Gopalan Nair guilty of using racist abusive words on police
-
Sep 5, 2008Gopalan Nair found guilty
FORMER Singaporean lawyer Gopalan Nair was found guilty on Friday of abusing police officers and disorderly behaviour.
The 58-year-old former Workers' Party candidate was convicted on 2 charges, after an 18-day trial, of using expletives on police officers at the junction of Bukit Timah Road and Race Course Road on July 4 2008.
He was found guilty of behaving in a disorderly manner by gesticulating with his hands and shouting at the place that evening.
The prosecution asked the court to jail Nair, now an American citizen, on the first charge of using abusive words because of the racial nature of the abusive words used, his lack of remorse and his conduct during the trial.
The case was adjourned to the afternoon for Nair to respond.
He can be fined up to $5,000 or jailed for up to one year.
For disorderly conduct, the maximum penalty is a fine of up to $1,000 or a jail term of up to one month.
Nair has a previous conviction of contempt of court for which he was fined $8,000 in 1991.
He told the court the conviction was irrelevant for the present proceedings as it arose from an election rally speech he made as a WP candidate at Bukit Merah.
He is also facing trial next week for allegedly insulting two High Court judges.
OMG!!18 days trail?Did he murder some one or committe
crimes which penalty is hanging?
Why did the trial take so long?Who's faults?
http://www.straitstimes.com/Breaking%2BNews/Courts%2Band%2BCrime/Story/STIStory_275478.html
-
u can know more from here
http://www.sgforums.com/forums/10/topics/323392
Police version,from press release:
Despite repeated warnings to stop his verbal abuse, including a racist slur against one of the Malay officers, he (Nair)continued to be uncooperative and persisted in his abuse.
Nair denied that he said the abusive words:
From his blogs:
To (DPP)Mr. Koy's questions,(Policeman) Kang says he showed his police pass and that he verbally told me (Nair)that he was a policeman. He than claims he asked for my particulars and that I said I had none, and that I had shouted expletives at him. Kang then says he asked me why I knocked his car. He then says that I shouted to the Malay officer that he is a "Malay bastard".
I cant believe it.18 days trial for matter of this nature.
This is waste of tax payers $$$.
I think many murder cases trail took shorted than this period.
-
Originally posted by lionnoisy:
u can know more from here
http://www.sgforums.com/forums/10/topics/323392
Police version,from press release:
Nair denied that he said the abusive words:
From his blogs:
I cant believe it.18 days trial for matter of this nature.
This is waste of tax payers $$$.
I think many murder cases trail took shorted than this period.
Cause hard to settle... Nair telling the truth, than the police officer is guilty of false allegation. so need more time to settle.
for some murder case, if got murder weapon, witness and motive, can chop chop settle. if murderer confess, don't even need to go to trial, just wait for sentencing.
so amount of time always varies from time to time.
-
I hope The Court can release hearing records to see who's faults
taking so long.
Nair,like he had said in his blogs,that he was pin pointed
and arrested.
He said yesterday in court:
u can read ST today
http://www.zaobao.com/sp/sp080906_517.shtml
以粗è¯�骂两å��è¦æ›¹ã€€å·¥äººå…šå‰�党员奈尔雅罚款3000å…ƒ
（2008-09-06）
奈尔雅求情时说，这å�ªä¸�过是一起寻常的è¦æ°‘争论事件，全世界æ¯�天都会å�‘ç”Ÿã€‚ä»–ä¹‹æ‰€ä»¥è¢«ä¼ æŽ§ï¼Œæ˜¯æœ‰æ”¿æ²»åŠ¨æœºçš„ï¼Œå› ä¸ºä»–æ˜¯å‰�å��对党的国会补选候选人，这也æ„�味ç�€æŽ§æ–¹é€šè¿‡æœ¬æ¡ˆï¼Œæ��å�“人民ä¸�得批评政府。
His arrest and charges is political motivated.He was charged becos
he was opposition and election candidate.This imply the Prosecution,
through his case, threaten people cannot critize government.The learned Judge is too lenient to him!!
He means PAP policemen followedd him and fixed him!!
This is a big insults to all SG police,regarding of races.
Is there any police union to react to this insulting statement!!
