As my 'regular reads' list on the left column testifies, I (used to) enjoy reading Mr Gopalan Nair's entries regarding the state of Singapore politics. I chanced upon his blog at least a year or two ago and have been reading his thoughts regularly, long before the ongoing debacle in Singapore occurred.
Although I felt it was unnecessary for him to come into Singapore and invite trouble in the first place, I felt that is was either a case of extreme silliness or political bravery - and very possibly a potent mix of both. I was not sure if his motivations were personal or patriotic but was willing to give him the benefit of the doubt notwithstanding.
As most of my readers know, I was formerly in the Police Force for 10 years and was attached to the Central Police Division for the duration of my career. For a major part of those 10 years, I was doing much work at the Little India vicinity by way of various assignments. I was therefore naturally tickled when Mr Nair chose to stay at the Broadway Hotel along Serangoon Road upon his arrival and even more intrigued when he was arrested for Disorderly Behaviour within that jurisdiction.
I immediately checked with Mr Nair's version on his blog, Singapore Dissident, and he claimed to have been followed and persecuted. I thought perhaps some ISD officers had been tracking his movements which led to the scuffle and subsequent arrest. However, a few days later, I happened to chat with one of my ex-colleagues and was told that he was actually arrested by 'normal' officers who were doing routine plainclothes patrol that night. In fact, some of the officers who arrested him are known to me personally.
I was informed that these officers did not know who Mr Nair was until he was brought back to the Police station. I have no reason to disbelieve this as I know that the officers involved are not that much interested in the (opposition) political climate - unless of course they are tasked to perform duties with regard to 'demonstrations', in which case they curse and swear.
That being the case, it is very highly probable that Mr Nair WOULD NOT have been arrested had the officers recognised who he was. I am certain that he was not singled out and had, on his own accord, invited trouble by banging on the bonnet of the Police car. In usual cases (from personal experience as well), Police Officers try to give the benefit of the doubt to abusive drunkards simply because; a) they are more of a nuisance than being criminals, and; b) they are a handful until they sober up - being a nuisance from arrest to lock-up till they eventually sober up. Not to mention, somewhere along the line, they will throw up (ie. vomit) and compound matters for evryone involved.
In Mr Nair's case, the level of tolerance would have been (much) higher had the officers known who he was from the beginning of the incident. Of course, this is not to say that he would not have gotten himself arrested anyway with his antics eventually. I would even go as far as to say that he must have been extremely violent and aggressive to have 'forced' the officers into arresting him.
Personally, I feel disappointed that he would choose to provoke officers and invite trouble for himself. In his latest entry regarding the ensuing court case, he also speaks of the court officials being reluctant to identify their full names. Although I find this immaterial to the matter of the case itself, he mentions the investigator, Mr S Vickneshwaran, using a false name, S Vicki. I have personally known this officer since 1995 and he has always gone by the name 'Vicki'. In fact, there is only one officer 'Vicky' in the whole of Central Police Division (more so for 'S Vicky') and it is definitely not a 'completely false name' as alleged by Mr Nair in that entry.
At best, he is nitpicking with regard to this issue and, at worst, he is intentionally disrupting proccedings with a sideshow. I am again disappointed with this behaviour which he could and should avoid. As things progress, I find that, overall, he is drumming up things unnecessarily and then claiming to be persecuted.
These officers are restricted by the OSA (Official Secrets Act) and will not be able to defend themselves directly unlike Mr Nair who can post everything on his blog. Although I am not fond of things as they are in Singapore, I refuse to just stand by and watch my friends and ex-colleagues, who are honest tax-payers themselves, and who perform their jobs with dignity and honour, be subjected to such unfounded accusations and baseless distortions of the truth.
The purpose of this post is to let everyone see the other side of the coin with regard to the Disorderly Behaviour incident involving Mr Gopalan Nair. The facts stated herein are as good as hearing from the officers involved themselves, thank you.
Mr Gopalan Nair (left) & Rochor NPC (right) - Where I Was Last Posted
51 comments:
Hi,
I agree with you.
Not all of us who desire a more liberal political environment want to have anything to do with Nair's antics.
Since he has voluntarily chosen a new nationality and hence new loyalty, he should just remain in the land of the free and enjoy it and not come back to be oppressed.
We can handle our own oppression- we don't need him as a Messiah!
My experience, as an ex-NS policeman, is that there are many policeman thinking they act have the power to act like min-Lee Kuan Yews.
I have noted often several times my colleague, higher rank ones, act in a manner that no less than a gangster. But since I was only abiding my time as an NSmen I don't bother to complain.
As for the Nair case, I am probably of the view that the policemen who dealt with him, although I have no experience, probably misinterpreted he's questioning of the rights of policeman. And possibly like my many of my ex-colleague thought their authority was questions then act without reason.
The typical approach used by my ex-colleague when confronted by questions from the public is to quote from some paragraph numbers from the legal books hoping that it will scare member of the public.
Not surprising for a police force that is trained to think that they are a law.
I feel that Nair is a zealot, and he stands more for contention against the PAP than values of democracy, transparency or any ideal.
Have tried reasoning with him on his blog, but apparently he deletes any and all comments not pleasing to his eyes. In this aspect he is no less bigoted as he claims the PAP are.
AC
Anonymous NSman: Yes, I agree that some officers can become consumed by the power and start looking down on citizens and members of the public.
But I assert that the officers involved (especially the ones who were in-charge) in this case were certainly not the type you are referring to.
nofear & AC: It is sad that the only ones who dare to 'fight' against the system are self-absorbed individuals and/or crackpots who are more interested in 'fighting for the sake of fighting'.
Dear Mister Truth Seeking Ganga Shit,
Were you present at the scene of the incident to be so certain that Gopalan Nair was in the wrong?
How is one to know that an unmarked vehicle parked along the street is a police one, and then charged as if the alleged "hitting on the bonnet" was done knowingly? Which fool do you know who does that?
How is one to know that any Tom, Dick, and Harry in plainclothes is actually a police officer especially when they do not identify themselves as such? And how can one be charged then with knowingly insulting a police officer?
I think you have too much faith in your so called friends. Does being friends automatically mean that they are telling the truth? Either that or you are just another crook looking out for his own kind.
I myself have had encounters - politically motivated - with the crooks otherwise known as "officers of the law" in Lee Kuan Yew's police force.
