Farcical machinations of the PAP

• Singa Crew

  10 Aug 08, 15:27

  In his latest blog entry, Mr Nair exposed the farcical machinations of the PAP administration. His trial was held in Court 6, Subordinate Courts, Singapore at 9.30 am on Monday July 28, 2008. Readers may read the whole entry here: http://singaporedissident.blogspot.com/2008/08/continuation-of-disorderly-behaviour.html Here are some revealing excerpts for readers to consider. 1) The police could not provide evidence that Mr Nair knocked on their police van. "He then says he sent the fingerprints to the Criminal Investigation Department for results and that they "were unable to confirm that the fingerprints were mine" because, listen to this, "they don't have any records of the accused person"!" -Excerpt from blog entry That's an outright lie - a lie told so badly that you just have to laugh at the attempt! According to Mr Nair, the night he was arrested, the police fingerprinted him at the station. All they (the police) have to do now is to compare records, and if the prints on the van were indeed Mr Nair's, the police would end up looking good in court. BUT they came up with a lame "they don't have any records of the accused person". One has to wonder why. 2) The phantom knocker "Nair: You say that you saw a male Indian walk past your car. Did you see that male Indian continuously and loudly knocking your car? Kang: No I did not. Nair: Why is it that if someone continuously and loudly knocked your car, while you were in the car, you do not know who it was? Kang: Your honor, I never saw, how do I know who it is? Nair: Are you trying to say that you are inside a car; someone knocks your car continuously and loudly. Why did you not turn to look who it was? Knag: When I heard someone knock the car, I only saw the male Indian walk past the car, and therefore as such I cannot see who knocked the car." -Excerpt from blog entry Kang is one of the police officers involved in arresting Mr Nair on the 4th of July. According to his court testimony, he DID NOT see Mr Nair knocking on the police van. And he said 'I only saw the male Indian walk past the car, and therefore as such I cannot see who knocked the car'. Was it a Freudian slip? Did he mean to say the male indian who walked past his van (allegedly Mr Nair) and the phantom knocker were 2 different persons? Singa Crew
• ChiBet

  11 Aug 08, 15:19

  it all boils down to Singapore do not like fat people

   

  1 - Mr nair is too fat to have his finger prints recorded properly even though he is fingerprinted at the police station so when the police did a search, no records came up.

  2 - Mr kang cannot see who knock the police van because when mr nair walk past, it is his stomach fats that is continuously and loudly knocking the police van. Since when you look out a van window, you can only see up to chest level, Mr kang cannot see Mr nair's stomach fats continuously and loudly knocking the police van.

• ChiBet

  11 Aug 08, 15:22

  why did this case go to court when there is no witness and no evidence?

  that is why singapore court = kangaroo court