Ex Indian policeman said Nair was not fixed
FYI,There were Malay,Indian and Chinese policemen in the
scene that the incident happened.
u can read his blogs to know more.
This ex--police,an Indian, had worked in Rochor NPP of the policemen
who arrested Nair.He talked to ex--colleagues and is convinced
that Nair had not been fixed.
http://www.sgforums.com/forums/10/topics/326907
Former police said Gopalan Nair 2 nd arrest is not fixed
2 posts
-
where got such thing as murder case so fast settle.
have you any idea how long it takes?
prisoner held in remand, then the trial takes place many months on from the arrest date / incident date [whichever is later] for the prosecution to file its case, and the defence to put up itself.
it takes more than one year to conclude a murder case. even if it is clear-cut.
and that exculdes time for appeals.
-
In his own words,
gavaman use Police and Medias to fix him!!
http://singaporedissident.blogspot.com/
Monday, July 28, 2008
July 28, 2008; 2 months and 2 days languishing in Singapore
But not in Singapore. Oh no. Especially if a former opposition politician such as Gopalan Nair were involved; the most minor indiscretion has to be dealt with as if he had committed no less that serial murders. The full extent of the Singapore Police Force and the state controlled newspapers has to be used to vilify and defame him.
-
Originally posted by Tiggerific:
where got such thing as murder case so fast settle.
have you any idea how long it takes?
prisoner held in remand, then the trial takes place many months on from the arrest date / incident date [whichever is later] for the prosecution to file its case, and the defence to put up itself.
it takes more than one year to conclude a murder case. even if it is clear-cut.
and that exculdes time for appeals.
oh sorry,iam talking about trials days.
How many murder or serious crimes took more than 15
hearing days-----3 weeks?
-
again.I smell very serious contempt of courts!!
But this time,Nair does not write Judge's full Chinese name.
I dunt know he is too busy or dare not to do so.
http://singaporedissident.blogspot.com/2008/09/convicted.html
Saturday, September 6, 2008
Convicted
As for Mr. James Leong, I have this to say. I have begun to know him pretty well since it took 18 days of trial. He is a good man at heart; there is no doubt about it. If he had his way, there is no doubt he would have acquitted me immediately. But alas he is weak. He cuts a pathetic figure. A man, because of his circumstances, having to do things that he does not really want to do. He knows that his employment as a judge in the Singapore courts depends on the patronage of Lee Kuan Yew and his friends. He also knows that Lee demands his judges to punish political opponents of the government. And therefore to keep his job as a judge, he has no choice but to find me guilty. The sentence imposed upon me, and the timing of the dates of the sentencing were, in all probability, all decided for him by the Minister for Law in consultation with Lee Kuan Yew and his friends.
But I have to say this of Judge Leong. He was polite and treated me with respect throughout the trial. He was both courteous and decorous. I only wish one day, this man will have the courage of his conviction either to tell this government in no uncertain terms that he is not a politician, and if they wish dirty work to be done, they should find someone else. And if the government refuses, he should just walk out like a self-respecting man, with his head high on his shoulders and with his pride intact. Alas, that may be too much to ask in the fear ridden island of Singapore.can anyone help me to look into this matter.
bbb
-
-
Nair openly admitted the $3000 fine worth every single cents
to play the court for 18 days!!
Saturday, September 6, 2008
Convicted
If you look at from a financial standpoint, you could say that I have ripped them off. What, for 18 days of court time, they get only $3,000.00!
Now ,in his e mails case,he played the trick again.
On the first day of e mail trail,he
appealed to have the current hearing adjourned for two days, claiming that he needed time to settle another court case.
another court case mean the disorderly case.
News reports says that he is just waiting for money from USA.
What else he needs to do from Monday 8 and Tue 9 ?
Besides,he was just seen shopping in Suntec Shopping Mall on Monday
afternoon!!
What!? taxpayers $$$ were wasted to adjourn the case and let Nair shopping
in the beautiful Monday afternoon??
@@@@@@@@@@@
http://www.channelnewsasia.com/stories/singaporelocalnews/view/374461/1/.html
i can bet with u that Chees will be called as witness.
The court room will be used as political platform AGAIN,
like in Chees v LKY /LHL and Nair's disorderly case.
