Iris Koh's hubby writes long-winded post about M Ravi

[Turmoil]

Looking at his past, he may have saved a few people from the gallows before. I have always wanted to ask him about the death penalty, but I held back because he seemed to feel he was the most intelligent and moral person around. It is pointless to talk to someone who is unreasonable and has no basis in law. For the record, I disagree that he is the most moral and intelligent person, and I even think I may be more moral than he is. Intellectually, he is also prevented from improving because he always assumes he is correct (even when he is not).

The question I wanted to ask was this: Did you oppose the death penalty because (1) an innocent person might be wrongly executed by the state where the evidence is insufficient or unclear, or (2) because no one should ever be executed, no matter what evidence is found of his guilt?

I do not think he understands the difference between these two positions—or at least, he was not brave enough to confront that difference. He also seemed oblivious to the harm caused by drug addicts and traffickers.

Now that he has lost his own life—because the death penalty meant to protect society from drug harm turned out, in a grim way, to be “vindicated” by what happened to him—what is his legacy? If his life is gone because of drugs he may have taken, then what does that say now?

Is the death penalty right or wrong? His death will make it harder for those who are still living to fight against it—especially coming from one of the most vocal voices against the death penalty. Personally, I support the death penalty because it is meant to protect society, including people like M. Ravi, and because the legal standard requires proof beyond reasonable doubt. But now the drugs took his life—so now what? Is his life, in the end, an irony?

Whatever good came from his work, he undermined it by taking drugs himself, and he has made it tremendously harder for anyone after him to argue for abolishing the death penalty. I do not support abolition, but I cannot deny my fellow citizens the right to fight for it.

My own feelings about M. Ravi

To be honest, I have mixed feelings about Ravi’s passing.

While many have sung his praises, my personal experiences with him were far from pleasant, and I did not deserve how he treated me.

1) First meeting (around my early 30s, about 20 years ago).

I met him with my partner while exploring the possibility of buying over a hawker business he said he was helping. When my partner asked for a detailed list of kitchen utensils so we could arrive at a fair purchase figure, he scolded us for being “capitalist” and hurled other insults. My partner and I believed in arriving at a fair valuation—not simply handing over money because someone says they need it. In any event, since when has simply giving money ever solved anyone’s problems?

2) Second meeting (about 2–3 years ago).

He visited my office and was rude. He sat on my lap and bounced on it. He also threw a friend’s book that had been gifted to him. He showed no respect to me or to my friends in my office.

He could also make an appointment with you for 9am, show up at 5pm, and still expect you to wait for him.

3) Money matters and work quality.

To be honest, his handling of money was not clear. When we tried to be clear with him, he would say something like, “I am not a lawyer because of money,” which was beside the point.

Frankly, who cares why he became a lawyer? My friends, partners, and I simply wanted clarity on the money—why should that be a problem? In any case, even putting my desire for financial clarity aside, he did not do the job properly as instructed.

He has passed away, and I want to be sensitive to those who loved him for reasons I may not share. We have sued the law firm he worked with because of what he said and promised to us. If he were still alive, I would be very concerned about accusing him of moral failings, because he could sue me for defamation.

Even though the estate cannot sue for defamation (since the law treats defamation as something that cannot be committed against the dead), what stops me from using harsh words is simply my own moral upbringing. I cannot bring myself to speak badly of someone who has passed away.

In any case, M Ravi, rest in peace.

 

[Pinkieslut]

Irish Koh's Hubby and this Ah Neh are butt buddies?

 

[Scrooball (clone)]

Said so much shit and ends off with saying he didn’t want to speak badly of someone who passed away

For the record, I disagree that he is the most moral and intelligent person, and I even think I may be more moral than he is. Intellectually, he is also prevented from improving because he always assumes he is correct (even when he is not).

He visited my office and was rude. He sat on my lap and bounced on it.

If he were still alive, I would be very concerned about accusing him of moral failings, because he could sue me for defamation.

