atans1

Posts Tagged ‘Ravi (Lawyer)’

Psychiatrist behind Amos report/ Waz ASD?

In Uncategorized on 24/06/2015 at 4:21 am

Before the State Courts on Tuesday (Jun 23), District Judge Jasvender Kaur said that a report by Dr Munidasa Winslow said that Yee may suffer from autism-spectrum disorder. This emerged from the reformative training suitability report, which found the accused physically and mentally suitable for reformative training. (CNA)

He’ll be sent to Woodbridge for two weeks’ of observation and may then undergo mandatory treatment. (Trumpets pls, I predicted this early yesterday morning before the sun rose https://atans1.wordpress.com/2015/06/23/arkham-awaits-amos-autism-isnt-mental-illness-but/) While the UK’s Nation Health Service website says says that “autism is not a learning disability or a mental health problem”, it goes on to say that “some people with autism have an accompanying learning disability, learning difficulty or mental health problem”. http://www.nhs.uk/Livewell/Autis

Already the cybernuts are saying that Amos is being “fixed”. As does his mother, Mary: “They always want to paint him as mentally unsound,” she commented with a frown. (TOC report)

The problem with this view is that M Ravi (Remember him? The kickass, take-no-prisoners constitutional lawyer who is the hero of the cybernut mob and the ang moh tua kees) personally chose to consult Dr Munidasa Winslow, after Ravi fell out with his previous psychiatrist in 2012 .  M Ravi has also not disowned Dr Winslow’s diagnosis in February 2015 that he was in a “hypomaniac” phase of his bipolar disorder (A mental illness causing elevated moods and periods of depression that he was diagnosed with in 2006.)

Furthermore M Ravi has not challenged his suspension from practicising law. He is resting.

So if M Ravi is being treated by Dr Munidasa Winslow, how can one reasonably argue that Amos Yee is being fixed? The doctor trusted by M Ravi is the one saying Amos may be autistic. Unless of course, one asserts that M Ravi has been conned into consulting Dr Winslow?

Finally, here’s what the Novena Medical Centre website says about the good doctor

A/Prof. Muni Winslow MBBS, M.Med.(Psych), CMAC, CCS, FAMS

Munidasa Winslow has worked in general psychiatry and addiction medicine at the Institute of Mental Health since 1988. He was one of the pioneers responsible for the setting up and development of addiction services both in the hospital and in the community. His last appointment was as chief of the Addiction Medicine Department, IMH. He is recognised as an expert in addiction and impulse control disorders (alcohol, substance dependence, gambling, gaming, sexual compulsivity etc) in the Asia-Pacific region frequently speaking at conferences around the region. Despite being a fully qualified psychiatrist, he has taken the time and effort to maintain and develop his therapy/counselling skills as seen by his being accredited as a certified master addiction counsellor and a certified clinical supervisor. He has published and presented widely on both general psychological and addiction issues. He continues his academic and research interests through his academic appointments with Duke GMS and NUS and teaching in many medical and counselling courses. His passion is to help therapists develop and hone their skills to effect real change in those they seek to help.

http://www.novenamedicalcenter.com/our-doctors/dr-winslow-rasaiah-munidasa/

Update at 5.00am: Waz ASD?

Autism spectrum disorder (ASD) is characterized by:

  • Persistent deficits in social communication and social interaction across multiple contexts;
  • Restricted, repetitive patterns of behavior, interests, or activities;
  • Symptoms must be present in the early developmental period (typically recognized in the first two years of life); and,
  • Symptoms cause clinically significant impairment in social, occupational, or other important areas of current functioning.

Even children with ASD who have relatively good language skills often have difficulties with the back and forth of conversations. For example, because they find it difficult to understand and react to social cues, some highly verbal children with ASD often talk at length about a favorite subject, but they won’t allow anyone else a chance to respond or notice when others react indifferently.

Children with ASD who have not yet developed meaningful gestures or language may simply scream or grab or otherwise act out until they are taught better ways to express their needs. As these children grow up, they can become aware of their difficulty in understanding others and in being understood. This awareness may cause them to become anxious or depressed.

More at http://www.nimh.nih.gov/health/topics/autism-spectrum-disorders-asd/index.shtml?utm_source=rss_readersutm_medium=rssutm_campaign=rss_full

How did Roy make Ravi go bananas? Two versions

In Uncategorized on 16/06/2015 at 5:17 am

I’ve alluded that I’ve been told by a usual reliable source that Roy Ngerng’s behaviour contributed to M Ravi’s bi-polar relapse. (Reminder during the time M Ravi went “nuts”, he had made unprofessional remarks about Roy, his clent. He had also wanted to make Tamil compulsory when he became PM, after defeating PM in AMK GRC using his many relations in AMK to vote for him and his $1m fighting fund. Roy would not be part of the GRC ream because he was “too impulsive”All this Ravi had videoed.)

Recently, I came across a post on Facebook, that came close to one version that I heard.

Roy had agreed to M Ravi’s strategy of apologising and fighting the issue of damages. But somewhere along the line Roy, while not withdraeing the apology, again repeated the libel.

Ravi had to go to court and argue that “the apology” (never withdrawn) wasn’t an “admission” of defamation.

If it’s me who was sued, the 1st thing I would do is try to minimise damages. Ok the PM wants an apology – give it to him. Then say hey look I’m earning peanuts – I’m prepared to forgo a month’s salary maybe 2 but please can I pay instalments? The moment he got the money, he heck care everything. He still wont disclose what his instructions from Ravi were at the outset. My information is that Ravi never advised him to take such a path. The whole point was to deflect the damage. And he could walk away with a moral victory. If the PM pursued in asking for an exhorbitant amount, Roy can turn back and say – look, he knows I’m not rich and yet wants so much money. He could have still come away from this far better off and without the need to get people to donate their hard earned money. The CPF issue was never raised in court – his whole premise that he was taking it to court was to fight for the CPF issue. An issue his lawyer would have told him was not relevant and the Court would not be interested. So who’s fooling who. Public money must be spent wisely. And he’s even taught Amos to do it, money he didn’t at all need. Come let’s clap for Roy.

The other version which I heard (and sounds more likely) is that Ravi wanted to fight on constitutional” grounds: “Derbyshire principle” and UK defamation law doesn’t apply here. The apology appeared to M Ravi’s surprise. Roy had cut Ravi’s balls even before he went to court, it’s a;;eged Ravi told friends.