Chief Justice and AG shall correct this bad habits of wasteing
court resources.
This wastage will delay justice of other cases.
Adjournment of hearing shall not be allowed so easily.
Nair shall expalin to Judge on Wed what does he do on
Monday afternoon and Tuesday.
If he is not appealing for disorderly case,he shall has nothing
to do on Monday and Tue.
If he is going to lodge appeal,he has to responsible
to arrange times to settle his own cases.
Court shall be operated on tight schedule.
There are too many Adjournments for Nair's case.
Moreover, Nair said he planned to call upon seven witnesses for the case against Justice Ang and needed more time to prepare them.
He also asked for portions of an audio tape and transcripts of Justice Ang's hearing to be made available in court, which Justice Kan Ting Chiu allowed.
-
Nair requsted for adjourment,but went shopping after leaving
High Court .He was seen empty hands.This shows he had high
confidence that he did not bring any document just in case
the hearing would not be adjourned.
he was spoilt too much.Every time he asked for adjourement,
he would be allowed!!
-
While many Americans have been focused lately on online censorship in China, few have noticed a similar practice in other countries such as Singapore. That island state is a parliamentary republic in theory, but has really been run by one dominant party in its history of independence since 1965 (see a Singapore historical timeline here).
The mainstream media is strictly controlled by the government, and one political party — the People’s Action Party (PAP) — has had complete control of all centers of government. The country infamously practices caning of citizens who break certain laws, and executes drug smugglers. (Amnesty International reports Singapore has the highest execution rate per capita in the world.) And recently, its Minister of Communication and Arts, Balaji Sadasiva, announced that blogs and podcasts would be shut down if they ran overt political content in the runup to the May 6 election.
Immediately, the move was denounced by the free expression rights group Reporters Without Borders. “Once again the Singapore authorities are showing their determination to prevent the holding of a genuinely democratic debate on the Internet,” the group said in a statement. And the Internet crackdown was aimed squarely at two new media platforms — blogs and podcasts — that have been embraced by opposition parties such as the Singapore Democratic Party (SDP) to get around censorship in other media.
The Singaporean government has won over residents with a powerful economic engine that rivals Western European powers. And in recent years Singapore has relaxed its ban on chewing gum — in order to win a free trade agreement with the U.S — and it has allowed the showing of the movie “Brokeback Mountain” despite laws against homosexuality. So just how serious is this new regulation, and will political speech by bloggers and podcasters be chilled now that elections have been set for May 6?
One Singaporean blogger, Soci, who writes for the very political group blog, Singabloodypore, was defiant in a comment on a related story
on ZDNet:This blog — Singabloodypore — is not registered with the Singaporean government, has never been asked to register, and if invited to register would NOT register. I Soci also intend to post material of an “explicitly political nature” during the elections and will gladly show videocasting and podcasting of election rallies, speeches etc. of opposition candidates.
And indeed they have been showcasing just that on the group blog. But in many cases, these bloggers and the dozens of others that write about Singapore are anonymous or operate from outside the country. Chris Myrick, who pens the Asia Pundit blog, lived in Singapore until February 2005. He was unsure how much the new regulation would chill speech online.
“Most Singapore bloggers stay pretty much within limits - there are only a small handful of political blogs and even those will stay away from certain issues (nepotism) or the authors will remain anonymous,” Myrick told me via email. “I have no doubt that the Singapore government would prosecute an individual for breaking the ban. It tends to be the methodology of the state to make an example of people (i.e., the three bloggers who were last year sentenced for sedition).”
Government explains the crackdown
I queried Singapore’s Ministry of Communication and the Arts (MICA) to get more insight into the new rules for blogs and podcasts and they directed me to a detailed Q&A between government minister Lee Boon Yang and the Straits Times. Here’s one telling exchange:
Q. Why is streaming of explicit political content through podcasts or videocasts not allowed but posting of party manifestos and texts of rally speeches allowed for political parties? What is the worry?
