Nair's crazy example

[Alu862]

This is the type of argument he uses. And he calls himself a lawyer.

http://singaporedissident.blogspot.com/2009/09/latest-in-unique-singapore-you-have-no.html

Can we then inspect the court file of his country's Guantanamo Bay detainees?

 

[cleareyes]

This is the type of argument he uses. And he calls himself a lawyer.

http://singaporedissident.blogspot.com/2009/09/latest-in-unique-singapore-you-have-no.html

Can we then inspect the court file of his country's Guantanamo Bay detainees?

lets copy and paste the cpnversation for all to see:

Gopalan Nair: I would like to know if a case was heard in court, does it mean that it goes into Lawnet or other search engines immediately.

Rashida Mohamad Yatim (A clerk who works there): If you want to inspect a file you can write to the Registrar requesting permission

Gopalan Nair: Does that mean that if the Registrar refuses the man would have no right to inspect it?

Rashida Mohamad Yatim: I did not say that.

Gopalan Nair: But you did say that you have to get the "approval" of the Registrar in Singapore to inspect the file.

Rashida Mohamad Yatim: Yes

Gopalan Nair: Then it would follow that if the Registrar refuses to give his "approval" you would have no right to inspect it.

Rashida Mohamad Yatim: You are twisting my words.
Gopalan Nair: I am Gopalan Nair. I have a blog "Singapore Dissident". I was in Singapore last year and was arrested and jailed for criticizing a Singapore a judge. You must have known me. I was in the newspapers almost everyday.

Rashida Mohamad Yatim: I do not know who you are and I never read anything about you.

Gopalan Nair: This right to inspect a court file should not depend on the Registrar's wishes. It is a public document and the right of anyone to inspect it. We should not have to request permission of the Registrar. In California anyone can walk into a court house and demand inspection of any court files there. This is a violation of a citizen's rights.

Rashida Mohamad Yatim: I do not know. If you want you can speak to my supervisor. You do not have my permission to write about this in your blog. You are twisting my words.

Gopalan Nair: I will explain that you refuse to give your consent and you accuse me of twisting your words. Surely that is fair.

Rashida Mohamad Yatim: This conversation is being listened by other officers. You can do what you like Sir.

End of conversation.

I do not know what is GN's problem but in his own conversation, he had actually highluighted his intent to find trouble even towards a low rank clerk of whom could do nothing but follow instructions.

The word used here is "request" and a "request" can be given and denied accordingly with no prejudice. By trying to connect a low rank clerk of whom can say little. GN tries to show that the court is unreasonable, and yet when a clerk can do nothing and GN insist that something shoudl be done, its like he is trying to get the clerk in trouble for his own benefit.

GN is indeed a dissendent, and a troublemaking one. I support getting more freedom for Singaporeans but not more freedom to make trouble,

If this is the kind of freedom GN is looking for, then i would rather he be given less as he do not deserve any.

 

[leetahbar]

This is the type of argument he uses. And he calls himself a lawyer.

http://singaporedissident.blogspot.com/2009/09/latest-in-unique-singapore-you-have-no.html

Can we then inspect the court file of his country's Guantanamo Bay detainees?

which party does gopal best relate himself to? right, SDP. well, they are such - higher than the state law. they make it out as though they are the LAW and then cheat themselves as higher than the law.

 

[leetahbar]

lets copy and paste the cpnversation for all to see:

Gopalan Nair: I would like to know if a case was heard in court, does it mean that it goes into Lawnet or other search engines immediately.

Rashida Mohamad Yatim (A clerk who works there): If you want to inspect a file you can write to the Registrar requesting permission

Gopalan Nair: Does that mean that if the Registrar refuses the man would have no right to inspect it?

Rashida Mohamad Yatim: I did not say that.

Gopalan Nair: But you did say that you have to get the "approval" of the Registrar in Singapore to inspect the file.

Rashida Mohamad Yatim: Yes

Gopalan Nair: Then it would follow that if the Registrar refuses to give his "approval" you would have no right to inspect it.

