Sunday, April 12, 2009

Singapore. Ex "Judge" Choor Singh dies.

Ladies and Gentlemen,

From my experience with this man Choor Singh who recently died, I can tell you this. He wasn't truly a "judge" although he sat in a courtroom and wore judge's robes. He was another of Lee Kuan Yew's “judges”, like what I wrote here about the likes of Judge Belinda Ang Saw Ean; someone "who prostitutes her position as a judge" to favor Lee Kuan Yew and demolish his opponents by abusing the law. From my personal experience with him in my case, I can tell you this. He had no shame. No shame at all.

The state controlled Singapore newspaper, just as the entire media in Singapore is state controlled, in its online edition on April 1, 2009, April Fool's day, a day befitting a man such as him, carries the article "Ex-judge Choor Singh dies".

A backdrop is necessary. In the late 1980s while I was in Singapore and a member of the Worker's Party with the late JB Jeyaretnam the following occurred. JB Jeyaretnam who was the victim of Lee Kuan Yew's numerous defamation lawsuits had been charged this time, with criminal breach of trust for allegedly diverting funds from the Singapore public trustee to himself of a petty sum of $200 or so and not telling the truth in a statutory declaration which he had filed with them by not declaring this petty sum. The matter arose from the fact that the Workers Party had been declared bankrupt through another of Lee Kuan Yew's numerous lawsuits against him. Although JB Jeyaretnam was not guilty of any of these trumped up politically motivated charges against him, the Singapore High Court predictably reversed his acquittal on appeal and found him guilty on all charges.

When JB Jeyaretnam appealed his conviction to the Privy Council of England, on the matter of his disbarment from the rolls of lawyers, they correctly ruled that he was not guilty of any of the charges and ordered his re-instatement to the rolls as an Advocate. Since the Singapore law did not have appeals to England on criminal convictions, the British law lords could not reverse his convictions. They therefore suggested that he petition the President of Singapore for a full pardon. After he did this, the President of Singapore, upon the advice of the then Attorney General of Singapore, Tan Boon Teik, who I understand now lives in Singapore and plays the piano to spend his time, refused any pardon.

His argument was that Jeyaretnam did not deserve a pardon for the following reasons. Firstly, he says the British judges had denied him natural justice because he was "not given an opportunity to be heard before the British Court" even though there is clear evidence that they began to hear the case only after the solicitor for the Law Society of Singapore expressly said that the Singapore government was aware of the case and did not wish to be heard.

Secondly he argues that Jeyaretnam is not deserving of a pardon because "he has not shown remorse repentance or contrition for the crimes he had committed" despite the fact the British law lords had expressly stated that he was not guilty of any crime!

When I read this totally unacceptable response from this Attorney General from the Singapore Straits Times, I was naturally outraged. How could this man, Tan Boon Teik say things which were totally untrue and get away with it? I could not remain silent. So I wrote to him to explain why he said what he said, when the facts were clearly something else. First he wrote to me telling me that if I had any questions I should address them to Mr. Jeyaretnam. Not satisfied with this totally unresponsive answer, I wrote to him again telling him that if he was not going to give me an acceptable answer within 14 days, I will make the letters passing between me and him public. To that, his response was that he was going to report me to the Law Society for unethical conduct!

The Law Society's was then as now, a tool of Lee Kuan Yew to silence his critics. Their charge against me were that I had falsely accused the Attorney General of improper conduct and secondly, that I had threatened him by threatening to make the 2 letters public. Although anyone in his right mind would find it impossible to see any unethical conduct on my part here, in Lee Kuan Yew's Singapore anything can be turned around if necessary to become unethical or unlawful to silence and punish his critics.

Here is where this man Choor Singh comes in. The Law Society's disciplinary hearings against me were heard before this man presiding as the judge. JB Jeyaretnam was my lawyer. Madan Assomull, a lawyer who practices in High Street Plaza, the building along High Street where Burmese workers now congregate, was the prosecutor.

From the word go, one thing was very clear. He wanted to find me guilty no matter what the evidence, and he wanted to do it as quickly as possible. Had he been a real judge, he would have thrown out these charges against me that very minute. Anyone in his right mind could have seen I was not guilty of anything. First, JB Jeyretnam was not my client when I wrote that letter to the Attorney General and therefore I was not acting in a professional capacity when I wrote that letter to the Attorney General. Second, how can merely writing a letter to the Attorney General asking for an explanation amount to falsely accusing him. And thirdly, how could a "threat" to make public letters passing between him and I amount to anything unlawful!

When the case started, Madan Assomull, trying hard to do the dirty work entrusted to him, made various applications for adjournments claiming that the Attorney General was overseas in China and various other countries, in the hope that I would feel the heat and succumb by pleading guilty. Since I was not prepared to do this, the case eventually started.