And I've had the pleasure of an encounter with "Vicky", and he's every bit the crook that all cops in Singapore are.
(Yes, he does indeed go by "Vicky" but in court, and in system that is accoutable to it's taxpayers, your full and correct name is a requirement when you are functioning in an official capacity. Gopalan Nair does have a point: what are you crooked cops trying to hide from us taxpayers?)
So you can just cut out that crap about the Official Secrets Act, crook.
And BTW, Serangoon Road is not a separate jurisdiction - Singapore is one jurisdiction. Did you know what you were doing when you were a cop?
Your feeble attempts at impressing are ... erm ... just not very impressive.
It was interesting to read your post but I would have much preferred if you had refrained from the name-calling. I am not sure if comments themselves can be edited - I would like to abbreviate 'S**t', but at the moment it seems that I can only either delete it or leave it.
In the interest of keeping all dialogue intact, I have elected to leave it onsite although offensive to me.
I am afraid that I will have to leave it to your good judgment and that of each and every reader to make up the mind with regard to the accurate version of what transpired that night.
There are extremely few cases of a universal good or an eternal evil, but rather, good and bad are defined by moments. I have done some remarkably dastardly stuff in my life and I have equally produced saintly acts on occasion.
Perhaps, I might even have been a 'crook' as you define it at some point, and also a bona fide 'truth seeker'.
The sad observation for me is that you generalise all cops as crooks and cronies when it is more likely that those you come across would be cross with you - not for being an activist, but for the simple reason of giving them more work to do.
Also, to clarify, I did not intend for 'jurisdiction' to be taken in the legal perspective and meant it loosely as 'area' - my apologies for the confusion on this.
However, the Police car in question was MARKED - meaning it was a car with the insignia and 'blinking lights'.
To conclude, I sincerely welcome your comments and opinions and even genuinely sympathise with your frustrations as an activist (I assume you are), but might I humbly request for some civility in your arguments?
Thank you and I do like your ending quip - cute.
Oh pray tell, Mister Ganga Shit, how did I 'create work' for your fellow crooks by merely walking to my bus stop and then get harassed for the umpteenth time by the thugs in blue?
Or is walking to my bus stop on my way to work illegal in your stinking tin pot dictatorship?
Again, you write as if you were there to witness the incident before posting crap.
Get off your high horses, crook, because you lowly scum are just not important enough to be entrusted with state secrets!
Personally, I feel disappointed that he would choose to provoke officers and invite trouble for himself.
How has he provoked the officers? Seemed to me the officers themselves have chosen to pursue him. After all, I have know officers who turn a blind eye to some more serious transgressions -- like member of the public getting beaten up.
In his latest entry regarding the ensuing court case, he also speaks of the court officials being reluctant to identify their full names. Although I find this immaterial to the matter of the case itself, he mentions the investigator, Mr S Vickneshwaran, using a false name, S Vicki. I have personally known this officer since 1995 and he has always gone by the name 'Vicki'. In fact, there is only one officer 'Vicky' in the whole of Central Police Division (more so for 'S Vicky') and it is definitely not a 'completely false name' as alleged by Mr Nair in that entry.
Quite often the police themselves have resorted to using procedural approach to provoke reactions. For example, as ex-NS Policeman pointed, one trick is to mumble irrelevant legal paragraph. I would add than when people questioned the legality, the police will then say things like if you don't comply you will deemed as resisting arrest.
Oh, and one final thing, Mister Ganga Shit:
If you are so against namecalling, I suggest you take it up with that biggest thug of all, Lee Skunk Yew; he has singlehandedly set namecalling as a precedent in the conduct of public affairs in your little Third World dictatorship. I'm just following precedent if you will.
And another thing: you can also quit your moralizing to me - you can never hope to know the first thing about morality even if you were given one billion more lifetimes.
The last I checked, a moral thug is still an oxymoron.
I agree that policemen are wasting our taxpayers money.. y would i say so u may ask, coz i too have friends in the POLICE who says slack la.. relax onli.. go to work get pay then go back kinda attitude.. anithing jus introduce civil suit to them let them settle.. its those kinds of attitude tat realli irks me.. also i do agree that nt all are like tat..
perhaps a very small minority really do want to give chinapore a better place.. like gopalan nair..
@unimpressed anonymous poster
Amazing that some people will go out of their way and make derogatory remarks to prove a point. You justify your name-calling because someone else in power has set a precedence making offensive comments? What preschool logic is this?
Ganga is just providing a perspective on an event that is so ridiculous, its hardly receiving any coverage in the media nowadays. A personal opinion which you sir, the unimpressed name-calling anonymous poster, have no business contending with in such a childish manner.
Your sad generalisation of the police force is truly an assumption based on maybe a bad encounter with a few bad eggs, hence your contempt and mud-slinging towards them. Why castigate the whole flock when the black sheeps are at fault?
Sorry Ganga, somethings just doesn't cut it. If someone is knocking on your car continously, loudly or softly is beside the point, you would turn around and confront the person.
However in this case, after the person has walked away, then you start to confront him.
Also having heard the knock, would you not have seen the person? How is it so that the policemen in the car failed to even seen Nair knock on the car?
Look, some things just don't add up. I'm not here to support Nair. I mean if he really denting the car, arrest him by all means. But c'mon, this whole saga is already internationally published.
Already you guys have 'screwed' up the Mas Selamat's escape. How long does it take to find a 'limping man'? Then you say he's actually not limping? How long do you want the world to laugh at us Singapore and the 'kangaroo' courts we have been having?
Where is your pride, man? C'mon, want to arrest Nair also must have more brains and substance mah!
One look at Nair, how to be aggressive? He's a lawyer, wear specs, a bit on the plump side and more elderly than any of you. How to make sense of this arrest, you tell me?
Sianz. All these court cases just adds to the incredulous court cases we've been having. For one, you should have taken the Superintendent of Whitley DC to police court. Who knows he may have conspired with Mas to allow him to escape? At least this one more credible, just like Bourne trilogy.
http://kaffein-nated.blogspot.com/2008/07/solve-puzzling-disconnect.html
Kaffein
To Qif:
Yes, I do in fact justify my use of namecalling by pointing to the same thuggish behaviour in that vile racist pig Lee Scum Yew, whose namecalling never seems to come in for criticism by the likes of frightened preschoolers like your self.
