of entry are not detained. Amos Yee Pang Sang's case is an aberration. Perhaps he was wrongly advised. Most asylum applicants if coming in through a US port of entry have visitors visas as was the case with Amos Yee Pang Sang. If Yee had informed the immigration officers at Chicago Airport that he was merely coming for a visit in accordance with his visitor visa (Visa Waiver) status, he should have been allowed to enter.
It is true that it is not entirely honest for a traveler seeking admission at a port of entry to say that he is coming for a visit when his real intention is to apply for asylum but since the law allows for this and since people can change their minds, there is really nothing wrong to do this. In any case, this is what is routinely done. At present I am representing 3 asylum cases from Singapore. 2 came in last year and one this year. 2 are all working with work permits while waiting for their asylum. They were not detained.
But since Yee had himself admitted to the airport that he is in fact coming to apply for asylum when his visa status is visitor, this is a violation of his visa status which requires the immigration to detain him until the end of the proceedings.
In the past when someone obtained an asylum grant in custody, even if the Dept. of Homeland Security stated a desire to appeal, he is usually let out and if the appeal is granted, he should then be apprehended and removed. As you can see this practice is flawed and open to universal abuse since someone who was granted asylum will never be found in this huge United States, in the event the government succeeds in their appeal. Unless he himself voluntarily surrenders himself, the government would find it impossible to remove an alien who had lost in the government appeal. He could have moved anywhere in the 50 states. He would be able to stay in the US for the rest of his life, although illegal.
President Trump realizes this loophole and now demands that even those granted asylum, if detained, remain detained until the government's appeal is over. In the even that the government succeeds at the Board of Immigration Appeals, Yee will continue detained until Yee's appeal to the Court of Appeal is heard (that is if Yee wants to appeal).
There is a remedy for those who are held for extensive periods in custody awaiting a decision known as Rodriguez bond hearings (Rodriguez vs Robbins). Usually those being detained are entitled to request release on bond every six months on the ground that it is patently unjust to detain a man for extended periods while waiting for hearings or decisions. This problem can be overcome if the case is heard expeditiously and no grave prejudice is suffered by the inmate due to the delay.
I think therefore Yee is not going to be released until the outcome of the appeal of the government before the Board of Immigration Appeals, Falls Church Virginia.
Coming to the case, I think that Yee is going to lose his case for several reasons. If you read Judge Cole's decision, a great deal of his decision was based on background information on Singapore, that is, it is a one party state, it has no free press, no right to free protest, the courts are biased and so on. And using this background material, the judge tried to connect Yee's case to these background facts and therefore decides, Yee was persecuted after all. One such reasoning, trying to stretch the facts to fit the outcome you want is when he referred to Yee's video of "Lee Kuan Yew is finally dead". The judge says that since nearly all that video is a criticism of Lee Kuan Yew and since only a fraction was about insulting Christianity, therefore the prosecution for religious hate is unwarranted!
There is an adage that goes like this, "Give a dog a bad name and hang him". This is exactly what Judge Cole and Yee's attorney are doing here. Paint Singapore very black as a heartless bloodthirsty regime and conveniently claim therefore that Yee was persecuted after all.
No one can deny that Singapore is a dictatorship. We all know that. But the question here is not whether Singapore is a dictatorship but whether they have unjustly persecuted Yee. From these facts it cannot be said that he was persecuted. He was rightly charged and convicted for hate speech, an offense under Singapore law which stands up to international scrutiny as a just law in a multiracial and multi religious society.
The judge fails to see that first, Yee was never charged with anything political and second even if 0.1% of the video is about religious hatred, Singapore law still makes it an offense to promote religious hate and he still becomes guilty regardless of the fact that 99% of the video is about Lee Kuan Yew.
There is one part where Grossman, Yee's lawyer argues that Yee has been selectively prosecuted unlike others like Calvin Cheng and Jason Neo. If she knew the true facts and yet argues these 2 cases as evidence of selected persecution, she is not being entirely honest. Both Calvin Cheng and Jason Neo, who had made disparaging remarks about other races and religions, when challenged, immediately and unconditionally apologized and undertook never to do it again. Since then they have never again insulted any other race or religion.
Yee on the other hand claims he has a right to insult others and their religions and has sworn that he intends to continue doing it. In such a case did he expect to have been let off like Calvin Cheng or Jason Neo? Yee is almost a professional religious hater which he does using the utmost of vulgarities obscenities and profanities. He has said he is determined to continue insulting Islam and Christianity repeatedly using the words "F............ing". Did he expect Singapore courts to allow him to continue in this manner? Of course not. There was nothing wrong in not prosecuting Calvin Cheng and Jason Neo. But Yee deserved prosecution.
Moreover it is necessary for his own safety not to release him. It is publicly well known even in the Muslim community in the US that he has insulted Islam and is determined to continue doing so. The Muslims in Singapore have been a very tolerant lot so far to have left Yee alone, but to release him to the society in the US, a gun carrying society, can mean his murder. On that score as well, he should not be released for his own good until the appeal is heard.
I am sure the Department of Homeland Security understands the situation in Singapore better now and some of the absurd arguments made in in this case in court. I have a strong feeling that he will not be released during the pendency of the appeal, the government's appeal will be allowed and he will be retuned to Singapore.
Gopalan Nair
Attorney at Law
A Singaporean in Exile
Fremont San Francisco California
Tel: 510 491 8525
Email: nair.gopalan@yahoo.com
My name is Gopalan Nair. My expertise in US Immigration law is as follows. I have been practicing US immigration law from my Fremont (San Francisco) California office for more than 20 years. My specialty is immigration including asylum and removal proceedings. My law firm is Gopalan Nair Attorneys at Law at 39737 Paseo Padre Parkway, Suite A2, Fremont, CA 94538. My phone number is 510 491 8525.