He could never answer satisfactorily the question posed by the court and the PM’s lawyer, “Err what about the apology, M Ravi?”.

Oh and I learnt something interesting afre reading M Ravi’s book (Yup i bot a copy unlike his cybernut fans: if they had bot the book, it would be a best seller which it isn’t). Although he admits he’s bi-polar (Uncle RedBean doesn’t think Ravi”s mentally ill despite Ravi’s admission), he claims that he doesn’t take the medicine* prescribed. He says meditation works in controlling his bi-polar condition. Like in 2012 and this year?

So maybe, Roy isn’t to blame?

——-

*I’ve been told that sufferers hate taking the medicine because the side-effects of taking the medicine are sickening.. They often feel that taking the medicine is worse than being bi-polar.

M Ravi: No news is good news

In Uncategorized on 12/03/2015 at 4:53 am

Not heard  anything in new media or media about M Ravi, so the stories I hear coming from his friends must be true.

He is taking his medicine, visiting his doctor regularly, resting and not getting stressed over his clients and the courts (he can’t as he’s barred from practicising well until his doctor says he is OK). Sadly this kind of news doesn’t make it to new media or the traditional media.

One thing I’ve learnt about bi-polarism (Ravi’s mental condition) from a Facebook thread on M Ravi’s condition is that there are good, reasonable reasons for patients to avoid taking the medicine prescribed. They are terribly unpleasant primarily because they are a cocktail of drugs to treat the contradictory nature of bi-polarism: depression and hyper-actism. So the medicine used treats opposites. The effects of the medicine on the body cause severe discomfort.

Maybe he needs to stop practicising constitutional litigation. It’s very stressful what with clients like Roy and the structure of the Constitution.

The other thing I learnt about this mental condition is the importance of routine: a luxury litigators don’t have.

Will M Ravi’s barrage of constitutional challenges change anything?

In Political governance on 19/01/2015 at 4:49 am

Ravi’s latest antics (see below) reminded me that I couldn’t stop laughing when the the go-to, kick-ass, take-no-prisoners constitutional lawyer for a drug mule who think the world owes him a living, hooligans who think it is a human right to disrupt YMCA activities and tell lies, and a gay (Tan Eng Hong) that homely gays don’t want to be associated with (some other gays, see below, didn’t want their case heard with his), said that S’pore is a “democratic society”.

No I’m not joking, M Ravi said, “We are instructed to place on notice our client’s profound sense of regret that in a democratic society like Singapore, her Constitutional rights and freedoms have been curtailed so drastically on a premise that in her submission is flawed, and all her rights are reserved.”

Now I’m not that looney (OK, OK, idealistic or naive) as his client  to think S’pore is a democratic society. It is an authoritarian, de-facto one-party society that allows free, peaceful, intimidation free but “unfair” (here meaning a tilted field where the odds and rules favour the continued dominance of the PAP) elections to choose the next dictator for the next few yrs. And since 1959  by very big or at least decent majorities (save in 1963), the voters have chosen the PAP to rule.

There are some who want to change this state of affairs, not via the ballot box but by getting the courts to reinterpret the constitution. So far they too like Oppo politicans have been banging their heads against a steel door.

Alex Au, a social advocate for change, said, at the end of last yr, on the con-job constitution, “If you sit back and take in the bigger picture, you’ll see that basically our constitution, as long interpreted, offers no protection for civil liberties or human rights: not freedom of speech, not freedom of assembly, not a right to transparent and accountable government, nor even a fair electoral process. The questions rush in. Is there something wrong with the constitution, the interpretation, or both?”

Well I’ve got news for Alex Au, rational activists, and anti-PAP paper activists, whether rational, or irrational and deluded, our constitution was drafted by ang mohs and locals steeped in the tradition that the ruling elite know best, certainly not the demos or mob or masses or ordinary people.

The drafters probably had liberal instincts but were elitists having gone to elite schools here or in the UK, and then to Oxbridge colleges. The mob are only allowed a choice of their dictator every 4-5 yrs. To further ensure the mob doesn’t get ideas beyond their station, it was drafted in such a way that all the colonial-era laws still applied and were “deemed” constitutionally legal.

Suited one LKY to a T when he came to power.

And here’s where the de-facto one-party state problem makes things more difficult. Think of China where the issue is how to use the law to help the party rule the country. The party sees the law as one of its tools; an instrument meant to help strengthen, rather than check, the power of one-party leadership.

True, we are not China, but the temptation is there.

Coming back to S’pore,then there is the judicial presumption that government actions are constitutional:

The court itself, both in oral arguments last summer and in this ruling, repeatedly expresses unwillingness to consider “extra-legal” and “emotional” arguments, which have their place in the legislative rather than the judicial process. The court’s role, the ruling said, was to be “independent, neutral and objective”, though in the early, throat-clearing section of this ruling, the court noted that it grants the government a “presumption of constitutionality”, because “our legislature is presumed not to enact legislation which is inconsistent with the Singapore Constitution.” In other words, the court will neutrally and objectively weigh the arguments presented by each side, though one side (the government’s) enters with the wind at its back.

http://www.economist.com/blogs/banyan/2014/10/gay-rights-singapore

I can’t argue against the decision because there are good precedents (no not from China or the USSR or North Korea, but from “white” Commonwealth countries) that lead to this conclusion.

Those who want peaceful change, have to go down the political route, not the constitutional road, in a parliamentary system. Even though the political road is very tough (think GRCs, campaigning rules, funding rules etc), the constitutional road is tougher because of the way the Constitution was drafted and judges’ view that the court “grants the government a “presumption of constitutionality”, because “our legislature is presumed not to enact legislation which is inconsistent with the Singapore Constitution.” In other words, the court will neutrally and objectively weigh the arguments presented by each side, though one side (the government’s) enters with the wind at its back.

Coming back to M Ravi. Every few months, this tot crosses my mind,”M Ravi thinks his grandfather wrote our laws? With JBJ assisting in the drafting?”

The latest occasion was on Friday, when I read that Ravi was escalating his row with PM’s press secretary (Background). He said, “Even as a trainee lawyer, I could understand that the PM’s press secretary was in breach of Section 44 of the Code of Conduct for Civil Servants and the PM is in breach of the same section being subject to the same guidelines of the Public Service Commission. A declaration will be sought in the High Court subsequently to determine the ambit of the said Section 44 and if both the PM and his Press Secretary are in breach of this code the PSC should investigate this matter and dismiss both of them.”