Podcasts and videocasts…have a greater impact because of the nature of the medium. They have the greater power to influence. Hence, we do not allow podcasts and videocasts for election advertising, just as we do not allow party political films and videos. The Internet has its own unique characteristics which require special attention. The Internet is ubiquitous, fast and anonymous. Once a false story or rumour is started on the Internet, it is almost impossible to put it right. Despite its usefulness, the Internet is chaotic and disorganised, with many half-truths and untruths masquerading as facts…
To help bring some order to this chaotic environment, we have made it a requirement for political parties and individuals who use websites to propagate or promote political issues to register with the Media Development Authority (MDA). This promotes accountability and also ensures personal responsibility for comments made on the Internet.
Soci at Singabloodypore was quick to read between the lines of this Q&A, analyzing the underlying meaning of each passage. Soci’s take on the comment above from the minister: “The Internet is a threat to our domination of the national mind set.”
While the minister makes a strong case about the way misinformation spreads online, there are more transparent ways of countering that than blocking off speech completely. For instance, the government could make its own case online, or try to open up a debate with oppositional views.
Alex Au (pictured here), who blogs about gay rights in Singapore at Yawning Bread, told me that freedom of speech in Singapore exists to a certain point.
“The freedom available to Singaporeans is quite wide,” Au told me via email. “However, there is a climate of fear that the government can clamp down anytime. There have actually been very few instances of arbitrary clamping down, but the fear persists, and thus a lot of people in Singapore, including bloggers, self-censor to some extent. With the passage of time, there is increasing confidence that freedom of speech on the Internet is pretty wide. The more years that pass without incident, the more confidence people gain.”
Au says that in the sedition cases last year, the language used online by the three people who were prosecuted was “extremely gross, full of expletives and deliberately provocative,” rather than an intelligent discussion. So Au feels that the government was drawing the line between measured discussion of issues and inflammatory speech.
In the recent crackdown of blogs and podcasts, Au thinks the government’s ban is very narrow in covering blogs that “persistently promote a political line” — leaving broad political discussions alone. I asked him if he thought the government might act against bloggers in the next couple weeks.
“No I don’t,” he said. “I think the government may want to create the impression that they will clamp down, in order to get people to tremble in their socks and self-censor anything critical that they may have to say about the government. But the government probably knows that the Internet is not (yet) a mass medium that can move large numbers of voters, so to really take action would be overkill. In any case, the junior minister did say in Parliament that politics can be discussed, just that unless one is identified as a political party, one shouldn’t go around promoting any particular party or candidate.”
As Singapore is a trade partner to the West, how the Western media portrays the Singaporean government is important to them. So that means that bloggers and journalists who bring attention to the recent crackdown could help the PAP reconsider taking action.
“Bringing the world’s attention to authoritarian instincts of this government, making them a little of a pariah on account of their policies, embarrasses them greatly,” Au said.
If you want to read more about the upcoming Singaporean elections, you’ll want to check out these sites:
Official Singapore Government Site on Elections
What do you think? Is the Singaporean government going too far in threatening bloggers and podcasters? Is there something that we as outsiders can do to support the bloggers and podcasters who are worried about being arrested or blocked from speaking their minds?
UPDATE: The Singapore Elections Department has ordered the Singapore Democratic Party to remove its podcasts in accordance with the election restrictions, according to Channel NewsAsia. As of today, April 26, there is now a message on the SDP’s website saying: “The SDP’s podcasts are suspended due to an order by the Election Department. We apologize for the termination.”
However, the text of a recent podcast remains posted on the site. In the podcast, SDP’s Dr. Chee Soon Juan rails against the government’s methods of crushing the SDP’s campaign for the elections. “[The PAP] bans podcasting knowing full well that we had set up our podcast last year specifically so that we can better reach out to voters in this election…Everywhere that we go for our walkabouts, undercover police agents are on hand to harass us and issue us warnings.”
This is not shaping up to be a truly free election in Singapore. The Singabloodypore blog continues to give timely updates on happenings there.
-
WHEN the death knell sounded on a 10-year-old law that imposes a total ban on political films two weeks ago, film-maker Martyn See cheered.
The move marked the biggest effort in 20 years by the Government to loosen its hold on political expression here, declared the 39-year-old.
As a mischievous tribute, he pulled together 100 films on local politics, compiling them on his blog a week after Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong said in his Aug 17 National Day Rally speech that an outright ban on political films was no longer sensible.
The 100 short clips - 'films' is too formal a term to describe them - are the work of assorted groups and individuals, most with a decidedly anti-establishment stance.
