Ladies and Gentlemen,
It does not take very much to bring about democratic change in Singapore Island.
The government has completely lost all moral authority to govern. The Singapore courts have been thoroughly discredited through their use to destroy political opposition, such as JB Jeyaretnam, Dr. Chee Soon Juan, Chia Thye Poh and the list goes on. And myself.
The Ministers are now seen as downright crooks paying themselves millions of dollars which they conveniently call salary and which anyone else would simply call "theft".
The Constitution of Singapore is discredited and made a mockery of with no freedoms whatsoever to speak of, no free speech, expression, assembly, nothing.
There is not a single independent newspaper in the entire island, with the state not only owning but also controlling them. Another word for this is propaganda.
Very soon I will be disbarred as a lawyer in Singapore, which gives another opportunity for me to expose their abusing the law.
And I can go on.
What is needed for Lee Kuan Yew's Singapore castle of cards to topple is a few people coming out and saying exactly that which is staring them in their faces. Dr. Chee and JB Jeyaretnam has suffered for saying this. I have. Numerous other people have suffered for standing up to the despotic regime.
But keep this in mind. None of the work they have done has been in vain. By each of us speaking up, even if we were punished, this administration suffers much more.
As they continue to abuse the rights of Singaporeans who dare to stand up, they alienate even more Singaporeans against them.
That is why my imprisonment in Singapore has not been in vain. None of the work of the others who have stood up to this tyranny has been in vain.
I ask Singaporeans, especially the students to have the courage to stand up and just speak the truth. Have the courage to tell Lee Kuan Yew and his ministers that they are thieves, because that is what they are. Have the courage to tell the Minister of Law that he is not fooling anyone when he disallows even a one person peaceful protest.
And last but not least, have the courage to do it openly. Identify yourselves, not hide under pseudonyms or false identities. Have the courage to tell your friends to do it. Have the courage to organize into groups of democracy activists.
Singapore is a small island. It only takes a few to act as the catalyst for the movement to roll.
Today in Copenhagen many young people are protesting for a greener Mother Earth. They have a passion, conviction and God given courage. Why do you need to live in fear? Why are you different from the brave young men and women in Copenhagen?
Lee Kuan Yew is terrified of you now. He had never imagined the impact of the Internet and the greater independence that education gives the younger generation. Now he is clearly in the defensive because his actions are now spelt out for the judgment of the entire world. He cannot deal with this new world of Singaporeans.
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 15, 2009
Law Society vs Gopalan Nair, Court Transcripts and audio recordings
Ladies and Gentlemen,
Below is an Email that I have sent to the Tribunal, Ministers Wong Kan Seng and K Shanmugam and Attorney General Woon.
For the first time, I received a fax from the High Court and the Subordinate Court that they are prepared to hand over the requested court transcripts "to a courier company". Previously they said no such thing.
I get the impression that they are feeling the heat. I had complained to the Ministers and the Attorney General that they are looking very small now by demanding that I go to Singapore to collect these items or to send someone there, both of which options they know is impossible since I live in California.
Since they have now changed their minds, it is essential that I at least have sight of this evidence before I file my list of documents and Affidavit. Damage has already been caused to my case by my not having this at the time of filing my defense, which I have done.
Let us see now whether they would give me the additional time for preparation, since it is they, not I, who has caused this difficulty by their refusal earlier to see reason and comply with their legal duty.
It has to be stressed that I am doing this under protest. Any jurisdiction worth it's salt in quasi criminal and administrative proceedings such as this would do this at their expense. They would not be expecting the defendant to bear such costs.
Second, I hope that the Ministers in Singapore would advice the Singapore Disciplinary Tribunal that they would look very small if they do not provide the audio recording in the High Court which is available to every other Defendant. What are they afraid of? That I would post it online?
Very Best
Gopalan Nair
Court Transcripts and audio recordings
Wednesday, December 16, 2009 5:34 AM
From: "Gopalan Nair"
To: angela_chopard@supcourt.gov.sg, yogeswari_n_vadivellu@supcourt.gov.sg
Cc: wong_kan_seng@mha.gov.sg, k_shanmugam@mlaw.gov.sg, audrey_wong@agc.gov.sg
To,
Angela Chopard and her co worker N Vadivellu of the Singapore Disciplinary Tribunal
Wong Kan Seng, Minister for Home Affairs; K Shanmugam, Minister for Law; and Walter Woon, Attorney General Singapore,
Dec 15, 2009
This regards the court transcripts and audio recordings that I requested that is an essential part of discovery for my defense. So far you have refused to provide any of this. As for the court transcripts of both the High Court and Subordinate Court matters you had demanded that 'I come to Singapore to collect it personally" or "I send someone there to collect it for me". Since it is plain that I cannot come to Singapore, my coming there was not possible. Second, since I have no one in Singapore, noone can collect it for me short of being far too expensive.
Although it is your duty all along to provide these documents, at your cost, as in any trial against the Defendant, you have refused to abide by your duty in the law of discovery. It can only seem that you want to make it as difficult as possible for me to defend these charges, which is not suprising, given their nature.
All of a sudden, on Dec 10, 2009 I received a fax from the High Court and a similar fax from the Subordinate Court of the same date which says that "I could arrange for a courier company to collect them and forward them to me".
This is an entirely new development. Had I been told that I could get a courier to pick it up, perhaps I would have done this, although it is your responsibility to send these things to me at your cost. Not mine.