Rashida Mohamad Yatim: You are twisting my words.
Gopalan Nair: I am Gopalan Nair. I have a blog "Singapore Dissident". I was in Singapore last year and was arrested and jailed for criticizing a Singapore a judge. You must have known me. I was in the newspapers almost everyday.

Rashida Mohamad Yatim: I do not know who you are and I never read anything about you.

Gopalan Nair: This right to inspect a court file should not depend on the Registrar's wishes. It is a public document and the right of anyone to inspect it. We should not have to request permission of the Registrar. In California anyone can walk into a court house and demand inspection of any court files there. This is a violation of a citizen's rights.

Rashida Mohamad Yatim: I do not know. If you want you can speak to my supervisor. You do not have my permission to write about this in your blog. You are twisting my words.

Gopalan Nair: I will explain that you refuse to give your consent and you accuse me of twisting your words. Surely that is fair.

Rashida Mohamad Yatim: This conversation is being listened by other officers. You can do what you like Sir.

End of conversation.

I do not know what is GN's problem but in his own conversation, he had actually highluighted his intent to find trouble even towards a low rank clerk of whom could do nothing but follow instructions.

The word used here is "request" and a "request" can be given and denied accordingly with no prejudice. By trying to connect a low rank clerk of whom can say little. GN tries to show that the court is unreasonable, and yet when a clerk can do nothing and GN insist that something shoudl be done, its like he is trying to get the clerk in trouble for his own benefit.

GN is indeed a dissendent, and a troublemaking one. I support getting more freedom for Singaporeans but not more freedom to make trouble,

If this is the kind of freedom GN is looking for, then i would rather he be given less as he do not deserve any.

it's the same with SDP: bullies the weak and succumbs to the strong. and u want these bunch of losers and cowards to take care of our welfare....gosh! i cannot imagine what would happen if they really succeed. hence, forever they shall be losers and remain as sneaky cowards.

 

[hairylee]

This is the type of argument he uses. And he calls himself a lawyer.

http://singaporedissident.blogspot.com/2009/09/latest-in-unique-singapore-you-have-no.html

Can we then inspect the court file of his country's Guantanamo Bay detainees?

Read this and you will understand why Gopalan Nair does what he does.
If the Cheap Justice of Singapore can give such judgement, why not a lawyer.

http://temasekreview.com/?p=12914

 

[scroobal]

One of PAP's best opponent.

http://singaporedissident.blogspot.com/2007_10_01_archive.html

Wednesday, October 31, 2007
Singapore. Low Thia Khiang is a let down for the cause of democracy
Ladies and Gentlemen,

It is unfortunate that Singapore produces opposition politicians such as Low Thia Khiang. I have known him for 6 years while I was a member of the Workers Party, and this much I can say for him. He does not understand what a constitutional democracy is supposed to be; not forgetting that Singapore is, or at least is supposed to be a constitutional democracy.

He is very good in Hokkien and Teochew oratory to Chinese hawkers and grocery shop merchants in Hougang who do not know any English. For him to tell them that such and such policies are good or bad; get their support and enter Parliament to merely argue on policies is what he does. He does not have a sound education in English, let alone any understanding as to what a democracy is supposed to be. In fact, it appears to me that he does not believe in democracy but rather in the style of the Chinese politburo form of government; where the Chinese have no fundamental rights and the rulers decide on rules and laws which they feel would move the country forward; with or without freedom.

To the educated freedom is fundamental. Without it, there cannot be progress in this day and age. In any case, most educated people do not want progress if it comes with a denial of freedom. Low Thia Khiang does not understand any of this.

I am referring to his interview with the Chinese language press which was published in the Straits Times Nov 1, 2007.

He says "the term opposition is a legacy of the western parliamentary system and I have never believed that an opposition party should oppose for the sake of opposing or to shoot one's mouth off". He is wrong. Opposition derived from ancient Greece, ancient China and even ancient India where debate was encouraged so that, through consensus the best idea wins, and the country wins and progresses. It predated western parliamentary system by ions. Secondly he is wrong in "saying western opposition parties oppose for the sake of opposing or that they shoot one's mouth off". I wonder were he got such ideas, or is he saying these things because it pleases the PAP?