They include two by Mr See which did not make the censor's cut. One is on Singapore Democratic Party (SDP) chief Chee Soon Juan and the other on former political detainee Said Zahari.
He plans to re-submit them to the Board of Film Censors once the ban on political films is formally eased - likely early next year - just to test the new system.
He wants to do so because the prospective change comes with caveats: Films which are partisan or give a distorted and slanted impression will still be off-limits.
His own view is that there should be no caveats. 'If it is not sheer stupidity to continue enforcing bans on these films when they can be viewed at a click of a mouse, I don't know what is,' he wrote on his blog.
How did he come to be such a fighter against Section 33 of the Films Act, which bans party political films?
Political awakening
ATTRIBUTE it to a second political awakening that came in the wake of the 2001 general election.
He had had a first awakening back in the mid-1990s, when a photocopy of a banned book came his way.
The book was To Catch A Tartar, written by former solicitor-general Francis Seow, describing his detention under the Internal Security Act in the late 1980s.
'My eyes were opened to the darker side of the PAP's history,' he says.
'I read it from cover to cover. I felt...frightened, depressed and angry at the same time.'
His hitherto placid political outlook changed then, but it was only later - after the November 2001 election - that he was really roused into action.
What caught his attention was Dr Chee Soon Juan heckling then prime minister Goh Chok Tong about an alleged loan to former Indonesian president Suharto.
'Chee Soon Juan got hammered very badly. I wondered, is this guy as bad as the media made him out to be? So I decided to check him out myself,' he says.
A few months later, in 2002, he asked to meet Dr Chee.
For the next two years, he 'interviewed' the SDP leader regularly, visited him at his home and his office, and observed him when he staged public protests - filming all the while.
He had reams of footage but no film, until Mr Lee Hsien Loong was sworn in as Prime Minister in 2004.
Mr Lee's inauguration speech, promising the opening up of civil society, inspired him to compile his shots into a 28-minute film which he titled Singapore Rebel.
He submitted it for screening at a film festival. But the film never made it past the censors.
It was deemed 'party political', and banned under Section 33 of the Films Act.
He was questioned four times over 15 months by the police and even had his video camera seized.
'They dropped the investigation a couple of months after the 2006 general election. I guess they wanted to watch if I would participate in the election,' he says.
He never did. But he continued to produce politically incorrect films.
Singapore Rebel
MR SEE titled his directorial debut Singapore Rebel. Although about Dr Chee, it sums up Mr See himself - someone bent on capturing alternative politics on celluloid.
He began his film-making career nearly 20 years ago, right after national service, learning the ropes of video editing in production houses. Along the way, he became a freelance video editor, working for renowned local directors such as Mr Eric Khoo and Mr Jack Neo.
He spends 90 per cent of his time doing such work to 'pay the bills', but the remaining 10 per cent is now consumed by his passion - making films on local political issues.
While being questioned by the police over Singapore Rebel, he produced another film, on former political detainee Said Zahari. This was also banned.
His latest, on Dr Chee and the protests he staged during the IMF-World Bank meetings in 2006, however made the cut. Speakers' Cornered was given an NC-16 rating and screened at the Substation on July 26 this year.
Despite the overwhelmingly pro-opposition - especially pro-SDP - angles in his films, he insists he is not an opposition supporter or sympathiser.
He says: 'I fill a vacuum created by the media when they don't cover opposition politicians or political dissidents. I consider myself a citizen journalist, not a Michael Moore type of film-maker.'
Asked why he bothers to submit his films for classification when he can upload them on YouTube, he deadpans that the law requires it.
The more compelling reason is that he wants to push the envelope in the area of political expression.
'Who better to do that than me,' he says, 'since I'm already over the OB markers. I want more film-makers who want to document the political scenes to emerge.'
In this, he has found a following of sorts.
Mr Ho Choon Hiong, 33, first heard about Mr See when Singapore Rebel was banned three years ago.
He was among a group of 12 film-makers who wrote to the Government then, asking for greater clarity as to what constituted a party political film.
The incident led to him meeting Mr See.
Their subsequent exchanges emboldened him to capture on celluloid assorted scenes of political activism in Singapore.
