Mai Sabo Leh: Kenneth Jeyaretnam spill the beans on M Ravi

18 Jul

It’s true that this buffoon man of pedigree political lineage sabo-ed M Ravi. While little brother, Philip Jeyaretnam, was beaming and adjusting his tie as he was being appointed to one of the most prestigious councils in this land, the older one with his tongue half-inch longer than necessary, cannot even help his friend by keeping his mental condition secret. This is how you payback the lawyer who is representing you for the IMF case.

M Ravi supporting KJ’s Reform Party during GE2011

Listen to his video…nice big long tongue with a lovely accent. Oh he must have endeared many women.

Despite the questionable antics of Law Society’s Wong Siew Hong to squirrel a letter written by M Ravi’s psychiatrist through the doors of justice, credit must be given to the judges who have asked for the matter to be heard in the chambers and away from public glare. Credit again to the judges for letting M Ravi continue his work as there has been no official application by either the Law Society nor the AGC to sanction M Ravi.

This much we are clear despite some quarters who are fond of spinning conspiracy theories in their free and not-so-free time, at least the judges were curiously excluded from any email chain that plotted this conspiracy. So potent were such suggestions that the self-proclaimed sane M Ravi was affected by it. “Speaking to TODAY, Mr Ravi insisted there was a “conspiracy” against him and that “they were just trying to block me from arguing the case”.”

Back to the case, the public wouldn’t have known about M Ravi’s recent condition nor the contents of the letter if Kenneth Jeyaretnam had not taken a photo of the psychiatrist letter and spread it on his twitter. If we look at Jeanette Chong Aruldoss’ account of the Hougang By-election trial, she had no clue what the Law Society representative was trying to do nor the contents of the letter.

Jeanette Chong Aruldoss:

While the AG was speaking, a lawyer representing the Law Society (whom I shall call “the LS lawyer”) entered the Court with a companion in tow. The LS lawyer wore the Court gown, thus indicating that he wanted to address the Court; his companion (whom I recognised to be an employee of the Law Society) was in long sleeved office shirt, no jacket. They stood conspicuously there at the side, between the AG and the Judge.

The LS lawyer held in his hand a transparent sheet protector containing a single piece of paper which looked like a letter. (I was expecting the LS lawyer to be holding on to some kind of court order document, but apparently not.) The AG stopped his presentation and said to the Judge something like he was agreeable “to yield” to the LS lawyer (i.e. let the LS lawyer address the Judge). But the Judge seemed to indicate to AG to finish his submission without interruption, so the AG continued speaking. As it was obviously awkward for the LS lawyer and his companion to remaining standing where they were, they then walked to sit down on available chairs. Soon, the Hearing ended and I left the Court. It was around 11am.

Mainstream newspapers like TODAY and Straits Times only reported about the contents of the letter because of KJ’s leak. They would have no details otherwise. And boy did they made every detail of that short letter known to all Singaporeans just to make sure they know that M Ravi has mental health issues.

KJ tweeted the photo sometime during lunch time on Monday but later removed it after realising that it was he who had broken doctor - patient confidentiality and not the doctor as many like Andrew Loh and Richard Wan believed. Why did KJ remove it?

The psychiatrist lettter

KJ’s original tweet showing the photo of the psychiatrist letter before he removed it.

ANDREW LOH/RICHARD WAN:

When asked about this, Mr Ravi said there were conditions on how the doctor could divulge information of his medical evaluation and to whom. The doctor could only do so after he had examined him and after Mr Ravi had seen the report. Also, the report was to be made known only to his law firm partner, Ms Violet Netto, and Mr Ravi’s younger sister. Neither was informed of Dr Fones’ diagnosis before the letter was sent to the Law Society on Monday.

Sidetrack: Isn’t it interesting how ex-TOC editor would pen a story jointly with an editor from the old Temasek Review considering how both were somewhat at loggerheads with each other. There are no permanent enemies, only permanent interests? hehe. But they still didn’t pick up the fact that KJ leaked it!

