In these 2 clips,Gopalan Nair told his story in Little India incident.

What is Police's story?

SPF shall react to his story asap.

GPN said he was released after 12 hours detention.

Can Uncle Yap interview him in a more quite place?

Gopalan Nair’s Interview After Tak Boleh Tahan

sources: http://sgfrag.net/   as at 07 july 2008 0950am.

In second clip,he said he just challenged Lee's to sue him in blogs,

not challenged them to use Police to charge him!!

Oh!!Lee's did not play according to his rules of games!

GPN will attend court on 8 and 11 July.

 

1.GPN claimed police did not identify themselves when they approached him.

2.I am sad to learn that,if true,that a small American citizen like GPN,.

refused to furnish his particulars as he claimed he was a US citizen and the Police has no right to check on him.

Woh!!What a American Counsel and Ambassdor would think?

3.i am afraid police will delete this press release,like

they did for GPN first arrest.It seems not a wise move.

  31 May Man Arrested for Insulting Public Servant

In response to media queries, a police spokesman confirmed that a male Indian was arrested for disorderly behaviour and using abusive words towards public servants yesterday (lion note--US Independence Day)at about 10.45pm at the junction of Race Course Road and Bukit Timah Road.

Plainclothes officers on their routine anti-crime operations in the area heard a loud knock on their marked Police vehicle when it stopped at the traffic light road junction of Race Course Road and Bukit Timah. They saw a male Indian walking away. When the officers identified themselves and interviewed the person, he became abusive and refused to furnish his particulars as he claimed he was a US citizen and the Police has no right to check on him. Despite repeated warnings to stop his verbal abuse, including a racist slur against one of the Malay officers, he continued to be uncooperative and persisted in his abuse.

The commotion caused by the subject attracted a crowd of over 25 onlookers, which created a risk of public disorder due to the inflammatory remarks used by the subject. The police officers, after giving the male subject repeated warnings to calm down and not to cause a public disturbance, had no choice but to arrest him for disorderly behaviour and for using abusive words towards public servants.

When the Police placed him under arrest, he put up a fierce struggle and resisted arrest. As a result, the subject’s glasses were broken and he sustained slight bruises. One of the Police officer’s glasses was also broken.

It was only after his arrest that the man subsequently disclosed his full name as Gopalan Nair at the station to the officers. In accordance with police procedures, a medical examination by a doctor was conducted in the police station and a blood sample was taken with Gopalan Nair's consent to analyse for the presence of any alcohol.

Gopalan Nair has since been released on police bail. Gopalan Nair is being investigated for using abusive or insulting words towards a public servant and disorderly behaviour under the Miscellaneous Offences (Public Order & Nuisance) Act. A person convicted for the 1st offence using abusive or insulting words on a public servant is liable to a fine not exceeding $5,000 or imprisonment for a term not exceeding one year. A person convicted for the 2nd offence of disorderly behaviour is liable on conviction to a fine not exceeding $1,000 or imprisonment for a term not exceeding one month.

Police takes a serious view of those who disturb the public peace and who are abusive to Police officers performing their duties.

Released as factual information

Gopalan Nair is currently facing two charges under the Penal Code for intentional insult to a public servant sitting in a judicial proceeding under Section 228 of the Penal Code, Chapter 224. These charges relate to an email sent by him to Justice Lai Siu Chiu in 2006, and a posting on his blog relating to Justice Belinda Ang in May 2008. Both Justice Lai and Justice Ang are High Court Judges.

PUBLIC AFFAIRS DEPARTMENT
SINGAPORE POLICE FORCE
05 July 2008 @ 6.00pm

 

Gopalan Nair Arrested for Disorderly Behaviour in Public and for Using Abusive Words Against Police Officers  

4.His alreday existing  charges:

Intentional insult or interruption to a public servant sitting in any stage of a judicial proceeding.
228. Whoever intentionally offers any insult or causes any interruption to any public servant, while such public servant is sitting in any stage of a judicial proceeding shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to one year, or with fine which may extend to $5,000, or with both.

5.can i suggest American Club accept him as a non--fee paying

AD Hoc member.

BTW,Gurkha,whom GPN dunt like them here,

are guarding the club with machine guns.