Now since you are saying this for the first time, and since I need these transcripts and the audio for me to properly file my Affidavit, please vacate all future dates of Jan 07, 2010 for filing lists of documents, Feb 05, 2010 for filing the Affidavit and the trial dates in March 2010. This is to enable me to now make arrangements to get a courier who will do this, to receive the documents,forward them, and I peruse them and to file the necesary documents thereafter in good time.
In the meantime please be reminded that I have also requested the audio recordings in the High Court. You have flatly refused it. You are required also to provide it. It is essential evidence.
This Email is also being sent to Wong Kan Seng, Minister Home Affairs, K Shanmugam, Law Minister and Walter Woon Singapore Attorney General as it appears that this has resulted in Singapore Disciplinary Tribunal's willingness to provide the transcripts through a courier whereas in the past they were not interested in providing anything.
This is being posted on my blog Singapore Dissident. For the reader who is new to this case, kindly read my earlier posts.
Gopalan Nair
Below is an Email that I have sent to the Tribunal, Ministers Wong Kan Seng and K Shanmugam and Attorney General Woon.
For the first time, I received a fax from the High Court and the Subordinate Court that they are prepared to hand over the requested court transcripts "to a courier company". Previously they said no such thing.
I get the impression that they are feeling the heat. I had complained to the Ministers and the Attorney General that they are looking very small now by demanding that I go to Singapore to collect these items or to send someone there, both of which options they know is impossible since I live in California.
Since they have now changed their minds, it is essential that I at least have sight of this evidence before I file my list of documents and Affidavit. Damage has already been caused to my case by my not having this at the time of filing my defense, which I have done.
Let us see now whether they would give me the additional time for preparation, since it is they, not I, who has caused this difficulty by their refusal earlier to see reason and comply with their legal duty.
It has to be stressed that I am doing this under protest. Any jurisdiction worth it's salt in quasi criminal and administrative proceedings such as this would do this at their expense. They would not be expecting the defendant to bear such costs.
Second, I hope that the Ministers in Singapore would advice the Singapore Disciplinary Tribunal that they would look very small if they do not provide the audio recording in the High Court which is available to every other Defendant. What are they afraid of? That I would post it online?
Very Best
Gopalan Nair
Court Transcripts and audio recordings
Wednesday, December 16, 2009 5:34 AM
From: "Gopalan Nair"
To: angela_chopard@supcourt.gov.sg, yogeswari_n_vadivellu@supcourt.gov.sg
Cc: wong_kan_seng@mha.gov.sg, k_shanmugam@mlaw.gov.sg, audrey_wong@agc.gov.sg
To,
Angela Chopard and her co worker N Vadivellu of the Singapore Disciplinary Tribunal
Wong Kan Seng, Minister for Home Affairs; K Shanmugam, Minister for Law; and Walter Woon, Attorney General Singapore,
Dec 15, 2009
This regards the court transcripts and audio recordings that I requested that is an essential part of discovery for my defense. So far you have refused to provide any of this. As for the court transcripts of both the High Court and Subordinate Court matters you had demanded that 'I come to Singapore to collect it personally" or "I send someone there to collect it for me". Since it is plain that I cannot come to Singapore, my coming there was not possible. Second, since I have no one in Singapore, noone can collect it for me short of being far too expensive.
Although it is your duty all along to provide these documents, at your cost, as in any trial against the Defendant, you have refused to abide by your duty in the law of discovery. It can only seem that you want to make it as difficult as possible for me to defend these charges, which is not suprising, given their nature.
All of a sudden, on Dec 10, 2009 I received a fax from the High Court and a similar fax from the Subordinate Court of the same date which says that "I could arrange for a courier company to collect them and forward them to me".
This is an entirely new development. Had I been told that I could get a courier to pick it up, perhaps I would have done this, although it is your responsibility to send these things to me at your cost. Not mine.
Now since you are saying this for the first time, and since I need these transcripts and the audio for me to properly file my Affidavit, please vacate all future dates of Jan 07, 2010 for filing lists of documents, Feb 05, 2010 for filing the Affidavit and the trial dates in March 2010. This is to enable me to now make arrangements to get a courier who will do this, to receive the documents,forward them, and I peruse them and to file the necesary documents thereafter in good time.
In the meantime please be reminded that I have also requested the audio recordings in the High Court. You have flatly refused it. You are required also to provide it. It is essential evidence.
This Email is also being sent to Wong Kan Seng, Minister Home Affairs, K Shanmugam, Law Minister and Walter Woon Singapore Attorney General as it appears that this has resulted in Singapore Disciplinary Tribunal's willingness to provide the transcripts through a courier whereas in the past they were not interested in providing anything.
This is being posted on my blog Singapore Dissident. For the reader who is new to this case, kindly read my earlier posts.
Gopalan Nair
Wednesday, December 9, 2009
Gopalan Nair. Singapore's bully boys find themselves in a pickle!
Ladies and Gentlemen,
Lee Kuan Yew and his bully boys now finds themselves inextricably in a pickle.
Whichever way they turn, they simply cannot escape the consequences of their reputation being lowered a mile lower to the depths of Burma and North Korea, by my impending disbarment from practicing law in Singapore.
Regardless of how bad or good I am, Singapore has, you will agree, to disbar me from the Rolls of Lawyers there.
It is part of their regular practice, of sending a signal to all other lawyers that they should obey their Singaporean masters.
Also they cannot ever say I am not guilty since this will inevitably send another signal to Singaporeans lawyers that it is OK to openly criticize the government and their judiciary.
The third signal they have to send to all Singaporeans is not to become meddlesome like Gopalan Nair. Therefore my disbarment is a forgone conclusion, you can take that as a fact.
