Ladies and Gentlemen,
I must say I had a lot of fun during my short stay in Singapore from May 2008 to late November 2008, fighting Lee Kuan Yew and his Kangaroo Courts. Predictably, lest anyone has any doubts about it, I was naturally disbarred.
But a hollow victory for them, it nevertheless was, since I was not even living in Singapore let alone practicing law there, although under Singapore law I still had a law practicing certificate from my earlier days of living there.
I am attaching below their court judgment and how they conveniently distort the facts to arrive at their desired verdict.
You can also see how bizarre, some of their allegations are, actions more for a madman, which I am glad to say, I am obviously not.
It is this sort of misuse of their legal system to destroy anyone with any guts to stand up to them, and to intimidate all others into submission, that their legal system is the pariah among legal jurisdictions, and any attempt on their part to make it a legal hub is like North Korea High Court trying to claim they are the US Supreme Court.
At the end of the report I have written how they have conveniently hidden the truth.
See report here http://www.singaporelaw.sg/sglaw/laws-of-singapore/case-law/free-law/high-court-judgments/14650-law-society-of-singapore-v-gopalan-nair-alias-pallichadath-gopalan-nair-2011-sghc-191
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.
Subject Area / Catchwords
Legal Profession – Disciplinary Proceedings
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.
[emphasis added]
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.
[emphasis added]
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.
My responses
1. In Charge 1, I am accused of having insulted the police with intemperate language. What happened was this. On 4th July 2008 along Race Course Road Little India Singapore, I walked past a police car with some policemen in it until I was at the junction of Bukit Timah Road, a distance of approximately 200 or 300 feet when I heard voices and shouts from behind me.
I was then accosted by several men, not in uniform, asking me numerous questions, such as why I had "knocked' at their police car. I denied ever doing it. They then became belligerent and threatening.
I naturally refused to be pushed around by these robotic minions running around arresting Lee Kuan Yew's opponents, and naturally I refused to co-operate. In any case I have absolutely no respect for these characters like attack dogs bullying me or anyone else.
Being angry, I may have used some strong language such as what has been described. The tribunal takes umbrage at my actions because they claim that " I had behaved in such manner "in full view of the public" therefore requires disbarment Item 14.39.
But they failed to mention how I could possibly have stopped a crowd from gathering, since after all the island is one of the most crowded places in the world and a crowd may gather even if I had done the hop skip and jump.
Therefore mentioning that because I had yelled at some people who claim to be police officers in the face of a crowd, over whom I had no control, is a strange form reasoning indeed.
Even accepting the argument that I had uttered "fuck you " to Lee Kuan Yew's policemen, surely this happens every day and if this is a ground for disbarment, there won't be any lawyers in the USA England or Australia! They would all have been disbarred.
True, a lawyer should try to be a gentleman whenever possible and a lawyer that has a habit of shouting vulgarities at policemen in public should be given a warning and if he repeats this unwholesome behavior, should be sent either to the mental institution or should be disbarred.
In my case, even if I said "Fuck you" to Lee Kuan Yew's prize policemen once, surely you don't disbar someone for having said that once!
2. The second charge in incredulous. Let me tell you, I am not in the habit of "gesticulating", dancing around or doing the samba spontaneously in public.
But that is what they are suggesting. In relation to the first charge of my yelling at policemen on 4th July 2008, they say that I behaved in a disorderly manner, shouted loudly, and therefore I was guilty and should be disbarred.
I would like to remind the reader that I still have my wits about me, thank God, and have not gone off the rocker yet.
And there is no reason for me to "gesticulate" or "shout loudly". True, I may have told off Lee Kuan Yew's policemen but there is no reason for me to be doing the samba without provocation in public, because that is what they are suggesting.
In any case, even if I did the samba, for the sake of argument, what of it? It is is not a ground to disbar anyone. Not in the US, England, Europe or anywhere except probably in North Korea where Kim Jong An would make mincemeat of you.
3. I can fully agree that a lawyer who repeatedly goes about yelling at policemen and doing the samba without provocation should probably be sent to the mental hospital or disbarred, one or the other. But this was the first time I have ever been accused of this, and surely disbarment is completely over the top.
4. Now the 3rd charge. I wrote in my blog about the disgraceful performance of Judge Belinda Amg Ean in the case of Lee Kuan Yew vs Chee Soon Juan which was heard in Singapore from the 26th of May 2008 to the 28th of May 2008.