6.It has been good 48 hours since GPN released on Sat noon

and 24 hours after Bishan road show,SDP has not

showed supported for GPN in their web site!!

But CSJ was busy posting other non--urgent stuffs.

 

What a comrade!!

Remember GPN turned into a involuntairy stayer because

he came to SG to support CSJ and SDP!!

Now,GPN got into trouble and they have showed nothing

to support.

This is reality of life,man.

beaten by 5 police officers, he is looking fine and eating french fries like it's his birthday party.

we have the next contender!

I believe anybody here can whack better than the 5 police officers.

Originally posted by foxtrout8:

I believe anybody here can whack better than the 5 police officers.

Whacking a lawyer is a whole different thing.

A legitation lawyer of 10 years said he was ambushed.

So how?

The only time when such manner of keeping quiet and allowing the mistake to be continued to be made. Of watching the dangerous steps to be taken in the wrong direction while the conscious party awaits and observes happens in military operations when an enemy is knowling lured into a trap - in simple terms, in a maneuvre called an ambush.

http://chiatilik.wordpress.com/

The Act of Wrongful Accusation

July 1, 2008 <!-- at 12:34 am --> Posted by chiatili

Originally posted by Short Ninja:

Whacking a lawyer is a whole different thing.

He claimed that the police were violent in their approach, attacking him including punches thrown at him and kicking on his head. As a grown up man having practiced law, he was intimidated by the whole incident.

If it is true that the police were so violent in their approach, we will see a different picture of gopalan nair. Unless a lawyer has a totally different biological system, we should be able to sense his trauma or at least see the superficial injuries especially on his head.

If the police force is as tyrannic as what he had described. Do you think they care if he is a lawyer, assuming that they really want to give him a good beating ? Go to some other country where the police force  is realli screwed up, do u think they care if u are a foreign lawyer and give u less a beating?

 

wtf is a legitation lawyer?

a lawyer in the process of being legit?

 

He gave up his citizenship, right? So why talk so much? People who give up something always will find fault with what they gave up to show that they make the better, wiser choice. So go back to his adopted country where there are also serious issues for him to make noise over. Some more now election time over there. Your country needs you Gopalan Nair – go home.

Originally posted by adetet:

Some more now election time over there. Your country needs you Gopalan Nair – go home.

Wait, go home but not so fast. Wait for your trial and serve your sentence before going home.

Originally posted by foxtrout8:

Wait, go home but not so fast. Wait for your trial and serve your sentence before going home.

well said. hahaha

Mr Nair should b sentenced as soon as the court allowed it so, prolonging stay in Spore might do the country no good.

The eagle has landed.But now become a pigeon in cage.

Shall Amercian citizen in SG above SG laws?

GPN owes us a explantion.

Hire a good lawyer to air your story.

BTW,3 million plus ''prisoners'' are still waiting for you to free,

if u can get freedom first.

2.

I believe anybody here can whack better than the 5 police officers

My friend.If 5 SG police whacked him and he still can talks so long,

i think we need to re design police trainings in Close Quarters

Fighting!!

 

Originally posted by maurizio13:

 

wtf is a legitation lawyer?

a lawyer in the process of being legit?

 

lmfao....good one

far as i remember, if the police asks anyone to furnish particulars and the subject is non compliant..they have the right to arrest the subject to establish the nationality in case subject is ii or over stayer..this so called us citizen got what he deserved..

 

here come the Super Man Gopalan Nair!

10 police needed to pin him down?

First he said 4 police,later he said ten.So,how many police?

Looking back, I see about 4 people in civilian clothes. They confront me and ask who I was. And where I was going.

They use their boots to kick me while I am in the floor.

In the physical encounter, with about 10 policemen in plainclothes overcoming me, they have obviously won the physical fight.

Actually,how many police,Mr Nair?

How do you know it was Boots?Can u feel the difference being stepped

by shoes,boots or Bata?

Has your glass broken during the fight?

Or they were wearing uniforms and u forget?

 

 

Insulting to police was bad,but the worse was incorporating racist

remarks!!

In his blogs,Nair fights for the rights of Indians and Malay in Singapore,

against ''Chinese dominant"' (in his words) gavaman.