But now for the first time, I am going to put all this on the Internet.
Singaporeans as well as everyone else are going to read why I was disbarred, and in this situation, they will have a very hard time justifying it.
Therefore, the predictable result is the exposure, yet again, of the abuse of the rule of law in the island by the rulers to further their political ends.
This is what I have been trying to prove all along, and the Singapore Law Society advised by the Lee Kuan Yew and his minions are helping me to do exactly that.
Now look at the convictions and my record and ask yourselves whether this is the sort of person who should be disbarred.
Present Charges:
Charge 1 and 2: A false accusation that in Little India, Singapore, I shouted abuses at police officers, knocked on police cars and behaved disorderly by waving my arms and shouting.
This is entirely false and the evidence at the trial clearly proved my innocence.
Entirely for the sake of argument, even if I did what they say, which is denied, is a lawyer to be disbarred for this? I think not.
Charge 3.
I was convicted of criticizing Judge Belinda Ang Saw Ean in my blog after I had observed her trial in Singapore in the Lee Kuan Yew vs Dr. Chee case.
The judge's behaviour is set out in my blog post of May 29, 2009 where the various instances of bias on her part have been set out.
I had also said in the same blog post that "Belinda Ang had prostituted herself in her position as a judge in that case by behaving as nothing more than an employee of Lee Kuan Yew to do his bidding".
The word "prostituting" means in Websters and all other dictionaries to mean abusing one's authority or profession for personal gain or a dishonest purpose.
This was exactly what she was shamefully doing.
The description of this woman was correct.
Is it fair to disbar Gopalan Nair for correctly describing this woman's conduct during the trial?
Charge 4. Writing similar language about Judge Judith Prakash for sending 3 young men to jail terms for contempt of court merely for wearing T shirts with a picture of a Kangaroo in judicial robes within the courts precincts but not within any particular court.
There was no contempt of any court at all under the constitution or under the laws of contempt.
Should I be disbarred for writing a factually and legally correct observation of her abuse of the law as a judge?
Charge 5: While I was in jail, new charges of contempt of court were brought for my having made such statements as " I have no confidence that I will receive justice in this court" during my earlier trial for the false charge of shouting abuses at police officers (an accusation which I totally deny).
Should I be disbarred from the Singapore Law Society for saying something that I honestly believed in?
I apologized to the judge and promised not to write anything critical of the Singapore government and their judges as was requested by the prosecutor.
I also agreed to delete a few blog posts.
The prosecutor had indicated that if I did this, he will not ask that my detention be extended.
In order to get out of prison, I apologized and promised to do what they wanted.
Since my return to California, I withdrew the apology given and put up the offending blog posts and have continued to criticize the Lee Kuan Yew government their minions and their ever willing judiciary.
I see nothing wrong in that. Should I be disbarred for that?
Previous instances:
1. I was suspended for 2 years merely for publicizing correspondence between myself and the former Attorney General of Singapore about a matter of public interest and controversy.
I also accused him of not telling the truth.
Is this a sign of bad character or that of an upright citizen who cares for the interest of Singapore and the reputation of their legal system?
2. I was fined $8,000.00 for making an election rally speech in Bukit Merah in 1991 promising to change the system of appointment of Subordinate Court judges from the then system under the Legal Service Commission.
Is there any impropriety in that? And is this a sign of bad character or a sign of commendable and honorable conduct?
The reader is asked to read my earlier posts for details of these cases.
The plight of the Singapore Law Society carrying out the government's orders:
Their difficulty is this.
They will have to provide precedents and authority why a person such as myself deserves to be disbarred.
This is where they are going to be in an inescapable rut.
It is going to be impossible to justify my disbarment based on any similar authority.
Their past practice of using totally irrelevant cases which had no nexus whatsoever to the case at hand can no longer work now.
With the Internet through this blog, their arguments are going to be exposed for what they are worth.
So come on, you bullies. I am ready for a challenge.
Let us see who is going to win this contest before the judge and juries made up of the entire world, not just the Lee Kuan Yew lackeys in Singapore!
Of course, I don't think I would have found myself in this much trouble in Singapore had I not been a member of the opposition since 1984 and ever since then been a unwavering critic of Singapore's bully boys. Do you?
Gopalan Nair
39737 Paseo Padre Parkway, Suite A1
Fremont, CA 94538, USA
Tel: 510 657 6107
Fax: 510 657 6914
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.
Lee Kuan Yew and his bully boys now finds themselves inextricably in a pickle.
Whichever way they turn, they simply cannot escape the consequences of their reputation being lowered a mile lower to the depths of Burma and North Korea, by my impending disbarment from practicing law in Singapore.
Regardless of how bad or good I am, Singapore has, you will agree, to disbar me from the Rolls of Lawyers there.
It is part of their regular practice, of sending a signal to all other lawyers that they should obey their Singaporean masters.
Also they cannot ever say I am not guilty since this will inevitably send another signal to Singaporeans lawyers that it is OK to openly criticize the government and their judiciary.
The third signal they have to send to all Singaporeans is not to become meddlesome like Gopalan Nair. Therefore my disbarment is a forgone conclusion, you can take that as a fact.
But now for the first time, I am going to put all this on the Internet.
Singaporeans as well as everyone else are going to read why I was disbarred, and in this situation, they will have a very hard time justifying it.
Therefore, the predictable result is the exposure, yet again, of the abuse of the rule of law in the island by the rulers to further their political ends.
This is what I have been trying to prove all along, and the Singapore Law Society advised by the Lee Kuan Yew and his minions are helping me to do exactly that.