He then says "Politics should be responsible politics". Surely that is so. Is he suggesting that anyone would want it any other way? And we have no problem with his statement that "Opposition should be a watchdog, not a mad dog". That too we all agree. Why mention this. Or is he trying to say that the SDP is behaving otherwise?

He seems to be stating the obvious. "It is not the job of the opposition here to offer alternatives to all government policies". Yes Mr. Low. Here too we all agree. This is obvious.

He says "While the ruling party has specialists to study and research various issues, the opposition lacks the resources to come up with alternative issues". But Mr. Low, the ruling party uses taxpayers money to employ specialists. Similarly, when the opposition form the government, they will too. This does not prevent you to speak for the people; to defend their rights and to further their interest.

The WP, he says is "unlike the opposition parties in the west who come up with alternative policies for everything". He is wrong. Not just in the west, but also in the north the south and the east; throughout the world; good opposition parties come up with alternatives where they see the need. Not for everything. The man is engaging in rhetoric and nonsensical rhetoric at that.

Mr. Low is supposed to not only challenge government policies but if necessary, to throw them out and form a new government and not just "to improve on government policies". If that is all that he believes the work of the opposition is; he should step down immediately and stop being a spokesman for the Peoples Action Party.

He says 'the opposition should not shoot its mouth off and offer alternatives and policies on a whim'. I agree entirely and may I add that to my knowledge, no one has yet in Singapore behaved that way recently. The problem is that the opposition, like his, is not saying anything at all!

I am astonished at Mr. Low's statement that the opposition "should not offer alternative policies before it has reached a certain stage, until they have reached the stage of being able to replace the government and that WP is a long way off". Believe it or not, he is suggesting that the opposition or his version of it, should continue waiting and let the PAP do whatever they want because in all areas, the PAP have more experience than the WP. Is this not the chicken and the egg scenario. If the opposition does not challenge the PAP, they will not get the experience. And since they do not have the experience, they should not challenge the PAP! Is there not something patently wrong in his reasoning?

And what is worse " He believes that his party is not prepared to challenge the PAP in the near future, and that it will take a very long time". In that case, why did he stand for elections under the WP ticket anyway. Has he not misled his people?

In a few words, this man has let down his people. The Chinese speaking kway teow man in Hougang food court may not be aware of this, but an English speaking college graduate knows this very well.

Whether he likes it or not, he should be told that Singapore is a constitutional democracy. In other words there is a constitution. In it, the people have rights. These rights are inalienable. It is not up to the government's discretion to provide it or not. It is mandatory. These rights are being trodden upon. Right of Freedom of speech is being trodden upon. Right of assembly is trodden upon. Lee claims Singapore is first world. First world countries have these rights.

And finally Singapore is not Guandong or Beijing. Hu Jintao may sit with his Chinese Parliament in deciding how and what rights shall be denied. If he wants Chinese style democracy, then he should go there. What we are supposed to have in Singapore is a constitutional democracy, which had it's roots in Ancient Greece. Singapore is an English speaking country. Not a Teochew speaking country. The laws of Singapore are written in the English language. He should know this by now.

Originating from the ideas of Aristotle and Socrates.

Mr. Low does not appear to know the principles of government, and appears to have no inclination or desire to learn it now. Very sad.

Gopalan Nair
39737 Paseo Padre Parkway, Suite A1
Fremont, CA 94538, USA
Tel: 510 657 6107
Fax: 510 657 6914
Email: [email protected]

 

[Alu862]

Wednesday, October 31, 2007
Singapore. Low Thia Khiang is a let down for the cause of democracy
Ladies and Gentlemen,

