Tuesday, August 30, 2011

Singapore Lee Kuan Yew throws the law to the swine Part 2

Ladies and Gentlemen,

There is, as can be expected in Lee Kuan Yew's Singapore, an exception to the principle of Stare Decisis, which is the rule that earlier court judgements bind later ones, in my blog post "Singapore Lee Kuan Yew throws the law to the swine" of August 27, 2011.

As we all already know, Singapore has one law for the rich and connected, and entirely different ones for the commoner whom Lee Kuan Yew had earlier referred to as his "digits".

In Lee Kuan Yew's Singapore "digits" are treated harshly and are expendable. On the other hand the elite and those with connections to Lee Kuan Yew and his friends, are treated leniently and accommodated wherever possible.

But the common law principle of Stare Decisis comes in the way, preventing the uneven application of the law to some and not to others.

In order to ensure the law is bent to benefit the people at the top, he orders the courts to state in their rulings involving cases of Lee Kuan Yew cronies and their friends and family where preferential treatment was given, that the judgement cannot be used as precedent, because the judge conveniently states the case is an extraordinary one based on unusual facts.

Let me give you examples. Do you recall a Chinese editor of the Singapore Chinese newspaper some 2 years ago, had driven her car while talking on her cell phone, not paying attention to the road, crossed the Adam Road Bukit Road junction against a red signal light, crashed into a motorcycle and permanently crippled the rider and killed the pillion.

Ordinarily this woman in any other country would have been sent to jail for a long time. This is gross egregious criminal negligence. Totally unforgivable. She was in fact ordered jailed but for a measly 18 months by the lower courts but on appeal, she was excused jail completely, and had to merely pay a fine.

The High Court judge as expected, stated that his ruling should not be used as precedent in other cases because it was an unusual case with unusual circumstances, which was simply baloney! One disgraceful excuse the judge gave was that she was "highly stressed" whatever that meant!

What this means of course is this. If any other common local Singapore mortal (you can call him a "digit" to use Lee's words) in Lee's Singapore would have done what she did, he would be sent to prison for 10 years, and because of the special ruling in the earlier case, her case would be no help for him to escape jail. After all she is connected to the government and their high places.

Take another case, this one about a year ago, when the sister of Lim Kay Tong, a Singaporean actor, was found dead drunk, sitting motionless in her car, in the middle lane of the Pan Island Expressway, with it's engine switched off, in the dead of night, stationary. Beside exposing herself to great danger of cars colliding into her from behind, since it had no lights, she was also exposing other motorists to great danger of mortal injury and death.

When the police got to her, she was found fast asleep at the wheel, and reeking of alcohol!

But this case too has a twist. Lim Kay Tong's sister was not a nobody like Lee Kuan Yew's "digits". She was a senior doctor in the Kandang Kerbau Maternity Hospital. Here once again the pattern was the same. The lower court had sentenced her to jail. But when she appealed, the High Court came out with the same disgraceful excuse of this case being "unusual" or other stupidity and as expected, she did not have to go to jail at all. Again the disgraceful judge gave the same warning that this judgement cannot be used as a precedent in other similar cases.

These are the only 2 "unusual" cases that I can remember but the reader in Singapore will have countless other examples of Lee Kuan Yew's selected justice, of one law for the elite and quite another for Lee Kuan Yew's "digits".

I understand the case loads in the courts are diminishing except for the criminal courts which is big money raking machine for Lee Kuan Yew in the milions in fines they collect from his helpless victims ("digits").

Funny Lee Kuan Yew fails to understand that abusing the law has it's consequences, which are distrust in the judiciary, a disrespect for Singapore law like I do, and a fast diminishing legal profession.

Gopalan Nair
Attorney at Law
39737 Paseo Padre Parkway, Suite A1
Fremont, CA 94538, USA
Tel: 510 657 6107
Fax: 510 657 6914
Email: nair.gopalan@yahoo.com
Blog: http://singaporedissident.blogspot.com/

Your letters are welcome. We reserve the right to publish your letters. Please Email your letters to nair.gopalan@yahoo.com And if you like what I write, please tell your friends. You will be helping democracy by distributing this widely. This blog not only gives information, it dispels government propaganda put out by this dictatorial regime.

Monday, August 29, 2011

Singapore. Lee Kuan Yew's presidential clowns

Ladies and Gentlemen,

You have seen the comical spectacle, tragic if you were a Singaporean who knew, of Singapore's recent presidential elections.

Four men, Tony Tan Keng Yam, a PAP affiliate, and 3 others, Tan Cheng Bok, Tan Jee Say and Tan Kin Lian, also PAP affiliates but truly impostors pretending to be something they are not, and clowns because they thought Singaporeans would in fact be fooled by them, contested the elections, which the first impostor Tony Tan Keng Yam won.

But in truth what had happened was not a election at all, it was a clown show, with these 4 clowns trying to impress upon gullible Singaporeans that they in fact went through an exercise in elections, to vote a ceremonial President into office!

In fact nothing like that happened.

All four of them were and are none other than Lee Kuan Yew's men and their purpose in these elections was to ensure that Lee will be able to continue ruling his oppressed people in the way he has done for the last 40 years, through his dictatorial rule.

In fact, none of them intended any change to the pathetic political scene which is Singapore today.

Lee Kuan Yew in collaboration with his state controlled media have put up this elaborate show of make believe opera which even the best Broadway theater would have found hard to match.

For instance, examine the case of this guy Tan Jee Say. Recall at the last parliamentary elections he had gone to Dr. Chee of the SDP who sadly fell for his trickery, and who claimed all sorts of things, such as his wanting to bring about democracy to the people.

But the moment he spoke, I could smell a rat, or rather a mole, a mile away. Anyone with even a rudimentary knowledge of Singapore would have known he was nothing other than a PAP fascist through and through. His credentials alone would have given the lie away.

It is reported, in his younger days, he served in the Singapore Civil Service, later worked as the personal secretary of Goh Chock Tong, Lee's right hand man. Tell me, how closer to the establishment can you get than this?

What he articulated was even more telling. He told Dr. Chee he was unwilling to criticize his former boss Goh Chock Tong because of his gratitude and respect for him! And all that he said would have been what the PAP would have said anyway, such as the immigrant problem, the evil of gambling and a few other popular general grouses.

Very carefully he side stepped the real problems facing Singaporeans in Lee Kuan Yew's Singapore. He had no complaints about Singapore's legal system being repeatedly misused to punish his own party chief Dr. Chee; he had no complaints about lack of the rule of law; no complaints about Lee controlling the entire Media; and no complaints about human right abuses.

Frankly he had no complaints at all about things that really matter for Singaporeans. And none for the cause of democracy in Singapore.

Yet he proudly claimed that the PAP should be checked in their excesses, by which he was actually saying that the PAP was wrong; yet he was not prepared to say it as it should.

And finally, I am sure we all agree that the litmus test of whether he is a PAP man is this. If he was the genuine product, he would not have been able to continue living in Singapore the way he was at all. He would have been repeatedly sued, fined and bankrupted a long time ago, just as Dr. Chee was or just as the late JB Jeyaretnam was.

Another obvious fact staring in our faces is this. Lee Kuan Yew's state controlled media was giving him very generous coverage, for him, his wife and his family all depicted in a positive respectful light, something we have never seen and will never see in the case of real political opposition in Lee Kuan Yew's Singapore.

Come on, Tan Jee Say, who are you kidding? We all know who you are. And the same goes with the other 2 clowns Tan Cheng Bok and Tan Kin Lian. We all know who you are too. And it really angers me that Lee Kuan Yew takes Singaporeans for such dummies, that some of them actually believed that they were witnessing a real elected Presidency election!

Frankly, it would not have made one bit of difference is anyone of them had won the elections. It so happens that Tony Tan Keng Yam has won. But even if he did not, even if one of these other clowns had won, Lee Kuan yew would have been no less happy, as they too would have done exactly what Lee Kuan Yew wanted, which is licking his boots.

And I am going to tell this to the Singaporeans. My dear fellows, you are being taken for a ride. And in these recent clown show elections for the President you have been treated as monkeys, and some of you, sadly, have fallen for it.

Let me tell you the same thing I have repeatedly been saying. Unless you have the rule of law, a free press, freedom of speech and expression and every other right which normal human beings around the world are expected to have, Lee Kuan Yew would continue to take you for a ride as he has done this last time with his clown show presidential elections. If you do nothing about it, you will continue with your miserable lives under your master Lee Kuan Yew and his son.

If that is what you want, noone should try to persude you otherwise.

Gopalan Nair
Attorney at Law
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.

Saturday, August 27, 2011

Singapore Lee Kuan Yew throws the law to the swine

Ladies and Gentlemen,

Under the Common Law doctrine of Stare Decisis, which Lee Kuan Yew's Singapore courts also follow, court decisions have a binding effect on subsequent cases based on the same facts.

For instance if Belinda Ang Saw Ean, (not Lee Kuan Yew's judge, although it could also be her) had been caught embezzling $10 million from the bank, in the case PP vs Belinda Ang Saw Ean; then any other case following on similar facts would also be similarly found guilty, based on this case as precedent.

This principle is not only good, it is also necessary, since we have certainty in the law with like cases dealt in similar manner.

But of course it is good only as long as you have honest judges who make honest judgements.

But, as in the case of Singapore where Lee Kuan Yew uses the law as a tool to silence dissent, the principle of Stare Decisis can have devastating effect on the law of the country.

You will recall in the past JB Jeyaretanm being sued, and repeatedly found liable for a series of defamation lawsuits brought about by Lee Kuan Yew.

Any lawyer can tell you that all these cases were all wrong, based not on a proper application of legal principles but a total abuse of it.