When the time came for Madan Assomull to cross examine me, I tried to answer him by explaining my stand, which included my stand that these entire proceedings were politically motivated, an abuse of the law and a travesty of justice. To that, Choor Singh interjected demanding that I answer with a "Yes" or "No" answers and not say anything else. I refused of course. What I told him was that I was going to answer the way I wanted or else, I was refusing to answer any questions. Finding himself in a bind, he reluctantly allowed me to answer the way I wanted. And I took the opportunity to state in court exactly what little I thought of Singapore's justice in Lee Kuan Yew's courts.

By this time, having practiced in Singapore’s courts for nearly 10 years, I had lost all respect for the legal system in Singapore. I had also by this time, made up my mind that I was going to leave Singapore for California. I was determined as my last stand against this regime to give them a run for their trouble. I was determined to take this opportunity to tell this court what I really thought of them. I knew of course that being a known dissenter to Singapore’s Lee Kuan Yew; I stood no hope of ever winning this case. So I fought it to the fullest. The case dragged on for as long as 2 months. The Attorney General was cross examined by JB Jeyaretnam rigorously. Although he was completely at a loss to explain why my actions were in the remotest manner objectionable, in the end predictably I was found guilty. This was at the end of 1991.

There was a moment of hilarity which I still remember. On the issue of whether the Attorney General of Singapore was given an opportunity to be heard at the hearing in London, the following occurred. It appeared that the British Law Lords had asked the solicitor for the Law Society whether the "Singapore authorities" were aware of the proceedings. To this, Madan Assomull asked Martin Thomas QC, who had appeared for Mr. Jeyaretnam before the British Court, whether they might have referred to someone else other than the Singapore Attorney General when referring to "Singapore Authorities". After Madan Assomull had repeatedly reminded him that the British Judges had referred to "Singapore Authorities" and did not use the words "Singapore Attorney General", Martin Thomas Qc said this. He said he was sure the British Judges were referring to the Singapore Attorney General and not anyone else. He said, he was sure the British Judges were not referring to the "Hong Kong Fire Brigade" when they said "Singapore Authorities" and that he was sure it meant the "Singapore attorney general"!

Let me make this clear. Choor Singh was a disgrace to humanity, to his Sikh community and to the law when he found me guilty of unprofessional conduct merely for writing a letter to the Attorney General asking him to explain himself when he advised the President not to give a pardon to JB Jeyaretnam. He is responsible together with the likes of Judge Belinda Ang Saw Ean for having brought the Singapore legal profession into disrepute and turning it into the laughing stock of lawyers around the world.

Choor Singh, when he sat in judgment in the case Law Society vs Gopalan Nair was not serving the law. He was serving Lee Kuan Yew.

Gopalan Nair
39737 Paseo Padre Parkway, Suite A1
Fremont, CA 94538, USA
Tel: 510 657 6107
Fax: 510 657 6914

Your letters are welcome. We reserve the right to publish your letters. Please Email your letters to 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.


Anonymous said...

April 13, 2009
Chief Justice reappointed
MR CHAN Sek Keong has been reappointed Chief Justice, the Prime Minister's Office said on Monday.

'The President, acting in his discretion, and in concurrence with the advice of the Prime Minister, has re-appointed Mr Chan Sek Keong as the Chief Justice from April 11 2009 to Nov 5 2012, when he will be 75 years of age,' said a PMO statement.

Mr Chan was first appointed Chief Justice on Arpil 11, 2006.

The President has also reappointed CJ Chan as Chairman of the Presidential Council for Minority Rights for a further term of three years, from April 11.

Anonymous said...

Good Riddance to this scum Choor Singh. May he rot in hell waiting for his master LKY

Renaldi said...

All men are just passing by.

Anonymous said...

what is the PAP prescribing for our ailing economy??? More millionaires???

'The President, acting in his discretion, and in concurrence with the advice of the Prime Minister, has re-appointed Mr Chan Sek Keong as the Chief Justice from April 11 2009 to Nov 5 2012, when he will be 75 years of age,' said a PMO statement

The President has also reappointed CJ Chan as Chairman of the Presidential Council for Minority Rights for a further term of three years, from April 11 2009.

More of the same: grin and bear it???????

Heck, why are the ministers making themselves millionaires when they can't lead?

And why keep stuffing the cabinet with more ministers -- from 18 to 21-- while the economy is hemorrhaging???

Anonymous said...

Another of LKY's dog kicked the bucket.

Mr Singh must had said to himself, lucky I die before the old fart.

tick tick tick.

Anonymous said...

i really admire your strong views on choor singh.

Anonymous said...