I was in court in Singapore. This judge Belinda Ang Saw Ean was a disgraceful woman. I had traveled to Singapore for the case and was in court to observe the disgrace.
I wrote about it in this blog on May 29, 2008 headed "Singapore. Judge Belinda Ang's Kangaroo Court". I want to repeat what I had said in this blog. This woman Belinda Ang Saw Ean was not behaving like a judge. She was literally part of the prosecution or plaintiff working with Lee Kuan Yew's lawyer Davinder Singh to deny every single advantage to Chee and allow Lee and his son to get away with anything.
In fact, I am not exaggerating to say that Chee could not get even a single question asked, it was either found irrelevant, redundant or denied because it was "previously asked". At one point I could not believe my ears when this woman addressed Lee Kuan Yew, the Plaintiff, as "Your Honor"!
Anyway coming to the point of the charge the words that I used which were in issue in the blog were
"The following transpired during the last 3 days in court. 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."
These words were not offensive at all. The word "prostituting herself" , was what they took offense, in fact there was no offense at all.
Webster's dictionary defines the word as "devote to corrupt or unworthy purposes" , "to debase one's talent" "a person such as a painter or writer who debases herself for money". In fact every other dictionary also says this. And in fact this is exactly the shameful behavior exhibited by this disgraceful judge Belinda Ang Saw Ean, as you can see form my blog.
Anyone case see that in this context, no one will ever assume that I was suggesting that Judge Belinda Ang Saw Ean was walking the streets in Singapore's red light area.
Yet despite my repeated attempts to explain this to Kan Ting Chiu, the Kangaroo judge who heard this case, he conveniently insisted that I had insulted the woman and therefore have to go to jail.
Let there be no misunderstanding here. It wasn't a mistake in my using the word. I deliberately intended to use it to show how base this woman was in shamelessly misusing her office to favor Lee Kuan Yew and son.
As you can see, no lawyer should be disbarred for criticizing this woman in these disgraceful circumstances, especially since it was a very high profile case. And what is more, no lawyer should be disbarred for that.
5. The 4th charge refers to my breach of an undertaking I had given in court for a separate charge of contempt of court. This is what happened. The chronology is important to take note.
First there was the blog charge, which was on May 2008. While waiting in Singapore for this case to come to court, I was arrested on the disorderly behavior charge on July 4th 2008 for which I paid a fine. Then finally the blog charge of May 2008 is heard in September 2008 and I go to jail. With one week left for my release, the police vist me in Queenstown Jail informing me that I have now been charged for contempt of court during the disorderly behavior case which was over.
During the July 4 2008 case, I had correctly informed the court that I had no respect whatsoever for the judge or their proceedings which is no better than the Alice in Wonderland case of the rabbit who stole the tart or words to that effect. When they came to visit me in Queenstown jail, they were charging me for having told the judge that.
So, when I was brought to court in this contempt case, one week before my release date, I had 2 choices. One I could deny the charge and fight it, which would mean, I would not be released in a week's time and would have to spend much longer kicking around in Singapore waiting for a future trial date. On the other hand, if I apologized, I was told in court that they would drop these contempt charges.
You can see the timing of this case, which was deliberately done. After I am jailed for the blog case, with just one week before my release from jail, after having had to stay nearly 4 months in Singapore, they spring this new charge of contempt, leaving me with the choice of either fighting it and spending even more time in Singapore with my US practice neglected, or to plead guilty and get out. Only small time banana republic would spring a dirty trick like that.
At this point, I had already been in the island for nearly 6 months, my law practice in California was neglected, bills were not paid, my landlord of my office premises at Paseo Padre, Fremont, was threatening to evict me.
Staying any longer in the island would be suicidal. At this point I would have said anything they wanted to hear just to get out. I would have said Singapore had the best legal system in the world. I would have said Lee Kuan Yew was Mahatma Gandhi. I would have said Big Brother was right after all. I would have said anything at all.
So I apologized. The judge in this case Leslie Chew accepted the apology. I also had to make it look genuine by sufficiently contorting my face to look remorseful. Had I been observed by Hollywood at that time, I have no doubt of being given an Oscar for best acting. So I was returned to my jail cell and a week later was released as scheduled.