Now look at the convictions and my record and ask yourselves whether this is the sort of person who should be disbarred.
Present Charges:
Charge 1 and 2: A false accusation that in Little India, Singapore, I shouted abuses at police officers, knocked on police cars and behaved disorderly by waving my arms and shouting.
This is entirely false and the evidence at the trial clearly proved my innocence.
Entirely for the sake of argument, even if I did what they say, which is denied, is a lawyer to be disbarred for this? I think not.
Charge 3.
I was convicted of criticizing Judge Belinda Ang Saw Ean in my blog after I had observed her trial in Singapore in the Lee Kuan Yew vs Dr. Chee case.
The judge's behaviour is set out in my blog post of May 29, 2009 where the various instances of bias on her part have been set out.
I had also said in the same blog post that "Belinda Ang had prostituted herself in her position as a judge in that case by behaving as nothing more than an employee of Lee Kuan Yew to do his bidding".
The word "prostituting" means in Websters and all other dictionaries to mean abusing one's authority or profession for personal gain or a dishonest purpose.
This was exactly what she was shamefully doing.
The description of this woman was correct.
Is it fair to disbar Gopalan Nair for correctly describing this woman's conduct during the trial?
Charge 4. Writing similar language about Judge Judith Prakash for sending 3 young men to jail terms for contempt of court merely for wearing T shirts with a picture of a Kangaroo in judicial robes within the courts precincts but not within any particular court.
There was no contempt of any court at all under the constitution or under the laws of contempt.
Should I be disbarred for writing a factually and legally correct observation of her abuse of the law as a judge?
Charge 5: While I was in jail, new charges of contempt of court were brought for my having made such statements as " I have no confidence that I will receive justice in this court" during my earlier trial for the false charge of shouting abuses at police officers (an accusation which I totally deny).
Should I be disbarred from the Singapore Law Society for saying something that I honestly believed in?
I apologized to the judge and promised not to write anything critical of the Singapore government and their judges as was requested by the prosecutor.
I also agreed to delete a few blog posts.
The prosecutor had indicated that if I did this, he will not ask that my detention be extended.
In order to get out of prison, I apologized and promised to do what they wanted.
Since my return to California, I withdrew the apology given and put up the offending blog posts and have continued to criticize the Lee Kuan Yew government their minions and their ever willing judiciary.
I see nothing wrong in that. Should I be disbarred for that?
Previous instances:
1. I was suspended for 2 years merely for publicizing correspondence between myself and the former Attorney General of Singapore about a matter of public interest and controversy.
I also accused him of not telling the truth.
Is this a sign of bad character or that of an upright citizen who cares for the interest of Singapore and the reputation of their legal system?
2. I was fined $8,000.00 for making an election rally speech in Bukit Merah in 1991 promising to change the system of appointment of Subordinate Court judges from the then system under the Legal Service Commission.
Is there any impropriety in that? And is this a sign of bad character or a sign of commendable and honorable conduct?
The reader is asked to read my earlier posts for details of these cases.
The plight of the Singapore Law Society carrying out the government's orders:
Their difficulty is this.
They will have to provide precedents and authority why a person such as myself deserves to be disbarred.
This is where they are going to be in an inescapable rut.
It is going to be impossible to justify my disbarment based on any similar authority.
Their past practice of using totally irrelevant cases which had no nexus whatsoever to the case at hand can no longer work now.
With the Internet through this blog, their arguments are going to be exposed for what they are worth.
So come on, you bullies. I am ready for a challenge.
Let us see who is going to win this contest before the judge and juries made up of the entire world, not just the Lee Kuan Yew lackeys in Singapore!
Of course, I don't think I would have found myself in this much trouble in Singapore had I not been a member of the opposition since 1984 and ever since then been a unwavering critic of Singapore's bully boys. Do you?
Gopalan Nair
39737 Paseo Padre Parkway, Suite A1
Fremont, CA 94538, USA
Tel: 510 657 6107
Fax: 510 657 6914
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 8, 2009
Singaporean Law Society vs Gopalan Nair, Travel to Singapore
Travel to Singapore
Wednesday, December 9, 2009 4:40 AM
From: "Gopalan Nair"
To: angela_chopard@supcourt.gov.sg
Cc: yogeswari_n_vadivellu@supcourt.gov.sg
Hello Chopard and co-worker N Vadivellu,
Please refer to your Email dated Dec 7, 2009 and Dec 09, 2009. You claim that I had not informed you of the dates available for me to attend in Singapore for the disciplinary hearing.
You are wrong. I did inform you that the March dates were fine. Please refer to my Defense Para 80, which was Emailed to you, executed Nov 30, 2009 in Fremont California, Email date Dec 1, 2009.
For your information, which should be your problem in the first place, the Singapore Immigration Customs Authority has not replied on my application to travel to Singapore and neither have you addressed the other issues relating to my proposed travel to your island.
Sincerely,
Gopalan Nair
Wednesday, December 9, 2009 4:40 AM
From: "Gopalan Nair"
To: angela_chopard@supcourt.gov.sg
Cc: yogeswari_n_vadivellu@supcourt.gov.sg
Hello Chopard and co-worker N Vadivellu,
Please refer to your Email dated Dec 7, 2009 and Dec 09, 2009. You claim that I had not informed you of the dates available for me to attend in Singapore for the disciplinary hearing.
You are wrong. I did inform you that the March dates were fine. Please refer to my Defense Para 80, which was Emailed to you, executed Nov 30, 2009 in Fremont California, Email date Dec 1, 2009.