Well I never. Let’s see if Ravi wins (his record is lousy: no outright victories, one score draw: the need to call a by-election). From what my contacts in the Legal Service tell me about the code, he doesn’t have a leg to stand on.

The same tots on his grandfather and JBJ drafting the law crossed my mind in late October 2014  when Mr Ravi said (in an interview with TOC [Link]) that NParks had no authority to govern the expression of free speech and had overstepped its powers*.

M Ravi also said he may be taking an application to mount a constitutional challenge against Regulation 23(2)(b) of the Parks and Trees Act on behalf of those celebrity hooligans, Roy and New Citizen Hui Hui.

(For the record, he sent H3’s appeal to the wrong minister and had to resent the BS missive. For the record too, Roy has recently blogged on the latest developments.)

Btw, he added to my merriment when a few days later, he decried the Court of Appeal’s decision when on Oct 29 it ruled that a law (399A of the Penal Code) that criminalises sex between men is constitutional. The ruling covered two cases contesting the law, one brought by two graphic designers who have been in loving relationship for 16 years, and the other by an artistic therapist (whatever that means) who had been arrested for a sordid, quickie sexual act in a public toilet. No need to guess who he represented: the artistic therapist Tan Eng Hong.

Related articles on the Constitution: Gd stuff even though Alex au is not a lawyer

http://yawningbread.wordpress.com/2013/09/19/rule-of-law-in-singapore-is-so-thin-it-holds-no-more-meaning/

http://yawningbread.wordpress.com/2013/02/24/book-authoritarian-rule-of-law-by-jothie-rajah/

—-

*“It is apparent in the Act that the object of Parks and Trees Act is specifically for purposes of regulating the park, example prevent anyone from endangering the park.

No where in the act, the minister has been conferred with any authority to make regulations in relation to speech and assembly.

The Public Order Act has clearly exempted any requirement for permit for speech or demonstration. Therefore the charging of Ms Han and Roy under the Parks and Trees Act is ultra vires the Public Order Act and Public Entertainment and Meetings Act (PEMA).

The regulation in this regard, also violates article 9 of the Singapore Constitution that says that no one shall be deprived of his or her liberty, save in accordance with law.

Therefore the enactment of Parks and Trees regulation under Section 23(2) (b) in relation to speech and assembly are promulgated not in accordance with law.”

 

The Xiaxue of the anti-PAP cyber masses/ Uncle Leong is well

In Political governance, Uncategorized on 14/01/2015 at 6:06 am

Roy, celebrity and irrationality

So Roy and his lawyer M Ravi are back in the headlines KPKBing their rotine lines: Roy (“Juz want a debate on CPF but persecution contines”), M Ravi (“I’m always right because it’s my grandfather’s law”)

Why is Roy such a celebrity while Uncle Leong (Leong Sze Hian) his si fu* is a relative unknown. After all all the best bits of Roy’s CPF “research” are things Uncle Leong (and, to be fair, others) has been talking about and highlighting over the years.

The only thing that was new was the accusation that the PAP administration criminally misappropriated the CPF moneys. Even then he quickly said this allegation is false and completely without foundation. when PM threatened legal action*.

Despite this recantation, Roy remains a hero to the anti-PAP cyber masses.

This, from an Economist blog, explains his appeal: As Drew Westen argued a few years ago in his book “The Political Mind”, political persuasion is all about moving people emotionally, not appealing to their rational faculties.

Roy dared, at no small cost to himself, in public to say what anti-PAP coffee shop and cyber warriors are whispering. .For that act of courage, they are to willing to suspend their critical faculties, if they had any. He is right because he is saying publicly what they don’t dare say. They support him unthinkingly because he validates their view of the way CPF works.

And for that very reason, the PM felt it necessary to sue him even if it annoys many people who think Roy is talking rubbish, and even though suing goes against the kinder, gentler, more liberal view of the PAP administration that he is trying to project. Btw, one of these days, I’ll go into the steel trap that the PAP have set for themselves in the litigation game: they are damned whether they sue or don’t sue.

Uncle Leong is alive and well, and is still rocking

The last piece Uncle Leong wrote was at the end of November. Since then he has been silent causing me and others to wonder or worry what has happened to him. Not like him to remain quiet for even three days.

But read these two pieces that appeared in TRE on Jan 10 and 11

Recently, one of our public hospitals became famous for the action which they took (compared to the immediate sacking of Roy Ngerng citing his defamation of the prime minister as one of the reasons, despite the court hearing had not even commenced yet) in regard to their foreign employee’s Facebook posting against Singaporeans.

There have also been reports claiming that the hospital employs about 70 to 80 per cent of its staff from one foreign country. Actually, some people say that about 80 per cent of their staff are non-Singaporeans (work permits, S-pass, employment pass, PRs, foreign spouses on letter of consent, foreign interns, trainees, etc).

According to the MOH’s web site – this public hospital had the highest total hospitalisation billing for citizens (among all public hospitals excluding the National Heart Centre) for all ward classes (Class C, B2, B1 and A) at the 90th and 95th percentile in 2013.

For example, it was $8,071 at the 95th percentile, against just $4,758 at the lowest public hospital in Class C.

At the 90th percentile – it was $5,220 against $2,901.

Why?

Why is it that this particular public hospital has the highest billing sizes across all ward classes?

Could it be that they employ more non-Singaporeans than other public hospitals?

Win battles lose war

* Submitted by TRE reader.

“Uphold values of respect, professionalism, integrity and social responsibility”

According to the Straits Times report “Health-care workers must ‘uphold values of respect’: Health Ministry” (Jan 10) – “Public health-care professionals, both local and foreign, are expected to uphold values of respect, professionalism, integrity and social responsibility, said the Health Ministry (MOH).”

Got “respect” for Roy Ngerng?

Where was “respect” in the sacking of Roy Ngerng when one of the reasons cited for his sacking was his defamation suit when the hearing had not even commenced yet?

Got “professionalism” in the way Roy Ngerng was sacked?

Where was the “professionalism” in giving Roy Ngerng just hours to leave his job, without any prior notice?