As a condition of their letting me off, I was also required to take down 2 blog posts referring to the abuse of process against me in the disorderly behaviour case. I agreed to do it. I would have agreed to do anything under the circumstances.
In charge 4, they take offense to my violating the undertaking I had given to Judge Leslie Chew by apologizing and agreeing to remove the blog posts.
However I had no intention of keeping my word to these Kangaroo Court judges. Truly, the moment I set foot on American soil, the first thing I did was to rescind the apologies given in court to Judge Leslie Chew and to re-post the 2 blog posts.
In item 18, they correctly state that "I flagrantly flouted my undertaking to the Singapore court and was defiant, and showed no remorse". I am surprised that they expect me to show remorse! Remorse for what, for telling Lee Kuan Yew's judges that they are a bunch of Kangaroos?
The Singapore government for some strange inexplicable reason seem to think that they not only have a right to abuse the law to destroy political opponents, they also expect the victim to respect such legal abuse! Very twisted reasoning indeed!
6. In the 5th charge they take issue with the fact that I had used the same language that I had used in this blog which I used in the Belinda Ang Saw Ean case which was
"Judge Judith Prakash of the Supreme Court Singapore has prostituted herself in her capacity as a judge hearing 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."
My arguments for using the word "prostituting" was exactly what I had said in the Belinda Ang Saw Ean case. The word is proper under it's normal English meaning as shown by every English dictionary.
The case arose out of 3 activists who had worn T shirts with pictures of Kangaroos in judicial robes. Please see my blog post here "Justice Judith Prakash. Another Kangaroo Judge." of November 30, 2008.
7. None of these actions of mine deserve any disbarment. It is true that I have no respect whatsoever for Lee Kuan Yew's courts and no matter what they do, will not make me respect them. It is like Adolf Hitler after putting all his Jewish victims in concentration camp demanding that they respect him! It is simply not possible.
8. Two more things of interest. One would have thought that since they have taken so much objection to all that I had done, and in fact considered my actions the crime of the century, and passing a judgment striking me off the rolls, they would have taken some action to see to it that being such an incorrigible character, they should alert the State Bar of California of my unsuitability to practice law in California.
As they well know I am in active law practice in California. But until now, they have not done anything and neither has the State Bar of California after full disclosure by me done anything either.
On this very point, on Nov 20, 2013 at 2100 hours California time, I had telephoned Lok Vi Ming, the Singapore Law Society President at his number Tel 65 6885 3620. His number appears on the Rodyk website.
He practices at the Singapore law firm Rodyk and Davidson. I asked him if he knew whether I was practicing in California to which he said yes.
I then asked him why as President of the Law Society of Singapore which had me disbarred there, did he not do anything to protect his courts reputation by demanding that I be disciplined in California, to which he came up with a bizarre answer which went something like this, "Do you expect me to keep a track of every disbarred Singapore lawyer around the world and report their wrong doing to all global jurisdictions"!
I guess he wants to do nothing about me practicing in California.
Secondly, the judgment also orders me to pay costs to the Law Society of Singapore.
This is interesting. The final line of the judgment requires me to pay costs of these proceedings. To date, they have not even sent me a bill demanding payment. I would like to ask them whether in demanding costs did they really mean it or was it merely to fool the public into thinking that I have paid costs!
I don't have to tell you why they have not demanded any costs. They are unlikely to win in California.
Remember the contempt of court case before Judge Leslie Chew. As a condition of letting me off, they ordered me to pay costs to the Singapore Government of $5,000.00. For your information I never paid this either and I was allowed to leave Singapore without paying it. Up till now, they are short of $5,000.00. But they haven't demanded it either.
Finally the judgment here refers to a great many case law as authority to have me struck off the bar. If you took the trouble to do some research on these cases, you would find that none of them even remotely refers to a lawyer being struck off for yelling at policemen or writing blogs criticizing their crooked judges.
All of them refer to serious charges involving dishonesty. I haven't wasted my time reading any of them. For instance in the case of Law Society of Singapore vs David Rasif 2008 2SLR (R) 955, which was well known, Rasif made off with several millions of dollars of Client's money and disappeared. He is still at large.
They are making a fool of themselves.
Gopalan Nair
Attorney at Law
A Singaporean in Exile
Fremont, California USA
Tel: 510 491 8525
Email: nair.gopalan@yahoo.com