I cannot bring myself to speak badly of someone who has passed away.

 

[syed putra]

special Branch who could have overdosed him.

 

[glockman]

special Branch who could have overdosed him.

I am leaning towards accidental self overdose, as a result of mental anguish, mental instability, depression.

 

[kulgai]

"He sat on my lap and bounced on it."
wow, ravi had a thing for raymond it seems lol

 

[kulgai]

A more nuanced write up by iris:
"In the days following M. Ravi’s passing, many tributes have been written celebrating his courage, his early work, and his role as a human-rights lawyer. Those tributes are understandable, and I do not begrudge them.
However, I feel compelled to write something more honest.
I do so because there are other victims like myself—people who were misled, hurt, or financially abused by Ravi—and our experiences matter too. I have never hidden my position. I have stated it publicly on multiple occasions, including my last post on this subject on 7 December 2025, after we served a Statutory Demand on Joseph Chen. Ravi has not denied my allegations when he was alive.
This reflection is therefore not written in anger, nor to diminish what Ravi once stood for. It is written to place on record a fuller truth, as I experienced it.
Ravi himself often said that God is our final judge. On this, he is right. I do not judge this man. Judgment belongs to God alone—who alone knows the heart and mind of every person. Whatever his failures, he is now free from the trappings of this world, and I leave his ultimate account to God, the supreme judge.
What follows is not condemnation, but testimony. I write this with mixed feelings about a man I cannot ignore.
------------------------------------------------------
M. Ravi (1969–2025):
A Cautionary Tale of Not Becoming the People We Hate
I once treated M. Ravi as a friend, a fellow Singaporean, and a fellow traveller in conscience. Toward the end, I came to despise him—not because of his beliefs, but because he lied to me, cheated me, and abused my trust. That betrayal has legal consequences that I am now pursuing against Joseph Chen.
Many tributes have understandably focused on M. Ravi’s courage and early contributions. This reflection records a fuller, more complicated truth, as I experienced it.
M. Ravi was a brilliant man. He was also a deeply troubled one.
He carried demons—some rooted in the death of his mother, others shaped by years of confronting death, injustice, and what he believed to be evil itself. On his better days, he would speak vividly about his work: the details of executions, his encounters with “the Old Man,” and his conviction that he was fighting Lucifer and his legion. These were his beliefs and his language, and they formed part of the inner world he inhabited.
Yet brilliance does not excuse dishonesty.
Toward the end of our relationship, Ravi lied to me about money. He told me that S$24,000 was required as a “security deposit” to the Attorney-General’s Chambers for the objecting to Tharman's Presidency lawsuit. This was untrue. The money was used to enrich himself and his friend and former lawyer, Joseph Chen.
At the same time, Ravi told others that his work for me was pro bono. That too was untrue. He repeatedly asked me for money whenever we met, and I paid him approximately S$8,000 for work done (in which he spent very little time personally drafting and I had to suffer from verbal abuses while he was at it). I have no issue paying a lawyer for work performed. I do, however, object to being treated like an ATM while false narratives of altruism were circulated. For the sake of the record, this must be stated plainly.
Our History
My history with Ravi goes back more than two decades.
Around 2003, after returning from my studies in Australia, I became acquainted with the late Violet Netto, Ravi’s then law partner. I visited Violet regularly to learn meditation. Ravi, at the time, was a serious young lawyer—his head buried in documents, always working.
One day, Violet handed me Hung at Dawn. I spoke to Ravi about the book and the death-penalty cases he was handling. Shortly after, I watched Dead Man Walking to better understand the cause he was fighting for. I respected his work then.
Over the years, Ravi appeared increasingly in the news. My personal interactions with him, when they occurred, left me with the impression of an intense, emotional, and at times volatile person—especially after his diagnosis of bipolar disorder. Our paths did not cross often, but I followed his trajectory from a distance.