But when things happen to him,he was accused saying this to a Malay

police:

"Malay bastard".

who is the real Bastard?

http://singaporedissident.blogspot.com/2008/08/continuation-of-disorderly-behaviour.html

under

Wednesday, 3oth July 2008/ Court no. 6/ Subordinate courts/ Trial continues

To Mr. Koy's questions, Kang says he showed his police pass and that he verbally told me 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".

http://www.straitstimes.com/Latest%2BNews/Courts%2Band%2BCrime/STIStory_256825.html?vgnmr=1

July 11, 2008

 By Elena Chong, Court Correspondent

Nair allegedly used four-letter words on police officers at the junction of Bukit Timah Road and Race Course Road at about 10.35 pm on July 4. -- ST PHOTO: LAU FOOK KONG

 

2.Do American police gets insult every day and dunt mind?

can any one help me check with Dr Rice,US Secretary of State,if it is true?

It is interesting to note that he said:

http://singaporedissident.blogspot.com/2008/07/singapore-july-21-2008-another-day-in.html

An American police officer would not have minded if anyone insulted them, as this happens almost on a daily basis, but apparently not so with the Singapore police.

OMG!Did he tell us that USA police get paid for his mother,

wife and sisters are sent regards every day when he is on duty?

It it so hard to get a job in USA nowaday?

 

Among the things he said was: 'Don't waste my f....... time. You go and do your job properly and catch thieves and I did nothing wrong'.

 

The continuation of disorderly behaviour and hurling insults case, whatever that means.

Ladies and Gentlemen,

I continue in Court 6, Subordinate Courts, Singapore at 9.30 am on Monday July 28, 2008. The story continues from the last blog.

I am writing as time permits. I have been in court nearly every day with either this case or the Blogging case, having to work on them, leaving little time to report. As time permits, I write these blogs. Apologies to not being to be more immediate in the reporting. But rest assured, it will be done.

I reported in my last blog, on the previous day of trial that I had objected to the presence of Investigating Officer S Vikneshwaran sitting in Court during the proceedings because in Dr. Chee Soon Juan's previous cases, a valid objection was raised with the Investigating Officer sitting in court and then being observed to leave the court room and found to be coaching other police prosecution witnesses who were yet to testify, enabling them to tailor their evidence against Dr. Chee to secure convictions.

Today the Prosecutor, Mr. Peter Koy Su Hua, started the day by making a lengthy but regrettably useless and time wasting speech by explaining in detail that it was not proven in Dr. Chee's earlier case that the police in fact misbehaved in this way, but regardless, he will agree not to allow the Investigating Officer S. Vikneswaran not to be present in court while he is not testifying and to instruct the Police Officer Thien not to indulge in such illegal activity by listening to the evidence in court and then going out and telling the other police witnesses who are yet to testify, what was said.

Next, I objected to the prosecution' list of witnesses. There were supposedly several witnesses, all police officers, except for the doctor who already testified. Except for their names and they speak English, nothing was said in it as to what their role may be. I understood from other cases that the list should not only state their names and language spoken but also the gist of their testimony. I do not know if this was another dirty trick played by the Singapore Government prosecutor's office to obtain criminal convictions against political opponents of the government, but upon my raising this objection, Mr. Koy Su Hua did state orally what their roles will be, but I am still left without a written statement of their particular roles.

Next, Senior Staff Sergeant Kang Wei Chien takes the stand. He claims to be part of the policemen who arrested me on the day in question and the leader of them. He claims to have been in the Police Force for 15 years etc. He goes into a narrative. He says together with others he conducts anti crime patrols to collect information and basic investigation. He says he and his men will dress in civilian and not police uniforms, they will be in marked police cars and sometimes on foot, they go in a group of 6 policemen and such general stuff. I had asked the court to dispense with these background on the duties and practices of the Singapore Police Force, not wanting to write a theses on it, and come straight to point with the incident of my arrest, but the court permitted this totally irrelevant background information which served no purpose other than to waste everyone's time.

As background to this blog post, a leading question is one that tends to elicit a particular answer, such as "The defendant stole the purse, did he not"?, since it is almost certainly result in your witness saying "He did". Such questions are disallowed in cross examination. The prosecutor with this witness was almost repeatedly asking such leading questions to which I naturally objected. Mr. Koy then tried to justify them by saying they were "specific questions" and not "leading questions". To that, I pointed out that I have never heard the term "specific question" in the law of examination of witnesses, to which the court took no issue and the examination of Mr. Kang, the police officer went on.