Got “integrity” – no fairness and natural justice?

Where was the “integrity” in not giving Roy Ngerng any opportunity to defend himself against the allegations made against him? Where was the principle of fairness and natural justice in the case of Roy Ngerng?

“Social responsibility” in employing 80% foreigners?

Where is “social responsibility” if it is true that about 80 per cent of the employees are non-Singaporeans (work permits, S-pass, employment pass, PRs, foreign spouses on letter of consent, foreign interns, trainees, etc)?

Hypocrisy and double standards?

Don’t you feel that MOH’s statement reeks of hypocrisy and double standards?

Win battles lose war

* Submitted by TRE reader.

Sounds familiar?

For the record, I’m no Sherlock Holmes. A prominent civic activists drew my retention to one of these pieces.

—————–

*Roy helped co-write Uncle Leong’s pieces for several yrs.

** I recognise that the Article means and is understood to mean that Mr Lee Hsien Loong, the Prime Minister of Singapore and Chairman of GIC, is guilty of criminal misappropriation of the monies paid by Singaporeans to the Central Provident Fund.

3.I admit and acknowledge that this allegation is false and completely without foundation.

4.I unreservedly apologise to Mr Lee Hsien Loong for the distress and embarrassment caused to him by this allegation.

https://atans1.wordpress.com/2014/08/06/roys-defence-has-me-confused/

 

M Ravi’s grandfather’s parliament, is it?

In Uncategorized on 03/11/2014 at 1:39 pm

Update at 4.30am on 4 November 2014: I’ve been told I’m wrong because Parly listened to Ravi. My point is that the Speaker and Minister involved know more about sub judice than M Ravi credits them for. And publicly telling the Speaker how to suck eggs, is unseemly and distasteful from someone who has admitted (see below) that his behaviour has caused problems, in another case, in the administration for justice. As I wrote below, Bit like the lunatics of Arkham Asylum trying to tell Batman how to rid Gotham City of criminals, it seems to me.

Update at 5.20 pm: Minister and Speaker behave properly, a lesson M Ravi will hopefully will follow in his practice of the law, though I doubt it very much.

In Parliament today, National Development Minister Khaw Boon Wan commented that he will not be commenting on the Hong Lim Park incident, as police investigations and legal proceedings are ongoing.

“It is not appropriate to comment on the incident or to give a view on what could or could not have prevented such an incident,” Mr Khaw said, responding to MPs Denise Phua and Zainal Sapari’s questions on the incident. NParks is a statutory board under the purview of the Ministry of National Development.

Speaker of Parliament Halimah Yacob also warned the MPs that as the case was before the courts, comments which fell foul of sub judice laws would not be allowed in the House.)

MP Zainal Sapari (Pasir Ris-Punggol GRC) and MP Denise Phua (Moulmein-Kallang GRC) will later today raise questions in Parliament about the incident at Hong Lim Park on 27 September 2014 when some of #ReturnOurCPF protestors KPKBed at a YMCA event, disrupting it.  Charges have been made against six alleged hooligans participants of the #ReturnOurCPF event. The details of the MPs questions are given at the end of this post.

In response to the move by the two PAP MPs to ask questions about the incident, M Ravi, who is representing the six persons charged, has written to the Speaker of Parliament, Halimah Yacob, to highlight his concerns about the questions and issues raised by the MPs.

In particular, Mr Ravi is concerned that since the case against his 6 clients is sub judice, any discussions by the MPs on the matter may impede or prejudice the course of justice in the relevant proceedings of the case.

Mr Ravi wrote that he has been instructed to make a constitutional challenge on the Parks and Trees Act, and a formal letter to the Minister for National Development has also expressly reserved the right to make the constitutional challenge. His grandfather wrote the constitution, with one JBJ assisting is it?

“It will no doubt be your view, very properly, that Members will not need to be reminded that they should not utter anything on the floor of the House which would affect the evaluation of the merits of proceedings which are imminent or before the courts, or influence the result of proceedings, in particular the likelihood of an acquittal,” Mr Ravi wrote to the Speaker of Parliament asking for Mdm Halimah to be discrete.

He thinks he knows better than the Speaker? His grandfather owns parly, is it? What I find extremely funny and distasteful is that here is someone who effectively pleaded guilty to a complaint by the AG in respect of his conduct in another case, trying to  tell the Speaker of her duties, when he couldn’t conduct himself properly in the other case? Bit rich ain’t it?

Bit like the lunatics of Arkham Asylum trying to tell Batman how to rid Gotham City of criminals, it seems to me. For those who don’t know Gotham City, Arkham Asylum is home to some of the criminals he brought to justice. They were found to be looney.

M Ravi goes on, “It would be a dereliction of our duty as Advocates not to do everything lawfully and appropriately to uphold the rule of law and thereby protect our clients’ legal rights  by deferentially drawing attention to details of the pending charges for your proper consideration.”

The letter has been copied to the Attorney-General’s Chambers, Minister for National Development and the Commissioner of Police: so that they too can have a laugh?

—–

MP Zainal Sapari has filed the following question for National Development Minister to answer:

To ask the Minister for National Development:

  • (a) if he can give a full account of the incident that happened at Hong Lim Park on 27 September 2014;
  • (b) whether there has been any non-compliance by the organisers of both events in ensuring public peace; and
  • (c) whether there is any follow-up action to ensure that such incidents will not happen again.

MP Denise Phua is asking about the use of Speakers’ Corner and the Telok Ayer Hong Lim Green Community Centre:

To ask the Minister for National Development:

  • (a) whether Hong Lim Park is for the sole use of Speakers’ Corner participants;
  • (b) what designated spots in Hong Lim Park are meant for Speakers’ Corner activities;
  • (c) what is the list of activities permitted for Hong Lim Park;
  • (d) when and for what activities can the adjacent Telok Ayer Hong Lim Green Community Centre facilities such as the stage be allowed for use by Hong Lim Park users;
  • (e) what standard operating procedures pertain to the use of Hong Lim Park and the adjacent Telok Ayer Hong Lim Green Community Centre’s facilities; and
  • (f) how the recent incident pertaining to the use of the same ground by YMCA and advocates of the Return-My-CPF group can be avoided.

 

 

With a lawyer like this, does M Ravi need enemies?