In 2007, when Raymond and I got married, we invited Ravi to our wedding dinner. Violet Netto was our solemniser. After that, our interactions were sporadic and often unpleasant, marked by defensiveness and emotional volatility.
COVID and the Constitutional Challenge
In 2021, at the height of the COVID vaccine rollouts, I spoke to dozens of lawyers in Singapore. Many refused outright to take on any case challenging the Government.
One lawyer encouraged me to contact Ravi. I hesitated, knowing his reputation and fearing he might be difficult to work with. But I was at my wits’ end.
When I finally approached him, Ravi was animated and enthusiastic. He spoke about COVID as a monumental human-rights issue and said lawyers around the world were discussing it.
On 16 November 2021, we filed an Originating Summons against the Singapore Government alleging Crimes Against Humanity arising from COVID policies—specifically inducement, coercion, and lack of informed consent. Ravi cited:
Article 9(1) of the Singapore Constitution
Chapter 14 of the ASEAN Human Rights Declaration
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights
Singapore’s Geneva Conventions Act 1957
I remain grateful that, at that moment, there was at least one lawyer willing to file the case exactly as I understood it. I genuinely believed—and still believe—that the inducement and lack of informed consent surrounding COVID vaccines raised serious crimes-against-humanity concerns under the Nuremberg Code and violated our Constitutional Right to Life.
Incidentally, that same day—16 November 2021—Singapore hosted the Bloomberg New Economy Forum, attended by global elites, including Bill Gates, who publicly joked that those unwilling to be vaccinated should be caned. I remember that day vividly. It was one of the moments when Ravi’s darker worldview about power and impunity felt disturbingly plausible.
Aftermath
In the months following the filing, I was placed in remand for 15 days in January 2022. Ravi later faced disbarment.
While I do not believe the filing alone explains it, his conduct in court had deteriorated badly—likely a combination of bipolar disorder and his own desperation of his circumstances.
Intellectually, Ravi was a formidable constitutional lawyer. He believed deeply that no one is above the law—not even the Chief Justice. That belief animated him.
But conviction without integrity corrodes itself.
I know I am not the only one hurt by Ravi’s actions. Many who turned to him in desperation were left disappointed or damaged.
During my 15 days in remand, Ravi did not once reach out to Raymond despite being my lawyer. After my release, he never asked me about it. I can only conclude that by then, he was consumed by his own struggles and saw me less as a client or friend than as a convenient source of cash.
Forgiveness, Not Exoneration
I considered paying him a final visit. Instead, I will light a candle and say a prayer.
Ravi hurt me deeply. He hurt Raymond and others. I will not detail those harms here.
Death is a kind of report card. Ravi never apologised to me before he died. While I forgive him, he is sadly no longer a friend.
Still, I remain thankful for the constitutional challenge he filed. At that moment in history, it was the only glimmer of hope I could see.
What I see now, looking back, is not heroism—but a cautionary tale.
A warning about what happens when those who fight injustice slowly adopt the very traits they claim to oppose. When anger replaces integrity. When conscience is invoked but not practised.
That is why I choose to forgive Ravi.
Not because he deserves it—but because forgiveness is how I refuse to become the very people I hate.
Only love can heal the divide.
A Note for the Record
None of the mainstream media coverage—nor M. Ravi’s own Wikipedia entry—mentions that we filed this constitutional challenge together on 16 November 2021.
For completeness, I will leave in the comments the video recorded outside the Supreme Court on that day, immediately after the Originating Summons was filed. It captures, in real time, what was said, what was believed, and what was at stake.
This period—and the days leading up to the constitutional challenge—will be addressed in greater depth in future parts of The Silent Roar.
Despite his failings as a person, I do not know that he took or would take drugs as a person. I am not going to believe blindly the circumstances surrounding his death and I would urge everyone not to come to any fast conclusions regardless of how you feel about him.
Thank you.
Iris Koh."

