Sammyboy RSS Feed
27-06-2013, 07:10 PM
An honorable member of the Coffee Shop Has Just Posted the Following:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rumpole http://www.sammyboyforum.com/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.sammyboyforum.com/showthread.php?p=1156077#post1156077)
.....
A Professor is different from the many other intelligent people that our little island has in abundance. From the Confucian point of view, a teacher is not merely an instructor, but someone far more influential. A teacher and student – or Master and Disciple – connection is viewed in the same way as a parent and child relationship. Is that not the reason why people like Tommy Koh, Walter Woon and Chan Heng Chee were sent abroad to a comfortable exile of sorts in the first place? If left alone, would not a teacher (even a Malaysian one and this author had been schooled in the law at NUS by good and fearless teachers of various nationalities) in as elite a faculty as law at NUS have the power to influence a whole new generation of young and rebellious lawyers? For avoidance of doubt, the author is a Singaporean who has served his NS.
From all of the above examples, one can see that the Professor is a very intelligent man as well as someone who is prone to write critical articles about our Singaporean distortions of the Westminster model of governance. These criticisms were not from someone who spent ALL his life in academia like say Tommy Koh or Walter Woon (before he became AG and went over to “the dark side of the force”) but from someone who (from his CV) had served previously as a District Judge and was a Justice Law Clerk not just for any judge, but for the former Chief Justice of Singapore (who too was a Malaysian before he converted and a bosom friend of “He who must be Obeyed” to boot). So, he might be viewed rightfully by the public as someone who had inside knowledge of the workings of our unique mode of so-called “Nation-Building” and therefore more credible. Therefore, the need to discredit him?
This of course does not mean that the Professor could not have committed some personal indiscretions. However, the beauty of the judicial system that we inherited from the British is that a man is presumed innocent until proven guilty. And even if he did commit some indiscretions, if it does not ipso facto (by that fact alone) make Yaw Shin Leong a bad MP, will his conviction ipso facto invalidate the criticisms he had levied on Singapore’s unique distortions of the Westminster model?
……
This is from the thread I originally started in the Political folder within hours of the news report that a law professor has been fixed, ahem I mean charged, in “sex for grades”. I wrote that post, off the cuff, basically not having heard of this Tey guy before, and everything was researched very quickly from Google and thousands of miles away from Sinkieland.
Anyway, some months later, I chanced upon an article by one Mohan Gopalan. The title is scary, that is if you are a PAP crony and the Francis Seow episode is still fresh in your mind. It goes like this: “The Law Society of Singapore: Destined to Forever Hold its Peace?” The nerve of it, the Law Society daring to comment on the laws of the land, like doctors commenting on medicine. Really no big, no small. In Sinkieland, only the Government (read PAP) and its cronies are entitled to comment on anything without fear of being detained under the ISA, Sedition Act, etc. Members of the Law Society should be like all other Sinkies – obsessed with making money to pay for their COEs, ERPs, HDBs, CPFs, etc and no time to think about larger issues.
Now, from LinkedIn, this Mohan chap is now an associate at Drew & Napier. Before that, he was a tutor at NUS Law Faculty, but only for 5 months.
http://sg.linkedin.com/pub/mohan-gopalan/19/b9a/612
The faculty is ALWAYS on the lookout for bright students to join its academic staff. In fact, if you are any good, you will be approached in your third or fourth year, like I was, usually in a “casual” conversation with one of your tutors or lecturers. Why let Mohan go after only five months? My guess is that he is viewed as a troublemaker like his mentor, Professor Tey. In the minds of the Powers That Be, the Law Society should keep its mouth shut PERIOD.
Why do I say that Tey is his mentor? In a prominent footnote on the first page of his article Young Turk Mohan writes: “I am very GREATLY INDEBTED to Associate Professor TEY TSUN HANG of the NUS’ Faculty of Law for his helpful suggestions and comments on several earlier drafts of this paper. All shortcomings, of course, remain mine alone.”
The article can be viewed in full here without separate downloading at:
http://ebookbrowse.com/the-law-socie...-pdf-d45911986 (http://ebookbrowse.com/the-law-society-of-singapore-destined-to-forever-hold-its-peace-pdf-d45911986)
It can also be downloaded as a PDF here:
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.c...act_id=1541543 (http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1541543)
The reason why I provide this 2nd link is it shows that as at 24 January 2010, it says “Singapore Law Review, FORTHCOMING”. I went to the SLR website and couldn’t find the article. Was it ever published on the Singapore Law Review? And if not, why not? Who gave the order not to publish?
I am of course careful not to be seen to be casting any aspersions on the Sinkie Courts or the Prosecutorial Service, but I believe the above facts are worth bearing in mind when considering the case of Public Prosecutor vs Tey Tsun Hang and the way the trial was conducted, the way CPIB behaved even before it started, etc.
Click here to view the whole thread at www.sammyboy.com (http://www.singsupplies.com/showthread.php?155622-Law-Society-of-Singapore-Destined-to-Forever-Hold-Its-Peace&goto=newpost).