Finally Mr. Koy, the prosecutor decided to come to the point of the actual case, namely the claim that I behaved in a disorderly manner and insulted police officers on July 4th, 2008, at about 9 pm at the junction of Race Course Road at Little India and Bukit Timah Road.

Kang, the police officer claims that he went on patrol to Race Course Road with 5 other police officers. He claims they were in two marked police cars, with him and another policeman Seargent Azar in the leading car and the others in another car some way behind.

Kang, the police witness says that his task was "to look for suspicious characters" and "also to visit such places like pubs and clubs to look for trouble makers as there are lots of fights at closing time".

He claims Seargent Azar was driving the vehicle, sitting on the right (Singapore has right hand drive vehicles) with him on the left front seat.

He claims that at about 10.30 pm, his car on Race Course Road drove to the traffic signal lights at the junction of Bukit Timah Road and stopped at the junction, being the first car at the junction, the other police car with the other policemen being a few cars away.

The prosecutor Peter Koy Su Hua then proceeds to refer him to some photographs which were taken at the scene. I naturally objected to him testifying on the photographs as the law requires the maker of the photographs to testify in court on their authenticity before anyone else can give testimony on them. Peter Koy's argument, ingenious but without basis nevertheless, was that he should be allowed to testify on them, and if subsequently it is proven that they are unsubstantiated, his testimony can be ignored. I objected to this argument. I demanded that the photographer be produced first to confirm their authenticity before Kang testifies anymore on these photographs.

Court agrees that photographers be called before any further testimony by Policeman Kang.

Mr. Quek Kim Nguan, police photographer takes the stand. An elderly man who does not know much English. To the question from Peter Koy Su Hua, he confirms he took the photographs.

My turn to cross examine him. He said he took the photographs of the street on July 22, 2008.

To the question from me "Do you know what a junction is?", his answer was "traffic light junction". Again to the question "do you know what a junction is" he says he cannot answer. He did not know the meaning of the word "junction". On the whole, it was clear that the poor man had hardly any English. Since the pictures did appear to show the scene, it was not necessary to make too big an issue of this man. He was released after testimony.

Next came another police witness Staff Seargent Tan Kim Kiang, a photographer, as well as a scene of crime officer, specializing in taking fingerprints. This time he took photos of the 2 police vehicles in question. He said he took photographs of the 2 police cars, a set of which I had been given. He said he took the photographs at the basement parking lot of the disused market at Little India and that he took fingerprints on the car. He then says he sent the fingerprints to the Criminal Investigation Department for results and that they "were unable to confirm that the fingerprints were mine" because, listen to this, "they don't have any records of the accused person"!

Another ingenious mind boggling statement by a government desperate to defend the indefensible. The long and short of it was that there were no fingerprints on the police car, and if there were, they were not mine. Someone else who hates in Little India at the time who hates the police like many do, may have decided to "knock" the police car and scoot off. Instead of that " they come out with this gibberish that "they were unable to compare any fingerprint with the accused person because they don't have any records of the accused person". The simple point of it all is that they cannot prove that I ever touched any police car, keeping in mind that their contention for stopping me was that I had touched their police car!

July 29, 2008/ Court 6/ Subordinate Court

Senior Staff Seargent is seen by Mr. Yap Keng Ho, another civil rights activist who happened to be in court that Mr. Kang, the police witness was in the court eavesdropping, while the 2 police photographers were testifying, from the from within the witness room, since according to Mr. Yap, this was possible. Mr. Yap is in court and I ask that he be permitted to testify as to this wrong doing.

Mr. Peter Koy Su Hua, the prosecutor objects on the ground that Mr. Yap was not in the witness room at the time, second that Mr. Kang was within the witness room and never came out and therefore there is no basis for him to say this. According to Mr. Yap however, it is possible to do this since the witness room is not sound proof. I inform the court that Mr. Yap has proof that this has happened in other occasions.

