From: "Gopalan Nair"
Add sender to Contacts
To: angela_chopard@supcourt.gov.sg
Cc: yogeswari_n_vadivellu@supcourt.gov.sg
Hello Angela Chopard,
Recall our conversation over the telephone yesterday October 15, 2009, California time. You informed me that you would prefer all communication from me about this matter be addressed to you via Email. You specifically warned that if you are on leave no one will be attending to your Emails. As to my question whether you are intending to go on leave, you said no, but you were unable to say. Therefore you advised that I send the Email not only to you but also copy it to Yogeswari d/o N Vadivellu, one of your co-workers.
Although it is puzzling why official correspondence via Email to you would be unattended if you go on leave is puzzling, we will leave it as it is. However I would suggest that perhaps a better practice would be for you to advise your other staff to attend to your office Emails while you go on leave, but it is none of my business. I understand I am dealing with Singapore which has some rather unexplainable practices.
It would much easier if you could read my blog Singapore Dissident at which I post all correspondence, but since you say that neither you , nor anyone in your office reads my blog, which is suprising in the circumstances, I will be sending you all communication through Email as you yourself have requested.
I am attaching below 2 letters which I had sent to you about this matter, now via this Email as you request:
EMAIL 1
Gopalan Nair
Attorneys at Law
39737 Paseo Padre Parkway, Suite A1
Fremont, CA 94538
Ms. Audrey Lim
Secretary
Disciplinary Tribunal
Disciplinary Tribunal Secretariat
1 Supreme Court Lane,
Singapore 178879
Your Tel: Singapore 6332 4040 and Singapore 6332 4060
Your Ref: DT/SEC/12/2009
My ref: Singapore dissident www.singaporedissident.blogspot.com
Oct 12, 2009
Dear Ms Audrey Lim
Thank you for your letter dated Oct 8, 2009 informing me that a disciplinary tribunal has been set up to hear charges against me, that Mr. Toh Kian Sing , Singapore's Senior Counsel (defines a senior Singapore lawyer) and Mr. Tan Jee Ming, Advocate and Solicitor (the name for Singapore lawyers) are the members of this tribunal.
You have also asked me for the name of my lawyer. I will not be appointing a lawyer and will represent myself.
Earlier newspaper reports from Singapore's state controlled press had, while reporting on this case, said that "I will be invited to attend the hearing".
When I was repatriated from Singapore with my American passport last year, I was specifically informed by Singaporean Immigration Officers that I can no longer enter Singapore without a visa, that I would have to receive your government's permission in writing, which I assume is a visa, before I can enter the country. (Ordinarily US citizens are allowed to enter without a visa)
Since I was born there, it would be good if I can come to Singapore once more on a short visit, and look up some of my friends and visit the places I used to frequent as a boy; while I take care of this disciplinary matter as well.
Please let me know whether I have an opportunity to represent myself in these proceedings and will your Singapore Immigration Authorities give me a visa for this purpose.
Thank you.
Yours Faithfully,
Gopalan Nair
AND
EMAIL 2
Ms. Audrey Lim
Secretary
Disciplinary Tribunal
Disciplinary Tribunal Secretariat
1 Supreme Court Lane,
Singapore 178879
Your Tel: Singapore 6332 4040 and Singapore 6332 4060
Your Ref: DT/SEC/12/2009
My ref: Singapore dissident www.singaporedissident.blogspot.com
Oct 13, 2009
First Class/ Air/ Also posted on blog “Singapore Dissident” www.singaporedissident.blogspot.com
SINGAPORE LAW SOCIETY VS GOPALAN NAIR/ DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS
Dear Ms Audrey Lim,
1. I refer to your 3 letters dated Oct 08, 2009, in which you state Disciplinary Proceedings have been commenced against me, under Rule 6 of the Singapore Legal Profession (Disciplinary Proceedings) Rules 2008; a reference is made to Section 90(1) of the Singapore Legal Profession Act; you state a tribunal has been set up to hear a complaint against me; the names of the 2 gentlemen who are going to adjudicate the matter and an enquiry to me as to who my lawyer is.
2. You have also attached a bundle of papers named “statement of case” and another as “Affidavit”.
3. As you are aware, I intend to represent myself.
4. In normal common law jurisprudence, of which Singapore claims to be one, it is a legal requirement that the Defendant be appraised not only of the charges against him, but also how he is required to respond and the basic procedures that apply to it.
5. I live in Northern California and have not lived in Singapore since 1991. Neither have I practiced law there ever since. I am of course practicing law in California, which you can expect has a completely different set of rules, laws and procedures. Further, America is a democracy which respects fundamental human rights.
6. Although I am able to retrieve the Singapore statutes online from California, such as the Singapore Legal Profession Act, I have no access to what you call the Singapore Legal Profession (Disciplinary Proceedings) Rules 2008 or do I have any idea what in Heavens is Section 90(1) which you refer to.
7. Let me point out that regardless of whether one has access to the legal literature or not, it is a normal practice and a requirement under the principle of natural justice that the opponent be given a meaningful opportunity to respond. That means he is told, when charges are laid, how many days he has to respond and to whom does he respond. As an example, the Summons filed and served in California courts is accompanied with a notice to the Defendant that he has 30 days to respond and to whom does he do it. This is not only a legal requirement, it is also common decency.
8. Furthermore as I live in California, I have no access to Singapore legal publications, and I have no way to check up the particular set of Rules that you mention or any other laws that pertain to this case.
9. Second, of course I can come to Singapore personally to do the necessary research and defend myself in these proceedings but I am sure you can see the problem with that. According to your charges, since my return to California, I have not only offended Judge Judith Prakash for calling her a Kangaroo Judge among other things, for which I have been now charged, I have deliberately defied your Judge Leslie Chew’s court order to take down certain blog posts by putting them up again and retracting my apology which I was coerced to give while within Singapore and in chains! This means the real possibility that I will be arrested the moment Singapore Airlines SQ1 lands at Changi International, provided that is the airline I take, in Singapore having departed Taipei! A most unwise decision.
10. But I assure you that I intend to defend these charges in earnest. It will be doing a great service to the public at large to weigh the issues, balance the merits and decide not only whether I deserve to be punished, it will be a golden opportunity to see the Singapore legal system and their administration of justice first hand.
11. The 2 cases that are the subject of these proceedings, one being the disorderly conduct and abusing Singapore police officers case; the other being the insult of Judge Belinda Ang case. The Belinda Ang case took about 8 days in the High Court and the disorderly case took about 18 days in the Subordinate Court. You will appreciate that in order to challenge these disciplinary proceedings for the Judge Belinda Ang case, it is necessary for me to have the entire transcripts of the testimony in court. Similarly for the 18 day subordinate Court case. Without the transcripts, the accuracy of what I will say about it would be compromised. In the circumstances, if you intend to give me a fair opportunity to defend myself, I ask the following:
a. Please let me have the entire transcripts of the proceedings that took place in the Subordinate Court for full 18 days before Judge James Leong. I was given none.
b. Second, although I was given some transcripts of the High Court Belinda Ang matter, I did not receive all of them, due to my sudden repatriation from Singapore and the High Court claiming that those transcripts were yet to be typed. Kindly provide all the missing transcripts.
c. Please provide copies of the Rules that you mention and any other information necessary on the procedure that Singaporean disciplinary tribunals and parties have to adopt in such proceedings.
d. Please provide all time lines for filing the responses.
e. Once the above is provided, let me have 30 days to prepare for the necessary defense.
f. Please provide your Email address and telephone number.
g. If you do this no one could say that you had not given me an opportunity to be heard, which they would if you ignore this reasonable request.
h. I trust you understand that merely asking me for the name of my lawyer is not enough.
12. Requiring me to defend these charges is like asking a VFR pilot to fly under IFR conditions in total darkness, blind with a malfunctioning altimeter, horizon indicator and a blocked pitot tube!
13. Please note that my Email address is nair.gopalan@yahoo.com and my telephone number is 510 657 6107. Please note that we are 16 hours behind Singapore time. If calling please do so between 9 am to 5 pm, on weekdays only. Lunch is between 12 noon to 1 pm. There is a voice receiver if no one is present at the phone.
14. I trust you are serious not only in ensuring justice is done in this case but are concerned of your public image if no real opportunity is seen given to me for a defense.
Thank you.
Yours Faithfully,
Gopalan Nair
No comments:
Post a Comment