If you have a problem with this, go see a shrink to fix your mental illness.
From the blog entry by Ganga: "I thought perhaps some ISD officer had been tracking his movements which led to the scuffle and subsequent arrest."
There you have it. An admission by an ex-policeman that this is indeed what the PAP does to those who dare sing a different political tune.
But this ex-policeman should be more forthcoming with the truth that the Singapore Police Force, and not just the ISD, is also directed by the PAP to harass those who have a legitimate grievance with the PAP.
Ganga, why don't you offer Gopalan Nair to be his witness in his court trial? I'm sure they will believe you with insider experience you obviously have on the PAP's illegal use of our security agencies.
Do you still believe your own blog entry that this was not politically motivated?
I was the last poster.
I wonder now, if for the sake of whatever humanity is left in Singapore, the Great Blogger Ganga can explain more explicitly, and with the benefit of insider knowledge behind him, what these words in his own blog entry mean.
1. "tracking his movements"
How do Singapore's security agencies do this? Is technology used, likely illegally, towards this end? (I too have inside information on this particular matter, but I'm very interested in an ex-policeman's ability to tell the truth. So, the onus is on you, Great Blogger Ganga.)
What is the true purpose of "tracking the movements" of someone who doesn't see eye to eye with you, politically speaking of course, but who otherwise intends no harm towards any?
2. "scuffle"
Is this the typical and well known (in some circles) provocation that the Singapore Police Force is well known for, in the capacity of its illegal but political duties, of provoking your political targets unnecessarily to the point that they will say something out of an understandable anger at being harassed, at which point a charge of the all- encompassing "disorderly conduct" becomes very handy for your use?
Please answer to these questions Great Ganga, or your credibility risks being torn to shreds - not that that is not already happening with your own self inflicted faux pas.
Thanks, ganga, for the shoddy investigative work typical of the Singapore Police Force trying to pass off as the work of a First World's police force.
Now, you know why we have to insult you.
With regard to there being Policemen who are not worth their salt - although this may be true to some extent, there is no relation of this element of the SPF to the incident itself.
One must understand that a lazy Policemen tries to lessen his workload and not increase it. Confronting a drunk on the streets is therefore hardly an act of laziness.
Kaffein, I understand your frustrations and I am equally critical about the Mas Selamat incident and how the authorities handled every aspect of the fallout.
However, in this case, I am referring to actual events that transpired at the scene and no consipracy theories need to be formulated to account for these facts. Yes, the reports in the media are extremely vague but that has nothing to do with the arresting officers or even the investigator.
Reducing the information flow to a trickle is done at the upper management level - something which I dislike myself.
The facts are that Mr Nair banged the MARKED Police car - presumably due to his demonstrated disdain for public officials in Singapore - and was then pursued with regard to this act.
In his stupor, Mr Nair reacted aggressively, escalating the situation and got himself placed under arrest. Most likely, he would have resisted whilst being handcuffed, resulting in physical restraint and thence a scuffle.
I can tell you with certainty that restraining even a 70-year old who is violently resisting is easier said than done.
As for my 'fan' who requires my attention all the time, do not be disappointed - I continue to read your rants and I must say that I am truly amazed at the extent your (invalid) interpretation can go, wow.
In any case, I continue to urge you to refrain from name-caling as I am clearly not LKY in disguise - unless you have any theories on that to offer?
Best Wishes,
(so-titled) 'Mister Truth Seeking Ganga S**t'
(so-called) 'moral thug'
(maybe true?) 'Great Blogger Ganga'
Hi
There are two incidents that stand out with my relationship with cops. The first was an incident where I was stopped near my house as I was walking home.The cops demanded an ID. I pointed to an open window where my mother was waving to me as she had waited up for me at 11pm. The cops demanded an IC. I told them I was going home. It seems that cops on patrol must collect a number of IC numbers to prove they had done spot checking. They were in plainclothes and refused to show me even an ID. My mother rushed down screaming. She thought I was being mugged by gangsters. So did a number of neighbours who heard my mother's screams. Only upon confrontation with an elderly neighbour did one of the cops flash ( hurriedly ) an identification card. My mother could have died of a heart attack they way she had rushed down the stairs.
The other was a complaint I made over 999 after I spotted a peep tom looking into various windows along th common corridor of a block of flats across my house.
The cops duly arrived, questioned the peep tom and let him go. I and a few neighbours went over to question the cops who had released the man. They said he was a detective from Central Police at that time (1970's). I asked the cop why he was not arrested. We would testify his wrong doing. The cop just walked off.
Hi
So the purpose of my post was to show that when cops in plainclothes surround you u r in no position to tell whether they are thugs or cops especially if no id is shown.
Appreciate the sharing of your experiences. I presume that the first incident was also before the 70's? If yes, I would say that you were lucky not to have been beaten up by the officers!
In the 70's, the whole climate was so different and scary. Some Policemen were so corrupt that they would not have hesitated to commit a wide variety of offences.
But the type of renegade officers who existed in the 70's and before fizzled out by 1990 (or earlier) and today's 'rogue' officers are more like insolent children who don't obey instructions.
In a present-day scenario, the officers would have immediately identified themselves upon your demand - more so when your mother was observing the exchange.
As for the peeping-tom, in today's context, even if the detective was not arrested at the scene, there would certainly have been a follow-up investigation and appropriate action would have been taken if the detective was not able to account for his actions.
Sorry, but his alcohol is below limit. How to be drunk? Even if a drunk bangs on the police, most policemen would have just driven off, knowing the drunk is... well a drunk.
Again, it doesn't make any sense.
Are there any witnesses to the banging? Little India is still very busy at 10:30pm. And after Nair had walked away was he confronted, not running away. Yet in the police testimony, none of you saw him hitting the car.
Er, weird right? People hit your car and you don't come out to confront.
And for him to walk by, how to hit the car continously and loudly some more? Unless he has been waiting for you.
Too many gaps like Mas Selamat. Still incredulous story that I find it so hard to swallow. Sorry, Ganga, wish you had more evidence.
But Great Blogger Ganga,
You conveniently omitted explaining "tracking his movements" and the related questions.
Why so coy?
Or what is it you are conspiring with State abuse to hide?