I then ask the court, Judge James Leong Kui Yiu sitting, that I be permitted 5 minutes to speak to Mr. Yap who is in court. Application to do so is denied.

Mr. Peter Koy Su Hua then addresses the court claiming that I have made unsubstantiated allegations against police officers of the Singapore Police Force, that this is part of my defense and that he hoped that the Judge would direct me not to make unsubstantiated allegations against policemen again. The judge then asked me not to make unsubstantiated allegations to which I replied that if I have personal knowledge of some fact, it is not unsubstantiated and I ma entitled to complain if that is the case. Matter was left at that.

I now cross examine Mr. Tan Kim Khiang, the witness who is a police photographer and a scene of crime expert who took the fingerprints.

There is some unintelligible testimony from his that my fingerprints were not found on the car because they did not have records of my particulars even though I was arrested that very night and my fingerprints were taken at the police station. When people who want to hide the truth usually end up with gibberish and that was what he was saying. The judge made no attempt to clarify his nonsense ordering that whatever he said made sense. It may have made sense to the judge, the Singapore prosecutor bent on prosecuting Singaporean dissidents but certainly not on an rational bystander. We have just to leave it that there were no fingerprints of mine on that police car regardless of whatever fairy tale reasons there may be.

Mr. Kang, the police officer then gives evidence from the witness box (the stand). Mr. Koy the prosecutor now tenders a sketch plan of the scene and asks Mr. Kang to testify as to the position of his car in the plan. Of course I object. Koy is trying the same trick he did with the photographs. Again the rule is when a person has made a plan of a sketch place or scene, if anyone else is made to give evidence on it, the maker of the plan has first to confirm that it was he who made the sketch plan. Mr. Kang, not having drawn the sketch plan has no authority to give evidence on it without this. Court upholds my request.

Wednesday, 3oth July 2008/ Court no. 6/ Subordinate courts/ Trial continues

Mr. Koy Su Hua now wastes time again. Since the last time the court sat, today, he produces 2 cases heard in the Singapore High Court apparently to prove that the sketch plan can be admitted in evidence merely to be identified and someone other than the maker can give evidence on it, and if subsequently it is proven that the sketch plan is false, we can then ignore the earlier evidence! All this even if it is very easy for him just to call Mr. S Vikneshwaran to court and confirm he drew the sketch plan! And he takes about half hour or so to give large explanations of what he thought this case from the court even though I have never heard of these cases before and this is then first time that I have been handed copies of this case! And what is more these 2 cases are lengthy and consist of nearly 200 pages of small print about matters that have nothing to do with criminal law at all! They are shipping cases, where contractors had negligently repaired a ship!

Naturally I object to this time wasting. To this totally irrelevant case to prove a point which is totally unnecessary when all they had to do is to just call Mr. S Vickneshwaran to court!

You would have thought the judge would have put a stop to this nonsense. Nothing of the sort. Mr. Koy is permitted to make his academic pedantic but totally unnecessary rendition of what the law was. The case he refers to is Jet Holdings vs Cooper, both the High Court and the Appeal case. Naturally I ask for sufficient time to read the lengthy case, but the judge allows mew only 30 minutes to read nearly 200 pages in fine print about a complicated shipping case and not only that, understand it!

So Mr. Koy stands up to start his long academic speech as to what the law about whether the court can rely on a document even without calling the maker of it to prove it. And to everyone's surprise, at the end of that totally unnecessary speech, he says that he admits that the cases he has referred does not entirely prove his point and that if necessary, he is prepared to call the maker of the plan, Mr. S Vickneswaran to confirm that he did it!

After all this, I point out to the court that firstly, the case actually confirms the rule that in the case of documents, the maker of the document has in fact to be called to confirm its authenticity before it can be used as evidence! End of jet Holdings vs Cooper and any reference to it. Mr. Koy after all is prepared to call Mr. S Vickneshwaran to testify!

The Court now calls to the stand a man who wishes to be known as S Vicki. Mind you, this is not his name at all! He says he is S Vicki. He states that he wrote the sketch plan of the scene.

It is now my turn. I ask him what is his full name. To that he says it is Vikneshwaran son of Sockalingam, which in Singapore is written Vikneshwaran s/o Sockalingam. Viola, finally we have now found out his real name, which he and others like him in this case were so desperately keen to conceal. He is a Tamil of South Indian descent. Not very educated and appeared grateful that he has a job as a policeman in the Singapore Police Force for lack of any better.