But under the principle of Stare Decisis, all these cases, which were all unacceptable misuse of the law, are all lawful binding decisions in Lee Kuan Yew's Singapore. Which means if anyone ever did what JB Jeyaretnam had said, even though perfectly legal, would be found similarly liable and punished.

Take the case of Dr. Chee Soon Juan's numerous defamation of character cases he had to face and the other peaceful protest cases, all of which were completely lawful and justified but where he was found guilty and liable in Singapore's courts resulting in his having to suffer repeated punishment and imprisonment.

Under this principle, all these cases too have become the law and anyone else doing anything that Chee did, even though perfectly liable would be similarly unjustly punished by citing Lee Kuan Yew vs Chee Soon Juan 2006 SLR 502 or which ever other law citation that might be.

Gopalan Nair, myself have been fined for contempt of court as far back as 1991 in Attorney General vs Gopalan Nair, merely because I suggested the changing of the manner of appointing judges in the Singapore Subordinate Courts; suspended from practicing law for 2 years in 1993 in the case Singapore Law Society vs Gopalan Nair, merely because I had made enquiries of the Attorney General of Singapore and now my recent conviction for writing a blog and disbarment in Singapore.

All these case were wrongly decided and the law was made an ass by Lee Kuan Yew's Singapore Kangaroo courts.

But all these wrong decisions have become binding precedents in Lee Kuan Yew's Singapore island which means if anyone else did anything similar to what I did, they will suffer the same fate.

By abusing the law this way, Lee Kuan Yew is destroying the law in Singapore.

Instead of advancing the law, it continues to regress and weaken and ends up the laughing stock of the world, a law which one expects from a banana third world African dictatorship, not a first world country that Lee Kuan Yew calls it.

In this manner Singapore's Lee Kuan Yew throws the law to the swine, and wallows in the bog with them.

Is it any surprise therefore that the arbitration business in Singapore has hit rock bottom with international clients giving Singapore as wide a pass as they can, choosing other respectable countries for this such as Australia.

Even locals are not using the law as a means to settle disputes if they can avoid it since it is well known that government connected persons win and all others lose.

As for Lee Kuan Yew himslef he has never lost a case, and he is one man who not only knows that he has won, but how much money he will recover from his hapless victim even before stepping into the courtroom!

My recent disbarment in Singapore was an opportunity to give another example to the world of Lee Kuan Yew's Singapore misusing the law to silence it's critics which has contributed in seriously worsening their reputation, or the lack of it. I take comfort in doing that.

Gopalan Nair
Attorney at Law
39737 Paseo Padre Parkway, Suite A1
Fremont, CA 94538, USA
Tel: 510 657 6107
Fax: 510 657 6914
Email: nair.gopalan@yahoo.com
Blog: http://singaporedissident.blogspot.com/

Your letters are welcome. We reserve the right to publish your letters. Please Email your letters to nair.gopalan@yahoo.com And if you like what I write, please tell your friends. You will be helping democracy by distributing this widely. This blog not only gives information, it dispels government propaganda put out by this dictatorial regime.

Wednesday, August 24, 2011

Gopalan Nair leaves Singapore Legal System in a bind.

Ladies and Gentlemen,

Yesterday Aug 23, 2011, I wrote the blog here titled "Singapore Law Society vs Gopalan Nair, the Judgement, or Justifying the Unjustifiable" enclosing the Judgement and Grounds of Decision from the Singapore court ordering my Disbarment from law practice in Singapore. Please read the judgement.

In it the Singapore Supreme Court of 3 judges had unanimously found that I do not have the attributes of character, integrity, probity or trustworthiness to be able to practice law in Singapore. In other words they have said I am a person of bad character.

The Singapore Law Society which has the responsibility of protecting the Singaporean public from such a person as myself, is also duty bound, as a member of nations in the world, to ensure that every other jurisdiction in which I have a licence to practice law is alerted to the fact that I have been disbarred in Singapore, so that they too could take appropriate action to ensure that their citizens are protected from unethical lawyers who lack honesty, integrity, probity and trustworthiness which Singapore claims I do not have.

This is a courtesy expected of any country worth it's salt in the fraternity of nations.

The Singapore Law Society as evidenced by their own records and by their own admission is aware that I am presently a member in good standing at the Bar of England and Wales and the State Bar of California, USA.

In these circumstances, if the Singapore legal system is to be taken seriously, they should take necessary steps to alert both the Bar of England and Wales of which I am a Barrister at Law in good standing and the State Bar of California at which I presently have an active practice as an Attorney at Law, that Gopalan Nair has been disbarred from Singapore law practice and they should take necessary steps to protect their own public from unethical lawyers like myslef. Surely.

And when they do this, they should serve me a copy of their actions as is requried by natural justice under Common Law.

My question to the Singapore government and their Law Society is this. Are you going to take the necessary action to file a formal complaint to the Bar of England and Wales informing them them that I, Gopalan Nair, have been struck off from the Singapore Law Society for lacking "honesty, integrity, probity and trustworthiness" and will you similarly file a complaint with the State Bar of California of this fact.

If the Republic of Singapore and it's legal system is to be taken seriously, you have to show that you owe a responsibility not only to the citizens of Singapore but also to the world to ensure that a thoroughly despicable character like myself, which you claim I am, should be disciplined anywhere in the world and if necessary disbarred.

If you do not do this, Singapore and it's legal system is admitting that it is nothing more than a Kangaroo legal system where you can say and do anything you want against your critics but are powerless when faced with scrutiny from the rest of the world.

The Internet is a very powerful tool, let me remind Singapore, and this blog post will remain on record for a very very long time for very very many people to read in very many counties in the world.

And let me remind you, that very many judiciaries, universities, embassies and consulates are going to read this and wonder about a country which says these terrible things about a lawyer in their own courts but is unwilling to do the right thing by alerting others.

Let me also remind you that since I was deported from Singapore in November 2008, I have not paid the Singapore court costs of the contempt proceedings brought against me.

My question is whether you are going to take the necessary steps to enforce your court costs of $5,000.00 owed to the Attorney General of Singaproe, which you had ordered me to pay, and which I have not; or are you not going to do anything to recover your money.

Do you want the rest of the world to think that the Attorney General of Singapore is a lion who roars when his master Lee Kuan Yew is around, but turns entirely quiet when faced with the rest of the world?

Finally let me also remind you that the recent court order disbarring me from practicing law in Singapore also included an order that I pay the costs of your proceedings.

Do you have the courage to actually compute your costs and demand that I pay, or will you just suck your thumb and simply go away quietly?

Let me remind Lee Kuan Yew and his Singaporean Kangaroo courts that the world is watching what you do or do not do in this case.

I have managed to get you in a bind in this case.

If you do nothing to enforce your decision and show that you mean business, you will be simply confirming what almost everyone in the world is slowly beginning to think; which is, that you are simply a banana republic with a legal system comprised of Lee Kuan Yew lackeys who abuse the law to punish political dissidents, but a country which does not have the courage to face the world with their claims.

I am waiting. And I suppose so is everyone else reading this blog post, in Singapore, USA, Australia, Canada, Malaysia, United Kingdom, Philippines, Germany, the Netherlands, France and the rest of the world.

What will you do now, Lee Kuan Yew's Singapore?

Gopalan Nair
Attorney at Law
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, August 23, 2011

Singapore Law Society vs Gopalan Nair, the Judgement, or Justifying the Unjustifiable

Ladies and Gentlemen,

Attached below is the Judgement of the Singapore high Court, or shall I say, the Lee Kuan Yew court of Singapore where his judges say why I am a bad lawyer and should be disbarred from their courts after all.

Their judgement as with everything else they do in Lee Kuan Yew's island is shamelessly fraught with lies and half truths which by now, they are prepared to state openly.

Only one thing works against them today, which is the Internet. Whoever thought 10 years ago after they disbarred a lawyer, he would not only be very proud of it, but himself take it to town and tell the whole world, which is what I am doing here.

The reader should remember that I am still in very good standing as a Barrister in England and Wales and the State Bar of California USA.

The Law Society of Singapore might want to justify their reasons as to why I am a very bad character indeed, a bad lawyer and a thorough scoundrel who should never be allowed to be entrusted with a client at all.

If so, it appears, my bad character extends only within Lee Kuan Yew's Singapore in the Singaporean sense and not to any other country in the world!

Perhaps they might even want to argue that the Bar of England and Wales and California have lower ethical standards than Lee Kuan Yew's Singapore, which is why I am still in good standing in those places, and perhaps both should aspire to raise theirs to bring it up to that of Singapore.

As the reader should be aware, that the Singapore Legal profession for a city state of 5 million with it's international nature of banking, insurance and trade across countries, only has 3, 000 practising lawyers, a totally insufficient number.

London or New York, similar cities to that of Singapore has perhaps a 100 times that number.

In fact the law in Singapore has been so thoroughly disgraced that despite all the efforts of Lee Kuan Yew's hand picked law minister, the Tamil K Shanmugam, the numbers in the profession has not increased at all.

Another major hit that the legal profession there took was the 72 page report of the International Bar Association which stated without mincing words that the Singapore judiciary misuses the law as a tool to silence Lee Kuan Yew's critics.

Mine here is one such case.

As you will appreciate, all these things I do is to bring about democracy and the rule of law in Singapore by provoking the courts and the judges there to take action against me unjustly so that I can use it to make known to the world what they are.

My disbarment here by the Singapore courts has given me another opportunity to do this for which I thank them.

Of course above anything else I have to thank the Internet without which any of this would have been immeasurably more difficult.

I hope that lawyers both in Singapore and elsewhere reading this blog post would reconsider continuing practice in that island and decide to leave the profession, thereby reducing the number of lawyers there to even less than the measly 3,000 at present.