And Great Ganga, don't turn this into an issue of there being a few bad hats in your banana republic's police force.
You know very well what I've been getting at: it is a systemic problem.
And since you are not very schooled on higher order concepts, let me explain it to you in terms you can surely understand.
ANY goddamn cop can be ordered by his superior/s to do his sacred police duty of harassing law abiding citizens for political ends - it's exactly why I made a blanket judgement on all you thugs. And in the lowly positions of rank and file, you likely feel that you have no choice but to abide. (Not that any of you are capable of conducting a political and legal analysis of the situation in the first place.)
Flout orders handed down to you, and you risk problems at your workplace (promotions, continued employment, etc).
And for your ill-gained rice bowls, naturally.
And btw, it is not your personal attention I seek. (Did you think I had a mental illness like Qif?)
It is your attention to this case that I'm asking for since you decided to enter the fray with your wild allegations, using your thug connections as a poor substitute for authoritative comment.
Also, your squirming around my questions takes me back to Gopalan Nair's latest blog on his cross examination of your fellow thug in court.
At least they are very consistent in how they train all of you to deceive.
Kaffein, I understand your reservations which are perfectly valid.
When I say drunk, I mean the behaviour under intoxication. This behaviour unfortunately does not correspond to the stipulated legal blood/alcohol limits. I have personally witnessed persons who were piss-drunk but legally fine and legally fail whilst being perfectly coherent.
Also, the whole blood/alcohol legality is only material to drink driving and in Mr Nair's case, irrelevant. IMHO, it was a case of over-doing the preparation of evidence on the part of the Police.
Again, IMHO and from experience, the sequence of events was probably more straightforward than the official story and looks complicated and dubious on paper because of overly-cautious documentation.
For example, indulge me in this hypothetical scenario. I feel/hear 3 bangs whilst in my stopped car. By the time I realise what's going on - a few seconds, I see that a person is walking past from where I heard the noise.
I realise that there is no plausible reason other than to assume that this person must be the cause of the noise. I get out and take a look around my car - no other plausible cause.
So I go after this guy and confront him, fairly confident that he had banged on my car. He denies but the exchange escalates into a heated argument where this person calls me names (Mister Ganga S**t?).
If this incident flares up and ends up as a Police case, what will I do? I would not talk about the argument but link it back to the banging of the car - although I did not actually see him do it.
For routine Police Officers, such a scenario would pose a unique problem because an officer cannot say that he is 'sure' that this person is the culprit. He has to remain objective and factual - hence, you end up with a dubious-sounding account of the event.
Well, my point is that there are other straightforward reasons for the account as provided (albeit with holes like a sponge) and no conspiracies are needed. If at all, it is a case of incompetence by the officers.
Mr Nair is exploiting legal vulnerabilities (nothing wrong as all lawyers do this) but I still contend that he created the problem in the first place.
Basically, at the end of the day, Mr Nair's declaration will be a) the system is flawed (provided he gets away with it) or b) the system is biased (if he doesn't get away with it - which will probably be the outcome).
My gripe has always been that all this energy could be better spent on more fruitful causes that actually make life better for Singaporeans.
BTW, from the tone, style, familiarity with the facts of the case, terms used (moral thug), and type of insults; I am confident that this anonymous poster is none other than Mr Nair himself.
Do compare the comments here to his entries on his blog and you'll see what I mean.
In any case, it tickled me to note that using his style of quoting out of context, I can allege that he admits to having a psychiatric problem - "...I had a mental illness...", hehehe.
Well, firstly, I am honoured to be in the same league as Ms Belinda Ang, PAP, and MM Lee - as a specific target of Mr Nair's insults.
Secondly, I vow not to take action against him for his insults because I do not believe in the government's policy of 'suing to protect reputation'. Also, I would rather Mr Nair vent out his frustrations here safely rather than get into some other kind of trouble that results in real problems for him.
At the end of the day, there's no point in destroying a person like Mr Nair. He may be an inconvenience but he is certainly not damaging anyone's life.
Ganga said
For example, indulge me in this hypothetical scenario. I feel/hear 3 bangs whilst in my stopped car. By the time I realise what's going on - a few seconds, I see that a person is walking past from where I heard the noise.
I realise that there is no plausible reason other than to assume that this person must be the cause of the noise. I get out and take a look around my car - no other plausible cause.
So I go after this guy and confront him, fairly confident that he had banged on my car. He denies but the exchange escalates into a heated argument where this person calls me names (Mister Ganga S**t?).
Since you are not definite and you can't be sure, and beside is making noise such a issue that you need to, using your words, "confront" a person you are not sure of.
So what if a few choice words were exchanged, and even if it was technically illegal to do so, should a Policeman not use their head to decide whether it is worth perusing the case further?
As an ex-NS policeman myself, I sometime have to deal with drunks/disorderly issues but I always weight between whether it is worth pursing further or just let the incident go. Come on, when I go patrolling I see people doing illegal things all the times, like Jaywalking or gathering in more than 5, hawker using loudspeakers and sometime people getting drunk and boisterous. But I don't automatically escalate into a police report.
If I did, I will end up criminalising virtually everyone I encounter.
If this incident flares up and ends up as a Police case, what will I do? I would not talk about the argument but link it back to the banging of the car - although I did not actually see him do it.
For routine Police Officers, such a scenario would pose a unique problem because an officer cannot say that he is 'sure' that this person is the culprit. He has to remain objective and factual - hence, you end up with a dubious-sounding account of the event.
Life is not black and white. This applies not only in Police work but also other walks of life.
I am in IT as a contractor, and I often get people disputing what is written on a contract, especially in clauses that are ambigious. Even if the clause is very explicit and clear-cut, sometime you have to give in to a point as what is called "goodwill".
On the point about the Nair case, based on information available, it seemed like one that is so unnecessary for escalation.
Like I say in my posting on 04 August 2008 22:46:00 SGT, the problem with the kind of training our Police Officer sometime get is to think and act like a Robot (or to use a better sounding word "Objectively") rather than think intelligently.
Great Ganga, does my writing style strike you as being similar to Gopalan Nair's?
This is not out of character for someone with police brains like yours - fabricate a charge when no crime is done.
However, I would challenge you to repeat your allegations against Nair because I would take it upon myself to urge Gopalan Nair to sue you instead.