Mr. Vickneshwaran s/o Sockalingam now leaves and back comes the prosecutor to continue his examination in chief of Mr. Kang.

Mr. Kang refers to the sketch plan, where he was in the sketch plan and the layout of the junction of Race Course Road and Bukit Timah Road.

Mr. Kang says that his vehicle stopped at the first line of the traffic line junction, as the signal was red. In other words his was the first car at the traffic light junction. He claims he heard a "continuous and loud" knocking sound on his car while he and his driver Sergeant Azar was in it, and saw a "male Indian walk past his side towards Bukit Timah Road". "Sergeant Azar and myself made a quick check on the left hand side of the car to see if there was any damage". "The male Indian's back was facing us. Sergeant Azar shouted at the male Indian "Hello Sir" "Hello Sir" for a few times, and at the same time we were walking towards him but there is no response from the male Indian". (The language is not grammatically correct, written verbatim. Mr. Kang does not know English well) he claims his intention of approaching the male Indian (me) was to ask him why he knocked his car and to take his particulars so that if the car was damaged, he "he will have someone to fall back on".

Mr. Koy's examination in chief of Mr. Knag continues. He says when he reached the male Indian (me), he touched me, Sergeant Azar touched me on the shoulder. Mr. Kang then claims, I shouted back "Who are you?", "think you are all policemen, so what?", " You all policemen go and do your job and go catch thieves, don't bother me, I have done nothing wrong".

To Mr. Koy's questions, Kang says he showed his police pass and that he verbally told me 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". He then claims that I had had accidentally knocked his car (although how a man can accidentally "continuously and loudly" knock a car is mind boggling).

To Mr. Koy's question, Kang then says that while shouting I was "gestilating" with my hands. Not knowing the English word, what he meant to say that I was gesticulating with both my hands!

Now he says something very strange indeed!. He says that 2 uniformed policemen appeared at the scene from Tanglin Police Station saying that they received a 999 emergency call stating that there was a "dangerous man" in the scene and asked him whether I was attending to him? Not being sure, Mr. Kang asks the 2 men from Tanglin Police Station to check with their Operations Room!

It is now my turn to cross examine Mr. Kang the policemen. You will see how incredible Mr. Kang's testimony is!

Nair: Are you saying someone knocked your car many times correct?

Kang: Yes. I did not say many times. I said "continuously" and "loudly"

Nair: When you said "continuously" what did you mean by that?

Kang: I said someone knocked my car continuously. It means continuously. I cannot tell how many times. That is why I said continuously.

Nair: How many times is "continuously"

Knag: I do not know how many times and I do not wish to commit myself.

Nair: You were in your car at the time of the incident on the 4th of July 2008, is that right?

Kang: Yes sir.

Nair: You say your car was knocked "continuously". Why is it that you cannot even guess how many times?

Court: Interjects.

Nair to Court: I am entitled to cross examine this witness on this material point. This is a question that goes to the root of this case. I am entitled to ask this question as to why he cannot state even a guess as to how many times his car was knocked even though he was in the car. I am asking that I be entitled to put this crucial question to him.

Koy Su Hua, the Prosecutor objects to my question on the ground that the question has been asked and answered.

Nair to Court: Koy's objection is invalid as this is cross examination and the accused is entitled to full opportunity to defend himself in a criminal case where the burden of proof is on the prosecution on the basis of proof beyond reasonable doubt.

The point here is this. Kang says he was inside the car. He says he heard his car being knocked continuously and loudly. Yet he is not even prepared to say how many times was "continuously" even though according to him, it was not only "continuously" but also "loudly".

Nair: Was the continuously knocking on your car by someone; was it a very hard knocking or a very slight knocking?

Knag: I wish to state that I cannot tell whether it was hard or soft knocking because I was inside the car.

Nair: I realize that you were inside the police car. From the inside, did you hear a loud knocking, slight or what?

Knag: It was a "loud" " continuous" knock.

Nair: If it was a loud continuous knock, did you turn to see who was knocking your car?

Kang: I turned and saw the accused walk past my car on the left side.