By this, I hope that all they could hope for are second rate lawyers who neither care for their client or themselves for that matter, and do it just for the money they could make, nothing more.

Unfortunately that is exactly how poor in ability or integrity the present lawyers in Singapore are.

The following are the lies, half truths and shameless dishonesty you find in this judgement:

1. Any reference to paragraphs refers to the following attached Judgement of the Singapore court.

2. First it has to be kept in mind that every thing that I did in these proceedings, my writing a blog about Singapore Judge Belinda Ang Saw Ean and Judith Prakash, the making of the statements in court in my defense to these charges, writing blogs about what I had said in court in all the proceedings against me in 2008, and everything else was not done because of any desire to benefit myself financially or otherwise.

It was done to expose the Republic of Singapore for what it is, a Leninist one party state where Lee Kuan Yew and his family run the entire country as well as the judiciary which they use to silence dissent.

I have nothing to gain personally from any of this except the gratification that I have contributed to the betterment of Singapore, a country where I was born of Indian immigrants.

3. For the benefit of the reader who is unaccustomed to the Singapore legal system apart from the fact that it is an enforcement agency for Lee Kuan Yew to silence and punish his critics, there are no jury trials at all, and all cases are heard by a single judge who is appointed by Lee Kuan Yew and his friends.

In these circumstances it is almost certain not only that charges both real and imaginary would be brought against his critics, one of whom is myself; as a Lee Kuan Yew critic, it is one court where you already know that you will be convicted and jailed even before you stepped into the courtroom!

4. In Paragraph 2, they say "He is presently an American citizen residing in California" but conveniently leave out the fact that I am also admitted to the Bar of England and Wales in good standing and also actively practicing law in California presently and a member in good standing of California Bar.

I suppose they left it out because they don't want the reader wondering why such an "bad" person like Gopalan Nair should be practicing law in California and be a member of the Bar of England and Wales!

5. The fact that these proceedings against me were not actually brought by the Singapore Law Society for something wrong which I did, but intended to punish me for continuing to criticize them from California is shown by this. The actions that I took which form the basis of these disciplinary proceedings had occurred way back from May to November 2008, at which point I was deported from the island.

Furthermore my arrests and the criminal proceedings against me were prominently displayed in the island's state controlled press on a daily basis, maligning, discrediting and defaming me, so as to paint a bad picture of me in the minds of Singaporeans, a tactic which all dictators who have the benefit of a complete state controlled press around the world do, just as Lee Kuan Yew does in Singapore.

Any other lawyer organization, would have immediately commenced disciplinary proceedings against me in 2008 or at least soon thereafter, since they already knew what I had done in 2008. Yet it took them an entire year to commence these proceedings which they did in September 2009.

If indeed they were interested in protecting the public from the hands of an unethical lawyer, should they not have done something in 2008 or soon thereafter?

In fact the US State Department in their report on Singapore states that they have heard from reliable sources that the real reason why they finally decided to commence proceedings was because I reneged on my undertaking to a Singaporean judge that I will not criticize Singapore or their judiciary again and were angered when the first thing I did on my return to the US was to retract my apology to the judge and continue criticizing them and their judiciary.


6. In para 6 of their judgement, they state that I did not appear for this disciplinary hearing in Singapore. Once again they very cleverly distort the truth.

According to these charges which I had faced, it is a criminal offense in Singapore to criticize a judge, as was the basis of the 3rd charge, for which I was sent to jail for 3 months for "insulting" a civil servant by writing the blog. Please see blog post dated May 29, 2008.

Furthermore, I had done the same thing in my blog in reference to 5th charge relating to Singapore Judge Judith Prakash which I wrote from California in November 2008.

Moreover as regards the 4th charge, relating to my defying the court order of the Singapore judge not to criticize them, this I did again from California. My action here is contempt of court according to Singapore law or Lee's law.

What all this means of course is that if I returned to Singapore to attend my trial in 2011, it is clear that I would be arrested again the moment I set foot in Singapore and charged under the Penal Code for insulting Judge Judith Prakash and for contempt of court which means jail time again.

Being thankfully, still in possession of my mental faculties and I understood that going to Singapore to defend myself at this trial meant going to jail as well.

So naturally I did the only thing which anyone would do under these circumstances.

I wrote several Emails to the Attorney General of Singapore, the Singapore Law Society, the Singapore Minister of Law and the Singapore Prime Minister for a guarantee that I will not be arrested and charged for these things if I visited the island.

None of them responded to any of my Emails, which meant they were not prepared to give this guarantee that I asked for.

So naturally I did not go to Singapore to attend to this trial. Surely it is a down right lie on their part to say "However although he knew that his case was being heard by the Tribunal on 20 and 21 September 2010, he did not appear for the hearing". Sure I did not attend. What else did you expect?

Actually, it was not a case of my not attending the hearings; it was a case of their not wanting me there at all.


7. And then they say the same thing in para 8 of their judgement, that I did not attend this trial. Sure I did not attend, because if I did, I would have been arrested and jailed by Lee's Kangaroo courts again.

8. In paragraph 13 and 14, they refer to 2 charges accusing me of yelling profanities at Singapore police officers and behaving in a disorderly behaviour.

It says the police officers claimed I "knocked a number of times on a police vehicle" but for some strange reason, they have not brought any charges for this criminal act! (Knocking on police cars!) In fact nothing like this happened.

I was walking along Race Course Road Singapore on July 4th 2008, American Independence Day, when I heard calls from behind which I ignored.

Then about 5 or 6 men in civilian clothes approached me asking me about this strange accusation of "knocking" on their police car which I had passed behind me some 200 feet or so!

I refused to answer any of their questions and the next minute I am tackled violently onto the road tarmac, flat on my face, physically hurt, and handcuffed.

The next day, Lee's state controlled newspaper the Straits Times reported it as headline news, and stated that no less than 25 spectators had witnessed the incident.

At the trial there was not a single independent witness called.

The police case in the police state relied solely on these 5 police officers who parrot fashion, repeated the same lie that the earlier witness had stated under oath.

Surprisingly, I frankly did not expect one woman, a blood forensic expert working for them to tell the truth but she did.

According to her in court, my blood alcohol was so minimal, I could have lawfully driven a motor vehicle at that level.

I do not know what happened to her since then but in Lee Kuan Yew's Singapore, I would not be surprised if she has been fired for not playing her part in this stage managed opera of a trial.

I remember the Investigating Officer was Vickneswaran son of Sockalingam, a Tamil, who had earlier flatly refused to tell his real name in the witness stand claiming that his name was just S Vicki!

I managed to get his real name only under cross examination and the threat that I would expose him.

As to his failure to bring any independent witnesses at the trial, his lame excuse was that the officers there were busy at the scene trying to restrain me, as if I was Mike Tyson, Rocky Marciano and Sugar Ray Robinson all rolled into one, as well as carrying out crowd control and could not secure any witnesses immediately, in spite of the fact that he could get as many policemen to back him up if he wanted, (after all I was Gopalan Nair, enemy of the state number one)and there were 5 of his friends there already!

He then said he went to the scene the next morning and asked some shopkeepers if they saw anything and received no positive response! Which is why he did not have any independent witnesses!

Frankly this set up of an imaginary accusation against me, was a desperate attempt by them to make me look bad at this time since they had already arrested me earlier on May 31, 2008 for writing the Belinda Ang Saw Ean blog.

I think they had second thoughts on how they would look going after a blogger in court with criminal charges and perhaps they thought that it best to stage manage an incident to tar my image in the eyes of Singaporeans before the blogging trial in September 2008?

By the way, I wonder if Vikneswaran son of Socalingam (long name) still has his job or if he has been fired for not stage managing my Marxist Leninist show trial well.

I have not asked for the transcript of these cases simply because Lee Kuan Yew's Singapore courts are very capable of fabricating and changing the evidence entirely, so there is not much purpose I think in looking at it.

As you know they have lost all credibility.

Although I deny in it's entirely these charges of hurling profanities at Singaporean police, one has to keep in mind, that even assuming that I did this, it is still not a ground for disbarring a lawyer from practicing law.

Not in any other jurisdiction in the world would a lawyer be disbarred for this other than perhaps North Korea where I suppose they will shoot you instead.

9. Paragraphs 15, 16, 17 and 18 refers to the statements I had made in the above "yelling at the police" case in which I had told the judge that "I do not have any faith or belief that I will get a fair trial in this Court".

In addition to that I made other similar statements and stated in no uncertain terms that I believed the trial was nothing other than a show trial which is being carried out to punish and silence a Lee Kuan Yew critic. I stand by every single word that I said, then as I do now.

It is important to remember that at the trial itself, the judge took no action against me if he found any of what I said unacceptable.

Surely in any other country, if I had said anything derogatory at a judge at his face in open court, the judge would have punished me there and then and had me taken away by the sheriff.

Since the judge took no objection to anything I said in court, it is interesting to know that it was not the judge at all who decided to take action as to my words.

The timing of the contempt of court charge is very important and the dates sequence of events must be carefully considered here.

In May 31, 2008 I was arrested for writing a blog critical of Judge Belinda Ang Saw Ean.

The trial on this charge (blogging case) did not come up for hearing up till September 2008. In the interim period I was on bail for that charge.

However before the Judge Belinda Ang Saw Ean blog case came to trial in September 2008, in July of 2008, I was arrested on the "yelling at the police" case and tried almost immediately. There was no jail time for this but only a fine.

When the Belinda Ang Saw Ean (blogging) case came up for hearing in September of 2008, I was sentenced to 3 months jail which meant that I would only serve 2 months which means I would be released around Nov 20, 2008.

Just one week before my release, on November 12, 2008, for the first time, I am charged with a fresh charge of contempt of court for what I had said at the "yelling at the police" trial, for statements such as " I have no faith in these courts".