 

[sbfuncle]

Said so much shit and ends off with saying he didn’t want to speak badly of someone who passed away

His sentence was incomplete.
He has to finish it by saying

I didn't want to speak badly of someone who passed away but i still do it now becos....

 

[Dreamliner787]

His sentence was incomplete.
He has to finish it by saying

I didn't want to speak badly of someone who passed away but i still do it now becos....

He didn't speak too badly about Ravi.

 

[Turmoil]

A more nuanced write up by iris:
"In the days following M. Ravi’s passing, many tributes have been written celebrating his courage, his early work, and his role as a human-rights lawyer. Those tributes are understandable, and I do not begrudge them.
However, I feel compelled to write something more honest.
I do so because there are other victims like myself—people who were misled, hurt, or financially abused by Ravi—and our experiences matter too. I have never hidden my position. I have stated it publicly on multiple occasions, including my last post on this subject on 7 December 2025, after we served a Statutory Demand on Joseph Chen. Ravi has not denied my allegations when he was alive.
This reflection is therefore not written in anger, nor to diminish what Ravi once stood for. It is written to place on record a fuller truth, as I experienced it.
Ravi himself often said that God is our final judge. On this, he is right. I do not judge this man. Judgment belongs to God alone—who alone knows the heart and mind of every person. Whatever his failures, he is now free from the trappings of this world, and I leave his ultimate account to God, the supreme judge.
What follows is not condemnation, but testimony. I write this with mixed feelings about a man I cannot ignore.
------------------------------------------------------
M. Ravi (1969–2025):
A Cautionary Tale of Not Becoming the People We Hate
I once treated M. Ravi as a friend, a fellow Singaporean, and a fellow traveller in conscience. Toward the end, I came to despise him—not because of his beliefs, but because he lied to me, cheated me, and abused my trust. That betrayal has legal consequences that I am now pursuing against Joseph Chen.
Many tributes have understandably focused on M. Ravi’s courage and early contributions. This reflection records a fuller, more complicated truth, as I experienced it.
M. Ravi was a brilliant man. He was also a deeply troubled one.
He carried demons—some rooted in the death of his mother, others shaped by years of confronting death, injustice, and what he believed to be evil itself. On his better days, he would speak vividly about his work: the details of executions, his encounters with “the Old Man,” and his conviction that he was fighting Lucifer and his legion. These were his beliefs and his language, and they formed part of the inner world he inhabited.
Yet brilliance does not excuse dishonesty.
Toward the end of our relationship, Ravi lied to me about money. He told me that S$24,000 was required as a “security deposit” to the Attorney-General’s Chambers for the objecting to Tharman's Presidency lawsuit. This was untrue. The money was used to enrich himself and his friend and former lawyer, Joseph Chen.
At the same time, Ravi told others that his work for me was pro bono. That too was untrue. He repeatedly asked me for money whenever we met, and I paid him approximately S$8,000 for work done (in which he spent very little time personally drafting and I had to suffer from verbal abuses while he was at it). I have no issue paying a lawyer for work performed. I do, however, object to being treated like an ATM while false narratives of altruism were circulated. For the sake of the record, this must be stated plainly.
Our History
My history with Ravi goes back more than two decades.
Around 2003, after returning from my studies in Australia, I became acquainted with the late Violet Netto, Ravi’s then law partner. I visited Violet regularly to learn meditation. Ravi, at the time, was a serious young lawyer—his head buried in documents, always working.
One day, Violet handed me Hung at Dawn. I spoke to Ravi about the book and the death-penalty cases he was handling. Shortly after, I watched Dead Man Walking to better understand the cause he was fighting for. I respected his work then.
Over the years, Ravi appeared increasingly in the news. My personal interactions with him, when they occurred, left me with the impression of an intense, emotional, and at times volatile person—especially after his diagnosis of bipolar disorder. Our paths did not cross often, but I followed his trajectory from a distance.