For your information, which should be your problem in the first place, the Singapore Immigration Customs Authority has not replied on my application to travel to Singapore and neither have you addressed the other issues relating to my proposed travel to your island.
Sincerely,
Gopalan Nair
Wednesday, December 2, 2009
Singapore. It only needs a few to bring about change.
Ladies and Gentlemen,
The legal profession in Singapore, up till now, has been effectively muzzled. Lee has not unexpectedly found the lawyers to be his greatest fear. He knows it was the lawyers who were the troublemakers for the British colonials, just like him. Ever since then, with million dollar salaried compliant judges and Attorney Generals, with some help through Singapore's detention without trial laws and defamation lawsuits, the lawyers are effectively castrated.
You see, there is a sense of helplessness among Singapore lawyers. They realize there is nothing they can do. And since half a loaf is better than none, even if they scrape out a living, their aspirations and dreams remain at that level, not more. Their life becomes a mere mundane fight for daily survival. A few with connections do well, as long as Lee Kuan Yew and his friends look favorably to them.
There are no clubs and societies which they attend to discuss rights, discuss freedoms, discuss change, and discuss what next. If you happened to be that way inclined in Singapore, you would be looked upon as weird and funny. Singapore lawyers don't talk about such things. They just do their job and tend to their families. You may say it is a boring life, and you are right. The only ones with exciting lives are Lee Kuan Yew and his friends at the top.
They no longer desire greater things. Such as the demand for freedom. The right to question authority. To demand change.
Somehow in Singapore such things are left to the professionals, that is Lee Kuan Yew and the PAP. Thinking about changes to their lives, national policy and so on, is left has to be left to professional politicians. Unless they are in agreement with the policies, they have no right do such things as question authority. If you did, you will be in trouble.
Since nobody wants trouble life becomes very simple. Go to work, do you job well and Lee Kuan Yew and his smart friends will do the necessary for you. If you feel you want to participate in the general consensus of Lee Kuan Yew's thinking group, then join them, and if they accept you, you too can be a politician, that is politician Singapore style.
From then on what you say will be printed in the sate controlled newspapers and your day job will be thinking out what is good for Singaporeans and that includes lawyers.
Thank God that is not the case with everyone. There is a growing number, granted a small one, that are beginning to think otherwise. In other words, the brainwashing has not been entirely complete with them. These are the younger people especially students who feel that they too have rights, just like a young Australian, or Canadian.
These are the ones who can bring about change. What I hope for is is a demanding citizenry, even a small number to start with. Even though it may be small it can bring about change for certain.
Singaporeans have been with 4 decades of brainwashing turned into people with a group mentality. In the Singapore the legal profession about which I have experience, the general philosophy is to secure a living. Get as many cases as you can, argue them according to the laws that exist, regardless of whether you think they are just or no. But on the other hand, if a few were to stand out and protest in the streets about whatever issue, and if such a protest culture takes root, then the others too like sheep will follow. That is why all you need is a few to bring about real change in Singapore.
Such people do exist in Singapore and what is more they are growing. Those who have been subject to such mind control for years such as the lawyers in their 50s for instance, will take longer to change. But with a growing number of younger people with the necessary civic consciousness and pride, I think will see the country through to change.
Singapore cannot change through the ballot box. That is sure. But it will with a few who have the courage to publicly stand out and say "no" the these unjust laws and despotic rule. Then everything will come around because the others like sheep will begin to sing the same song.
That is why I have hope. That is why each of us, who do whatever we do, should not be discouraged for the moment. There is a light if you look hard enough over there.
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.
The legal profession in Singapore, up till now, has been effectively muzzled. Lee has not unexpectedly found the lawyers to be his greatest fear. He knows it was the lawyers who were the troublemakers for the British colonials, just like him. Ever since then, with million dollar salaried compliant judges and Attorney Generals, with some help through Singapore's detention without trial laws and defamation lawsuits, the lawyers are effectively castrated.
You see, there is a sense of helplessness among Singapore lawyers. They realize there is nothing they can do. And since half a loaf is better than none, even if they scrape out a living, their aspirations and dreams remain at that level, not more. Their life becomes a mere mundane fight for daily survival. A few with connections do well, as long as Lee Kuan Yew and his friends look favorably to them.
There are no clubs and societies which they attend to discuss rights, discuss freedoms, discuss change, and discuss what next. If you happened to be that way inclined in Singapore, you would be looked upon as weird and funny. Singapore lawyers don't talk about such things. They just do their job and tend to their families. You may say it is a boring life, and you are right. The only ones with exciting lives are Lee Kuan Yew and his friends at the top.
They no longer desire greater things. Such as the demand for freedom. The right to question authority. To demand change.
Somehow in Singapore such things are left to the professionals, that is Lee Kuan Yew and the PAP. Thinking about changes to their lives, national policy and so on, is left has to be left to professional politicians. Unless they are in agreement with the policies, they have no right do such things as question authority. If you did, you will be in trouble.
Since nobody wants trouble life becomes very simple. Go to work, do you job well and Lee Kuan Yew and his smart friends will do the necessary for you. If you feel you want to participate in the general consensus of Lee Kuan Yew's thinking group, then join them, and if they accept you, you too can be a politician, that is politician Singapore style.
From then on what you say will be printed in the sate controlled newspapers and your day job will be thinking out what is good for Singaporeans and that includes lawyers.
Thank God that is not the case with everyone. There is a growing number, granted a small one, that are beginning to think otherwise. In other words, the brainwashing has not been entirely complete with them. These are the younger people especially students who feel that they too have rights, just like a young Australian, or Canadian.