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rumpole http://www.sammyboyforum.com/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.sammyboyforum.com/showthread.php?p=1156077#post1156077)
.....
A Professor is different from the many other intelligent people that our little island has in abundance. From the Confucian point of view, a teacher is not merely an instructor, but someone far more influential. A teacher and student – or Master and Disciple – connection is viewed in the same way as a parent and child relationship. Is that not the reason why people like Tommy Koh, Walter Woon and Chan Heng Chee were sent abroad to a comfortable exile of sorts in the first place? If left alone, would not a teacher (even a Malaysian one and this author had been schooled in the law at NUS by good and fearless teachers of various nationalities) in as elite a faculty as law at NUS have the power to influence a whole new generation of young and rebellious lawyers? For avoidance of doubt, the author is a Singaporean who has served his NS.
From all of the above examples, one can see that the Professor is a very intelligent man as well as someone who is prone to write critical articles about our Singaporean distortions of the Westminster model of governance. These criticisms were not from someone who spent ALL his life in academia like say Tommy Koh or Walter Woon (before he became AG and went over to “the dark side of the force”) but from someone who (from his CV) had served previously as a District Judge and was a Justice Law Clerk not just for any judge, but for the former Chief Justice of Singapore (who too was a Malaysian before he converted and a bosom friend of “He who must be Obeyed” to boot). So, he might be viewed rightfully by the public as someone who had inside knowledge of the workings of our unique mode of so-called “Nation-Building” and therefore more credible. Therefore, the need to discredit him?
This of course does not mean that the Professor could not have committed some personal indiscretions. However, the beauty of the judicial system that we inherited from the British is that a man is presumed innocent until proven guilty. And even if he did commit some indiscretions, if it does not ipso facto (by that fact alone) make Yaw Shin Leong a bad MP, will his conviction ipso facto invalidate the criticisms he had levied on Singapore’s unique distortions of the Westminster model?
……
This is from the thread I originally started in the Political folder within hours of the news report that a law professor has been fixed, ahem I mean charged, in “sex for grades”. I wrote that post, off the cuff, basically not having heard of this Tey guy before, and everything was researched very quickly from Google and thousands of miles away from Sinkieland.
Anyway, some months later, I chanced upon an article by one Mohan Gopalan. The title is scary, that is if you are a PAP crony and the Francis Seow episode is still fresh in your mind. It goes like this: “The Law Society of Singapore: Destined to Forever Hold its Peace?” The nerve of it, the Law Society daring to comment on the laws of the land, like doctors commenting on medicine. Really no big, no small. In Sinkieland, only the Government (read PAP) and its cronies are entitled to comment on anything without fear of being detained under the ISA, Sedition Act, etc. Members of the Law Society should be like all other Sinkies – obsessed with making money to pay for their COEs, ERPs, HDBs, CPFs, etc and no time to think about larger issues.
Now, from LinkedIn, this Mohan chap is now an associate at Drew & Napier. Before that, he was a tutor at NUS Law Faculty, but only for 5 months.
http://sg.linkedin.com/pub/mohan-gopalan/19/b9a/612
The faculty is ALWAYS on the lookout for bright students to join its academic staff. In fact, if you are any good, you will be approached in your third or fourth year, like I was, usually in a “casual” conversation with one of your tutors or lecturers. Why let Mohan go after only five months? My guess is that he is viewed as a troublemaker like his mentor, Professor Tey. In the minds of the Powers That Be, the Law Society should keep its mouth shut PERIOD.
Why do I say that Tey is his mentor? In a prominent footnote on the first page of his article Young Turk Mohan writes: “I am very GREATLY INDEBTED to Associate Professor TEY TSUN HANG of the NUS’ Faculty of Law for his helpful suggestions and comments on several earlier drafts of this paper. All shortcomings, of course, remain mine alone.”
The article can be viewed in full here without separate downloading at:
http://ebookbrowse.com/the-law-socie...-pdf-d45911986 (http://ebookbrowse.com/the-law-society-of-singapore-destined-to-forever-hold-its-peace-pdf-d45911986)
It can also be downloaded as a PDF here:
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.c...act_id=1541543 (http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1541543)
The reason why I provide this 2nd link is it shows that as at 24 January 2010, it says “Singapore Law Review, FORTHCOMING”. I went to the SLR website and couldn’t find the article. Was it ever published on the Singapore Law Review? And if not, why not? Who gave the order not to publish?
I am of course careful not to be seen to be casting any aspersions on the Sinkie Courts or the Prosecutorial Service, but I believe the above facts are worth bearing in mind when considering the case of Public Prosecutor vs Tey Tsun Hang and the way the trial was conducted, the way CPIB behaved even before it started, etc.
Click here to view the whole thread at www.sammyboy.com (http://www.singsupplies.com/showthread.php?155622-Law-Society-of-Singapore-Destined-to-Forever-Hold-Its-Peace&goto=newpost).