It can be proven that I am not he. Or vice versa.
But for the facts to come out, you will also have to deal with the government and the courts of MY ADOPTIVE COUNTRY, CANADA, so make sure you save enough money to make the trip here and for your legal expenses. (Lawyers for private suits are even more expensive here than in your banana republic, and just to help defeat the thuggocracy that you clearly are advocating for, I will lend Nair a hand in this matter and allow the Canadian courts to reveal my information obtained from my internet provider as proof that I am not he.)
I hope you are not against the level playing field I will be enjoying here.
Or YOU could go ahead and sue Nair despite you having no reputation to salvage, but only a thuggish one to confirm - the ensuing drama will become even more fun to watch. You will still have to annoyingly fair and just Canada to deal with, mind you.
And why are you so against my calling you a thug, anyway? What other word do you know that describes one who thinks like a thug, speaks/writes like a thug, behaves like a thug, and has a membership to an organization for thugs?
Will you not permit me this one indulgence to call a spade a spade?
Mostly, though, I'm privately chuckling because your big talk about lawsuits must have come out of the heat I'm applying on you.
And finally: "tracking his movements".
EXPLAIN!
Dear Great Mister Gannga Shit,
You wrote this:
"So I go after this guy and confront him, fairly confident that he banged on my car. He denies but the exchange escalates into a heated argument where this person calls me names (Mister Ganga S**t)."
Wow, I'm amazed at the consistency you display here with the thug that Gopalan Nair cross exaimined in court - the similarity between that thug's leading questions and this statement of yours are uncanny. As with the leading questions, your attempts to mislead can be easily debunked.
While yours is a concocted scenario, let me relate an actual incident that involved your stinking thugs and myself.
I'm by myself, completely minding my own business at a coffeeshop and your dastardly thugs in blue, except that these ones were in palinclothes, approach me and DEMAND - yes, DEMAND - to see my IC.
Being in plainclothes, I naturally DEMANDED - yes, DEMANDED RIGHT BACK, in a tone of voice that clearly showed that I was agitated as I indeed should be at this act of agression by scum who could well be gansters for all I know (no police cars, marked or unmarked were in sight given that this was indoors).
Right away, another of your thugs grabs me by the back of my shirt collar, hauls me out of the coffeeshop and I get driven to the police station.
To cut a long story short, I get charged with "refusal to furnish particulars" - no specific Act and Section necessary in the land of the lawless.
I will let you Fucking Piece Of Ganga Shit know that the only thing criminal thing that I did was the "insubordination" that I exhibited towards Motherfucking Thugs who somehow believe that they should be treated like gods, and I should be kissing the ground they walk on. (Oh, and save the part where you come in and fabricate some thing or other that I did that gave cause to your Fucking Thugs to approach me in the first place; there was none.)
In view of your overactive imagination that is used primarily for the purposes of pre-judging, I will let you know that there there was no namecalling involved and no angry tone used (and even if there was, we still haven't started discussing the police responsibility for respectful behaviour, the absence of which is a deliberate provocation to anger).
I did however use a terse tone. (I know it is pointless to ask a lawless police thug from Singapore about the law, but is there one criminalizing the use of a firm tone of voice?)
I took this issue up with my MP and the charge was later forced to be dropped.
Oh, and also save the part where you come in tell me how grateful I should be that I live(d) in a country where the charge could be dropped - it should't have been laid in the first place.
And not until a fiery earful I gave to my MP which shocked everyone at the meet-the-people -and-political-dissidents session, both inside his office and in the waiting room where I could be heard telling off a PAP Thug MP.
I hope you have enough kleenex handy, but you may be devastated to know that I lodged a complaint against this Thug MP and he was not fielded come the next elections despite being young and only having served one term with no other major complaint against him (from what I understand).
I have other encounters with MPs (including cabinet ministers) and police thugs that I can write about, but this is just one real case unlike the fairy tale ones that you are prone to spinning.
Care to comment? Especially on the legalities?
Dear Great Truth Seeking Thug (or would you prefer "Mother Theresa" reincarnated?),
You wrote this: "Also, the blood/alcohol legality is only material to drink driving ... BLAH BLAH BLAH ...'
But Gopalan Nair wasn't even driving. So why was there a requirement that he submit to an alcohol test, Truth-Seeking-Turned-Truth-Concealing Deceiver.
We pinned such high hopes on you, Great Blue Eyed Ganga With A Black Ass, and especially after your expressed desire to see things change in Stinkapore.
You also say: "I have personally witnessed persons who were piss-drunk(sic) but legally fine and legally fail whilst being perfectly coherent."
But you still haven't been a witness to the incident involving Gopalan Nair.
Do the kangaroo courts in your insignificant dictatorship realize that Gopalan Nair's case is not supposed to be decided on the basis of other people's cases; they are supposed to be based only on HIS CASE AND HIS CASE ALONE? He, and no one else, is after all the accused.
I know that your kangaroo courts will ONLY believe testitmony from thugs, no matter how much of a lie it is.
But, please, Great Saviour Of Singapore, just a few short days ago you promised on Gopalan Nair's blog to be the Greatest Seeker Of The Truth that Singapore has ever known. Why are you becoming the Greatest Concealer instead?
Kleenex is extremely expensive here in Canada and I really cannot afford to cry any more than I already have over your ignomious fall from grace.
Hi Ganga
You talk enough bull to raise a herd.
And to think you got named after a holy river!
Great Ganga,
Clearly my Canadian citizenship, and what it would entail to take our differences in ideology to the "logical" consequences because of my status in Canada intimidates you.
Why else would there be no more squeaks from you?
Should Singaporeans rightly conclude that it is their Singapore citizenship that makes them vulnerable to abuse by those in Singapore who have power? Or those who think they do?
I thought that my last post was my parting shot to you in your previously unheard of, but now discernible to be a usually lacklustre blog.
But I've decided to write again as a public service to Singaporeans who desire the same things for Singapore as I.
You wrote: "At the end of the day, there's no point in destroying a person like Mr Nair."
I know that Lee Skunk Yew has made a career out of destroying people, who are politically different from him.
I also know that the criminals in blue are employed to make destroying peoples's lives a national sport in Singapore.