Sadly, only the subservient ST picked up this crucial information of KJ leaking M Ravi’s psychiatric letter out on the internet when it should have been a private matter between M Ravi, the psychiatrist and Law Society. Quoting ST, “Dr Fones’ letter was posted on Twitter by Reform Party chief Kenneth Jeyaretnam. The online post was later removed, but by then, some websites had reposted it.”

With KJ taking the lead, TOC jumped on the bandwagon, and went on their own wild tangent and inaccurately reported that Law Society was applying for M Ravi to be struck off when there was no such move. At least they had decency to apologise…wonder if KJ had done the same to M Ravi?

And even Law Society had the decency to clarify that the psychiatrist was actually appointed by M Ravi instead of the Law Society. And just to add, it was M Ravi’s associate, Violet Netto, that asked him to visit the psychiatrist on Saturday, two days before the trial, as he was under much stress.

TODAY ONLINE:

When contacted, a Law Society spokesperson confirmed that it received the letter from Dr Fones, who is a doctor “appointed by Mr M Ravi, and not the Law Society”.

The spokesperson said: “The Law Society informed the judge of the contents of the letter as it felt that it was in the public interest to do so, and as officers of the court. To be clear, there was no application whatsoever by the Law Society to in any way prevent Mr Ravi from appearing in court.”

The spokesperson said that the Law Society is “not in a position to comment on the contents of the letter, as this is a matter of a member’s confidential medical records”.

M Ravi has had a history of mental illness although that has not prevented him from specialising in death row inmates. He had reportedly been diagnosed since 2006 with bipolar disorder – which is punctuated by episodes of mania and depression – and was also suspended from practising for a year in 2006.

In 2008, he was charged – and subsequently fined – with disturbing a religious prayer session, using abusive language and causing mischief, and went into remand for three weeks at the Institute of Mental Health. After the incident, M Ravi was allowed by the court to practise under certain conditions, including that he has to see his psychiatrist periodically.

There is already a witness account of M Ravi disturbing prayers at the Sri Mariamman temple along South Bridge Rd on 15 July Sunday morning, one day after his visit to the psychiatrist and one day before his Hougang By-election trial. This was the same temple he created ruckus back in 2008.

In this swirl of leaked letter from the psychiatrist, conspiracy theories and accusations of madness, the pertinent questions remained: Why did KJ take a photo of the letter and posted it online? What motives did he have? To whom did the letter belong to? M Ravi? And did M Ravi let KJ take a photo knowing that he would upload it online?

I really hope M Ravi would take a break from work and make a full recovery soon. I am sure there are other pro-bono lawyers out there willing to represent Yong Vui Kong and others on death row. Singapore would be forever indebted to M Ravi if he indeed choose to go crazy practising law rather than take his medicine and rest. I hope his real friends, not those like KJ, can advise him honestly and not continue glorify him on pedestal so that he can be their poster boy.

**************************************************************************************

Additional readings here and here. It seems like most agree that M Ravi can indeed suddenly get unstable and that the doctor is merely doing his duty although cannot deny the fact that Law Society cannot get their act together. Interesting posts here, click to enlarge:

About these ads

36 Responses to “Mai Sabo Leh: Kenneth Jeyaretnam spill the beans on M Ravi”

  1. Yew Soon July 18, 2012 at 9:09 am #

    why opposition cannot learn how to not stop shooting themselves? tx for informing us that all this crap started with KJ. amazing how different the two brothers can be. this chap is really a good-for-nothing.

  2. Jason Goh July 18, 2012 at 11:15 am #

    Oh M Ravi is just so gd for some law drama…

    http://www.straitstimes.com/Breaking…ry_595820.html
    LAWYER M. Ravi called a press conference yesterday to defend his comments over a criminal case, but ended up smashing a glass, spewing vulgarities and yelling at journalists to leave his office.

    Mr Ravi, 41, had sought the meeting with the media to ‘set the record straight’ over what he claimed were inaccuracies in the reporting of his role and statements he made in the case of his former client, American businessman Kamari Kenyada Charlton.