In Uncategorized on 30/10/2014 at 4:42 am

A disciplinary tribunal recommended that human rights lawyer M Ravi be penalised for releasing court documents to the media before serving them on the Attorney-General because the release interfered with the cases.

The tribunal also recommended that Mr Ravi be fined $7,000 for the professional misconduct, in a report released on 23 Oct.

He pleaded guilty to the charges, not contesting them. Originally, when the AG complained, he came out fighting, KPKBing that he would contest the charges. But like in his defamation suit against the Law Society, and complaint against a doctor for professional misconduct, he quietly changed his mind.

His lawyer Eugene Thuraisingam urged the tribunal to consider Mr Ravi’s bipolar condition, which is now under control but which sometimes leads him to act “uncharacteristically”.

I don’t think his lawyer should have raised his bi-polar condition as a mitigating factor for his conduct because isn’t his bi-polar disorder the best excuse to disallow him from practicing law*? Practising law can be taxing mentally and emotionally, and thaz before the long hours (the main reason I moved on to financial services).

And bi-polar sufferers need a routine: any change, even going on holiday can cause problems.

Holidays are supposed to be a time for relaxation, but not for Charlotte Walker, a mother and blogger with bipolar disorder. She values the opportunity to spend time with her children, but fears that a change from her routine may mess up the mental stability she works hard to achieve.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/blogs-ouch-22395852

Ravi’s kick-ass, high stakes, take-no-prisoners style of litigation certainly does not help him keep regular routines.

To add insult to injury, his lawyer added that Mr Ravi is a pro bono lawyer who contributes actively to society and that the cases he deals with involve general public interest which occasionally leads to emotions running high. Doesn’t this drive home the point that his legal practices makes his disorder more likely to get out of control?

I’ll not be surprised if the great and the good start thinking of banning him from practising law on the ground that his bi-polar disorder means legal practice not the right profession for him. It makes him more prone to his disorder getting out of control .

Remember, you heard it first here.

Related post

https://atans1.wordpress.com/2013/06/02/understanding-m-ravis-bi-polar-disorder/

*He has to get a doctor to certify that he is taking his medicine, and that his bipolar disorder is under control.

After one s/o JBJ penned an article, several yrs back, hinting that the authorities were fixing Ravi the way the Russians fixed dissidents (by getting them certified mad), it became clear that Ravi had not been taking his medicine. This was around the time he was prancing half-naked in Hong Lim sliming WP MP lawyers, a journalist filed a police report against him alleging intimidation, TOC (a leading Ravi cheerleader) reported him as saying he had a string of int’l law offices, and the police were called to a temple where he was “worshiping” and spoke to him. His defamation suit against the Law Society, and complaint against a doctor for professional misconduct arouse out of the aforesaid events

Roy’s defence has me confused

In Political governance on 06/08/2014 at 4:43 am

TOC has an article on Roy’s defenceMr Ngerng said while his apology to Mr Lee for an article he wrote on 15 May remains, he nonetheless is disputing Mr Lee’s claims that the article had in fact defamed Mr Lee as claimed in Mr Lee’s lawsuit …

In his affidavit filed on Monday, Mr Ngerng disputes the meanings of the allegedly defamatory article ascribed to it by Mr Lee’s lawyers, and argues that the content of the article “does not convey the twisted meaning” which Mr Lee’s lawyers claim it does.

So why apologise, if there is no defamation?

Doesn’t make sense to this ex-lawyer, the way the defence is unfolding.

When Roy was threatened with a defamation suit, activist lawyers were suggesting that a plausible line of defence was that as Kong Hee’s and gang’s case was still in progress, Roy’s comparison did not amount to defamation because Kong Hee and friends were not criminals: they were on trial and the presumption of innocence applied. They had not “criminally misappropriated” anything. I tot that this defence had merit.

So Roy’s apology was puzzling, though not surprising (he S’porean and $ talks):

I recognise that the Article means and is understood to mean that Mr Lee Hsien Loong, the Prime Minister of Singapore and Chairman of GIC, is guilty of criminal misappropriation of the monies paid by Singaporeans to the Central Provident Fund.

3.I admit and acknowledge that this allegation is false and completely without foundation.

4.I unreservedly apologise to Mr Lee Hsien Loong for the distress and embarrassment caused to him by this allegation.

So did this later on:

“You know, when I wrote the article, it was never my intention to say that the prime minister had misappropriated the money. And I have never said this.

Then came his “defence” that Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong has “no cause of action” against his client based on Article 14 of the Constitution which gives Singaporeans the right to freedom of speech and expression

My take then on all these.

Now the position is that despite saying the apology still stands: “There is absolutely no basis whatsoever to say that I have accused the Plaintiff of criminal misappropriation of Singaporeans’ CPF monies. I have never accused him of taking a cent of Singaporeans CPF monies and I have no intention to do so as well. It is only persons who are avid for scandal who would say I meant this in the article.”

Err what about the apology, Roy? And yes, I’ve read his affidavit and nowhere does it try to explain why the wording of the apology (which explicitly says that Roy accused the PM of of criminal misappropriation of Singaporeans’ CPF monies still stands when the defence is now :”There is absolutely no basis whatsoever to say that I have accused the Plaintiff of criminal misappropriation of Singaporeans’ CPF monies. I have never accused him of taking a cent of Singaporeans CPF monies and I have no intention to do so as well. It is only persons who are avid for scandal who would say I meant this in the article.”

Curiouser and curiouser.

For the sake of Roy and the administration of justice and its reputation, the Law Society should ask M Ravi’s psychiatrist if he is competent to practice law. If not, the AG should ask the Law Society to ask his psychiatrist if he is competent to practice law.

Let’s not wait until M Ravi screams obscenities in a mosque, or causes a row in a Hindu temple or prances half-naked in Hong Lim Green before his mental state is examined and found to be “impaired”. If it then turns out that M Ravi’s bi-polar disorder is affecting him again or he is not taking his pills, the Law Society could be in serious trouble for allowing him to practice law.

Before going to court, test sincerity of govt

In Public Administration on 26/08/2013 at 4:51 am

”The government remains committed to explain any issues arising from this tragic incident and to do whatever it can to assist the family,”said a statement from the Ministry of Home Affairs.

Well, Dinesh’s mother should test the sincerity of the govt by asking for details (beyond what has been already provided, not much it seems) that she wants to know. If the govt fails to give her satisfaction, then she should proceed further with her application to the court for the inquiry to her son’s death to be reopened. She should “suspend” for the time being her court petition.