It is unfortunate that Singapore produces opposition politicians such as Low Thia Khiang. I have known him for 6 years while I was a member of the Workers Party, and this much I can say for him. He does not understand what a constitutional democracy is supposed to be; not forgetting that Singapore is, or at least is supposed to be a constitutional democracy.
(And does Nair recognise America itslef is hardly a democracy?)
He is very good in Hokkien and Teochew oratory to Chinese hawkers and grocery shop merchants in Hougang who do not know any English.(shows how mono-lingual Nair is) For him to tell them that such and such policies are good or bad; get their support and enter Parliament to merely argue on policies is what he does. He does not have a sound education in English, let alone any understanding as to what a democracy is supposed to be. (And who are you to tell us? Did you get 100/100 for your English?) In fact, it appears to me that he does not believe in democracy but rather in the style of the Chinese politburo form of government; where the Chinese have no fundamental rights and the rulers decide on rules and laws which they feel would move the country forward; with or without freedom.(And who is now the world's economic superpower? your failing "democratic" America or China who controls US reserves?)

To the educated freedom is fundamental. Without it, there cannot be progress in this day and age. In any case, most educated people do not want progress if it comes with a denial of freedom. Low Thia Khiang does not understand any of this.(And please show me how democracy has improved the lives of Russians, East Europeans and other democratic states)

I am referring to his interview with the Chinese language press which was published in the Straits Times Nov 1, 2007.

He says "the term opposition is a legacy of the western parliamentary system and I have never believed that an opposition party should oppose for the sake of opposing or to shoot one's mouth off". He is wrong. Opposition derived from ancient Greece, ancient China and even ancient India where debate was encouraged so that, through consensus the best idea wins, and the country wins and progresses. It predated western parliamentary system by ions. Secondly he is wrong in "saying western opposition parties oppose for the sake of opposing or that they shoot one's mouth off". I wonder were he got such ideas, or is he saying these things because it pleases the PAP? (And who do you please? Noting that you are alone is a so called democracy called America. Freedom? Oh yes you had freedom or rather your wife did when she divorced you).

He then says "Politics should be responsible politics". Surely that is so. Is he suggesting that anyone would want it any other way? And we have no problem with his statement that "Opposition should be a watchdog, not a mad dog". That too we all agree. Why mention this. Or is he trying to say that the SDP is behaving otherwise? (And Christian Right Repulbicans in American behave responsibly by cutting off health care reform? Is that your idea of democracy?)

He seems to be stating the obvious. "It is not the job of the opposition here to offer alternatives to all government policies". Yes Mr. Low. Here too we all agree. This is obvious.

He says "While the ruling party has specialists to study and research various issues, the opposition lacks the resources to come up with alternative issues". But Mr. Low, the ruling party uses taxpayers money to employ specialists. Similarly, when the opposition form the government, they will too. This does not prevent you to speak for the people; to defend their rights and to further their interest.(LTK has his hands fulll in Hougang. You yourself did not speak for anyone in your new and old country.)

The WP, he says is "unlike the opposition parties in the west who come up with alternative policies for everything". He is wrong. Not just in the west, but also in the north the south and the east; throughout the world; good opposition parties come up with alternatives where they see the need. Not for everything. The man is engaging in rhetoric and nonsensical rhetoric at that. (Wow, have you not heard about bipartisanship?)

Mr. Low is supposed to not only challenge government policies but if necessary, to throw them out and form a new government and not just "to improve on government policies". If that is all that he believes the work of the opposition is; he should step down immediately and stop being a spokesman for the Peoples Action Party.(And you speak for noone.)

He says 'the opposition should not shoot its mouth off and offer alternatives and policies on a whim'. I agree entirely and may I add that to my knowledge, no one has yet in Singapore behaved that way recently. The problem is that the opposition, like his, is not saying anything at all!

I am astonished at Mr. Low's statement that the opposition "should not offer alternative policies before it has reached a certain stage, until they have reached the stage of being able to replace the government and that WP is a long way off". Believe it or not, he is suggesting that the opposition or his version of it, should continue waiting and let the PAP do whatever they want because in all areas, the PAP have more experience than the WP. Is this not the chicken and the egg scenario. If the opposition does not challenge the PAP, they will not get the experience. And since they do not have the experience, they should not challenge the PAP! Is there not something patently wrong in his reasoning?(And could you have done better?)