    The 37-year-old businessman was arrested on Sept 1 for allegedly overstaying his visa. The next day, Charlton, a former Florida State University football player living in the Bahamas, was charged with overstaying. Last Friday, he faced an additional charge of conspiracy to cheat an Australian in a mobile phone scam operation.

    Mr Ravi told the media last week that he intended to argue Charlton’s case on grounds of discrimination.

    Law Minister K. Shanmugam countered on Sunday that the courts did not discriminate against individuals based on nationality.

    The law applied ‘equally to everyone, whether a foreigner or local, regardless of nationality and regardless of background and status’, the minister told reporters when asked about the case at a weekend event.

  3. lol July 18, 2012 at 11:44 am #

    so… now you’re blaming KJ for telling everyone that someone applied to have Ravi struck off from practising? the letter was clearly addressed to the Law Society to ask them to prevent Ravi from practising… what’s wrong with KJ for telling everyone that someone wants Ravi to stop practising?

    so if that person (be it Ravi’s doctor) succeed in prevent Ravi from practising, who on earth would want to help KJ argue his case in court?

    • unbrandedbreadnbutter July 18, 2012 at 3:59 pm #

      Plain fact: If KJ did not leak the letter and M Ravi did not grant an interview, the public wouldn’t have knew or be reminded about his mental condition.

  4. Truth July 18, 2012 at 12:31 pm #

    You are really doing a good job of sabotaging everyone..a devil’s advocate indirectly doing the work for the men in white.

    • unbrandedbreadnbutter July 18, 2012 at 3:57 pm #

      I could not have sabo them if they did not sabo themselves. Ever wondered why WP seldom sabo themselves? Because they are thinking lor. lolz.

  5. TR Fan July 18, 2012 at 12:42 pm #

    nothing wrong with richard and andrew working together, heheh. Toc(cock)’s current credibility is much lower than the revamped TR, that i am surprised that anybody would want to work with them.

    even the newest venture online/offline featuring prominent bloggers didn’t invite Toc leh. what has toc done after ex-SDP member stepped in? more importantly perhaps, Toc said they would make known their accounts this year, but they never did. Toc(cock) about transparency and accountability and hypocrisy.

  6. Kojak Bt July 18, 2012 at 4:45 pm #

    Unbranded Bread n Butter bro, u got the info salah lah.

    What actually happened is this. Ravi got the letter after the morning session of the High Court hearing on the by-election case (16th). The details I think is pretty much described in the various media. KJ was there at the hearing. Ravi passed the letter to KJ to put it up online so as to inform the public what has happened. However, KJ did not write up to describe more details what had happened – he simply just put up the letter (ie, no head no tail). Of course, his twitter posting went viral. A TRE reader then alerted me.

    First guy I called was Andrew, cause Andrew is a long time friend of Ravi, to find out what was going on. We then decide that we must write up a proper article to describe the events, at least from Ravi and associates point of view. Just simply putting up the letter online alone wld cause more confusions. We (Andrew and I) then went down to Fullerton Bay Hotel in the afternoon to meet up with Ravi and his co-counsels to get the story and of course to interview him. The article we put up was \”Lawyer M Ravi: Doctor’s letter to LAWSOC \’ridiculous\’\”. You can read it yourselves. We also put up a video of him for all to see. We wrote a second piece yesterday after interviewing Ravi\’s co-counsel, Louis Joseph on Tue – \”Law Society made 3 attempts to stop lawyer M Ravi in 2 days\”. And yesterday night, Lawsoc put up their own official statement – \”Official statement from Law Society concerning lawyer M Ravi\”.

    Our objective is to give Ravi a fair report, esp knowing that MSM is not going to be too kind to him (well, that\’s where alternative media comes in, right?) :)

    Anyway, coming back to Andrew, when I was a mod at the old TR, I didn\’t even know him. So, personally, I was never at loggerhead with him (or anyone else lah). I only knew Andrew this year after TR Emeritus started (I mean b4, yes, heard of his name but never met him lah). In fact, it was Ravi who introduced me to Andrew, cause Andrew knew Ravi much earlier.