Recently, I blogged that his family had the right to know more, that it would be gd PR for the govt* to provide them with more details of how he died (but that I doubted it would: bad PR seems to be a Hard Truth for the govt)), and that the family should try a non-legalistic way of finding out more.

Well, since the govt has said it ” remains committed to explain any issues arising from this tragic incident and to do whatever it can to assist the family”, they should test it. If there is no satisfaction, then go the legal route with M Ravi their action man, superhero, “kick ass”, “take no prisoners” lawyer** who loves to fight cases on constitutional grounds***. He once advised TRE to fight a request to remove an allegedly defamatory article on constitutional grounds. Another lawyer helped resolved the matter to the satisfaction of everyone involved. But when it’s time to go to court, its good to have M Ravi as your lawyer. He’s a tenacious, brave terrier. If you respect or admire, especially for his pro bono work, him buy his book. It’s the least you can do.

Perhaps, the family should approach Peter Low’s law firm to supplement the efforts of M Ravi. I’ve been told that Peter Low’s firm helped resolve a cartoonist’s row with the AGC on charges of “scandalising the judiciary”. The cartoonist apologised and removed the offending articles. M Ravi was also involved in this case.

Backgrounder on Peter Low: http://www.straitstimes.com/the-big-story/case-you-missed-it/story/62-year-old-lawyer-shows-no-signs-slowing-down-20130501. I don’t usually commend ST articles, but this one doesn’t play the DRUMS, not even a riff. People whose views I respect, praise him for his effective, quiet way of getting issues involving human rights or dignity resolved fairly. No posturing or wayang from him.

Horses for courses. Or a time for everything****. Plenty of time to “whack” the govt, if the family cannot get the info it wants by simply asking. And going the legal route, isn’t exactly a sure way of getting the info they want, at least going by M Ravi’s track record in winning cases: not gd.

And if Tey, the legal academic, is to be believed, the judiciary isn’t a check on the executive  http://yawningbread.wordpress.com/2013/08/18/book-legal-consensus-by-tey-tsun-hang/. He was jailed after a court found  he had “corrupt intention and guilty knowledge” in a relationship, an offence under the Prevention of Corruption Act. He had had sex with a student. Even he admitted that this was in breach of the academic code of conduct, after initially saying he would defend his “academic integrity”, which at the time I tot would mean that he would say in court, “I didn’t have sex with her”.

*Giving more info would help the PM rebuild trust with the masses.

**Think I exaggerate? This is what TOC reported M Ravi as saying, “The AG’s response is shocking to the conscience in view of the demands of natural justice and the plea by the family to open the inquiry. Dinesh’s family was devastated to hear the AG’s decision.

“The Coroner is wrong in law to discontinue his inquiry as there was no finding into the circumstances of Dinesh’s death. There is no information as to how the other 7 officers were involved in Dinesh’s death. In fact, it is the AG who should be calling for a full inquiry in the public’s interest and not Dinesh’s mother having to do so.

“This is a serious human rights violation and this marks a black day for human rights in Singapore.”

This is the part of the response in parliament (much earlier) to questions on what had happened: Following the conviction of the senior prison officer on 19 July 2013, MHA has been in touch with the family of Dinesh Raman and their lawyer to discuss the family’s concerns, as well as the matter of compensation. AGC has informed the family and its lawyer in writing that the Government accepts liability and will compensate the family. As discussions are on-going, I am not able to provide details.

http://geraldgiam.sg/2013/08/death-of-inmate-in-prison/

***The funny thing is that he, like me, did our legal education in England. S’pore’s constitution was certainly not taught or analysed in any great detail there in my time, and I’m sure in his time.

****Ecclesiastes 3

To every thing there is a season,
and a time to every purpose under the heaven:
a time to be born, and a time to die;
a time to plant, and a time to pluck up that which is planted;
a time to kill, and a time to heal;
a time to break down, and a time to build up;

a time to cast away stones,
and a time to gather stones together;
a time to embrace, and a time to refrain from embracing;

a time to rend, and a time to sew;
a time to keep silence, and a time to speak;
a time to love, and a time to hate;
a time of war, and a time of peace.

Understanding M Ravi’s bi-polar disorder

In Uncategorized on 02/06/2013 at 5:50 am

We know that lawyer Ravi suffers from bi-polar disorder, a mental illness, and suffers relapses every few years.

I had tot that his relapses were always his fault because he has admitted, after the event, that he failed to take his medicine, when he went weird.

When I came across the u/m article article, I learnt that it isn’t that simple. Taking medicine is only part of the treatment. It’s tough being bi-polar.

Holidays are supposed to be a time for relaxation, but not for Charlotte Walker, a mother and blogger with bipolar disorder. She values the opportunity to spend time with her children, but fears that a change from her routine may mess up the mental stability she works hard to achieve.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/blogs-ouch-22395852

And Ravi’s passion (or is it madness?) for justice and fair play doesn’t help.

Finally if you appreciate what he is doing, buy his book.

Ravi’s friends and “not friends”

In Uncategorized on 05/09/2012 at 6:18 am

(Or “Ravi is lucky to have four trusty friends” or “A friend in need, is a friend in need”)

Last week, I wrote that if Ravi is found to be mentally sick, only the SDP would come out of the sorry tale with credit.

Well, whether Ravi is found to be ill or not, TRE would come out with credit. This piece explains very clearly the circumstances behind Ravi’s latest action against the Law Soc (asking the court to sack all the council members): Ravi has a letter from a very qualified and eminent doctor, clearing him of being a loony, and a danger to his clients.

If only Ravi had given us the info contained therein last week, I for one would have been more sympathetic towards him. But I must add, even after reading TRE’s piece, I can understand the Law Soc’s court petition*. But I now understand why Ravi is so angry. He gave Law Soc a letter saying he is fine.

So now other than SDP and TRE who else are Ravi’s friends?

Andrew Loh and http://publichouse.sg/. But they tend to report Ravi’s version without giving background info. With the constructive, nation-building as his opponent, context is always impt in getting Ravi’s side of the story understood.