Remember, I was already in jail and had one week to go before I was released.

If I disputed these new contempt charges one week before my release, it would not only mean that I would have either to stay longer in Singapore or very possibly my prison term would have been extended.

Moreover by this time, having been forced to remain in Singapore for 6 months, with my passport confiscated, and prevented from leaving Singapore, my law practice in California was being neglected and harmed.

Also I was suffering severe financial hardship.

In these circumstances, I would have done anything to get out of Singapore.

So I apologized (since that was what they wanted) according to the terms of the judge and promised never to criticize their government or their judges again.

Moreover as was demanded of me, some Singapore police computer men came to my prison where I was held and made me delete the 2 blog posts referring to the judge in the yelling at police case which I had promised the judge to do.

It is true, I had no intention whatsoever of keeping any of these promises, just as I would have no intention of keeping any promise to judges of Hitler's Nazi Germany had they been around.

So the moment I stepped foot in California after my deportation from that island, I rescinded all apologies given to the court, re posted the blog posts and continued to criticize their Kangaroo court judges as well as their Fascist state.

I have no regrets at all of doing any of this and I will do it again in a blink.

For this, they claim that I should be disbarred in Singapore.

10. Para 19 refers to my criticism in my blog post here dated May 29, 2008 where I criticized Judge Belinda Ang Saw Ean in her shameless abdication of her role as a judge in the Lee Kuan Yew vs Chee Soon Juan and the Singapore Democratic party case, where she shamelessly and disgracefully found against Chee Soon Juan, Lee's political enemy, in circumstances where she disallowed Chee from representing himself at all. Please read my blog post of May 29, 2008.

It was a disgraceful spectacle.

She together with Lee Kuan Yew's lawyer completely monopolized the proceedings and gave no chance to Chee to even ask a single question, every single question being either disallowed or declared irrelevant.

Finally he did managed to ask a few questions, against her orders, for which believe it or not, she not only fined him several hundreds of thousands of dollars which obviously he could not pay, she even sent him to jail!

I had said in the blog "Judge Belinda Ang Saw Ean had prostituted herself in her position as a judge".

These words were not only accurate, they are a correct normal and temperate usage of the English language.

A judge "prostitutes" herself by abusing her office as a judge for a dishonest purpose. This is exactly what this disgraceful judge did.

I had similarly used the same language to describe an equally disgraceful woman and a judge Judith Prakash for sending 3 young men to prison for merely wearing tshirts with pictures of Kangaroos in judicial robes outside the court of the earlier equally shameful judge Belinda Ang Saw Ean.

The judgement here claims that I had "continued to abuse" the judiciary.

There has been no abuse at all. The words and the narrative in my blog posts were not only accurate, they were necessary to expose this disgraceful judiciary.

The sooner the world comes to hear what sort of justice you have in Singapore, the better for everyone, and especially for Singapore.

11. In paragraph 21, it reads "disciplinary action is intended to punish the errant solicitor (lawyer) for his or her misconduct, deter others from misbehaving in the same manner and protect the confidence of the administration of justice". The words stated are accurate but what is wrong is that they don't apply to me.

Of course in the Singaporean or Lee Kuan Yew definition of the word, of course I am the one referred to.

12. In paragraph 23, it states that I had committed serious offences, which are according to them, 1) yelling at police officers which by the way is a figment of their imagination 2) that I was jailed for 3 months for writing a blog post dated May 29, 2008 about Judge Belinda Ang Saw Ean 3) that I had defied an undertaking given to the court that I will not criticize them again (the contempt case of Nov 12, 2008 from jail) 4) that I wrote another blog dated Nov 30, 2008 from California criticizing Judge Judith Prakash for jailing 3 men for wearing Tshirts she did not like.

13. Finally the most interesting part of their judge is this in Para 24. The following words have to be perused very carefully.

"When considering whether or not to strike an advocate and solicitor off the rolls, it is worth noting that in Law Society of Singapore vs Amdad Hussein Lawrence (2000) 3SLR (R) 23, the Court held at (11):

the earlier decisions in....................... have consistently affirmed and applied the following principles on disciplinary sentencing:

a. Where a solicitor acted dishonestly, the court will almost invariably order that he be struck off the roll of solicitors;

b. if he has not acted dishonestly, but is shown to have fallen below the requiried standards of integrity probity and untrustworhiness, he will nonetheless be struck off the roll as supposed to being suspended if his lapse is such as to indicate that he lacks the qualities of character and trustiworthiness which are necesary attributes of a person entrusted with the repsonsibilities of a legal practioner"

According to the above, it is quite clear that I am not being disbarred because I was dishonest. So it appears, according to them that I have been disbarred because I lack "Integrity" "Probity" and "Trustworthiness".

It would therefore appear according to their reasoning that had I not criticized the Judge Belinda Ang Saw Ean and Judge Judith Paraksh for their shame; had I not yelled at policemen (which I deny by the way); that had I had kept my promise to the Nazi Judges (no Singapore judges) not to criticize them anymore; I would have had integrity, probity and trustworthiness, required by Singapore, and would still happily remain on the Rolls of the Singapore Bar.

Let me tell these Singapore judges or Lee Kuan Yew lackeys to be more accurate, very clearly.

If the price of being a member of the Singapore Bar is to remain silent while you deliberately abuse the law against your own citizens and destroy the reputation of Singapore as well in the process, I would prefer not to have "integrity or probity and rather be untrustworty", thank you very much.

14. And then finally in para 29, they state " After taking all the charges into account, we were of the view that he (Gopalan Nair), lacked the said attributes. In particular the facts in the 3rd, 4th, and 5th charges disclosed a contemptuous disrespect on the part of GN (Gopalan Nair)towards the judges concerned."

Unfortunately I have to plead guilty to this. Honestly I do have a "contemptuous disrespect" for all Singapore judges and your legal system.

"Such agregious misconduct is totally unacceptable". To this I would say, hard luck.

And then finally it says "As there is no mitigating circyumstances to persude us that he merited a less severe penalty than striking off the roll, we ordered that he be struck off the roll of advocates and solicitiors of the Supreme Court of Singapore and awarded costs to the Law society".

As to the above, I agree that I have no mitigating cirmustances and proud to have none at all; I am not trying to persude you to give me any less of a punishemnt in your Nazi courts, and as for costs, I refuse to pay any. And if I refuse to pay, what are you going to do about it? I suppose nothing.

If you want the costs I suggest you try to recover it through Consular Process which by the way you have not succeeded so far.

In fact I don't think you would even try to recover your costs.

Remember I have not paid the $5,000.00 costs ordered against me by the Contempt judge on Nov 12, 2008 in Singapore. I notice you have done nothing to recover it.

After all this, in fact I am actually very grateful for the Singapore judges to have disbarred me (believe me I still have my faculties intact) and in fact remaining a lawyer there would be equating me with the cowardly characters who go around in black robes in Singapore calling themselves lawyers.

Singapore lawyers give the word lawyer a bad name.

Gopalan Nair
Attorney at Law
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 following judgement is available at http://www.singaporelawwatch.sg/remweb/legal/ln2/rss/judgment/12814.html?utm_source=rss%20subscription&utm_medium=rss

Law Society of Singapore v Gopalan Nair (alias Pallichadath Gopalan Nair)
[2011] SGHC 191

Suit No: Originating Summons No 947 of 2009 (Summons No 1404 of 2011)
Decision Date: 22 August 2011
Court: High Court
Coram: Tan Lee Meng J, Tay Yong Kwang J, Lee Seiu Kin J
Counsel: Peter Cuthbert Low and Han Lilin (Peter Low LLC) for the plaintiff; Defendant absent and unrepresented.

Legal Profession – Disciplinary Proceedings

Judgment

22 August 2011

Tan Lee Meng J (delivering the grounds of decision of the court):

Introduction

1 The Law Society of Singapore (“the Law Society”) applied under s 82A(10) of the Legal Profession Act (Cap 161, 1990 Rev Ed) (“the LPA”) for an order that the defendant, Mr Gopalan Nair alias Pallichadath Gopalan Nair (“GN”), be “struck off the roll, prohibited from applying for a practising certificate, censured and/or otherwise punished” for misconduct unbefitting of an advocate and solicitor as an officer of the Supreme Court or as a member of an honourable profession. We ordered that GN be struck off the roll and now give the reasons for our decision.

2 GN, who was admitted onto the roll on 10 August 1980, is a non-practising advocate and solicitor of the Supreme Court of Singapore. He is presently an American citizen residing in California, USA.

3 Although GN is a non-practising advocate and solicitor, he is still subject to the control of the Supreme Court as s 82(A)(2) of the LPA provides:

All Legal Service Officers and non-practising solicitors shall be subject to the control of the Supreme Court and shall be liable on due cause shown to be punished in accordance with this section.

4 Pursuant to ss 82A(4) and (5) of the LPA, the Law Society applied in ex parte Originating Summons No 947 of 2009 for leave from the Chief Justice for an investigation to be made into a number of complaints about GN’s misconduct. On 4 September 2009, the Chief Justice appointed a Disciplinary Tribunal (“the Tribunal”) comprising Mr Toh Kian Sing SC and Mr Tan Jee Ming, under s 90 of the LPA.

5 The following 5 charges of misconduct were preferred by the Law Society against GN:

1st charge

That you on the 4th day of July 2008, at or about 10.35 pm, near the junction of Bukit Timah Road and Race Course Road, Singapore, which is a public place, did use abusive words towards certain public servants, namely, police officers of the Singapore Police Force, in particular Senior Staff Sergeant Kang Wei Chain and Sergeant Noor Azhar, by shouting:

(a)“Fuck off you policeman, don’t waste my fucking time. You go and do your job properly and go catch thieves and I did nothing wrong. I am waiting for the fucking taxi”;

(b)“Fuck off, forget about my name, you fucking bastard.

