Or “Law Soc in denial?” or “More patients for you Dr Fonz?”
The Law Society seems to want to be like the PM and his DPMs: trying to be comedians. And no, I don’t mean to talk about its officer,Wong Siew Hong, turning up in court without his jacket (bit like appearing at a wedding in one’s underwear), but this: “LSS asks that commentators check their facts, preferably with LSS, before making their comments.” Ain’t the Law Soc forgetting something?
Forgot that it retracted earlier statements? Statement that many netizens used when commenting on the Law Soc’s actions. The boys and gals at TRE did a good article on this retraction.
But even funnier is: “LSS believes that it is important that the public has confidence in LSS as an independent professional body which has always balanced the interests of the public and individual lawyers.” Come on, pull the other leg, its got bells on it. Ever since the changes initiated by the government in the 1980s, many members of the public and even many lawyers regard the Law Soc as part of the Dark Side: to publicly deny this perception amounts to a form of insanity: denial of a perception.
No, I’m not going to make fun of, “Any suggestion of a conspiracy involving the LSS is untrue and irresponsible” because I’m waiting to see if Ravi denies a report in ST that he was involved in an incident at a temple on Sunday the 15th of July. I mean it’s ST, part of the constructive, nation-building media, and more importantly, the sister publication of STOMP where a “content producer” fabricated a story, and where “content producers” posed as citizen journalists and members of the public.
If it could happen at STOMP, it could happen at ST where during the Hougang by-election, pixs were used very judiciously. One got the impression that Ah Huat was Low’s proxy, while Desmond Choo was “his own man”. And again in that by-election, there was no mention that Desmond’s “model” (his uncle, an ex-PAP MP) is a convicted cheat, facing fresh charges. If it had been Ah Huat’s uncle, I’m sure we would’ve been reminded of the relationship with a criminal.
If Ravi doesn’t deny the story, then I’ll blog on why Wong Siew Hong and Dr Fones should be commended for being good civic-minded S’poreans, even if they did not do things the proper way, and why the Law Soc Council does not deserve any respect. But taz another day.