But speaking as a Canadian citizen, I can tell you that the statement of yours that I quoted above would spark off a strong sense of moral - there's that word again that is the furthest description there could be of you -outrage in Democratic, Civilized, First World, and Widely Respected Internationally Canada.
And this is why.
How dare you even entertain the thought that it is YOUR place to destroy another person's life, and his/her means of a livelihood?
What legal or ethical grounds do you have for destroying others' lives?
Since we know now the criminal propensity of the thugs in blue, I feel duty bound to check your lawlessness and criminal tendencies and remind you of an annoying clause in the Singapore Constitution called the "right to life" clause - go check it up.
See, that clause DOES NOT allow the government, or its foot soldiers like the criminals in blue, to deprive ANYONE under Singapore's jurisdiction - and that includes foreign citizens in Singapore, mind you - of their life. Constitutionally, that implies that it is ILLEGAL, nay, CRIMINAL, of the government and its foot soldiers to act in such a way as to deprive people of their means of earning a livelihood as well.
Yet you so casually mention "destroying" Mr Nair as if it were the most natural thing to do - that's how much of a hardened criminal you are.
That's the bigger shocker of your statement, apart from actually having made the statement.
Hi
Say what you like, at least Ganga has the guts to post all your comments no matter how unflattering they are to him. This is the hallmark of someone who truly believes in freedom of speech.
I wish I could say the same of the moderator of a group to which I was a member. I merely requested that they not put up adverts of a racist nature.
They took the easy way out and banned me!
Thank you teejnar for your kind words of support. I am confident that readers are smart enough to discern when there is an empty vessel making noise, hahaha.
In any case, I am happy that fruitful discussion and exchange of ideas transpired - although sans vulgarities would have been preferred.
I continue to stick by my stand that, in this case, Mr Nair has not been as forthcoming of the true facts as he could have been and that no 'special circumstances' were involved.
It was basically a situation where one individual provoked some Police officers beyond the point of no return and got himself arrested. Personally, I have nothing against Mr Nair having ulterior motives (ie. political agenda) in the provocation itself but to alter the facts as they were to suit his agenda is disappointing.
Great Ganga,
There is nothing more vulgar than the abuse of power by you here - "destroy" lives, huh? - and your thugs in blue who are probably being instructed to help the cover up what truly transpired. (Do you think information like that would be made freely availablre to the public by those who have EVERYTHING to hide?)
I believe in mutuality: mutually bad or mtually good. The Singapore state and all its instruments has already set the tone for that, and I will follow suit.
You can continue to stick to your stand, but you status as an interested party disqualifies from from authoritative comment. (Would you be helping your mother get a conviction and the death sentence if she had been accused of committing murder?)
The only parties present at the incident were Mr Nair, and the police who will all be coached to give the same fabricated account to court - it doesn't matter if there will only be one thug testifying, ore one hundred. Only their word counts in court.
Or should.
In the meantime, I maintain that the police will be lying in court -they have already established a track record for that.
Hi Teejnar,
I HAVE said what I want, and I agree that Ganga does indeed possess the capacity of someone who believes in freedom of speech.
As for the moderator of the group you worked for, it something you need to take up with him/her and not me; I'm not the one who banned you.
Or you may wish to consider if a singapore citizenship was a disadvantage in that case, and indeed a liability in general.
Either way, I don't understand why your post seems directed at me.
Hi again Teejnar,
I am going to make an adjustment to my statement on free speech.
The capacity that Ganga has displayed in the exercise of free speech is in:
1) the listening to/reading of it -even as you say when it does not flatter him;
2) in not denying access to me to the venue of that speech ie. his blog; and,
3) in making some reparation.
The exercise of freedom of speech is not an end in and of itself; it's purpose is for the uncovering of truths, the acknowledgement of the truth, or the seeking of consensus if the whole truth cannot be determined.
Then, reparation/redress/recourse made available completes the picture. For these to occur, access to the venue where the speech is exercised is of course crucial.
Based on the above, I will concede that Ganga has already done better than most Singaporeans including those in government.
However, you will notice that Ganga has not been completely forthcoming with the truth - a charge he now makes of Nair. I've posed quite a few questions to him but he has skirted all of them save one - on whether the police car was marked or unmarked - preferring to focus instead on namecalling, vulgarities, etc.
(I've been able to ignore Lee Skunk Yew's namecalling and pay heed instead to whatever else is said; I don't see why the same can't be done for me.)
Ganga hasn't answered my questions on the use of the ISD and SPF for criminal ends. (On the other hand, this is so widespread a knowledge among Singaporeans that he caused him to make the statements casually.)
He hasn't replied to my question on why Nair was subjected to an alcohol test if it is only material to drink driving offences. (I'll wager that the police required this because they knew how petty an offence they a were going to charge him with - a hallmark in politically-motivated harassment; an alcohol levels report will dramatize the whole thing in court where others with overactive imaginations would form the impression of an out-of- control, unruly drunk. Watch teenagers/young adults in groups of five and six in Orchard Road shoving and pushing each other and ask whether they too should not be arrested for disorderly conduct.)
He hasn't replied to what legal and ethical right the government and its instruments have to destroy lives.
I could go on but you get the drift.
Thus, in this regard, Ganga hasn't fulfilled his free speech obligations; he would be regarded as an impediment to free speech because he obstructs the free flow of information by concealing the truth - recourse/redress/ reparation will then become impossible.
O perhaps all of my questions were rhetorical ones for which the truth is inescapable. If so, Ganga could have at least acknowledged the truth. But what stopped him?
1) fear of losing face. This is a chronic problem in the conduct of public affairs in Singapore - the government must NEVER lose face because they are NEVER WRONG. This way the godly aura around that surrounds them can remain intact;
2) fear of repercussions. This is real problem, particularly for someone whose real identity is already known. It's quite possible that Ganga's police friends or other police/ISD are also reading this and Ganga likely knows that acknowledging the truth exposes him to repercussions at their hands;
3) both 1) and 2) - the most likely;
4) he just doesn't buy anything I said - quite unlikely given some evidence I'm noting.
But this blog is not a court of law where he would be legally bound to answer my questions truthfully.
Yet, this is exactly the conduct in our kangaroo courts in which a fair trial that results from the free flow and access to information, as well as the access to the venue for the information, are key.