(c)“You fucking Malay bastard”.

at the said police officers in the execution of their duties as such public servants, and you had thereby committed an offence punishable under section 13D(1)(a) of the Miscellaneous Offences (Public Order and Nuisance) Act, Chapter 184, for which on 5 September 2008, you were convicted and sentenced to a fine of $2,000 in default two week imprisonment, and you are hereby guilty of conduct unbefitting an advocate and solicitor as an officer of the Supreme Court or as a member of an honourable profession which warrants disciplinary proceedings against you within the meaning of section 82A(3)(a) of the Legal Profession Act (Chapter 161).

2nd charge

That you on the 4th day of July 2008, at or about 10.35 pm, near the junction of Bukit Timah Road and Race Course Road, Singapore, which is a public place, did behave in a disorderly fashion to wit, by gesticulating with your hands and shouting loudly, and you had thereby committed an offence punishable under section 20 of the Miscellaneous Offences (Public Order and Nuisance) Act, Chapter 184, for which on 5 September 2008, you were convicted and sentenced to a fine of $1,000 in default one week imprisonment, and you are hereby guilty of conduct unbefitting an advocate and solicitor as an officer of the Supreme Court or as a member of an honourable profession which warrants disciplinary proceedings against you within the meaning of section 82A(3)(a) of the Legal Profession Act (Chapter 161).

3rd charge

That you in your blog post at http://singaporedissident.blogspot.com dated 29 May 2008 entitled “Singapore, Judge Belinda Ang’s Kangaroo Court”, did make the following offending statement insulting the judiciary of Singapore, namely, the Honourable Justice Belinda Ang:

“The judge Belinda Ang was throughout prostituting herself during the entire proceedings by being nothing more than an employee of Mr Lee Kuan Yew and his son and carrying out their orders.”

and you had thereby committed an offence punishable under section 228 of the Penal Code, Chapter 224, for which on 17 September 2008, you were convicted and sentenced to 3 months imprisonment, and you are hereby guilty of conduct unbefitting an advocate and solicitor as an officer of the Supreme Court or as a member of an honourable profession which warrants disciplinary proceedings against you within the meaning of section 82A(3)(a) of the Legal Profession Act (Chapter 161).

4th charge

That you in your blog post at http://singaporedissident.blogspot.com dated 28 November 2008 entitled “Hello from Freemont, near San Francisco, California”, did make the following offending statement amounting to contempt of court:

“…. I am defying the undertaking that I gave in court on September 12, 2008 when I admitted being in contempt of court. .. I had also given an undertaking to remove the 2 blog posts, of Sept 1 2008 and Sept 6, 2008 which referred to my trial and conviction before Judge James Leong in the Subordinate Courts for disorderly behaviour and insulting a policeman, charges entirely made up by the police to discredit me. I will be re-posting those 2 blog posts and stand by every word that I had written in them …” (Sic).

and you are hereby guilty of conduct unbefitting an advocate and solicitor as an officer of the Supreme Court or as a member of an honourable profession which warrants disciplinary proceedings against you within the meaning of section 82A(3)(a) of the Legal Profession Act (Chapter 161).

5th charge

That you in your blog post at http://singaporedissident.blogspot.com dated 30 November 2008 entitled “Justice Judith Prakash, Another Kangaroo Judge”, did make the following offending statement insulting the judiciary of Singapore, namely, the Honourable Justice Judith Prakash:

“Judge Judith Prakash of the Singapore High Court has prostituted herself in the hearing of the Kangaroo T shirt case on November 24, 2008 by being nothing more than an employee of Lee Kuan Yew and his son, whom he appointed Prime Minister. By her actions in sending these young men to prison and making them pay crippling court costs of $5,000 each, she has shamelessly disgraced herself, her office as a judge, disgraced the Singapore Constitution and disgraced Singapore.”

and you are hereby guilty of conduct unbefitting an advocate and solicitor as an officer of the Supreme Court or as a member of an honourable profession which warrants disciplinary proceedings against you within the meaning of section 82A(3)(a) of the Legal Profession Act (Chapter 161).

6 GN sent, by way of emails to the Disciplinary Tribunal Secretariat, his Defence and his Amended Defence on 1 December 2009. However, although he knew that his case was being heard by the Tribunal on 20 and 21 September 2010, he did not appear for the hearing.

7 The Tribunal found GN guilty of all 5 charges brought against him and determined that there was cause of sufficient gravity for disciplinary action to be taken against him. The Chief Justice then appointed Mr Peter Low, the plaintiff’s counsel, under s 82A(10) of the LPA to make the present application in Summons No 1404 of 2011.

Decision of the Court

8 GN did not attend and was not represented by counsel at the hearing before this Court on 25 July 2011.The Court was satisfied that he had been duly served the requisite papers and that he was fully aware of the hearing scheduled for 25 July 2011.

9 The issues before this Court were whether due cause for disciplinary action against GN under s 82A(3)(a) of the LPA had been shown and if so, the appropriate penalty to be imposed on him.

Due cause

10 As for what constitutes “due cause”, the relevant part of s 82A(3) provides:

Such due cause may be shown by proof that a Legal Service Officer or a non-practising solicitor, as the case may be —

(a)has been guilty in Singapore or elsewhere of such misconduct unbefitting a Legal Service Officer or an advocate and solicitor as an officer of the Supreme Court or as a member of an honourable profession ...

11 The Law Society rightly submitted that for the purpose of considering whether there has been “misconduct unbefitting an advocate and solicitor as an officer of the Supreme Court or as a member of an honourable profession” under s 82(3)(a) LPA, the meaning accorded to the identical phrase in s 83(2)(h) LPA should be adopted. As such, both misconduct in the solicitor’s professional capacity as well as misconduct in the solicitor’s personal capacity are relevant to this inquiry (see Law Society of Singapore v Heng Guan Hong Geoffrey [1999] 3 SLR(R) 966 at [24]). The same standard applies to non-practising lawyers.

12 The Law Society relied on the findings of the Tribunal to support its assertion that “due cause”, as defined in s 82A(3)(a) of the LPA, had been shown.

13 The 1st and 2nd charges against GN concerned his conviction with respect to two offences under s 13D(1)(a) and s 20 of the Miscellaneous Offences (Public Order and Nuisance) Act (Cap 184, 1997 Rev Ed) for uttering vulgarities when speaking to officers of the Singapore Police Force and for behaving in a disorderly manner towards the police officers who had enquired why he had knocked a number of times on a police vehicle bearing the registration number QX501H. The gravity of his use of abusive and obscene language was stressed by the Tribunal in its report at [28]-[29]:

28 It is clear beyond reasonable doubt … that the Respondent uttered vulgarities towards the two policemen after he was stopped by them.All this happened in a public place in the full glare of members of the public. [T]he Respondent behaved in a petulant manner and apparently took grave offence when he was stopped by the police. His reaction was entirely unprovoked. Even if the Respondent was unhappy about being questioned by the police, he should have acted with self-restraint and moderation. In the entire episode, he displayed neither virtue. If he had responded to the questions in a co-operative manner, his subsequent arrest could possibly have been avoided. In our view, these vulgarities which the Respondent spewed were not only profoundly offensive, but also had the effect of lowering the dignity and professionalism of law enforcement officers.

29 We further find the racist outburst directed at Sergeant Daud to be wholly reprehensible and deserving of condemnation in a multi-racial society like Singapore. It demonstrates a callous, unpardonable disregard for the sensitivities of the different races that make up our society. It is not behaviour that one would expect of a member of the legal profession.

[emphasis added]

14 In regard to his disorderly behaviour in the presence of the police, the Tribunal noted at para [39] of its report:

39 Creating a ruckus in a public place, gesticulating wildly (even if a non-threatening manner), spewing vulgarities towards public officers shows a very low level of restraint and self-control as well as a complete lack of respect for law enforcement officers. Simply put, the Respondent had made a complete nuisance of himself in public. The fine of $1000 (or one week imprisonment in default thereof) may be marginally less serious as compared with the Respondent’s offence in MAC 3211.Nevertheless, such unruly, petulant and disorderly conduct (in full view of the public) is unfitting of an advocate or solicitor as an officer of the Court and as a member of a honourable profession. After all, a solicitor is expected to exercise a high level of self restraint and a bad tempered solicitor can only bring disrepute to the legal profession.

15 As for the breach of the undertaking referred to in the 4th charge, the background for the undertaking given by GN is as follows. When the case regarding GN’s abuse of the policemen, as outlined in the 1st and 2nd charges pressed by the Law Society against him, was heard before District Judge James Leong (“DJ Leong”), GN made several offending statements in open court. For instance, on 25 August 2008, he said:

... I frankly do not have any faith or belief that I will get a fair trial in this Court. Any attempt on my part to recall these witnesses would only be a waste of my time since I believe the result will be the same in any event.

16 Subsequently, GN authored two blog posts dated 1 September 2008 and 6 September 2008 on http://singaporedissident.blogspot.com. These were entitled, “Another classic case of trying to use the courts to silence dissent” and “Convicted” respectively and were replete with statements which attacked DJ Leong. For instance, he stated:

As for Mr. James Leong, I have this to say. I have begun to know him pretty well since it took 18 days of trial. He is a good man at heart; there is no doubt about it. If he had his way, there is no doubt he would have acquitted me immediately. But alas he is weak. He cuts a pathetic figure. A man, because of his circumstances, having to do things that he does not really want to do. He knows that his employment as a judge in the Singapore courts depends on the patronage of Lee Kuan Yew and his friends. He also knows that Lee Kuan Yew demands his judges to punish political opponents of the government. And therefore to keep his job as a judge, he has no choice but to find me guilty....