    Hope this clarifies… :)

    Richard Wan
    TR Emeritus

    • unbrandedbreadnbutter July 18, 2012 at 5:14 pm #

      Thanks for your clarifications Richard. So if both M Ravi and KJ both agreed to have the photo put out for everyone to see, why did KJ have to remove it later? If they agree to put online, why need to backtrack?

      Also why did M Ravi give the impression that his patient confidentiality was breached when they both agreed to put this out online? If this was matter that was discussed in the judge’s chambers, a matter for the internal councils of Law Society, a private matter between M Ravi and his doctor, why and how did it become a public matter?

      The msm had nothing to report until the letter was posted out KJ. If there was no letter, there was no story, or unless M Ravi calls a press conf himself to refute any applications made by the Law Society, when there has been none so far.

      And I dunno wat kinda various media you’re talking about because I certainly did not read about the details you have described here.

      Again, thanks for sharing the info here and noted on your last bit about Andrew. If I am wrong, I stand corrected and I apologise sincerely. But doesn’t change the shenanigans that M Ravi and KJ trying to pull of here.

      • Mikey July 18, 2012 at 7:07 pm #

        Really … what the hell is going on? Is there a big big hidden prize as the objective of all these shenanigans? Everything which happened is just plain stupid, the main characters, Wong, Kenneth Jeya, and M Ravi (as detailed by Richard) are bizzare and the only thing which can explain such crazy behaviour assuming that nobody’s crazy here is that – there’s a big prize at stake.

        Am I missing something?

      • Kojak Bt July 18, 2012 at 10:30 pm #

        Ok bro, let me try to explain further.

        (1) Yes, as explained, putting up the letter alone by itself without any other description or write-up was confusing. Which is why it was taken down since Andrew and myself were going to come up with the full article to explain things from Ravi’s side.

        (2) Ok, patient confidentiality was breached the moment the psychiatrist pass the information to LAWSOC without going through Ravi or his supervisor Ms Netto. You see, it’s like before you pay roax tax to LTA, LTA wants to see the the cert certifying that the car is road worthy. You can go to any car inspection centers to do it. However, after inspection, the cert is given to you then you give to LTA. The inspection center don’t give the cert directly to LTA. In the case of Ravi, same thing except that it’s even more stringent since there is a patient-physician confidentiality issue to contend with. The doctor cannot pass the information outside without the consent of Ravi or his supervisor.

        Hence, when KJ put up the info online, it’s already public.

        (3) The msm had nothing to report until the letter was posted out KJ. If there was no letter, there was no story – er… not true lah.

        Think deeper. With or without KJ’s posting, MSM WILL REPORT…. :)
        Remember, LAWSOC has it, AGC has it etc. It’s already public, from a legal standpoint.

        (4) When I said various media, I meant both online and MSM talking about incident when Wong and his associate interrupting the Court proceeding on Mon morn with the intent to “inform” Judge Pillai. Of course, the honorable Judge Pillai threw them out.

        (5) No need to apologise lah. Sometimes its just good to engage and clarify things…. actually same goes for the establishment. Sometimes as things turn out, it’s not really their faults. It’s just that they don’t like to engage with netizens to clarify things ASAP….then things get mis-communicated :)

        Cheers!

      • unbrandedbreadnbutter July 19, 2012 at 12:50 am #

        1. KJ could have added the explanation to the photo if he wanted. Fact that he didn’t and subsequently removed it is unconvincing.

        2. Again, you are driving but in the wrong direction. The public wouldn’t have known if KJ and/or M Ravi did not leak it. The doctor has an obligation to report the matter to Law Society. And it was Ms Netto that asked the psychiatrist to have M Ravi examined 2 days before the trial. Why she would do so only she would know. Even Uncle Yap said M Ravi refused to go and he had to fetch him there.