Nair to Court: I am asking the court to for assistance to advice the witness to answer the question because witness is refusing to answer it.

Nair: let me ask this question to you again and please answer the question. I am not asking whether anyone walked past your car. I am asking whether when you heard continuous loud knocking on your car, did you turn to look at who it was?

Kang: I did turn and I saw a male Indian walk past my car.

Nair: This continuous knocking on your car about which you claim you are unable even to guess how many times it was, even though you were in the car, and even though it was loud as you state, for what period of time did the continuous knocking last? Was it 1 minute, or 2 minutes or 5 minutes?

Knag: I do not know how long it was because I did not have a watch to time how long it lasted.

Nair: I am not asking for an exact period of time. For example if someone had asked me how long have I been in this court today, I can guess perhaps 10 minutes? Coming back to you Mr. Kang, even without a watch, how long do you think the continuous knocking lasted?

Kang: I do not wish to commit myself to the timing, as I do not know.

Nair: You are a police officer.

Kang: Yes.

Nair: Do you know that it is a criminal offense under the Penal Code for someone to continuously and loudly knock a police car?

Kang did not provide a response.

Nair: Was that male Indian that you claim walked past your car running away?

Kang: No he was walking past my car

Nair: Did you see me continuously and loudly knock your car.

Kang: I did not see you continuously and loudly knock your car.

Nair: You say that you saw a male Indian walk past your car. Did you see that male Indian continuously and loudly knocking your car?

Kang: No I did not.

Nair: Why is it that if someone continuously and loudly knocked your car, while you were in the car, you do not know who it was?

Kang: Your honor, I never saw, how do I know who it is?

Nair: Are you trying to say that you are inside a car; someone knocks your car continuously and loudly. Why did you not turn to look who it was?

Knag: When I heard someone knock the car, I only saw the male Indian walk past the car, and therefore as such I cannot see who knocked the car.

Nair: I put it to you that your claim that someone knocked your car continuously and loudly is a figment of your imagination.

Kang: Your honor, what is a figment?

Nair: I rephrase. I put it to him that you are lying about someone continuously and loudly knocking your car

Kang: I disagree

Nair: Put to him that if someone continuously and loudly knocked his car, he would have known who it was.

Kang: I already said I did not see. I disagree.

Nair: if someone had continuously and loudly knocked your car, you would have immediately arrested the person

Kang: I never saw who knocked the car. When I turned the knocking already stopped, the accused already walked past my car.

Nair: Do you know any reason why I would want to continuously and loudly knock your car?

Kang: I do not know why and the accused should know it.

Nair: Can you imagine why someone would want to knock a police car with police markings continuously and loudly and just walk beside your car? Can you imagine why someone would want to do that?

Kang: I do not imagine anything in this court. I only tell the truth.

Nair: Can you not agree that if someone were to knock your car continuously and loudly for no apparent reason, which is incredible by itself, would you not expect that person to run away, instead of leisurely walking past your car?

Court: Disallows question. Orders that I move on.

Nair: Do you have any reason why I would want to knock your police car continuously and loudly?

Kang: I do not wish to commit myself because I do not know that.

Nair: After the continuous and loud knocking you said you came out to see if your car was damaged.

Kang: Me and Sergeant Azar made a quick check on the left hand side of the vehicle.

Nair: How long did your examination of the car take?

Kang: I cannot commit myself how long it was.

Nair: Was it 10 mins, 15 mins, 20 mins, how long?

Kang: I do not want to guess or imagine things in this court.

Nair: You are not prepared to say how long the examination took.

Kang: I already said I am not prepared to commit myself.

Nair: Is it because you are refusing to do so or unable to do so. You are duty bound to answer questions.

Kang: I am unable to do so as I do not know how long it took.

Nair: Are you saying that while you were checking the car, this male Indian was leisurely way

Kang: yes.