And what is worse " He believes that his party is not prepared to challenge the PAP in the near future, and that it will take a very long time". In that case, why did he stand for elections under the WP ticket anyway. Has he not misled his people? (Why did LTK win and you lose to a single seat contender? Why did Ling How Dong lose his seat?)

In a few words, this man has let down his people. The Chinese speaking kway teow man in Hougang food court may not be aware of this, but an English speaking college graduate knows this very well.(Aw, the English are superior. Just like whne the colonised Singapore. English speaking people are always better. Please remember your ex President Bush. Can't even string a sentence properly. How about Dan Quayle?)

Whether he likes it or not, he should be told that Singapore is a constitutional democracy. In other words there is a constitution. In it, the people have rights. These rights are inalienable. It is not up to the government's discretion to provide it or not. It is mandatory. These rights are being trodden upon. Right of Freedom of speech is being trodden upon. Right of assembly is trodden upon. Lee claims Singapore is first world. First world countries have these rights.(And First World countries are ridden with corrupt politicians, uniformed electorates, poor housing but rights to scream people down and destroy shops. Ever been to France during the racial riots?)

And finally Singapore is not Guandong or Beijing. Hu Jintao may sit with his Chinese Parliament in deciding how and what rights shall be denied. If he wants Chinese style democracy, then he should go there. What we are supposed to have in Singapore is a constitutional democracy, which had it's roots in Ancient Greece.(see below, Greek Philosophers NEVER liked democracy). Singapore is an English speaking country.(Statistics?) Not a Teochew speaking country. The laws of Singapore are written in the English language. He should know this by now.(English does not equate to democracy. Please show a source to justify this, especially if you are a lwayer).

Originating from the ideas of Aristotle and Socrates.(How wrong you are. And how stupid you are. Both Aristole and Scocartes (Not Scocrates but the authoer Plato dumb Nair) saw democracy as the WORST form of government.)

Mr. Low does not appear to know the principles of government, and appears to have no inclination or desire to learn it now. Very sad.(Very sad that you call yourself American but do not care to see that America has trampled on human rights, made a mockery of democracy under Bush and is even less free than Nordic countries. Pot calling the kettle black)

 

[leetahbar]

gopalan is just a troublemaker in the league similar to SDP and chee.

don't forget. low thia khiang won hougang and held on to it until today. what do chee and his SDPPIES accomplish? nothing but regular visitors to changi and queenstown resorts. great achievements indeed!

 

[cleareyes]

One of PAP's best opponent.

http://singaporedissident.blogspot.com/2007_10_01_archive.html

Wednesday, October 31, 2007
Singapore. Low Thia Khiang is a let down for the cause of democracy
Ladies and Gentlemen,

It is unfortunate that Singapore produces opposition politicians such as Low Thia Khiang. I have known him for 6 years while I was a member of the Workers Party, and this much I can say for him. He does not understand what a constitutional democracy is supposed to be; not forgetting that Singapore is, or at least is supposed to be a constitutional democracy.

He is very good in Hokkien and Teochew oratory to Chinese hawkers and grocery shop merchants in Hougang who do not know any English. For him to tell them that such and such policies are good or bad; get their support and enter Parliament to merely argue on policies is what he does. He does not have a sound education in English, let alone any understanding as to what a democracy is supposed to be. In fact, it appears to me that he does not believe in democracy but rather in the style of the Chinese politburo form of government; where the Chinese have no fundamental rights and the rulers decide on rules and laws which they feel would move the country forward; with or without freedom.

To the educated freedom is fundamental. Without it, there cannot be progress in this day and age. In any case, most educated people do not want progress if it comes with a denial of freedom. Low Thia Khiang does not understand any of this.

I am referring to his interview with the Chinese language press which was published in the Straits Times Nov 1, 2007.

He says "the term opposition is a legacy of the western parliamentary system and I have never believed that an opposition party should oppose for the sake of opposing or to shoot one's mouth off". He is wrong. Opposition derived from ancient Greece, ancient China and even ancient India where debate was encouraged so that, through consensus the best idea wins, and the country wins and progresses. It predated western parliamentary system by ions. Secondly he is wrong in "saying western opposition parties oppose for the sake of opposing or that they shoot one's mouth off". I wonder were he got such ideas, or is he saying these things because it pleases the PAP?

