American citizen and former Singaporean Mr Gopalan Nair had revealed the circumstances surrounding the conviction of the late opposition leader J.B. Jeyaretnam in 1985 on his blog – the “Singapore Dissident” as part of his defence against the disciplinary proceedings commenced against him by the Singapore Law Society.
The Singapore Law Society had submitted an application to the Chief Justice accusing Mr Gopalan of bringing “the profession as a whole into disrepute and lowered its esteem in the eyes of the general public”
A two-man disciplinary tribunal has been formed to determine if he is guilty of misconduct “unbefitting” of a lawyer in March next year.
Though Mr Gopalan claimed earlier that he does not care “one way on another what Singapore does” as any action taken against him in Singapore will have no effect on him, he still wrote a spirited defence of himself on his blog.
He also shed light on a case involving Mr Jeyaretnam who was convicted for fraud in 1985 which got him suspended for two years from his law practice.
After he was sued for defamation by then Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew and was ordered to pay several hundreds of thousands of dollars in damages, Mr Jeyaretnam put out a plea to the general public for donations.
He opened a Standard Chartered Account to collect these monies and Mr Gopalan, a member of the Workers’ Party under Mr Jeyaretnam, was appointed the Trustee to receive these funds.
A total of $14,000 or $15,000.00 was received into this account.
Among the donors, there were a couple of people who wanted to donate and had made out checks to the Workers Party, but Mr Jeyaretnam had asked them to make out the check to him instead, since if the check was made out to the party, it would not benefit him since the party had already been would up by the courts.
According to Mr Gopalan’s account, Mr Jeyaretnam was charged with criminal breach of trust for having diverted “funds belonging to the court liquidator to himself” and sentenced to one month in prison which caused him to lose his parliamentary seat and disbarred from the Singapore Bar.
Mr Jeyaretnam subsequently appealed his disbarment to the Privy Council in London which duly reversed the judgment, noting:
“Their Lordships have to record their deep disquiet that by a series of misjudgements, the appellant and his co-accused Wong, have suffered a grievous injustice.
They have been fined, imprisoned and publicly disgraced for offences of which they are not guilty. The appellant, in addition, has been deprived of his seat in Parliament and disqualified for a year from practising his profession.
Their Lordships order restores him to the roll of advocates and solicitors of the Supreme Court of Singapore, but, because of the course taken by the criminal proceedings, their Lordships have no power to right the other wrongs which the appellant and Wong have suffered. Their only prospect of redress, their Lordships understand, will be by way of petition for pardon to the President of the Republic of Singapore.”
[Source: Wikipedia]
(Note: The right of appeal to the Privy Council was abolished by a change in the law the following year.)
Before the English court commenced the proceedings, it sent an invitation to the Attorney-General of Singapore Mr Tan Boon Teck to attend the session who declined to do so.
After Mr Jeyaretnam returned to Singapore , he applied for a “pardon” from the President of Singapore which was denied on the grounds that “the Attorney General of Singapore) was not given an opportunity to be heard before the English Court ” and secondly “JB Jeyaretnam had not shown remorse repentance and contrition for the crimes he had committed”
Mr Gopalan wrote to the Attorney-General asking why he claimed he was not given an opportunity to appear in the English court when he clearly was who replied by calling Mr Gopalan’s letter “scurrilous”.
Mr Gopalan wrote to Mr Tan again threatening to circulate the correspondence between them to all the law firms in Singapore if he still refuse to answer his questions which led to Mr Tan making a report against him to the Law Society.
The charges against Mr Gopalan were that he had “threatened the Attorney General” and that he had made “false accusations against the Attorney General”. He was disciplined and suspended from practice for two years.
Mr Gopalan Nair is a staunch critic of the Singapore government, especially its judiciary. He was sentenced to imprisonment in Singapore for 3 months last year for allegedly insulting a Singapore judge.
Before he was released, he promised the court that he would not repeat the allegations again which he immediately retracted upon leaving Singapore.
The Singapore Law Society had submitted an application to the Chief Justice accusing Mr Gopalan of bringing “the profession as a whole into disrepute and lowered its esteem in the eyes of the general public”
A two-man disciplinary tribunal has been formed to determine if he is guilty of misconduct “unbefitting” of a lawyer in March next year.
Though Mr Gopalan claimed earlier that he does not care “one way on another what Singapore does” as any action taken against him in Singapore will have no effect on him, he still wrote a spirited defence of himself on his blog.
He also shed light on a case involving Mr Jeyaretnam who was convicted for fraud in 1985 which got him suspended for two years from his law practice.
After he was sued for defamation by then Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew and was ordered to pay several hundreds of thousands of dollars in damages, Mr Jeyaretnam put out a plea to the general public for donations.
He opened a Standard Chartered Account to collect these monies and Mr Gopalan, a member of the Workers’ Party under Mr Jeyaretnam, was appointed the Trustee to receive these funds.
A total of $14,000 or $15,000.00 was received into this account.
Among the donors, there were a couple of people who wanted to donate and had made out checks to the Workers Party, but Mr Jeyaretnam had asked them to make out the check to him instead, since if the check was made out to the party, it would not benefit him since the party had already been would up by the courts.
According to Mr Gopalan’s account, Mr Jeyaretnam was charged with criminal breach of trust for having diverted “funds belonging to the court liquidator to himself” and sentenced to one month in prison which caused him to lose his parliamentary seat and disbarred from the Singapore Bar.
Mr Jeyaretnam subsequently appealed his disbarment to the Privy Council in London which duly reversed the judgment, noting:
“Their Lordships have to record their deep disquiet that by a series of misjudgements, the appellant and his co-accused Wong, have suffered a grievous injustice.
They have been fined, imprisoned and publicly disgraced for offences of which they are not guilty. The appellant, in addition, has been deprived of his seat in Parliament and disqualified for a year from practising his profession.
Their Lordships order restores him to the roll of advocates and solicitors of the Supreme Court of Singapore, but, because of the course taken by the criminal proceedings, their Lordships have no power to right the other wrongs which the appellant and Wong have suffered. Their only prospect of redress, their Lordships understand, will be by way of petition for pardon to the President of the Republic of Singapore.”
[Source: Wikipedia]
(Note: The right of appeal to the Privy Council was abolished by a change in the law the following year.)
Before the English court commenced the proceedings, it sent an invitation to the Attorney-General of Singapore Mr Tan Boon Teck to attend the session who declined to do so.
After Mr Jeyaretnam returned to Singapore , he applied for a “pardon” from the President of Singapore which was denied on the grounds that “the Attorney General of Singapore) was not given an opportunity to be heard before the English Court ” and secondly “JB Jeyaretnam had not shown remorse repentance and contrition for the crimes he had committed”
Mr Gopalan wrote to the Attorney-General asking why he claimed he was not given an opportunity to appear in the English court when he clearly was who replied by calling Mr Gopalan’s letter “scurrilous”.
Mr Gopalan wrote to Mr Tan again threatening to circulate the correspondence between them to all the law firms in Singapore if he still refuse to answer his questions which led to Mr Tan making a report against him to the Law Society.
The charges against Mr Gopalan were that he had “threatened the Attorney General” and that he had made “false accusations against the Attorney General”. He was disciplined and suspended from practice for two years.
Mr Gopalan Nair is a staunch critic of the Singapore government, especially its judiciary. He was sentenced to imprisonment in Singapore for 3 months last year for allegedly insulting a Singapore judge.
Before he was released, he promised the court that he would not repeat the allegations again which he immediately retracted upon leaving Singapore.