        3. True, MSM would have reported. KJ just made their job easier. That was my point. Why was he trying to make their job easier?

        4. Indeed it is honourable that you are trying to clarify matters here. From my understanding of the facts, I am afraid I remain standing where I first started. Hope you can understand.

        5. I am absolutely in support of diverse and opposing views in Singapore. My opinion of KJ and M Ravi does not stem from an assumed support for any political party. Also, my opinion of them doesn’t mean I agree with what the Law Society has done. The actions and antics of these two men are clear for everyone to see.

      • Kojak Bt July 20, 2012 at 1:12 am #

        Hi bro,

        We can discuss further over email. Can email me directly at kojakbt at gmail dot com. Didn’t want MSM to spin a story out of our discussions here.

        Just want to say that despite Ravi’s shortcomings, I truly respect him for what he is doing. Very very few lawyers in Singapore dare to take up cases against the establishment…

        In any cases, the 2 high court cases undertaken by Ravi is of significant implications to us Singaporeans. Both requires clarifications of the Court on our constitutions – one to ensure that future by-elections should be held if a parliamentary seat is vacated. The other to ensure real check and balance of our reserves by the elected President (Govt is arguing that the constitution 144 forbids borrowing but not lending which I think is nonsense. Lending money to others also carries risk which in turn may touch on reserves).

        I think very few lawyers are willing to take on this sort of cases,..which is why I’m giving my support to Ravi, despite whatever shortcomings he may have.

    • Mikey July 19, 2012 at 11:51 am #

      Richard Wan,

      You write your articles and replies picking and choosing facts and censoring at least half truth, and the result is not `reporting’ and you are not `alternative media’, you’re basically a political mouthpiece for certain elements – I won’t even say opposition now, but rather, these anarchists.

      Don’t ever confuse your acts as journalism.

      • Kojak Bt July 20, 2012 at 1:26 am #

        I never said I’m a journalist. I’m not. My background is IT, not journalism. I’m just doing what I can to offer new conduits for views and news which otherwise would not have been reported by our MSM. You too can also start a blog yourself to do the same if you think I’m not doing a good job (in fact, the more avenues on the Net, the better…)

        It is my hope that with more avenues on the Net (not necessarily TRE), the electorates can see different viewpoints from MSM and will thus be able to make a better informed decision to vote when come the next GE… :)

  7. tim sia July 19, 2012 at 1:11 am #

    As an accountant, I am of the similar view that Andrew Loh, Richard Wan and Ravi Philemon do not understand what it means to practice as a professional with a license to lose. What Dr Fones the psychiatrist, Ms Netto partner of M Ravi and Mr Wong from Law Society did is ‘cover your ass’. You know that something is wrong and something might very well go wrong with M Ravi who was known to have mental health issues, shouted vulgarities and behaved aggressively in a temple and during a press conference.

    If you know something might go wrong and you did not report it especially when it was under your watch, you would stand to lose helluva a lot. These 3 individuals in discharging their duties to watch over M Ravi had plenty to lose.

    So when Ms Netto detected M Ravi was increasingly unstable he sent him the psychiatrist two days before the trial. She discharged her duty dutifully. So when Dr Fones examined him and detected likewise, he dutifully informed Law Society’s Mr Wong. Mr Wong probably has a lucrative practice to lose and so discharged his duties with zeal trying to inform the judges.

    Who would want to be saddle with a liability like M Ravi? But lucky for M Ravi, he has nice folks like Richard and Andrew spinning a story for him.

  8. kohkeesenmatthew July 19, 2012 at 8:08 am #

    KJ and M Ravi are only trying to stop US$4 billion loan to the IMF without proper procedure according to the constitution. Frankly, the money should be distributed to Singaporeans as a first priority rather than trying to earn interest from the loan.

    • Citigold July 19, 2012 at 12:46 pm #

      Frankly you should only open your mouth when you have grown some brain matter. KJ and his stupid shallow IMF case. Wat a joke. This guy is a fund manager? No wonder he quit to come back to swamp land because he ain’t gd enough.