These are the ones who can bring about change. What I hope for is is a demanding citizenry, even a small number to start with. Even though it may be small it can bring about change for certain.
Singaporeans have been with 4 decades of brainwashing turned into people with a group mentality. In the Singapore the legal profession about which I have experience, the general philosophy is to secure a living. Get as many cases as you can, argue them according to the laws that exist, regardless of whether you think they are just or no. But on the other hand, if a few were to stand out and protest in the streets about whatever issue, and if such a protest culture takes root, then the others too like sheep will follow. That is why all you need is a few to bring about real change in Singapore.
Such people do exist in Singapore and what is more they are growing. Those who have been subject to such mind control for years such as the lawyers in their 50s for instance, will take longer to change. But with a growing number of younger people with the necessary civic consciousness and pride, I think will see the country through to change.
Singapore cannot change through the ballot box. That is sure. But it will with a few who have the courage to publicly stand out and say "no" the these unjust laws and despotic rule. Then everything will come around because the others like sheep will begin to sing the same song.
That is why I have hope. That is why each of us, who do whatever we do, should not be discouraged for the moment. There is a light if you look hard enough over there.
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.
Letter to Wong Kan Seng, Home Affairs Minister, K Shanmugam, Law Minister and Walter Woon, Attorney General. Law Society vs Gopalan Nair
Failure of due process of law by Singapore Disciplinary Tribunal.
Thursday, December 3, 2009 4:05 AM
From: "Gopalan Nair"
To: wong_kan_seng@mha.gov.sg, k_shanmugam@mlaw.gov.sg, audrey_wong@agc.gov.sg
Cc: angela_chopard@supcourt.gov.sg, yogeswari_n_vadivellu@supcourt.gov.sg
To,
1) Wong Kan Seng
Singapore Minister of Home Affairs
2) K Shanmugam
Singapore Minister of Law
3) Walter Woon
Singapore Attorney General
Dec 02, 2009
Ref: singapore dissident
Law Society of Singapore vs Gopalan Nair
1. The subject is the disciplinary proceedings brought against me by the Law Society of Singapore.
2. I am sure you are aware of this, but in any case, it is necessary to make this public and to demand an explanation.
3. There are 5 charges brought against me, 2 of them involving my conviction in Singapore ’s courts, namely one in the High Court for criticizing your Singapore judge Belinda Ang Saw Ean and another involving a disorderly conduct case/ insulting a police officer case in the Subordinate Court which resulted in convictions. For these 2 charges, the convictions form the basis of the disciplinary proceedings.
4. It is open to any Defendant in these proceedings to challenge the convictions themselves as a defense to these charges. In this case, with the appalling reputation of your courts being ordinarily used as a tool to destroy political opposition and government critics, and since these 2 convictions arose out of such misuse of the law, it is absolutely essential that I be provided with the transcripts and audio recordings (High Court) to prepare my defense.
5. I had written several Emails to the Disciplinary Tribunal asking that I be provided with these essential documents. Initially the Tribunal Head, Angela Chopard through someone called Audrey Lim whom no one knows, replied and said repeatedly that they are not required to provide anything and if I needed anything, I should write directly to the relevant authorities, in this case the courts.
6. Since she was not prepared to do anything, I had no choice but to write to the courts myself. I had written to the High Court asking for the court testimony transcripts and testimony audio recordings in my case there and to the Subordinate court for the testimony transcripts (Subordinate Courts do not record audio recordings).
7. Both the courts have in effect refused to provide anything at all.
8. On Nov 11, 2009, Jasmine Ong (Ms), acting fro Registrar Supreme Court writes "We refer to our earlier letter of Oct 30, 2009, informing you that a copy of the transcripts for the criminal case No 23 of 2008 will be provided to you at no charge............ Please make arrangements for an authorized person to collect the transcripts on your behalf". In other words, I or someone else has to go there physically.
9. We have had a similar letter from the Subordinate Courts telling me to go to Singapore to pick up the testimony court transcripts or to send an authorized representative to go to Singapore to pick it up.
10. As you are aware I live in California and not in Singapore . Secondly I have no one in Singapore to pick it up.
11. One more puzzling fact is this. Earlier the Tribunal itself in their letter dated Nov 4, 2009 again demands this. They say "The Disciplinary Tribunal also notes that the Supreme Court and the Subordinate Courts have acceded to the Respondents requests and made available the transcripts of the relevant court proceedings to the Respondent (subject to the Respondent or an authorized person collecting the transcripts).
12. This response from the tribunal is bewildering. Why in Heaven’s should someone go there personally for this! I then wrote to both the courts with copies sent to the tribunal, in my Email dated Nov 6, 2009, asking for the transcripts to be mailed to me in California . They have simply ignored my request.
13. You will appreciate that it takes no great effort for both courts to send the transcripts and the audio recordings (in the case of the High Court) to me in California . This is crucial evidence that a Defendant is entitled to rely on his defense.
14. It would be a waste of my time to tell the Minister for Law and the Attorney General what the law is, but let me say this again for the public and Singaporeans.
15. In these proceedings just as in criminal proceedings, it is necessary not only to appraise the Defendant of the charges against him but also provide him with not only incriminating evidence but any exculpatory evidence or any other relevant evidence which he needs. And what is more the Tribunal has to do it without my asking.
16. In this case right form the very start, the Tribunal has failed in their duty. First except for the sending me charges and asking for my lawyer's name, which I have none, they did not provide anything else. Yet, for instance, their charges and notices refer to rules and statutes that they intend to rely on, which they totally fail to provide.