I hope that Ravi will use TRE, Andrew Loh and Publichouse to tell his side of the story in a timely manner and not allow the media to misrepresent the facts. The task then to explain his side of the story is made more difficult. Take his action to petition the court to remove the Law Soc council last Friday. The TRE article should have ideally appeared the day he announced the petition.

As to who are not his friends, one is possibly KennethJ who leaked without any context, Dr Fones’ letter to the Law Soc . The twit did Ravi no favours: made Ravi’s looniness a fact, rather than juz an opinion of a doctor. KennethJ went on to compare Ravi to a USSR dissident being certified loony.

The problem that KennethJ and are netizens who shout “repression are three-fold.

Ravi has a documented history of mental illness and forgetting to take his medicine.

He accepts these facts, most of the time.

And Ravi has not denied the following serious allegations: that he

— was involved in a row outside a Hindu temple;
 
— shouted vulgarities at a MediaCorp producer (who filed a police report); and
 
— stopped taking his medicine

Whatever it is, let’s hope Ravi listens to those who have his interests at heart, and not those who want to use him for their own ends (Example?: This lady is trying to mix up the mental health issue with the “repression” issue. And she seems to have conveniently forgotten that the publicity and leaks came from Ravi, not the Law Soc).

And if they advise him to take his medicine regularly, I hope he takes his pills.

Three cheers for SDP, TRE Andrew Loh and Publichouse. So far, only they are doing the right thing by Ravi.

I will cheerfully admit that I’m no friend. In this blog, I(as a trained lawyer)’ve criticised the legal positions he has taken. But of his courage, I’ve never said a bad word: as brave, if not braver, than the late Saint JBJ.

————————————

*The latest twist in the story http://www.channelnewsasia.com/stories/singaporelocalnews/view/1223845/1/.html. W

Ravi’s case: No more play play

In Uncategorized on 29/08/2012 at 5:32 am

It’s deadly serious. Reputations will be made or lost.

Last week:

— the Law Society of Singapore and one of its members, Wong Siew Hong, indicated that they will defend the legal suits filed against them by lawyer M Ravi (he is now suing them for $36m); and

— Ravi told us that the Law Soc had petitioned the court to compel him to see a doctor (CNA article).

And on Monday evening, the Law Soc informed its members of a requisition to convene an EGM to explain its dispute with Ravi.

So it isn’t a wayang by Ravi, the performance artist, who put on a singing and dancing show at Hong Lim Green sometime back. Reputations are at stake, not only Ravi’s.

We will soon know

– Was it true as reported in ST (sister publication of STOMP, where a content provider employee fabricated a story) that he was involved in an incident at a temple (the police came but did not arrest anyone) the day after he saw Dr Fones and the day before the doctor’s letter about Ravi’s mental health was written and leaked? (Note Ravi has never denied this report.). And if so, did this incident this influence the actions of Dr Fones and Wong Siew Hong? And how did they get to know about the incident since it wasn’t reported at the time?

— Was it true Ravi intimidated a MediaCorp producer? She has filed a police report. Again, Ravi has not denied her account of what happened. He juz kept quiet.

— Had he stopped taking his medication, at the time of the above and his performance at Hong Lim Green? I’ve heard allegations that he had stopped his taking his medicine at said times.

– The circumstances in which Ravi give KennethJ (the son of JBJ, and a failed politician and attention-seeker) authority to release the letter?

– Why did said KennethJ release the letter without giving any it any context? Intentionally saboing his lawyer and ally, or sheer incompetence, or tidak apa, or was that what Ravi wanted initially?

– Why did the Law Soc withdraw its initial comment ”that LSS had initiated the intervention in the court proceedings.” – Did Wong act on his own initiative, or was he asked to do so by someone higher up in the Law Soc?

If Ravi is found not to have been ill, there will a big row on the competency of the Law Soc, and the general public will be inclined to accept the allegations of KennethJ and those who allege that Ravi was being fixed were right.

If Ravi is found to have been ill, what does it say about

— the said KennethJ who wrote a piece comparing Ravi’s row with the Law Soc to the practice in the USSR of certifying dissidents as loonies. Is KennethJ a loonie himself in writing such rubbish? Or juz an opportunistic trouble maker?

— And what does it say about the netizens who took the view that Ravi was being fixed? Nothing wrong with him, they yelled in TRE and various other blogs. Their hatred of the establishment warped their judgements?

If Ravi is found to have been ill, only the SDP will have come out with credit in this sorry tale.  Remember, the Singapore Democratic Party called on all parties to “give (Mr Ravi) the space that he needs while he is going through a difficult period”. In a statement on its website, the SDP noted, among other things, that “those who recommend Ravi’s absence from court for him to seek treatment may not necessarily be wishing him ill and those who are treating him are not his enemies.”

And actually the Law Soc should get (it won’t partly because of its mistakes) credit for trying to ensure that clients’ lawyers have their wits around them, while protecting the interests of  lawyers who may have mental problems. 

Whatever the result, I hope Ravi remembers who his friends are. And S’poreans should remember that we should never let our prejudices rule us. “Seek facts from the truth”, as Chairman Mao would say. 

Related posts:

https://atans1.wordpress.com/2012/07/23/ravigate-what-we-need-to-know/

https://atans1.wordpress.com/2012/07/25/ravi-cannot-be-serious/

——

*Ravi had accused the LawSoc and Mr Wong of failing to investigate content of a doctor’s letter that he was looney before it was made known to the public. He also claimed that Mr Wong’s actions had breached the confidentiality of the letter. He alleged that it caused him to be “injured in his professional reputation and has thereby suffered loss and damage”.  He claimed millions of dollars in damages.

Ravi cannot be serious?

In Uncategorized on 25/07/2012 at 5:27 am

I don’t know whether Ravi is “well” as he claims or ill again as Dr Fones says in the leaked letter, but until Ravi is proven to be ill again, I’ll comment on his actions on the premise that he is “well”. In this regard, Ravi’s actions on Sunday at Hong Lim Green was juz him mocking those who want to portray him as having a relapse of his mental illness. Incidentally, I tot Yahoo’s reporter covering the story had serious problems understanding satire and performance art.

But I have serious problems understanding what Ravi is up to here: Mr Ravi’s colleague, Mr Louis Joseph, has served a letter of demand on the Law Society and Mr Wong, to which they have seven days to respond. The letter, dated yesterday, asked for compensation and a public apology from the Law Society and Mr Wong for alleged defamation.