      SG govt is rich like fuck what is $4b. They have to invest it somewhere and get dividend/interest. So would the IMF not pay back? Where can the IMF run? Companies will fold up but IMF will always be there so $4b is just goodwill for Sg govt and to collect some interests.

      If KJ is indeed a fund manager, he will know that such loans are the most secured. He is doing this just to gain attention and attract dumb swampies like you.

  9. WF July 19, 2012 at 9:24 pm #

    Richard,
    I disagree with your analogy in (2).
    Let’s assume your wife and kids are taking a flight to Hong Kong on Monday morning. On Sunday, the doctor is of the opinion that the pilot is not mentally fit to fly the plane that your wife and kids are going take. Would you have preferred the doctor to inform:
    (a) the pilot’s sister and co-pilot/immediate superior
    or
    (b) the relevant authority?
    The same goes for the MRT driver, SBS driver or the surgeon who is going to operate on your dad’s heart bypass operation the very next day.

    I do not understand your logic when you say that its legally public info when the report is in the hands of LAWSOC and AGC.
    The fact is that the report was first made public by KJ, I have no respect for KJ for releasing a mental patient’s medical report to the public for his political mileage, regardless of whether the mental patient agrees to it.

    What would you have done if you were in Wong’s position? Knowing that
    (i) the lawyer has a history of mental illness;
    (ii) have been known to cause disturbances in the temples and the courts;
    (iii) his doctor has certified him mentally unfit to practice
    Fortunately, the lawyer appeared normal on Monday, unlike 24 hours earlier where he caused a distuburance in a temple (as we now know from msm). What if the lawyer was not normal on Monday?

    WF

    • Yen July 20, 2012 at 12:08 pm #

      Finally, some sense! Am in complete agreement with you, WF. The mental patient is of course deluded and therefore asks his friend to do a reckless action. Unfortunately his sane friend participated in the delusion and performed the said action. Now both these men are pointing fingers at others. Unbelievable.

    • unbrandedbreadnbutter July 20, 2012 at 12:35 pm #

      thanks wf. i like the pilot analogy. but i think the law soc lawyer a bit hardcore. can email judge maybe and give his secretary a call?

      • WF July 21, 2012 at 2:08 am #

        Unbrandedbreadnbutter, you are welcome. Thank you for pointing to the fact that it was KJ who was the first to release the medical report to the public.

        As for Wong, your suggestion of emailing the judge and calling his secretary carry some risks for Wong. The info may not reach the judge on time and the mental patient may go haywire and hurl abuse/vulgarities at the judge (we now know through the msm that he hurled vulgarities at a Tamil reporter last week) . Will Wong’s ass be on the line for not keeping the judge up to speed that one of the officers of the court is mentally not fit to practice?

  10. atans1 July 20, 2012 at 6:44 am #

    Suggestion: I think the public shld know what Richard Wan has told: that Ravi wanted the contents of the letter made public but that KJ did a bad job of it. If he behaves like that to an ally, shows he doesn’t care abt anyone except possibly himself. What abt reposting as blog piece Richard’s comments and yr response.

  11. Yew Soon July 20, 2012 at 9:37 am #

    I find this Mr Kojak is not answering the question which is why did KJ put up the letter and later took it down, what he want to achieve?

    I think all of us here agree that M Ravi doing good job but people around want to make him a hero and that why have problems.

    This issue is actually not so big, not the first time M Ravi get into such mental trouble. It become very big one KJ upload the photo and later the Yahoo article written by Andrew Loh and Richard Wan.

    • unbrandedbreadnbutter July 20, 2012 at 12:34 pm #

      for those who don’t know, kojak is richard wan. thanks.

    • atans1 July 20, 2012 at 3:17 pm #

      You misunderstand what Richard Wan is saying: Ravi wanted his side of the story out because he was afraid that he would be silenced on QT. Unfortunely, his buddy KJ, for some strange reason, released the letter, without its context. I agree with B&B etc that this made it terrible for Ravi. IF KJ had done things like what Andrew and RW did, things would be different, I think.