17. And then after my reminding them of this, they sent me a copy of the rules but nothing else.
18. Now, I have had no choice to file my defense (which I did) without the benefit of any of the testimony court transcripts of the court hearings nor the audio recordings. This has caused me undue prejudice.
19. Now about my travel to Singapore .
20. You would agree I hope that a Defendant has a right to defend himself in court. The court dates have been fixed either for February or March next year. As you are aware, I am prohibited from re-entering Singapore unless I have written permission as per your government order last year after my deportation from your island.
21. I had written to your Tribunal whose responsibility it is to arrange these things, but not surprisingly, yet again, they said they are not interested and that I should write to Singapore Immigration myself. So I did this on Nov 11, 2009 and received a response from them dated the same day saying merely "the matter is receiving attention and we will reply to you in due course". Up till now they have said nothing more.
22. Your Law Society of Singapore, is clearly flouting the basic rules of natural justice. Anyone reading this can see that you are deliberately denying me a fair chance to defend myself.
23. This is not looking good yet again on your claim that you have a first class legal system with the rule of law. This is not the rule of law.
24. In the past, without the benefit of the Internet and with a Defendant helpless in your island, you could get away with any injustice as you want. This time, what you do is being watched by quite a few.
25. I suggest you instruct your Law Society that this will not do. Instruct them to send the transcripts and audio recordings to me as they should and demand an explanation form them why they are deliberately refusing me a chance to defend myself. And with it, provide a sufficient time thereafter to file proper defense.
26. Also demand that they respond as they should to my Singapore travel request. And tell them the general duties of a Disciplinary Tribunal.
27. If you do not do this, once again, your claim to be a first rate legal system would sound familiarly hollow. This, if I may say, is not even third class.
27. I will be posting this on my blog Singapore Dissident and every subsequent development.
Sincerely,
Gopalan Nair
Thursday, December 3, 2009 4:05 AM
From: "Gopalan Nair"
To: wong_kan_seng@mha.gov.sg, k_shanmugam@mlaw.gov.sg, audrey_wong@agc.gov.sg
Cc: angela_chopard@supcourt.gov.sg, yogeswari_n_vadivellu@supcourt.gov.sg
To,
1) Wong Kan Seng
Singapore Minister of Home Affairs
2) K Shanmugam
Singapore Minister of Law
3) Walter Woon
Singapore Attorney General
Dec 02, 2009
Ref: singapore dissident
Law Society of Singapore vs Gopalan Nair
1. The subject is the disciplinary proceedings brought against me by the Law Society of Singapore.
2. I am sure you are aware of this, but in any case, it is necessary to make this public and to demand an explanation.
3. There are 5 charges brought against me, 2 of them involving my conviction in Singapore ’s courts, namely one in the High Court for criticizing your Singapore judge Belinda Ang Saw Ean and another involving a disorderly conduct case/ insulting a police officer case in the Subordinate Court which resulted in convictions. For these 2 charges, the convictions form the basis of the disciplinary proceedings.
4. It is open to any Defendant in these proceedings to challenge the convictions themselves as a defense to these charges. In this case, with the appalling reputation of your courts being ordinarily used as a tool to destroy political opposition and government critics, and since these 2 convictions arose out of such misuse of the law, it is absolutely essential that I be provided with the transcripts and audio recordings (High Court) to prepare my defense.
5. I had written several Emails to the Disciplinary Tribunal asking that I be provided with these essential documents. Initially the Tribunal Head, Angela Chopard through someone called Audrey Lim whom no one knows, replied and said repeatedly that they are not required to provide anything and if I needed anything, I should write directly to the relevant authorities, in this case the courts.
6. Since she was not prepared to do anything, I had no choice but to write to the courts myself. I had written to the High Court asking for the court testimony transcripts and testimony audio recordings in my case there and to the Subordinate court for the testimony transcripts (Subordinate Courts do not record audio recordings).
7. Both the courts have in effect refused to provide anything at all.
8. On Nov 11, 2009, Jasmine Ong (Ms), acting fro Registrar Supreme Court writes "We refer to our earlier letter of Oct 30, 2009, informing you that a copy of the transcripts for the criminal case No 23 of 2008 will be provided to you at no charge............ Please make arrangements for an authorized person to collect the transcripts on your behalf". In other words, I or someone else has to go there physically.
9. We have had a similar letter from the Subordinate Courts telling me to go to Singapore to pick up the testimony court transcripts or to send an authorized representative to go to Singapore to pick it up.
10. As you are aware I live in California and not in Singapore . Secondly I have no one in Singapore to pick it up.
11. One more puzzling fact is this. Earlier the Tribunal itself in their letter dated Nov 4, 2009 again demands this. They say "The Disciplinary Tribunal also notes that the Supreme Court and the Subordinate Courts have acceded to the Respondents requests and made available the transcripts of the relevant court proceedings to the Respondent (subject to the Respondent or an authorized person collecting the transcripts).
12. This response from the tribunal is bewildering. Why in Heaven’s should someone go there personally for this! I then wrote to both the courts with copies sent to the tribunal, in my Email dated Nov 6, 2009, asking for the transcripts to be mailed to me in California . They have simply ignored my request.
13. You will appreciate that it takes no great effort for both courts to send the transcripts and the audio recordings (in the case of the High Court) to me in California . This is crucial evidence that a Defendant is entitled to rely on his defense.