In 2007, when Raymond and I got married, we invited Ravi to our wedding dinner. Violet Netto was our solemniser. After that, our interactions were sporadic and often unpleasant, marked by defensiveness and emotional volatility.
COVID and the Constitutional Challenge
In 2021, at the height of the COVID vaccine rollouts, I spoke to dozens of lawyers in Singapore. Many refused outright to take on any case challenging the Government.
One lawyer encouraged me to contact Ravi. I hesitated, knowing his reputation and fearing he might be difficult to work with. But I was at my wits’ end.
When I finally approached him, Ravi was animated and enthusiastic. He spoke about COVID as a monumental human-rights issue and said lawyers around the world were discussing it.
On 16 November 2021, we filed an Originating Summons against the Singapore Government alleging Crimes Against Humanity arising from COVID policies—specifically inducement, coercion, and lack of informed consent. Ravi cited:
Article 9(1) of the Singapore Constitution
Chapter 14 of the ASEAN Human Rights Declaration
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights
Singapore’s Geneva Conventions Act 1957
I remain grateful that, at that moment, there was at least one lawyer willing to file the case exactly as I understood it. I genuinely believed—and still believe—that the inducement and lack of informed consent surrounding COVID vaccines raised serious crimes-against-humanity concerns under the Nuremberg Code and violated our Constitutional Right to Life.
Incidentally, that same day—16 November 2021—Singapore hosted the Bloomberg New Economy Forum, attended by global elites, including Bill Gates, who publicly joked that those unwilling to be vaccinated should be caned. I remember that day vividly. It was one of the moments when Ravi’s darker worldview about power and impunity felt disturbingly plausible.
Aftermath
In the months following the filing, I was placed in remand for 15 days in January 2022. Ravi later faced disbarment.
While I do not believe the filing alone explains it, his conduct in court had deteriorated badly—likely a combination of bipolar disorder and his own desperation of his circumstances.
Intellectually, Ravi was a formidable constitutional lawyer. He believed deeply that no one is above the law—not even the Chief Justice. That belief animated him.
But conviction without integrity corrodes itself.
I know I am not the only one hurt by Ravi’s actions. Many who turned to him in desperation were left disappointed or damaged.
During my 15 days in remand, Ravi did not once reach out to Raymond despite being my lawyer. After my release, he never asked me about it. I can only conclude that by then, he was consumed by his own struggles and saw me less as a client or friend than as a convenient source of cash.
Forgiveness, Not Exoneration
I considered paying him a final visit. Instead, I will light a candle and say a prayer.
Ravi hurt me deeply. He hurt Raymond and others. I will not detail those harms here.
Death is a kind of report card. Ravi never apologised to me before he died. While I forgive him, he is sadly no longer a friend.
Still, I remain thankful for the constitutional challenge he filed. At that moment in history, it was the only glimmer of hope I could see.
What I see now, looking back, is not heroism—but a cautionary tale.
A warning about what happens when those who fight injustice slowly adopt the very traits they claim to oppose. When anger replaces integrity. When conscience is invoked but not practised.
That is why I choose to forgive Ravi.
Not because he deserves it—but because forgiveness is how I refuse to become the very people I hate.
Only love can heal the divide.
A Note for the Record
None of the mainstream media coverage—nor M. Ravi’s own Wikipedia entry—mentions that we filed this constitutional challenge together on 16 November 2021.
For completeness, I will leave in the comments the video recorded outside the Supreme Court on that day, immediately after the Originating Summons was filed. It captures, in real time, what was said, what was believed, and what was at stake.
This period—and the days leading up to the constitutional challenge—will be addressed in greater depth in future parts of The Silent Roar.
Despite his failings as a person, I do not know that he took or would take drugs as a person. I am not going to believe blindly the circumstances surrounding his death and I would urge everyone not to come to any fast conclusions regardless of how you feel about him.
Thank you.
Iris Koh."

can you paragraph the sentences? I try to read until pak jiao, gave up midway