Hey you're mad. No, you are.

[makapaaa]

<TABLE id=msgUN cellSpacing=3 cellPadding=0 width="100%" border=0><TBODY><TR><TD id=msgUNsubj vAlign=top> Coffee Shop Talk - Hey you're mad. No, you are.</TD><TD id=msgunetc noWrap align=right>

Subscribe </TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE><TABLE class=msgtable cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 width="96%"><TBODY><TR><TD class=msg vAlign=top><TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 width="100%" border=0><TBODY><TR class=msghead><TD class=msgbfr1 width="1%"> </TD><TD><TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 border=0><TBODY><TR class=msghead><TD class=msgF noWrap align=right width="1%">From: </TD><TD class=msgFname noWrap width="68%">tansooku <NOBR></NOBR> </TD><TD class=msgDate noWrap align=right width="30%">9:59 am </TD></TR><TR class=msghead><TD class=msgT noWrap align=right width="1%" height=20>To: </TD><TD class=msgTname noWrap width="68%">ALL <NOBR></NOBR></TD><TD class=msgNum noWrap align=right> (1 of 2) </TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE></TD></TR><TR><TD class=msgleft width="1%" rowSpan=4> </TD><TD class=wintiny noWrap align=right>2825.1 </TD></TR><TR><TD height=8></TD></TR><TR><TD class=msgtxt>Would such a statement be sufficient ground to suspect that someone is mad? Would someone heard cursing and swearing at a religious ceremony in the neighbourhood be arrested for disturbance?
The law of a state is to protect the people from being harmed. If someone beats you, you are to take up a lawsuit yourself against that person. It is a private matter. If someone disturbs a wedding procession, is it a private matter?
How serious would a disturbance be good enough for one to be arrested and sent to psychiatric checkup to determine his sanity? And if the psychiatrists could not find anything after two or three weeks, can the psychiatrists demand that one shall continue to be detained for further observation? How long would such observations become unacceptable?
Shall I warn all those bloggers calling people stupid, mad, irrational, fools etc not to do so for their own good? Will such libellious remarks be a problem between the parties involved or can one party insist the other party be sent for psychiatric observation?
Freedom of expression or anonymity in the internet has led some bloggers to go shooting from their hips. Some even fabricate stories and half truths. Would they end up under the microscope of the psychiatrists?
Oh, the heading of this post is just an illustration only. I am not calling anyone mad.
</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE></TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>

 

[makapaaa]

<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 width="100%" border=0><TBODY><TR><TD height=8></TD></TR><TR><TD class=msgtxt>First the Old Fart called CSJ a mad man. This was quickly backed up by "diagnosis" from the Chua sisters. Then they decided to go for CSJ's powerful legal support Ravi and raked up excuses to imprison him in a mental hospital to feed him with psychotic drugs to dull his will to fight. Where AyeAssA has failed, the Familee has turned to "life science" to fix its critics. Very very wicked indeed!</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>

 

[chinkangkor]

Seems like this tan soo kee knows a lot about Ravi?

 

[makapaaa]

http://www.yoursdp.org/index.php/news/singapore/1008-conflicting-information-from-imh-about-m-ravi

<TABLE class=contentpaneopen><TBODY><TR><TD class=contentheading width="100%">Conflicting information from IMH about M Ravi </TD><TD class=buttonheading align=right width="100%"> </TD><TD class=buttonheading align=right width="100%"> </TD><TD class=buttonheading align=right width="100%"> </TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE><TABLE class=contentpaneopen><TBODY><TR><TD class=createdate vAlign=top>Saturday, 06 September 2008 </TD></TR><TR><TD vAlign=top>

Singapore Democrats

Mr M Ravi was brought to the High Court on Friday morning to argue a Criminal Motion he had filed against the Institute of Mental Health (IMH) where he has been remanded since 18 Aug 08.

Ms Chee Siok Chin had tried to visit Mr Ravi but was told by the hospital that Mr Ravi was not allowed visitors, not even family members, as he is in remand. This is obviously not true because Sheila, one of Mr Ravi's sisters, had in fact visited him.

Sheila spoke to the hospital staff about Ms Chee's visit because Mr Ravi had requested to see Ms Chee. But this was turned down. It is understood, however, that one of Mr Ravi's clients was allowed to visit him on several occasions.

Another area of inconsistency is Mr Ravi's treatment. While the hospital says that the lawyer would not be given medication, Mr Ravi's family members said that he had been given medication. In fact, the prosecutor revealed in court Mr Ravi was on medication.

This sort of conflicting information raises serious questions about how Mr Ravi is being treated.

Mr Ravi argued before High Court Judge Tay Yong Kwang that he should not be further remanded at IMH. He pointed out that, since a diagnosis had already been made, then he should be free to seek treatment from other psychiatrists rather than be held at the IMH. Custodial rights, the lawyer argued, cannot and should not be returned to those against whom he is taking out the criminal motion.

Judge Tay dismissed the application. He did not give reasons for his decision.<!-- START of joscomment --></TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>

 

[chinkangkor]

Ms Chee Siok Chin had tried to visit Mr Ravi but was told by the hospital that Mr Ravi was not allowed visitors, not even family members, as he is in remand. This is obviously not true because Sheila, one of Mr Ravi's sisters, had in fact visited him.

Hmm .... something fishy going on ....