Among other things, it claimed that Mr Wong’s conduct last Monday was “intended primarily to injure” Mr Ravi’s “reputation, goodwill and standing in the community”. [Extract from MediaCorp’s report]

How could Ravi allow it to be said that Mr Wong’s conduct last Monday was “intended primarily to injure” Mr Ravi’s “reputation, goodwill and standing in the community”?

After all,

— It was KennethJ (son of JBJ) who twittered a copy of the letter from Dr Fones saying Ravi was mentally ill.*

— And it was Ravi who gave permission to said KennethJ (a client) to publicise the letter because he wanted S’poreans to know that he tot an attempt was being made to “silence” him on the quiet (shumething that KennethJ seems to believe in too)*.

That he publicised the letter in a manner that damaged Ravi’s reputation, well taz between him and Ravi. If said letter had not been broadcasted in the way it was, “without head or tail”*, Ravi’s “reputation, goodwill and standing in the community” would not have been damaged because the matter would be between him, the Law Society, Dr Fones and the judge**. Yes, there mighr be cause for a defamation claim, but there would be no publicity, publicity that damaged Ravi.

He and KennethJ are the authors of the injury to Ravi’s “reputation, goodwill and standing in the community”, I’m sad and sorry to say.

Note, I’m not saying that the Law Soc’s employee acted correctly, I’m saying that any injury resulted from Ravi and KennethJ’s actions, not that of the Law Soc’s employee. Maybe, if the Law Soc and its employee decide to contest the allegations, they should make KennethJ a party in the proceedings?

Oh and, I remain to be convinced that the Law Soc is trying to “fix” Ravi. KennethJ, this is S’pore, nor Russia or the USSR. Here your dad was only sued regularly, there he would be locked up in a lunatic asylum. BTW, do you now know the words of the Pledge?

——-

*https://atans1.wordpress.com/2012/07/23/ravigate-what-we-need-to-know/

**

**Reminds me of the case where Ravi argued that a drug mule who refused to testify against an alleged drug lord should have his conviction set aside because the state should have compelled said drug mule to testify against said drug lord: fortunately the judges saw thru the Alice-in-Wonderland logic of lawyer Ravi, even if he and other “Free the mule” groupies didn’t.

Waz petition lady’s game?

In Political governance on 25/06/2012 at 4:31 am

(Or “Were lawyers in the past so dumb and cowardly?”

The court case on whether the PM has unfettered discretion to call a by-election will soon be heard. Despite it being overtaken by events, the petitioner, Mdm Vellama, is continuing her suit after the AG refused her request for the AG not to ask for costs if she withdrew her petition.

She has juz doubled yet again. She will give up her court case if PM makes declaration on by-elections in Parliament . The AG has told her to bugger off (of course politely). She had juz raised the stakes, wanting PM to testify.

Waz her game? Is she a principled, brave citizen? A publicity hound? Qui lan lady? Clueless? Or juz badly advised?A worrying tot is that her love of doubling her legal “bets” could mean that she is a compulsive gambler by nature.  

To recap, she had asked the court whether the PM has unfettered discretion to call a by-election in Hougang. She was afraid that she might not have an MP to seek help from. 

Her lawyer helpfully pointed out that thrice, no by-elections were called:

— In 1983, when the Havelock seat became vacant, then PM Lee Kuan Yew said: “There is no reason why the people of Havelock should have a by-election.”

— In November 1986, the JBJ was disqualified from holding the Anson seat. In his answer to opposition member Chiam See Tong’s query in Parliament, Minister S Dhanabalan said : “He  has been convicted of a criminal offence and fined and sent to jail. They [Anson constituents] have to learn to live with the consequences of their choice.”

— In December 1986, the Geylang West seat became vacant after its MP, Teh Cheang Wan, committed suicide. Then Deputy Prime Minister Goh Chok Tong explained that there would be no by-election in the ward because the government was “contemplating introducing a Bill to form Town Councils.”

I wonder why no-one had petitioned the court to get the government to call a by-election until this year? Surely there were lawyers* at that time who are as smart and brave as Ravi** ? As Chiam was an MP on two of the above instances, perhaps someone should ask him why he never bothered to bring a case? Does he agree that the PM has an unfettered discretion on whether to call a by-election or not to fill a vacancy?

Whatever it is, the lady is likeky to end up with a huge bill to pay: AG’s costs.

As AG has rightly pointed out, a by-election has been called and held, so there no need for judge to decide anything. The petitioner is wasting court’s time and should be “punished” (my word, not AG’s) by having costs awarded against her. Technically, AG is right.

As a trained lawyer who did some court work as a very junior lawyer, I think the original petition was brought too early. The petition should have been brought on 16th May, three months*** and a day after the was seat vacated, the day incidentally that PM announced the date of the by-election.

But the lady was too impatient it seems to have an MP to look after her needs. Or was she badly advised? Her lawyer was the same guy who advised TRE to fight a request from LKY’s younger son to remove some defamatory material. He wanted to go to court and argue that the request was unconstitutional. TRE settled instead without paying anything, and on fair terms. If it had gone to court, the legal bills would have huge, win, lose or draw.

Let’s hope that when costs are awarded against her, the people who promised to fund the petitioner’s costs will folk out the money. Otherwise the lady petitioner may have to clean the AG’s offices for free for the rest of her life to avoid being made a bankrupt. Her day job is a cleaner, remember.

Doubtless she will be thanking Ravi the lawyer while she cleans and sweeps the Chambers. And doubtless, the other Ravi, P the social worker, will be trying to help her.

——–

*There was JBJ who although, not very smart, was brave. And there was Francis Seow, a former Solictor-General, a good litigator with the brain of an intellectual, and the heart of a lion. He is still alive though not in practice. He is a Harvard Fellow, wanted by the S’pore government on some tax charge. He was detained under the ISA for a short while in the late 1980s.

**The lawyer who argued that a drug mule who refused to testify against an alleged drug lord should have his conviction set aside because the state should have compelled said drug mule to testify against said drug lord: fortunately the judges saw thru the Alice-in-Wonderland logic of lawyer Ravi, even if he and other “Free the mule” groupies didn’t.

***Three months is some kind of marker among activists because of a previous constitutional provision that a by-election had to be held three months after the seat was cacated. This requirement was later removed. I’m simplifying the issue.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 242 other followers