17 GN’s statements prompted the Attorney-General to make an application under Originating Summons No 385 of 2008 for an order of committal for contempt. When the hearing commenced on 12 November 2008 before District Judge Leslie Chew (“DJ Chew”), GN admitted that he had made the offending statements, apologised for his behaviour and gave an undertaking to the Court not to make similar offending statements and to remove the blog posts dated 1 September 2008 and 6 September 2008. As such, DJ Chew only reprimanded him and ordered him to pay the costs of the proceedings. As soon as GN left Singapore and returned to California, he breached his undertaking to the Court.

18 What was truly unacceptable was that GN subsequently declared that he never had any intention of abiding by his undertaking and that he deliberately breached the undertaking at the first opportunity. The Tribunal stated as follows at [62]:

By flagrantly flouting his undertaking to the court in such a defiant manner, the Respondent displayed absolutely no remorse or contrition for what he had done prior to leaving Singapore for the United States. He was simply trying to make a mockery out of the entire affair. The apology he made and the undertaking he gave were both quickly withdrawn once he was safely out of Singapore. Clearly the apology and undertaking was an expedient way to a lighter sentence – the Respondent by his own admission, never intended or believed in either.

19 As for the offensive blog post regarding Belinda Ang J on 29 May 2008, which was the subject matter of the 3rd charge, that blog post was in the context of a defamation suit brought by Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong against the Singapore Democratic Party. For this charge of contempt of court, GN was sentenced to three months’ imprisonment by Kan Ting Chiu J. The sentence meted out gave a clear indication of the seriousness of the contempt. Yet, in his blog post in relation to Judith Prakash J on 30 November 2008, who had, at the material time, found a number of persons in contempt of court for wearing T-shirts depicting a kangaroo in judges’ robes, GN continued to abuse the judiciary.

20 After taking all the circumstances into account, we found that the Law Society had shown that there was due cause for disciplinary action to be taken against GN. As such, we proceeded to consider the penalty that ought to be imposed.

The appropriate penalty

21 Disciplinary action is intended to punish the errant solicitor for his or her misconduct, deter others from misbehaving in the same manner, and protect public confidence in the administration of justice: see Law Society of Singapore v Tham Yu Xian Rick [1999] 3 SLR(R) 68 (at [18]) and Law Society of Singapore v Rasif David [2008] 2 SLR(R) 955 (at [28]).

22 Although GN had been convicted of a number of offences, which were referred to in the charges preferred against him by the Law Society, it should be borne in mind that in Law Society of Singapore v Wee Wei Fen [1999] 3 SLR(R) 559, the Court observed (at [25]) that it cannot be that every violation of the criminal law implies a defect of character which renders the offender unfit to be a member of the legal profession and that the nature of the offence is clearly material. Similarly in Law Society of Singapore v Wong Sin Yee [2003] 3 SLR(R) 209, the Court stated (at [12]):

We would, at the outset, make it quite clear that conviction of criminal offence does not per se imply a defect of character rendering an advocate and solicitor unfit for his profession. It is the nature of the offence, and the circumstances under which it was committed, and in turn the punishment imposed, which are likely to be determinative…. The offence must be of such a nature that it is expedient for the protection of the public and the preservation of the good name of the profession to remove the solicitor from the roll or from practice.

23 The offences in respect of which GN had been convicted and the circumstances under which they were committed lead to the conclusion that a serious penalty must be imposed. Apart from abusing the police with foul language in public and behaving in a disorderly manner in the presence of the police, GN was imprisoned for contempt of court in relation to his blog post regarding Belinda Ang J on 29 May 2008.Furthermore, he openly defied the undertaking he had given to the District Court shortly after he was convicted by Kan J for contempt of court. He then posted offensive statements in his blog about Prakash J on 30 November 2008.

24 When considering whether or not to strike an advocate and solicitor off the rolls, it is worth noting that in Law Society of Singapore v Amdad Hussein Lawrence [2000] 3 SLR(R) 23, the Court held at [11]:

The earlier decisions in Law Society of Singapore v Ravindra Samuel [1999] 1 SLR(R) 266 at [15]; Law Society of Singapore v Tham Yu Xian Rick (at [18]; Law Society of Singapore v Suresh Kumar Suppiah [1999] 2 SLR(R) 1203 at [18]; and Law Society of Singapore v Heng Guan Hong Geoffrey [1999] 3 SLR(R) 966 at [28]-[29] have consistently affirmed and applied the following principles on disciplinary sentencing:

(a) where a solicitor has acted dishonestly, the court will almost invariably order that he be struck off the roll of solicitors;

(b) if he has not acted dishonestly, but is shown to have fallen below the required standards of integrity, probity and trustworthiness, he will nonetheless be struck off the roll, as opposed to being suspended, if his lapse is such as to indicate that he lacks the qualities of character and trustworthiness which are the necessary attributes of a person entrusted with the responsibilities of a legal practitioner.

25 In the present case, the relevant question is whether or not GN should be struck off the roll on the basis that he lacked the necessary attributes of a person entrusted with the responsibilities of a legal practitioner. After taking all the charges into account, we were of the view that he lacked the said attributes. In particular, the facts in the 3rd, 4th and 5th charges disclosed a contemptuous disrespect on the part of GN towards the judges concerned. Such egregious misconduct is totally unacceptable. As there were no mitigating circumstances to persuade us that he merited a less severe penalty than striking off the roll, we ordered that he be struck off the roll of advocates and solicitors of the Supreme Court of Singapore and awarded costs to the Law Society.


Sunday, August 21, 2011

Quality of Singaporeans deteriorates

Ladies and Gentlemen,

What sort of a person is a Singaporean anyway? It is a country that fools it's citizens into thinking they have rights with a well endowed Constitution, yet even if you protested peacefully, you would be arrested.

It is a country that claims to have almost universal home ownership. Yet 99% of the people live in government built flats which are 99 year leases, not home ownership. They are lessees, not home owners.

It is a country that mandates a free press under the Constitution, yet all the newspapers are owned and controlled by the government.

It is a country where it's leaders pay themselves $3.7 million a year officially and much more unofficially. This is called either theft or corruption. Yet the people take this lying down without complaint, and what is more, their leaders who steal this money would prosecute and jail anyone else who does what they do! Lee Kuan Yew and his friends at the top have the monopoly on corruption in the island. Only they are allowed by law to be corrupt. William Sapire of the New York Times called them racketeers and his description was spot on.

It is a country that can detain you indefinitely without trial under the excuse that it is in the national interest. Even if you are not arrested, the very fear of it has a chilling effect on any criticism.

It is a country where the law is routinely abused to silence dissent.

Which brings me to the question, what kind of people live there? The answer has to be this. The Singaporeans still remaining in the island are either dummies, cowards or foreigners who don't care one way or the other.

There is ample evidence that more and more educated Singaporeans are leaving the island because they don't want anything to do with a country like this. They understandably want themselves and their families to live in freedom.

This brain drain is complemented by the fact that the birth rate continues to decline, a consequence of these unacceptable political atmosphere and moreover Singaporeans are not getting married.

Which again brings me to the question, who are these 5 million people who apparently live in Singapore. Well the answer seems to be as follows. First you have a large segment of immigrants from Communist China, comprised almost entirely of uneducated Chinese peasants from the remote parts of China who I suppose have never come across Indian curry dish as evidenced by recent island wide racial conflagration between the these immigrants and an Indian family who had cooked the dish.

Then you have a few Indians from India, mainly computer engineers who would have gone anywhere in the world for a job. These Indian workers know nothing else than their jobs and how to earn a living and have no intention whatsoever of making Singapore their home. On the other hand there may be some unskilled Indians who also managed to slip through the cracks of Singapore immigration but these are not quality immigrants by any standards. The Indians who sink their roots there are these ignorant types.

Then, at the top you have some Europeans and Americans who are managers and bankers. They would never want to live in a country like this, just as they would not in Nazi Germany. They are here to make some money temporarily, that is all.

Looking at Singapore, it does appear that Lee Kuan Yew has misjudged human nature. All along he has been thinking that all he had to do is to create jobs and the people would stay, regardless of what sort of a society Singapore was.

It should be quite obvious to him by now that this is not the case. Singaporeans, it is quite clear by now, are not so desperate as they were before, to live there just for that job. Today it appears they want much more than that, and that is why they are leaving.

Unfortunately, the Singaporean population today, still remaining in the island, is comprised of largely uneducated and unskilled people who have either no knowledge of their rights and would be happy to live as slaves, uneducated mandarin speaking Communist Chinese immigrants and a few Lee Kuan Yew bootlickers who are comfortable towing the government line. Such people are not the ones one finds in a first world modern world class city, rather the sort you would find in a peasant society.

Independent minded thinking Singaporeans are rapidly declining in numbers. The quality of Singaporeans continues to deteriorate in Lee Kuan Yew's Singpaore.

Gopalan Nair
Attorney at Law
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.

Saturday, August 20, 2011

Singapore's Law Minister wants a long dead legal profession to be "vibrant"

Ladies and Gentlemen,

Singapore Lee Kuan Yew's state controlled newspaper the Straits Times of Aug 21, 2011has this story "Singapore needs to maintain a vibrant law market". In it, Lee Kuan Yew's handpicked Minister for Law, another veteran bootlicker, who would say anything that pleases the master, claims that unless Singapore does not maintain a "vibrant" law market, it will lose out to China and India.

I am not sure if he realises that Singapore's legal profession is already comatose, if not already dead. In a country of 5 million people, despite all attempts to increase the number of lawyers, there are no more than 3,000 practicing lawyers!