Already the kangaroo courts have denied access to Nair to allow Yap Kheng Ho to corroborate Nair's claim - and mine too - that this was politically motivated; Yap has evidence of other cases, and I have my own experience. This is the equivalent of gaining access to the venue of speech and expression - there is no free flow of information to help Nair win his trial.
(The experience you mentioned above is one that would be considered a denial of access to the venue of speech and expression - no more information can flow. And the sought for reperation of having the racist ads withdrawn cannot be accomplished.)
The judge at Nair's trial is likely, even in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary, rule in favour of the prosecution. This would be the equivalent of Ganga clamming up at my questions, but standing firm alongside his cop (cop out) friends even when the truth stares them in the face.
My point is one that I have already stated earlier: the problem is a SYSTEMIC ONE.
A systemic problem breeds certain feelings, thought and behaviour patterns - being patterns, they become quite predictable after a while.
Thus while this has been a one-to-one encounter with Ganga, the problem is actually larger that him. He is an embodiment of the proble, and this is just one more chance encounter with the problem that i'm having.
Teejnar's comment was not aimed at you, dear anonymous, but rather a statement of support via the citation of an example. Incidentally, I was involved in the exchange that resulted in his suspension from the group.
It is nice to see that you have finally come around to being slightly more sensible and I note with pleasure that you have discontinued your tirade of abuse, thank you indeed.
From the restating of your 'appreciation' of my openness from "...I agree that Ganga does indeed possess the capacity of someone who believes in freedom of speech..." to "...I will concede that Ganga has already done better than most Singaporeans...", we can also see how difficult it must have been for you to acknowledge the positives here.
Nevertheless, it is a good development and reflects well on your character. I do not profess to be an authority on Mr Nair's guilt or innocence. I am however, sure about the facts that I have stated with regard to the Police's version.
As these facts contradict with Mr Nair's version, it is my feeling of disappointment. I do not purport to declare the Police as right - some things they do are indeed stupid and illogical, and neither can I say that Mr Nair was simply an innocent victim.
One cannot play with fire, get hurt, and then go around accusing the fire of being the culprit. One has to admit to his own indiscretion that contributed to the hurt in the first place and then perhaps, go on to talk about the dangers of fire per se.
I would certainly respect one's guts under those circumstances to admit playing with fire to illustrate an important lesson. Contrastingly, I would find it hard to accept the overly-simplistic argument that the fire was indeed the culprit and therefore should be declared 'evil'.
Hi Anon
Thank you for moderating your comments. I took the trouble to write because there was a marked difference in the way this site and the group I was a member of are run. Ganga has published all your comments and tried his best to answer them in the spirit of true debate.He may be right. He may also be absolutely wrong too. That point is not what I wrote about.
In my own case, the moderator of the group ( the type of king who says "off with his head" at the slightest indiscretion did not even give me the right of reply. My reply came back with the terse rejoinder-unable to deliver message to all members.
I just wonder how you would feel if Ganga decides to do the same with you.
A good site will always be a site where all messages are published-warts and all. On that point alone this site scores a good 100.
Dearest Ganga,
Teejnar said: "Hi,... Say what you like, at least Ganga has the guts to post all your comments no matter how they are unflattering to him."
I wonder how with an opening statement like the above, you could construe the post to have been directed at you and not me.
Who was the "you" in that statement?
And no, I haven't come round only now to being more sensible; I've been sensible all along. If you detect any change, it is only because of the reparations - no longer making unsubstantiated and scurrilious claims with due credit to me putting me in your place - that I said to Teejnar that you made.
I know how to respond correspondingly when that happens -don't confuse me with that bloodthirsty hound Lee Skunk Yew for whom your primary school indiscretions can NEVER be forgiven for the rest of your adult life, and are deserving of nothing less than the death sentence.
Hi Teejnar,
To your question: "I wonder how you would feel if Ganga did the same to you."
I think that you are assuming that I've never been in that situation. In any Singaporean environment that is the norm. Why do you think I despise that little nose snot of an island so much?
Ganga's blog may score 100 points in your books, however the crux of the problem we launched into - whether Gopalan Nair's case was politically motivated - ends exactly as it began: Ganga and I still differ.
I would be happy to leave it that if this was a just difference in opinion.
However, this is far more than that.
Facts have not been disclosed here - freedom of speech, as manifested by the free flow of information has NOT been upheld.
Zero on that count.
Worse, the same has already occurred in court: Yap Kheng Ho has not been allowed to corroborate Nair's claim - that would be too much of that "fair trial" that the government, the police, and the courts hold so much in contempt.
I would like you to see the similarity between what has transpired here, and what has happened in court.
If the courts have NOTHING to hide, why not allow Yap Kheng Ho's testimony?
The telltale signs that this was politically motivated are all there to me, primarily the pettiness, and the bloodthirsty manner that they are going about trying to obtain a conviction (requiring an alcohol test, for example), and never letting up on Nair beginning from the 1980's (the bloodthirstiness).
But coming back to your appraisal of the freedoms on this blog, perhaps Singaporeans are so deprived that you would scramble for the crumbs that are thrown your way, and recommend that others feel that way as well.
I feel that gratefulness (for crumbs) is not the appropriate response to what is your natural right corresponding to ideas of natural justice.
Singaporeans should have greater self regard and demand the whole hog where appropriate.
I'm not demanding more here because this is not a court of law, and Ganga's blog is his personal property - he can do anything with it, even withold truths for whatever reason he deems fit.
And one more thing to Ganga:
You said: "One cannot play with fire, get hurt, and then go around accusing the fire of being the culprit."
Yes, one can: the "fire" is not supposed to be or act like it is a fire.
The "fire" is the collection of State institutions that are the property of the people. As OUR property, we are not supposed to be abused when we access the goods and services provided by those instititions.
Dear Ganga,
Just reading this post and G. Nair's entry about the court proceedings, and yes, I do agree with u that the officer in question doesn't give a damn abt political views as I noe him personally as well. So the idea that he might be looking out purposely for G. Nair boggles the mind. I deeply sympathize with the officer becoz as much as a pain-in-the-ass as he was when I was working with him, he was no doubt a gd officer and a very 'on' one, I might add. Not to mention, always willing to help me if I needed his help. (and so did you)
Regarding his arrest technique, I am very sure that it happened the way it did, knowing him. And the reason y they did not go str8 for G. Nair was to be sure that the car was really struck before just going for the fella. And the Police, does have the authority to conduct spot-checks at anyone, whether or not they find him suspicious.