14. It would be a waste of my time to tell the Minister for Law and the Attorney General what the law is, but let me say this again for the public and Singaporeans.
15. In these proceedings just as in criminal proceedings, it is necessary not only to appraise the Defendant of the charges against him but also provide him with not only incriminating evidence but any exculpatory evidence or any other relevant evidence which he needs. And what is more the Tribunal has to do it without my asking.
16. In this case right form the very start, the Tribunal has failed in their duty. First except for the sending me charges and asking for my lawyer's name, which I have none, they did not provide anything else. Yet, for instance, their charges and notices refer to rules and statutes that they intend to rely on, which they totally fail to provide.
17. And then after my reminding them of this, they sent me a copy of the rules but nothing else.
18. Now, I have had no choice to file my defense (which I did) without the benefit of any of the testimony court transcripts of the court hearings nor the audio recordings. This has caused me undue prejudice.
19. Now about my travel to Singapore .
20. You would agree I hope that a Defendant has a right to defend himself in court. The court dates have been fixed either for February or March next year. As you are aware, I am prohibited from re-entering Singapore unless I have written permission as per your government order last year after my deportation from your island.
21. I had written to your Tribunal whose responsibility it is to arrange these things, but not surprisingly, yet again, they said they are not interested and that I should write to Singapore Immigration myself. So I did this on Nov 11, 2009 and received a response from them dated the same day saying merely "the matter is receiving attention and we will reply to you in due course". Up till now they have said nothing more.
22. Your Law Society of Singapore, is clearly flouting the basic rules of natural justice. Anyone reading this can see that you are deliberately denying me a fair chance to defend myself.
23. This is not looking good yet again on your claim that you have a first class legal system with the rule of law. This is not the rule of law.
24. In the past, without the benefit of the Internet and with a Defendant helpless in your island, you could get away with any injustice as you want. This time, what you do is being watched by quite a few.
25. I suggest you instruct your Law Society that this will not do. Instruct them to send the transcripts and audio recordings to me as they should and demand an explanation form them why they are deliberately refusing me a chance to defend myself. And with it, provide a sufficient time thereafter to file proper defense.
26. Also demand that they respond as they should to my Singapore travel request. And tell them the general duties of a Disciplinary Tribunal.
27. If you do not do this, once again, your claim to be a first rate legal system would sound familiarly hollow. This, if I may say, is not even third class.
27. I will be posting this on my blog Singapore Dissident and every subsequent development.
Sincerely,
Gopalan Nair
Tuesday, December 1, 2009
Reminder. Travel to Singapore
Reminder. Travel to Singapore
Tuesday, December 1, 2009 8:04 PM
From: "Gopalan Nair"
To: ica_feedback@ica.gov.sg
Cc: angela_chopard@supcourt.gov.sg,
yogeswari_n_vadivellu@supcourt.gov.sg
Hello Ng-Goh Siew Lee (Mrs)
Senior Customer Relations Executive
For Commissioner
Immigration and Cehckpoints Authority
Singapore
Dec 01, 2009
Ref:singaporedissident.12012009.doc
Hello,
1. On Nov 6, 2009 we received a letter from Disciplinary Tibunals Singapore stating that "the ICA has stated that you are required to apply for permission to enter Signapore if you want to re-enter Signapore".
2. We refer to our letter to you dated Nov 11, 2009 applying for permission to enter Singapore for the trial of the Disciplinary Proceedings by the Law Society against me, and your letter dated Nov 13, 2003 where you state as follws: "Please refer to your Email dated 11/11/2009. The matter is receiving our attention and we will reply to you in due course"
3. Please note that we also require a gaurantee from you and your government that I will be given safe passage into and out of Singapore, that I will not be arrested or harmed while in Singapore and that I will be paid for my passage to and from Singapore as well as board and lodging expenses while in Singapore.
4. We have not received any reply from you yet.
3. Please let us know without any further delay whether I am allowed to re-enter Singapore.
4. This Email is also being posted on my blog Singapore Dissident "singaporedissident.blogspot.com"
Sincerely,
Gopalan Nair
Fremont, California, USA
Tuesday, December 1, 2009 8:04 PM
From: "Gopalan Nair"
To: ica_feedback@ica.gov.sg
Cc: angela_chopard@supcourt.gov.sg,
yogeswari_n_vadivellu@supcourt.gov.sg
Hello Ng-Goh Siew Lee (Mrs)
Senior Customer Relations Executive
For Commissioner
Immigration and Cehckpoints Authority
Singapore
Dec 01, 2009
Ref:singaporedissident.12012009.doc
Hello,
1. On Nov 6, 2009 we received a letter from Disciplinary Tibunals Singapore stating that "the ICA has stated that you are required to apply for permission to enter Signapore if you want to re-enter Signapore".
2. We refer to our letter to you dated Nov 11, 2009 applying for permission to enter Singapore for the trial of the Disciplinary Proceedings by the Law Society against me, and your letter dated Nov 13, 2003 where you state as follws: "Please refer to your Email dated 11/11/2009. The matter is receiving our attention and we will reply to you in due course"
3. Please note that we also require a gaurantee from you and your government that I will be given safe passage into and out of Singapore, that I will not be arrested or harmed while in Singapore and that I will be paid for my passage to and from Singapore as well as board and lodging expenses while in Singapore.
4. We have not received any reply from you yet.
3. Please let us know without any further delay whether I am allowed to re-enter Singapore.
4. This Email is also being posted on my blog Singapore Dissident "singaporedissident.blogspot.com"
Sincerely,
Gopalan Nair
Fremont, California, USA
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