Unlike Mr See, he was introduced to politics early by his father, who used to be a student activist at Chinese High School in the 1960s.
Like Mr See, however, his political interest was stoked by the 2001 polls and Dr Chee.
After meeting Mr See, he produced a plethora of very short films, on topics ranging from the 2006 election to protests by Myanmar nationals in Singapore. He sent six to the film censors for classification in May.
'I have to take a few steps and hope to be undeterred more and more,' says the film studies graduate from Ngee Ann Polytechnic.
'I want to put my own perception of truth out.'
So far, his 'films' have been ignored by the authorities.
A prolific activist
NOT so for Mr Seelan Palay, 24, another amateur film-maker.
He had his film, One Nation Under Lee, seized by officials from the Board of Film Censors as it was being screened in a hotel recently.
The reason: It had not been passed by the censors.
His first effort - detractors panned it as a slide show rather than a film - it portrayed Singapore as lacking in press and political freedom, and tightly controlled by Mr Lee Kuan Yew.
Point out that One Nation Under Lee is decidedly one-sided - it takes potshots at the Government while hailing Dr Chee as a hero - and he insists he has no political agenda.
He isn't politicised by anyone either, he insists.
'I learnt everything from reading, out of personal interest,' says the activist.
CITIZEN JOURNALIST
'I fill a vacuum created by the media when they don't cover opposition politicians or political dissidents. I consider myself a citizen journalist, not a Michael Moore type of film-maker.'
-- Film-maker Martyn See
He has been involved at various times with the Vegetarian Society, the Animal Concerns Research & Education Society, and the now defunct SG Human Rights Group.
Earlier this year he attended rallies by Hindu protesters in Kuala Lumpur, and upon his return to Singapore, decided to mount a one-man protest fast outside the Malaysian High Commission.
He also takes part in protest actions organised by the SDP occasionally.
He is not a troublemaker, he insists. He is just doing what he believes in.
Nothing to fear
WHAT keeps the trio going?
'Our conscience pricks us,' says Mr Ho. He sees it as his duty to document what he believes gets sidelined by the mainstream media.
The trio use the same counter when you point out that their version of 'truth' sometimes takes an extreme slant. Others have noted that it was the publicity over the banning of some of their films, rather than the quality of the films themselves, that made the public more keen to view them.
But they are not perturbed.
For Mr See, his mission is simple.
'I live by the Singapore Pledge. I live by the Constitution that guarantees freedom of expression, association and assembly,' he says.
And he aims to guard these freedoms by showing that there is nothing to fear.
The other two, less articulate about their aims, appear to go with the flow as acolytes of Mr See, enjoying the thrill of defiance every once in a while.
They are all drawn to Dr Chee, whom they see as championing freedom of expression and provoking the Government with his illegal public protests.
Still, they say, they have no intention of joining the SDP or any political party. Ironically, they fear being hemmed in by party discipline.
Mr Palay, for instance, will tell you that he supports the SDP's cause but has no wish to sign on as a member.
Have they made an impact on the political scene? They believe so, pointing to more local film-makers who remain anonymous but, like them, upload political-type films on YouTube.
They also claim some credit for the Government's decision to consider lifting the ban on political films.
It was, they say, the banning of Mr See's Singapore Rebel that sparked a debate on the relevance of the Films Act.
Future films
FOR now, the three men have film ideas that they hope will see the light of day.
Mr Palay wants to do a film on the unspoken rule limiting use of dialects in films.
Mr Ho is aiming to do documentaries on two women: Dr Chee's wife, and his own long-lost Malaysian nanny whom he is still trying to locate.
As for Mr See, he has two targets too. One is the reclusive former political detainee Chia Thye Poh. The other is Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew.
In the latter film, he wants to trace the People's Action Party's formation and rise to the pinnacle of power in Singapore.
Why do a film on the PAP when its story has been told so many times before? 'It is a compelling story,' he says.
So are they really rebels with a cause?
Says Mr See: 'There's definitely a purpose to what we're doing. I see it as lessening the climate of fear here.
'I want more film-makers like me to emerge, wanting to document the political scenes in Singapore.' -
read Judgement here.The Judge is too kind.
http://lwb.lawnet.com.sg/legal/lgl/rss/subcourts/59210.html