He then says "Politics should be responsible politics". Surely that is so. Is he suggesting that anyone would want it any other way? And we have no problem with his statement that "Opposition should be a watchdog, not a mad dog". That too we all agree. Why mention this. Or is he trying to say that the SDP is behaving otherwise?

He seems to be stating the obvious. "It is not the job of the opposition here to offer alternatives to all government policies". Yes Mr. Low. Here too we all agree. This is obvious.

He says "While the ruling party has specialists to study and research various issues, the opposition lacks the resources to come up with alternative issues". But Mr. Low, the ruling party uses taxpayers money to employ specialists. Similarly, when the opposition form the government, they will too. This does not prevent you to speak for the people; to defend their rights and to further their interest.

The WP, he says is "unlike the opposition parties in the west who come up with alternative policies for everything". He is wrong. Not just in the west, but also in the north the south and the east; throughout the world; good opposition parties come up with alternatives where they see the need. Not for everything. The man is engaging in rhetoric and nonsensical rhetoric at that.

Mr. Low is supposed to not only challenge government policies but if necessary, to throw them out and form a new government and not just "to improve on government policies". If that is all that he believes the work of the opposition is; he should step down immediately and stop being a spokesman for the Peoples Action Party.

He says 'the opposition should not shoot its mouth off and offer alternatives and policies on a whim'. I agree entirely and may I add that to my knowledge, no one has yet in Singapore behaved that way recently. The problem is that the opposition, like his, is not saying anything at all!

I am astonished at Mr. Low's statement that the opposition "should not offer alternative policies before it has reached a certain stage, until they have reached the stage of being able to replace the government and that WP is a long way off". Believe it or not, he is suggesting that the opposition or his version of it, should continue waiting and let the PAP do whatever they want because in all areas, the PAP have more experience than the WP. Is this not the chicken and the egg scenario. If the opposition does not challenge the PAP, they will not get the experience. And since they do not have the experience, they should not challenge the PAP! Is there not something patently wrong in his reasoning?

And what is worse " He believes that his party is not prepared to challenge the PAP in the near future, and that it will take a very long time". In that case, why did he stand for elections under the WP ticket anyway. Has he not misled his people?

In a few words, this man has let down his people. The Chinese speaking kway teow man in Hougang food court may not be aware of this, but an English speaking college graduate knows this very well.

Whether he likes it or not, he should be told that Singapore is a constitutional democracy. In other words there is a constitution. In it, the people have rights. These rights are inalienable. It is not up to the government's discretion to provide it or not. It is mandatory. These rights are being trodden upon. Right of Freedom of speech is being trodden upon. Right of assembly is trodden upon. Lee claims Singapore is first world. First world countries have these rights.

And finally Singapore is not Guandong or Beijing. Hu Jintao may sit with his Chinese Parliament in deciding how and what rights shall be denied. If he wants Chinese style democracy, then he should go there. What we are supposed to have in Singapore is a constitutional democracy, which had it's roots in Ancient Greece. Singapore is an English speaking country. Not a Teochew speaking country. The laws of Singapore are written in the English language. He should know this by now.

Originating from the ideas of Aristotle and Socrates.

Mr. Low does not appear to know the principles of government, and appears to have no inclination or desire to learn it now. Very sad.

Gopalan Nair
39737 Paseo Padre Parkway, Suite A1
Fremont, CA 94538, USA
Tel: 510 657 6107
Fax: 510 657 6914
Email: [email protected]

Who are you refering to?

 

[StinkaporeFlyer]

its always a mistake to put Nair in prison when he got involved in the judge insult case.

he should have gone to buangkok green! that might have created less complain from him. it suits him there!

 

[leetahbar]

its always a mistake to put Nair in prison when he got involved in the judge insult case.

he should have gone to buangkok green! that might have created less complain from him. it suits him there!

those are mental patients who are just insane but not suicidal. don't sabo them leh by suggesting to put gopalan there:p