Connect with us

Media

Unfair report on human rights lawyer, M Ravi by Straits Times

Published

8 years ago

on

By Teo Soh Lung

Measured approach in lawyer M. Ravi’s case

Lawyer M. Ravi’s case caused a “lot of mess” but the Law Society came out of it quite well because people realised we were prepared to be tough in a rational and fair way, look at the big picture and the profession’s interest, said Mr Thio Shen Yi.

“I joke that I get defamed every other week but, when it affects our staff and our profession, we need to draw the line and say what is acceptable and what is unacceptable conduct,” he said.

Mr Ravi was suspended for two years by the Court of Three Judges in September after admitting to four charges, which included creating a ruckus at the Law Society premises on Feb 10 last year.

He was suspended to safeguard the public interest, given that his condition caused him to act in a manner unbecoming of a lawyer.

The attached Straits Times report is most unkind to Mr M Ravi, a prominent human rights lawyer. It is not correct to report that “Mr Ravi was suspended for two years by the Court of Three Judges in September after admitting to four charges, which included creating a ruckus at the Law Society premises on Feb 10 last year.”

Mr Ravi was not suspended but “prohibited from applying for a practising certificate for a period of two years from the date of this judgement” to quote the words of the Court of Three Judges who handed out the judgement on 27 Oct 2016.

There is a difference between being “suspended for two years” and being “prohibited from applying for a practising certificate for a period of two years”, the former entails not being able to work in a law firm during the period of suspension without the consent of the High Court.

A prohibition on the other hand means that Mr M Ravi is free to work as a para-legal without having to apply to the High Court for consent during the two-year period.

Mr Ravi had requested Mr K C Vijayan to correct the error in The Straits Times. It is hoped that Mr Vijayan will rectify the error soon.

On another note, I am glad to read President Thio Shen Yi’s affirmation that “The Law Society is one of the major components of civil society and it should not be looking purely at the interests of lawyers but at the wider interest in Singapore…” For too long, the Law Society has been in a docile mode after the warning of the late prime minister, Mr Lee Kuan Yew in 1986.

Mr Lee had rejected the Law Society’s role that it had a duty not only to the courts and the profession but also to the general public.

I look forward to the Law Society defending and speaking up against bad laws and policies and for members of civil society and the public who are constantly being harassed by the authorities and whose rights are being trampled.

To ensure that the members of the legal profession would be sufficiently cowed, Lee masterminded a televised Select Committee Hearing on the Legal Profession Act Bill. The Law Society Council and the Subcommittee members were subpoenaed to attend the Hearing.

The Hearing comprised eight PAP ministers, with three Cabinet Ministers including late Mr Lee Kuan Yew.

Lee imperiously and blatantly took over the chairmanship of the Hearing from the hapless Yeoh Ghim Seng.

Mr Lee conducted the proceedings in a highly adversarial manner. He cherry picked several individuals including Francis Seow, Teo Soh Lung and myself and subjected us to ferocious interrogation. However, Francis, Soh Lung and I were not sufficiently subdued by Lee’s bullying tactics on TV and Lee perceived this as a challenge to his authority. Anyway, the amendments to the Legal Profession Act were passed later and the Law Society can no longer comment on legislations unless asked to do so.

Read: Lee Kuan Yew and the Law Society

Related Topics:
Click to comment
Subscribe
Notify of
0 Comments
Newest
Oldest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

Trending