And for those who have that narrow mindset that the Police Officers DO NOT pay tax, pls get this straight. They do pay tax, just like any other govt organization. there's no such thing as they don't pay tax or they get discounted values.
It's sad to see that pple will only focus on the negativities and not the positive ones. There has been so many arrest on so many high profile cases but just slip up 1 time, and they focus on that. And pls. it's not the whole organization who slipped up. It's those few pple. There's like 10000 pple in the Force. Not ALL of the were involved in the Mas Selamat Case, weren't they?
Just like pple everywhere, there are gd and bad. The Force has its fair share, coz it's made up of HUMANS.
Let face it ganga, pple who were never in blue, will never understand what we do or have to go thru when we donned that uniform.
And for me,like u, those 3 years I had, was a life-changing experience.
Yes, it is unfortunate that some members of the public have the wrong impression of the Police. Perhaps my new book (in the next post) will help to correct this?
Sorry, shamelessly plugging my new book - The 'Unofficial' Police Handbook..
To the STUPID police FUCK, t3356:
Just because the idea tha a similarly stupid fuckhead like yourself (your stupid fuckhead police friend) doesn't give a damn about politics doesn't mean that he COULD NOT HAVE BEEN DIRECTED to do the dirty work of the stinking chink government of Singapore.
And it is you stinking STUPID COPHEADS and not the rest of the Singapore population who are far more guilty of forgetting that you are humans. You FORGOT that you were human after donning the Satanic garb of the Singapore Police Force. You are too arrogant if you ever entertained the belief that we thought you to be GODS. You are anything but. In fact you are not too many nothches behind Satan, if you ask me.
As for being taxpayers, do remember that the taxes that you paid come from the same public revenue (i.e. TAXES) that paid your monthly salary, and which you motherfucking shithead police fucks used to sustain your livelihoods while going around abusing the rights of law abiding citizens,
So enough of your pious rantings for heavens sakes.
Gangashit,
Please do humanity a favour and NEVER EVER write a book for the purpose of disinformation, and for prostituting for a livelihood that you are otherwise unaccomplished for besides doing police work for Singapore.
However, if you insist on doing so, I might just write another book titled "The REAL police handbook For The Politically Dissident And Others Who Wish Their Eyes Opened".
The point that T3356 was making was the fact the officer would not have known who Mr Nair was at the time of the incident itself.
In any case, I am alarmed that your civilities are deteriorating to such an extent (such violent expletives) and still feel that you are none other than Mr Nair himself.
It would of course make sense for you to be 'out of your mind' by now when juxtaposed to the fact that you have been held in Singapore - a place that you have come to detest with every fibre of your being, for a quarter of a year.
Please feel free to lambast me if it helps blow off steam - as I mentioned before, rather me than someone who would needlessly take action against you.
However, please do not use such strong personal attacks on the other commenters in this entry as the majority have nothing against you and are nothing but innocent bystanders. I hope you can understand where I am coming from and my prayers are with you, Mr Nair.
Gee Ganga Motherfucking Shit,
I don't lambast you or your equally motherfucking copheads to let off steam. I lambast you because you are making a fine display of your stupidity and inviting the retaliation.
But much more than that, your motherfucking cophead poster also believes that he needs to justify police abuse, shithead.
This is just typical of the police training you received in your nose snot police academy, isn't it? Like that fuckhead, the Great Police Secret Agent 3356, you believe that you shitheads have every right to be suspicious of anyone and everyone who crosses your path. What an excellent pretext for abuse! What information were you privy to before harbouring such suspicions? Or do you just fall back on that typcally your untrained SPF intellect of yours?
On top of adding two whole decades to my age, I didn't realize that Gopalan Nair had a Canadian citizenship on top of his American one. I WILL definitely be alerting him to this allegation you are making against him. I will be delighted to give him any assistance in this matter, fuckhead.
Why don't you do the truly brave thing and take me to task instead? Afraid that you would be up agaisnt the documentation of my case with Amnesty International, perhaps, motherfucker?
Or that you will also have to contend with the Canadian government?
Hey, guess what shithead? I now wish to suspect you of having murdered your mother and eaten her for lunch yesterday, fuckhead. Just on a whim like you shitheads do. So I guess that too gives me the right to make a police report against you, doesn't it, shithead?
And I pray that you will be hanged like all good murderers are, Ganga shit.
God Bless You...
This is a bit overdue, but don't ever let such ugly talk (especially by people who only post as "anonymous") get to you, Ganga. There are always people who dare to talk in such a way only because they are shielded by their anonymity, because they are unable to or afraid to do so in real life.
The Internet is their virtual reality where they can be kings and gods, where everything they say is expected to be the law.
Even compared to Nair, they are cowards. He does posts from the safety of a US citizenship, but at least he dares to identify himself.
Thank you Zhanzhao, your kind words certainly make a difference...
@anonymous
You sound like a child that has been badly bullied by the men in blue resulting in a lifetime of angst. I sympathise with you on that.
However, you have done nothing but proven that you are both 'stupid' and a 'thug' in this discussion. People normally resort to vulgarities when they do not possess the vocabulary to retort and debate in an intelligible manner.
Please remember that 'chink' is an offensive racial slur for 'Chinese' people in many countries. I cannot decide if you used it on purpose in your previous entry. Regardless, it is bad taste to use the term.
My question to you is this, is your purpose in participating in this discussion: a) to target the writer? or b) to educate, bring to light for readers like myself, the lack of transparency of the system, freedom of speech/press etc etc? If it is (a), please get his email address and deal with it privately so other genuine 'seekers of the truth' or 'near truth' do not have to be subjected to your colourful language. If it is (b), please try to achieve this with some taste (I am not requesting much here), instead of acting like a child. It will make it easier for people to empathise with your cause.
By the way, what you are doing is exactly what you accuse your 'enemies' of doing. You are bullying people who are opposed to your thinking with your unnecessary torrents of abuse. You are targeting every writer who does not agree with you. It is madness!
You are not helping your cause. It is a shame because I do think you have many valid points. Sadly you will just go down as the madly rude ranting guy.
Post a Comment