      • yw July 24, 2012 at 5:24 pm #

        M Ravi has a track record of arguing cases in Singapore High Court and even Court of Appeal, before the most pre-eminent judges. I think it would be insulting our judge’s intelligence to suggest M Ravi is incapable of practising as a lawyer. I have complete confidence in Singapore judiciary, that they are in the best position to gauge whether M Ravi is talking sense or talking nonsense. That is all that matters. What I see here and in videos on youtube, is that M Ravi is actually quite talented in Indian traditional Nataraja dance.

  12. Mohamad Affendy abdul Rahim November 18, 2012 at 10:44 pm #

    Heheh Singaporeans are no fools you know.As if we do not know in our system there are people who run around trying to make the opposition leaders to be looked at, as an incompetent lot.Please stop all these nonsense that Kenneth is trying to sabo Ravi.They are the best of friends and Ravi is far from being “unstable”.,Whoever behind the scene pulling the strings are the ones “unstable “and “gutless”.If the people want Ravi to be their voice so be it…..don’t meddle with the process of Law…….be a man face the music and let the judges decide…….Our judiciary is independent…….so,don’t insult our system nor our Judges !!

  13. Anonymous June 26, 2013 at 4:51 pm #

    KJ is a stupid man and his party members are useless, deluded people. He has no aim and is clouded in his judgments that is why he is unconvincing and argues poorly, winning no supporters. He doesn’t know how to be a politician and is only wasting time and destroying himself and those who subscribe to him.If he is such a successful hedgefund manager, why is his party always in debt? He can’t even manage the finances of his own party and has weak and unsound politcal agendas. Don’t trust him. He will only doom you and others.He is not politically fit to be any politician and has walked down the path of doom. His political school of thought is nothing but nonsense, difficult and terribly crypted, making it hard for anyone to understand his reasonings. He is not forthright and transparent when communicating and is a completely deluded deranged madman.

Trackbacks/Pingbacks

  1. Dr Chee has a v.v. gd point « Thoughts of a Cynical Investor - July 18, 2012

    [...] *Update after publication: Now I learn that this comical superhero is a sabo king http://unbrandedbreadnbutter.wordpress.com/2012/07/18/mai-sabo-leh-kenneth-jeyaretnam-spill-the-bean… [...]

  2. Ravi Thrown into the Spotlight Again « Chemical Generation Singapore - July 18, 2012

    [...] now as they were painted in a bad light by TOC, while TOC would watch K Jeyaretnam closely too for spreading the damning letter in question. Ravi would watch the government closely also to see if they want to exploit the [...]

  3. Daily SG: 18 July 2012 | The Singapore Daily - July 18, 2012

    [...] Unbranded Bread n Butter: Mai Sabo Leh: Kenneth Jeyaretnam spill the beans on M Ravi – New Asia Republic: Comedy of errors rocks Hougang By-election Case – Publichouse: Law [...]

  4. Daily SG: 18 July 2012 | The Singapore Daily - July 18, 2012

    [...] Unbranded Bread n Butter: Mai Sabo Leh: Kenneth Jeyaretnam spill the beans on M Ravi – New Asia Republic: Comedy of errors rocks Hougang By-election Case – Chemical [...]

  5. RaviGate: What we need to know « Thoughts of a Cynical Investor - July 23, 2012

    [...] Wan, TRE’s public face, somewhere in the thread here. Like this:LikeBe the first to like this. ▶ No Responses /* 0) { [...]

  6. M Ravi, the bastion of Singapore free speech being kicked around like political football « Unbranded Bread n Butter - July 24, 2012

    [...] inform the Judge of the letter from M Ravi’s psychiatrist. I have blogged earlier that it was Kenneth Jayaretnam that made the letter public. Persons who have attended the trial would not have knew about the contents of the letter as shown [...]

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

%d bloggers like this: