If the govt has a list of people to fix, I wonder if lawyers take up more than half that list. At least going by the number of conspiracies circulating nowadays, M Ravi being ‘fixed‘ by Law Society and Prof Tey Tsun Hang being ‘fixed‘ because his academic writings were critical of the leegime.
Could the state drive M Ravi mad? Does writing critical literature give you some unwritten consent to hanky panky with your own student? However, debunking these conspiracies doesn’t mean there was no wrong committed.
Like prominent lawyer Subhas Anandan who criticised Law Society’s actions but doesn’t deny that part of it is M Ravi’s own doing:
CNA: The Association of Criminal Lawyers of Singapore (ACLS) has criticised the Law Society of Singapore, saying that it viewed “with some trepidation” the actions of a Law Society representative who, on Monday, submitted a medical letter to the High Court stating that lawyer M Ravi is unfit to practise……While acknowledging the ACLS’ disagreements in the past with Mr Ravi, the letter – dated Tuesday and signed by ACLS President Subhas Anandan – said the incident “left a very bitter taste in the mouths and has potentially brought the Bar into disrepute”.
When M Ravi said he planned to appoint criminal lawyer Subhas Anandan as his ‘practice mentor’. The latter rejected it and commented ‘If Ravi would come to me for advice, I would give him advice. But I won’t give him advice that he wants to hear.’ The joke is how M Ravi “planned to appoint” Subhas!! LOL!!
If you have read Subhas’ book titled “The Best I Could”, you would come across all sorts of interesting snippets of information. Lawyers, who are after all humans, have their own character flaws too. It never occur to me going against the state makes one pristine, pure and infallible. Similarly, wearing white and winning elections doesn’t make you an immortal!
Doesn’t it occur to anyone that one’s misfortune is often one’s own doing?
Subhas writing on Francis Seow:
“The other time Law Society stood out, when lawyers walked with pride, was when Francis Seow was its president. It would subsequently be proven though that many of his actions were fuelled by deep-seated motives or what one would consider as personal desires.
Whatever his motives may have been, the way he conducted himself as president and the speeches he made had lawyers walking with their heads held up high. We had the feeling we could not be trampled upon. We had a leader who would stand by us.
Little did we know that that same leader would some day pack up his things and slink away from Singapore leaving behind a lot of disillusioned people who believe in him. There were those who gave him money. He still owes me $25,000. I suppose I should say goodbye to it. Most of all, there were many who thought that he would open up a new chapter in Singapore politics.
But he was a disappointment and a disaster. He didn’t have the moral courage to return to Singapore to face income tax charges. Even if he was convicted of those charges, it would only amounted to a fine but he was not prepared to take risk. In the final analysis, he was after all, nothing.
A man who spoke well-his eloquence was often very charming-but other than that he did not have what it took to be a leader. He was not prepared to through the test of fire which all politicians must face.”
When I was growing up, Francis Seow was the opposition hero together with JBJ and Lee Siew Choh. Francis, Lee and Mohd Kahlit nearly even won the 1988 Eunos GRC seat. Francis and Lee were offered the first ever NCMP seats but Francis had to skipped town. As you grow older, you become more cynical and question the images, arguments and clichés that others present to you.
Lee, even though of Basrisan Socialis, never left Singapore. He held on to his beliefs, served our country valiantly and spoke up for Singaporeans in parliament and also became our first NCMP.
Francis Seow is still held up as the poster boy for PAP persecution of political enemies even though his character is of suspect. Maybe M Ravi and Prof Tey are on their way there too? Like Prof Tey’s cryptic statement: “I am known to speak up, amongst other things, on the Singapore legal system. I write in good faith, and with no ill intent.”
If writing articles that criticised our govt and judiciary would grant you immunity from extra-circular activities with sweet young things, tell me earlier lah! I would started when I was 16 years old!