Gopalan.......please give some respects to the dead. This blog entry alone shows how shallow your character is. Thank God we didn't have you around as one of our leaders, I would imagine the kind of rotten damage you would have caused to the people of Singapore had you won that election during your time with WP!

Gopalan Nair said...

To anonymous of April 16, 0644,

Hitler is dead too, but you do not suggest we respect him, or are you? As to whether I would or would not have won elections, what has that got to do with my post! And why do you fear revealing your identity?

Gopalan Nair said...

Lee Kuan Yew's Singapore is using paid agents in the USA to write personal attacks to this blog, it appears. The post April 16, 0644, was sent before noon California time, Singapore time early hours after midnight. Shows the desperation of these people, don't you think?

Anonymous said...

It is just shocking what some people do to be overly compliant towards those in authority at the expense of their own morals if they have any. But if a judge who is supposed to dispense justice fairly does not do so then he should do the right thing and quit being a judge.

Gopalan Nair said...

A small correction. I had said Madan Assomull, the Singapore lawyer in the story had an office in High Street Center. This is incorrect. He is at Peninsula Plaza, a budget office building, next to High Street Plaza.

LeeCuntYou said...

Calling a kangaroo a judge in Singapore would be an insult to the kangaroo species and to their counterparts aound the world.

There must be a better term to call the so-called "judges" in Singapore, anyone any ideas?

David said...

A great judge ahead of his time .In the 60s' he presided over a case where a nurse was raped by a gang of thugs. He said justice should be about the victim as well as any litigants and he dealt with these people that would be admired to this day
Your honour RIP

Gopalan Nair said...

To David who said,

"A great judge ahead of his time"

He was also a brainless Lee Kuan Yew toady who meted out extremely harsh punishments totally disproportionate to the crime to please his master Lee Kuan Yew. He was also a part time PAP politician and Kangaroo judge who put away Lee Kuan Yew's political critics, one of them being me.

david said...

I almost become a Singapore citizen as a foreigner fighting in the art of taekwondo. Singapore was sending a team to fight in a major competition and I was selected to take part. I was so proud! thus my great affection for Singapore its culture and People.
The Singapore Government at this time had an incredible difficult task to bring the country into a modern, competitive Nation this was achieved by the skill ,determination and superb leadership of Mr Lee kuan yew.
When I meet Singaporeans on my many trips back to Malaysia!! I am always impressed at there open faced pleasant nature a sure sign in my humble opinion of a people moulded in a civilised way. I do not doubt there has been injustices and outrages . As his Honour Choor Singh said justice should also be for the victims.

Gopalan Nair said...

To David who said

"I almost become a Singapore citizen as a foreigner"

This is my response.

The reader should beware who these anonymous commentators are. As a result of the overwhelming negative opinion that Singaporeans have of this government, in 2007 they have started a cyber brigade, where paid government supporters write anonymously in the Internet to counteract the negativity. This is something they learned from Communist China which uses this to great success there since they don't have the Internet. In Singapore they are a total failure. This commenter is probably a cyber brigade member.

Second, one tactic they use is to find very old blog posts to attack in the hope that the average reader won't go that far and leave his misinformation intact. This is why I particularly look out for these comments to answer them.

I suppose all that was said was pure fiction but we will answer anyway.

The first 2 paragraphs are the commenter's opinion so we will leave it alone.

When he says "I do not doubt there were injustices" I suppose he is referring to Choor Singh. He is absolutely right.

But Singh is particularly wrong to tailor justice to serve the victims, if this is indeed true, which it is not. Choor Singh was not serving any victims. He was simply serving himself. This man never had any idea of what law was. He was, to put it simply, an idiot, who realized the best way to succeed in a career was to lick Lee Kuan Yew's ass which happens to be Singapore's powerful dictator at the time.

In the 1950s, 1960s and 1970s, Lee Kuan Yew was determined to clean up the place, never mind how he did it. And this meant using dishonest opportunists like Choor Singh to put away any petty criminal, anyone with any gang related background and most important of all, any political critic who even vaguely threatened Lee's power.

Not all judges were prepared to do this dirty work and many resigned in disgust. But not this shameless Choor Singh who was ever willing to do anything, as long as it pleased Lee's thinking at any one time.

Singh did not know any criminal law or the law of sentencing. Sentences have to be balanced between retribution, rehabilitation and victims rights. As far as Singh was concerned, he only knew retribution, vindictiveness and severe punishment. It pleased his master Lee Kuan Yew. He was to put it colloquially, a Kangaroo Judge.

Singh was a low class unsophisticated peasant which explains why when he retired, Lee gave him a small job in some law firm and put out to grass after that. He wasn't made an ambassador or some other top job in government like other retired judges lest he make an absolute fool of himself and a fool of Lee Kuan Yew.