Most asylum applicants who apply for asylum from within the United States after having been admitted at a port of entry are not detained. Amos Yee Pang Sang's case is an aberration. Perhaps he was wrongly advised. Most asylum applicants if coming in through a US port of entry have visitors visas as was the case with Amos Yee Pang Sang. If Yee had informed the immigration officers at Chicago Airport that he was merely coming for a visit in accordance with his visitor visa (Visa Waiver) status, he should have been allowed to enter.
It is true that it is not entirely honest for a traveler seeking admission at a port of entry to say that he is coming for a visit when his real intention is to apply for asylum but since the law allows for this and since people can change their minds, there is really nothing wrong to do this. In any case, this is what is routinely done. At present I am representing 3 asylum cases from Singapore. 2 came in last year and one this year. 2 are all working with work permits while waiting for their asylum. They were not detained.
But since Yee had himself admitted to the airport that he is in fact coming to apply for asylum when his visa status is visitor, this is a violation of his visa status which requires the immigration to detain him until the end of the proceedings.
In the past when someone obtained an asylum grant in custody, even if the Dept. of Homeland Security stated a desire to appeal, he is usually let out and if the appeal is granted, he should then be apprehended and removed. As you can see this practice is flawed and open to universal abuse since someone who was granted asylum will never be found in this huge United States, in the event the government succeeds in their appeal. Unless he himself voluntarily surrenders himself, the government would find it impossible to remove an alien who had lost in the government appeal. He could have moved anywhere in the 50 states. He would be able to stay in the US for the rest of his life, although illegal.
President Trump realizes this loophole and now demands that even those granted asylum, if detained, remain detained until the government's appeal is over. In the even that the government succeeds at the Board of Immigration Appeals, Yee will continue detained until Yee's appeal to the Court of Appeal is heard (that is if Yee wants to appeal).
There is a remedy for those who are held for extensive periods in custody awaiting a decision known as Rodriguez bond hearings (Rodriguez vs Robbins). Usually those being detained are entitled to request release on bond every six months on the ground that it is patently unjust to detain a man for extended periods while waiting for hearings or decisions. This problem can be overcome if the case is heard expeditiously and no grave prejudice is suffered by the inmate due to the delay.
I think therefore Yee is not going to be released until the outcome of the appeal of the government before the Board of Immigration Appeals, Falls Church Virginia.
Coming to the case, I think that Yee is going to lose his case for several reasons. If you read Judge Cole's decision, a great deal of his decision was based on background information on Singapore, that is, it is a one party state, it has no free press, no right to free protest, the courts are biased and so on. And using this background material, the judge tried to connect Yee's case to these background facts and therefore decides, Yee was persecuted after all. One such reasoning, trying to stretch the facts to fit the outcome you want is when he referred to Yee's video of "Lee Kuan Yew is finally dead". The judge says that since nearly all that video is a criticism of Lee Kuan Yew and since only a fraction was about insulting Christianity, therefore the prosecution for religious hate is unwarranted!
There is an adage that goes like this, "Give a dog a bad name and hang him". This is exactly what Judge Cole and Yee's attorney are doing here. Paint Singapore very black as a heartless bloodthirsty regime and conveniently claim therefore that Yee was persecuted after all.
No one can deny that Singapore is a dictatorship. We all know that. But the question here is not whether Singapore is a dictatorship but whether they have unjustly persecuted Yee. From these facts it cannot be said that he was persecuted. He was rightly charged and convicted for hate speech, an offense under Singapore law which stands up to international scrutiny as a just law in a multiracial and multi religious society.
The judge fails to see that first, Yee was never charged with anything political and second even if 0.1% of the video is about religious hatred, Singapore law still makes it an offense to promote religious hate and he still becomes guilty regardless of the fact that 99% of the video is about Lee Kuan Yew.
There is one part where Grossman, Yee's lawyer argues that Yee has been selectively prosecuted unlike others like Calvin Cheng and Jason Neo. If she knew the true facts and yet argues these 2 cases as evidence of selected persecution, she is not being entirely honest. Both Calvin Cheng and Jason Neo, who had made disparaging remarks about other races and religions, when challenged, immediately and unconditionally apologized and undertook never to do it again. Since then they have never again insulted any other race or religion.
Yee on the other hand claims he has a right to insult others and their religions and has sworn that he intends to continue doing it. In such a case did he expect to have been let off like Calvin Cheng or Jason Neo? Yee is almost a professional religious hater which he does using the utmost of vulgarities obscenities and profanities. He has said he is determined to continue insulting Islam and Christianity repeatedly using the words "F............ing". Did he expect Singapore courts to allow him to continue in this manner? Of course not. There was nothing wrong in not prosecuting Calvin Cheng and Jason Neo. But Yee deserved prosecution.
Moreover it is necessary for his own safety not to release him. It is publicly well known even in the Muslim community in the US that he has insulted Islam and is determined to continue doing so. The Muslims in Singapore have been a very tolerant lot so far to have left Yee alone, but to release him to the society in the US, a gun carrying society, can mean his murder. On that score as well, he should not be released for his own good until the appeal is heard.
I am sure the Department of Homeland Security understands the situation in Singapore better now and some of the absurd arguments made in in this case in court. I have a strong feeling that he will not be released during the pendency of the appeal, the government's appeal will be allowed and he will be retuned to Singapore.
Gopalan Nair
Attorney at Law
A Singaporean in Exile
Fremont San Francisco California
Tel: 510 491 8525
Email: nair.gopalan@yahoo.com
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