Most people in Singapore forgo the legal system entirely since it is very clear that Lee Kuan Yew's government and not the judges decide who wins and who loses. If you are not connected to the Lee Kuan Yew family one way or another, don't bother even filing the case, you will lose.

As for Lee Kuan Yew himself, Singapore is the only country in the world where he already not only knows he has won but also the exact amount of damages his poor victim in the defamation lawsuit will have to pay, before he even steps into the courtroom! The trial that follows is an entirely stage managed theater, with even the script probably supplied by Lee Kuan Yew's office!

As for criminal cases, once you are arrested and charged it is a forgone conclusion that Lee Kuan Yew's judges will punish you, never mind the Constitution nor the Criminal Procedure Code. They are only pieces of paper as far as he is concerned.

So most criminal defendants don't bother even engaging any lawyer, and even if they do, they get a cheap lawyer and throw a few dollars at him just to avoid the inconvenience of defending yourself, not that it will make any difference one way or the other.

In fact not surprisingly 10 years ago there were more lawyers in Singapore than there are today.

You know that Gopalan Nair had practiced law in Singapore for 10 years until he left for America.

Had someone told me that Singapore law was Lee Kuan Yew's personal plaything, I would not have applied to practice there at all.

It is not just me saying this, it is the respected International Bar Association saying this as well in their 72 page unusually damning report that Singapore judges merely carry out the wishes of the Lee Kuan Yew family in Singapore.

Not surprising therefore in the light of these hopeless circumstances, senior lawyers are not renewing their law licenses and it has become almost impossible to get any smart lawyer to practice in that island.

Of course there are a few weak characters who either do not know the law or are willing to play second fiddle to Lee Kuan Yew's dictates who enter the profession. These are lawyers weak not only in the law but also in character, people who can easily be discounted when talking about real lawyers.

At the rate the profession is shrinking, thanks to Lee Kuan Yew's brilliant efforts to enslave and weaken the profession, I don't think there would be many lawyers left in Singapore, let alone "vibrant" ones.

And I must confess Gopalan Nair is greatly responsible for the sad state of Lee Kuan Yew's law in Singapore. My contribution to exposing the Singaporean legal profession started in the 1980s when they decided to suspended me from practicing law in Singapore for 2 years merely for writing a letter to the then Attorney General on a matter of public interest.

As the Internet was not available then, not many knew of the disgraceful injustice in this case. It contributed in chasing away a fair proportion of lawyers practicing then.

In 1991, in Singapore, I was convicted of contempt of court and made to pay a fine of $8,000 merely for questioning the method of appointing Subordinate Court judges in an election rally speech at Bukit Merah, Singapore.

Another swath of lawyers left the profession in disgust.

Only a month ago, they disbarred Gopalan Nair merely for criticizing Lee's judge Belinda Ang Saw Ean for shamelessly abusing the law to punish Lee's critic Chee Soon Juan. Lee's Singapore legal profession took another hit to it's credibility.

Gopalan Nair's disbarment in Singapore has been reported by him to the State Bar of California as required by law. Gopalan Nair is waiting the outcome of their decision. If he is vindicated, Gopalan Nair will publish this fact, which would be another slap in the face of Lee Kuan Yew's Singapore legal profession. The Bar of England and Wales has not taken any action against him and he continues in good standing there.

A lawyer is someone who has the courage to defend the rights of his client fearlessly, to protect his rights under the Constitution, and to defend vigorously every single right which he has, to the best of his ability, regardless of any threats or intimidation from Lee Kuan Yew's government. Unfortunately there is not a single lawyer in Singapore who is prepared to do this.

Frankly I don't think the legal profession is going to be "vibrant". It would be a miracle indeed if they had any lawyers left practicing. They would have to make do with mercenary expatriate foreign lawyers who come in on a temporary basis for, as they say, an "Asian experience" who leave after a short stint.

Gopalan Nair
Attorney at Law
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.

Friday, August 19, 2011

Lee Kuan Yew's Singapore shows clear signs of citizen unrest

Ladies and Gentlemen,

What has been happening in Lee Kuan Yew's Singapore should be worrying, for his leadership. Who would have thought, that just a few days ago, Tony Tan, the former Lee Kuan Yew government's cabinet minister and right hand man, and presently a director of the the country's wealth fund would have had to suffer the ignominy of boos and jeers when he spoke in his campaign for Singapore's Presidency.

And who would have thought that the recent curry war, jokingly referred to about an incident where Singaporean Indians had agreed not to cook curry in their houses anymore because their neighbours, recent immigrants from Communist China had complained to the authorities about the aroma of the dish which they were not accustomed to; would have caused such a stir in the entire island, with thousands and thousands swearing that they would not eat anything else but only curry until they die!

As is the case with all dictatorships around the world, after long years in power by instilling fear and intimidating their citizens, they finally descend into a comfort zone thinking that no matter what they do, the people would just accept. History has clearly disproved this belief. In Egypt, Mubarak thought he could do anything he wants with his people. Today he is in a glass cage being tried for murder by his people. Bin Ali of Tunisia had to flee for his life and now faces extradition and a similar fate. Gadaffi of Libya is still fighting for his life and so is Assad of Syria.

And it appears Lee Kuan Yew is finally beginning to see the same fate in the horizon, after heading inexorably headlong into the eye of the storm, the storm of discontent among his people.

What did Lee Kuan Yew think would happen when he simply pays himself millions of dollars each year and calls it a salary? What did he think would happen if he simply monopolizes the entire Media in the island under his control? What did he think when he routinely abused the law to punish legitimate criticism by people such as JB Jeyaretnam, Chee Soon Juan and Gopalan Nair? What did he think when he indiscriminately brings in millions of Chinese from Mainland China who are both unskilled and illiterate to Singapore to take away jobs and dampen the wage rates for Singaporeans?

Did he really think that Singaporeans would take this injustice simply sitting down forever? Did he not think that one day, he would have pushed Singaporeans a little too far and the time would have come when they say enough is enough?

I think that time when they say enough is enough has finally come, like it has come and gone in Egypt, Tunisia, Libya and Syria. And now finally that discontent is finally taking root in Singapore as well, as is evidenced by the booing and jeering of a former Cabinet Minister Tony Tan and the island wide disapproval of the curry case.

Such an act of jeering and booing a close associate of Lee Kuan Yew, Tony Tan only a couple of years ago was unthinkable. It would have attracted or at least the people would fear, arrest, defamation lawsuits initiated by the strongman, and a lifetime of harassment of victimization and intimidation. But look at it now, just 2 years ahead, booing and jeering at Tony Tan in public! It is a miracle.

It is true, no one told Lee Kuan Yew that the time would come for him as well, but as with all dictators who simply don't see it, he too fell into the trap thinking it would never happen to him.

Now since sizable numbers of Singaporeans are no longer afraid, I would expect peaceful demonstrations across the island against the million or so foreign Chinese in Singapore and slowly for other causes. We are now at the threshold of a new beginning, it appears. The shroud of fear under which they lived for 50 years has finally been cast aside. They too have finally decided to take back Singapore themselves, which has eluded them for so long. Very Good for Singapore.

Gopalan Nair
Attorney at Law
39737 Paseo Padre Parkway, Suite A1
Fremont, CA 94538, USA
Tel: 510 657 6107
Fax: 510 657 6914
Email: nair.gopalan@yahoo.com
Blog: http://singaporedissident.blogspot.com/

Your letters are welcome. We reserve the right to publish your letters. Please Email your letters to nair.gopalan@yahoo.com And if you like what I write, please tell your friends. You will be helping democracy by distributing this widely. This blog not only gives information, it dispels government propaganda put out by this dictatorial regime.

Singapore. Hot Indian curry dish leads to heated racial conflict Part 2

Ladies and Gentlemen,

I can't help it. I absolutely love this video

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aOsijzsG27U

A big thanks to the reader who sent it.

Gopalan Nair
Attorney at Law
39737 Paseo Padre Parkway, Suite A1
Fremont, CA 94538, USA
Tel: 510 657 6107
Fax: 510 657 6914
Email: nair.gopalan@yahoo.com
Blog: http://singaporedissident.blogspot.com/

Your letters are welcome. We reserve the right to publish your letters. Please Email your letters to nair.gopalan@yahoo.com And if you like what I write, please tell your friends. You will be helping democracy by distributing this widely. This blog not only gives information, it dispels government propaganda put out by this dictatorial regime.

Wednesday, August 17, 2011

Singapore. Hot Indian curry dish leads to heated racial conflict

Ladies and Gentleman,

Listen to this. In Lee Kuan Yew's Singapore a few days ago, whoever thought that the humble curry, a spicy hot Indian dish can led to a heated argument between a recent Chinese Immigrant from Mainland China and a local Indian Singaporean born and raised in Singapore? It has.

In Lee's government owned apartments where hundred and thousands of apartment blocks cramped like sardines stand next to each other, it is reported that a recent Chinese Immigrant from Mainland china, probably from some remote impoverished parts of China who by the way are the only ones who are prepared to come to a country such as this,(the more capable ones go to Australia, US and Canada) have complained to their Indian neighbours who naturally cook curry dishes that they don't like it's smell and therefore should stop cooking it anymore. Imagine the temerity of these new Chinese human imports!

When the Indians naturally said that it is my apartment and I can do as I want, and quite rightly so, the Mainland Chinamen took it the government agency which has, clearly unlawfully I might add, required the Indians to stop cooking this dish when the Chinese were at home.

If this sort of thing was demanded of people in any other country, the Indians would not only have refused to comply, they would have gone out and purchased a fan and made sure that the curry flavours were directed directly into the living room of these characters.

And that is not all, they would have walked over to these characters who happen to be too large for their shoes, and told them to pack up and leave to wherever they came from if the don't like curry.

And if they did not want to go back all the way to China, they could instead leave their apartments and find a place next to their brethren just like them who come from the same impoverished regions of China who have never come across curry in their lives.

Had I been a violent man, which I am not, I would also have gone over and given them a right and proper beating, but since I am not such a man, would instead advice on non violence and the path of Mahatma Gandhi instead.

From what I am seeing on the ground, with a growing groundswell of anger against these Chinese human imports which make up already one fifth of the Singapore population, taking jobs from the locals, dampening wages and who generally behave in the most uncouth manner imaginable, behaviors more commonly seen in these remote parts of China, it is not if but when some Singapore Indians, Malays and Singapore Chinese are going to say enough is enough and give these characters from China a real beating.

I am sure the day is coming. I would be unhappy to see any violence, of course, as I have always been a man of peace, a Gandhian you could say, but human nature being what it is, it has it's limits.

Unfortunately I have to say that these characters who cannot accept Indian curry are going to be given a proper beating, and it is not because of their culinary tastes but because of their misguided arrogance.

After all we are not all Mahatma Gandhi.

Gopalan Nair
Attorney at Law
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, August 16, 2011

A big thank you to all readers of Singapore Dissident.

Ladies and Gentlemen,

Almost every day when people call me, almost invariably to the man, they give me the best news I can ever ask, which is this. They say they have heard of me because they have read this blog Singapore Dissident, and the calls come in not only from Singapore but from throughout the World.

And achieving this was exactly my plan when I started Singapore Dissident in December 2006.

You see it is one thing for someone to write a blog anonymously as you see them all over the Internet critical of Singapore. It is quite another to be critical and state who you are for all to see. In this case, the reader can see that Gopalan Nair of Singapore Dissident means business. He is not taking what he says lightly, and he stands by every word he writes.

Since the inception of Singapore Dissident, the readership has continued to increase which includes governments, universities and human rights groups. This information gets disseminated to others which has a clear, even though unseen, effect on Singapore's image locally and abroad. For instance one intending visitor to Singapore may change his plans, a documentary in Germany may be made on Singapore's dark side and one parent in India may have decided against sending her son for study in the island.

At the beginning, I received numerous repeated pleas, all anonymous, to stop criticizing Lee's Singapore, no doubt from government agencies. There were even threats to kill me if I continued. Then there were obscenities hurled at me. All this appears to have stopped. I reckon they know that I will not be persuaded.

Writing this blog has taught me a great deal. As with anything worth doing, one has to persevere. The world has to be able to expect the next posting within a few days. And as with anything else, one has to like writing, which I do.

I have a lot of material, thanks to Lee Kuan Yew's Singapore jailing me and harassing me all these years, for a very nice book or even a couple of books which I have to do. But I keep distracted with work and making a living and my other interests. But as with anything, I have to keep this plan in view and do it when time permits.

I sometime wonder why Lee's Singapore is not doing anything else as a retaliation. In the past from 1980s till now I have been charged in court, subjected to disciplinary proceedings, charged and convicted and sent to jail and recently disbarred from practicing law in Singapore. He has even banned me from entering Singapore without permission, the country of my birth.

I hope they will find something else to punish me, because it is boring if they have finally decided to do nothing more. Since at present their main grouse against me now is this blog, have they considered contacting Google who own this blog, to ask that it be blocked from being read in Singapore. I understand China blocks Internet which it does not like. I guess Lee Kuan Yew wants it both ways. He wants to tell the world that Singapore is an open society, yet at the same time, he does not want any criticism. Well, the problem with him is that I am outside Singapore. Had I been within Singapore and wrote any of this, I would have been dead meat long time ago.

As with all bullies, Lee Kuan Yew will get you if he can. If he cannot, he just leaves you alone, and eats humble pie instead, as he does now.

Thank you my friends. What I owe you cannot be measured.

Gopalan Nair
Attorney at Law
39737 Paseo Padre Parkway, Suite A1
Fremont, CA 94538, USA
Tel: 510 657 6107
Fax: 510 657 6914
Email: nair.gopalan@yahoo.com
Blog: http://singaporedissident.blogspot.com/

Your letters are welcome. We reserve the right to publish your letters. Please Email your letters to nair.gopalan@yahoo.com And if you like what I write, please tell your friends. You will be helping democracy by distributing this widely. This blog not only gives information, it dispels government propaganda put out by this dictatorial regime.

Singapore. It appears, the Romanian has had the last laugh.

Ladies and Gentlemen,

Sad as I am, of course, for the victims of his hit and run drunk driving spree in 2009 in Singapore, one cannot avoid stating the obvious.

Silviu Ionescu has had the last laugh.

And the fault, lies to a very great extent on Singapore.

I believe that Singapore's disgraced notoriety for the lack of the rule of law, the history of misusing the law to destroy a long list of Lee Kuan Yew's political opponents such as JB Jeyaretnam, Chee Soon Juan, Tang Liang Hong and Gopalan Nair has seriously damaged the reputation of it's legal system.

I understand that Silviu Ionescu's main argument in the Bucharest court against extradition was the lack of the rule of law in Singapore. I understand he used many of the articles in Singapore Dissident to buttress his claim that Singapore's legal system has been thoroughly compromised and he is unlikely to receive a fair trial if returned. I am gratified that Singapore Dissident has been of some use in disseminating internationally this sad fact, both in Romania and in the European Union. I think the world has a right to know the truth.

A judicial system like that in Singapore which can shamelessly misuse the law in political cases is not expected to behave impartially in any other case.

I understand that Ionescu has been punished in the Bucharest court.

I think he had a fair trial.

Let us not forget Romania is now a member of the European Union and subject to the laws of the union.

Remember, it is not Lee Kuan Yew's Singapore, a place where this 88 year old thug , Lee Kuan Yew, is running amok in the island.

Gopalan Nair
Attorney at Law
39737 Paseo Padre Parkway, Suite A1
Fremont, CA 94538, USA
Tel: 510 657 6107
Fax: 510 657 6914
Email: nair.gopalan@yahoo.com
Blog: http://singaporedissident.blogspot.com/

Your letters are welcome. We reserve the right to publish your letters. Please Email your letters to nair.gopalan@yahoo.com And if you like what I write, please tell your friends. You will be helping democracy by distributing this widely. This blog not only gives information, it dispels government propaganda put out by this dictatorial regime.

Monday, August 15, 2011

Singapore. Another hapless visa overstayer will be brutally beaten

Ladies and Gentlemen,

Lee Kuan Yew's Singapore has over the decades attracted a great deal of notoriety, and has become the butt of jokes, such as criminalizing chewing gum, fines for a litany of behaviours which the Singapore strongman considers anti social including, believe it or not, forgetting to flush the toilet!

As a result Lee Kuan Yew's island is always associated with other silly regimes like Malawi where it is a criminal offense to fart in public, which can attract fines or even jail sentences for repeat offenders!

Good to know that Singapore has not outlawed this practice yet. But even so Malawi is a million times better than Singapore, as unlike Singapore they only fine or jail you for farting. In Singapore on the other hand, you can be brutally caned for even minor offenses.

Singapore's wierd penchant for good order, does not stop at these silly things like Chewing gum but extends to an outright fetish for the macabre and brutality which is unprecedented anywhere else in the world, which extends to beatings or caning.

Let me be very clear about this. Caning is not just giving a slight slap on your backside to shame you as many foreigners had thought. No it is not so nice. It is a brutal torture intended to inflict excruciating pain on the victim.

This is how it is done. The victim is stripped naked and lashed to a wooden trestle and beaten very hard on his buttocks with a stick (cane) until he bleeds and in order to inflict even more pain, the stick is coated with antiseptic and the buttocks beaten at the same spot as before, again and again. The beatings can range for one stroke to a maximum of 24. The victim is left with permanent scarring and is usually crippled for life, both physically and mentally.

This torture, believe it or not, is lawful punishment under Singapore law, and is meted out to a litany of offences, even seemingly minor ones like, overstaying a visa, which in most other countries would only attract deportation and nothing more.

Lee Kuan Yew's state controlled newspaper the Straits Times of August 16, 2011 carried the story "Over stayer arrested for illegal attempt to enter Resorts World Sentosa" describing how a Chinese national from Mainland China who had overstayed his visit visa from 2008 had been arrested while trying to enter the Casino.

But that is not the way Lee Kuan Yew's Alice in Wonderland Singapore looks at some minor infractions, like overstaying a visa. Lee wants to make sure that visa overstayers are dissuaded and he does this by beatings. In the case of this unfortunate Chinese young man, jail is the least of his worries. The beatings is what he has to worry about.

The number of beatings his victims get depend on how long you have overstayed. Since this young man who is only 27 had remained unlawfully in Singapore since 2008, he is looking at no less than 6 to 8 strokes, although, it is a tragic irony, that the prison sentence itself may not be more than 4 months or so, hardly a consolation to him.

This is why sometimes I can only laugh when Lee and his oligarchy at the top repeat their favorite mantra, like a broken record, that they are a first world country! A first world country is supposed to behave with decency, not like the Gestapo. And any first world country should behave rationally, not like madmen.

In Lee's Alice in Wonderland Singapore, the worst thing one could do is to overstay in the island, because then you become stuck and it is bad news any which way you turn. If you stay, you are done for, and if you try to leave, you are done for as well. In a case such as this, it would have been better off if he had lied under cover forever, since once you have overstayed, there is no way you can leave the country without first getting the beatings!

This is not the way it is done in any other civilized country. If you try to leave San Francisco Airport after overstaying, they don't hand you to the police for a beating. They just let you leave. You would probably not be given another visa but surely that is not so bad.

But then the USA is not only a civilized country, it is a First World Country. It is not Lee Kuan Yew's Singapore.

Gopalan Nair
Attorney at Law
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.