I have been informed that a former
judge GP Selvam has been appointed by you to officiate over the Inquiry as regards the coup. Singapore
I wish to inform you that in my opinion, this man is totally unsuitable for the post as a result of a defect of moral character.
I was born in
Singapore and was a lawyer there from 1981 to 1991 after which I left for the and obtained political asylum. I am now a US US Citizen practicing law in . California
During my legal career in
Singapore I had joined 's opposition party, the Workers Party and worked in trying to unseat the then Lee Kuan Yew administration. As is the style of the Lee administration, the law was used to harass, intimidate and destroy me both politically and otherwise. And this man, GP Selvam, as a Singapore judge, willingly abused the law to suspend me for 2 years in approximately 1991 merely for writing a letter to the Attorney General of Singapore. Singapore
I had written to
Singapore Attorney General for his reasons on why he refused to advice the President of Singapore to grant a pardon to the late opposition politician JB Jeyaretnam. The disciplinary proceedings against me arose out of my writing the 2 letters. Singapore
The brief facts are as follows:
1. In the 1980s JB Jeyaretnam, a lawyer, was the bete noire of Lee Kuan Yew politically. Lee was determined to destroy JB Jeyaretnam.
2. No doubt under his orders, the Attorney General of Singapore Tan Boon Teik filed 3 charges involving check fraud against JB Jeyaretnam.
court found him guilty. He appealed to the High Court in Singapore and lost. There was no further appeal. Singapore
4. The Law Society of
commenced disciplinary proceedings against him. He was found guilty and disbarred in Singapore . At this time in lawyer disciplinary proceedings there was another appeal to the Privy Council in Singapore (the House of Lords). Jeyaretnam appealed to London . London
court found JB Jeyaretnam not guilty on all counts. This is their outraged message London
"Their Lordships have to record their deep disquiet that by a series of misjudgments, the appellant and his co-accused Wong, have suffered a grievous injustice. They have been fined, imprisoned and publicly disgraced for offences of which they are not guilty. The appellant, in addition, has been deprived of his seat in Parliament and disqualified for a year from practicing his profession. Their Lordships order restores him to the roll of advocates and solicitors of the Supreme Court of Singapore, but, because of the course taken by the criminal proceedings, their Lordships have no power to right the other wrongs which the appellant and Wong have suffered. Their only prospect of redress, their Lordships understand, will be by way of petition for pardon to the President of the
." Republic of Singapore
6. Since applying for a pardon was Jeyretnam's only option to restore his good name, he formally applied for a pardon.
7. The Attorney General of
Singapore, advising the president of Singapore, wrote his objection to any pardon which was published in the paper Straits Times. He said a) because he was not given an opportunity to appear at the London proceedings the London judgment was flawed b) as Jeyaretnam had not shown "remorse, repentance and contrition for the crimes he committed" he should not be pardoned. Singapore
8. I knew that the statement of the Attorney General that he was not allowed to appear at the
court was patently untrue. In fact the solicitor for the Singapore Law Society who was in court in London London had specifically informed the judges that the Singapore Attorney General was aware of the hearing and did not wish to appear. London
8. As to Jeyaretnam not showing "remorse repentance or contrition" how could a man show these feelings for a crime he did not commit!
9. I therefore wrote a letter to the Attorney General asking an explanation as to why he said this, under these circumstances. His response to me was that he was not a party to the proceedings and that if I need answers I should contact JB Jeyaretnam. Not satisfied with his letter I wrote again pointing out what he was incorrect and that if he does not give me a satisfactory reply, I would publicize the correspondence. I then faxed the correspondence to every lawyer in
10. He replied that he was reporting me to the Law Society of Singapore for misconduct. The Law Society filed a charge of "threatening" the Attorney General and another, "making false accusations against the Attorney General"
11. I denied the charges. The disciplinary inquiry against me took many days. Eventually the disciplinary hearing found me guilty. Under the procedures, the matter went before a 3 panel court in
to look into the findings and to sentence me. One of the judges was GP Selvam. He ordered that I be suspended from practicing law in Singapore for 2 years. All I did was to write a letter to the Singapore Attorney General. Singapore
11. The Commonwealth Secretariat office will be able to obtain copies and transcripts of this case from the Singapore High Court. If the Secretariat needs me to forward them, I will try to locate them for forwarding. GP Selvam had acted completely without any integrity of decency when he suspended me for 2 years merely for writing to
's Attorney General. It is obvious that when he did this, he was merely acting as Lee's tool to destroy and silence a government critic. Singapore
I now come to another case that that was in the news about this judge once again misusing the law to serve the Lee Kuan Yew government by destroying political opponents. This was the case of Tang Liang Hong. The brief facts are as follows:
1. In 1997
held it's national parliamentary elections. One of the constituencies contested was Cheng San Constituency. The opposition candidate among others was Tang Liang Hong, a Singapore lawyer. Singapore
2. At this time it was well known that the entire Lee family including himself had purchased million dollar properties from a development called Jade Mansions. It was known that every member of his family including himself had received preferential discounts from the purchase price not given to the members of the public. Being Prime Minister and Senior Minister, it appeared as corruption or a form of corruption.
3. Tang Liang Hong spoke about this at one of the political rallies before the elections.
4. For having said this, Lee Kuan Yew and others of his family sued Tang Liang Hong for defamation of character. In
it is well known that if he sues you, you know you have lost even before you step into the courtroom. Lee has never lost a case. Singapore
5. The man picked for the dirty job was the judge GP Selvam.
6. Just for mentioning this fact, Selvam found Tang guilty of a staggering damage award of $8.07 million
dollars (at today’s exchange rate about US$7 million). What is even more incredible is that he seized not only all of Tang's assets, he also seized all his wife's assets even though she had nothing to do with it. William Saphire the journalist once described this as an "extortion racket". Tang and his wife now live in Singapore Melbourne . He fled for his life. Australia
7. There is ample evidence of this case in the public domain.
I would categorically state here that using this man to officiate over the inquiry of such great importance to the future of the
, totally and permanently discredits the proceedings. GP Selvam is a person with a flawed character unsuitable and incapable of coming to any impartial decision. Republic of Maldives
He has shown himself to be a man who would do anything, however unconscionable to further his interests.
Furthermore, I am sure he is required under the rules to disclose any action in the past that may be derogatory against him. If he had failed to mention these cases, he has further incriminated himself by his failure to disclose, which he knew he was under an obligation so to do.
I strongly recommend that he be promptly removed from any office in these proceedings. I am going to publish this in my blog Singapore Dissident http://www.singaporedissident.blogspot.com/. This report in my blog will remain permanently in the Internet for all to see.
Attorney at Law
Tel: 510 657 6107