Kang then says that he had to check on the vehicle first and later to call out to me to ask if I knocked the car. He says that while he was checking the car the male Indian continued to walk away. He said the male Indian was walking to Bukit Timah Road. That when Sergeant Azar started calling out "Hello Sir" the male Indian was a distance from us, that he cannot tell what the distance was. He cannot tell but it was 20 to 30 meters away. He repeats that the male Indian walked past his car but did not see him knocking continuously and loudly. He repeats again that he did not see anyone knock his car. To the question that if indeed the male Indian had walked 20 to 30 mothers toward Bukit Timah Road while he was stationary at the traffic light junction, being the first car, the male Indian would have been in the middle of the Bukit Timah Road and would have been knocked down by a car and died, his answer is now that in his opinion it was 20 to 30 meters. He then says it could have been 10 meters.

I had put it to him that he had no probable cause to have stopped me on that day. I put it to him that he had instructions from above to look out for me and have me arrested. I put it to him that I have not been charged for knocking anyone’s car. He admits that he never saw me knock the car and that his purpose was to conduct a search and to question me on whether I knocked the car.

He says that Singapore police can stop anyone for a consensual conversation. That if the suspect is suspected of having committed an offense, they can check on him.

He admits that none of them were in police uniforms. He claims that he cannot say that Race Course Road and Bukit Timah junction is a crowded place on July 4th 2008 at night because he does not have any statistics. He refuses to answer the question. I put it to him that perhaps the male Indian did not stop because he thought that perhaps the calls of "Hello sir" were from thieves and gangsters, to which he says he cannot comment as he cannot speak on behalf of other people. He disagrees that the location at that time is a crowded place. He then admits that he never identified himself as police officers at all but later changes to say that he identified himself later.

I put it to him that I thought they were gangsters and thieves as they were in civilian clothes and did not identify themselves. I put it to him that I had no obligation to respond to any questions in those circumstances.

Case continues in Court 6 Subordinate Court 9.30 am on Aug 6, 2008. Future dates are August 14, 15, 18, 19, 20, 21, 2008.

See you there if you want too witness the proceedings.

http://singaporedissident.blogspot.com/2008

I am tired of this clown. Go home to his wonderful America.
But serve time first. Pity he probably won’t get canned like another infamous American!

September 26, 2007
by Paul Craig Roberts

Bush’s “war on terror” quickly became Bush’s war on Iraqi civilians. So far over one million Iraqi civilians have lost their lives because of Bush’s invasion, and four million have been displaced. Iraq’s infrastructure is in ruins. Disease is rampart. Normal life has disappeared.

Self-righteous Americans justify these monstrous crimes as necessary to ensure their own safety from terrorist attack. Yet, Americans are in far greater danger from their own police forces than they are from foreign terrorists. Ironically, Bush’s “war on terror” has made Americans less safe at home by diminishing US civil liberty and turning an epidemic of US police brutality into a pandemic.

The only terrorist most Americans will ever encounter is a policeman with a badge, nightstick, mace and Taser. A Google search for “police brutality videos” turns up 2,210,000 entries. Some entries are foreign and some are probably duplications, but the number is so large that a person could do nothing but watch police brutality videos for the rest of his life. A search on “You Tube” alone turned up 2,280 police brutality videos. PrisonPlanet has a selection of the most outrageous recent cases.

Police brutality has crossed the line from using excessive force against a resisting Rodney King to unprovoked gratuitous violence against persons offering no resistance, such as the elderly, women, students, and elected officials. Americans are not safe anywhere from police. Police attack Americans in university libraries, in public meetings, and in their own homes.

Last week we had the case of the University of Florida student who was repeatedly Tasered without cause for asking Senator Kerry some good questions in the question and answer period following Kerry’s speech. Two days after the Florida student was gratuitously brutalized, Senate Republicans defeated Vermont Democrat Patrick Leahy’s bill to restore habeas corpus protection.

A UCLA student was Tasered by police without cause for studying in the university library without having his student ID on his person. Following police orders to leave, the student was walking toward the door when police grabbed him and repeatedly Tasered him.

On September 19, 2007 a young woman was repeatedly Tasered without cause by a large brutal cop in a parking lot outside a night club in Warren Ohio.

On September 14, 2007, Roseland, Indiana, city council member David Snyder was ejected from a council meeting by dictatorial council chairman Charlie Shields. Snyder had protested being limited to one minute to speak. Police goon Jack Tiller escorted Snyder out, and as Snyder exited the building, Tiller, following behind, pushed Snyder to the ground and without cause began beating Snyder in the head with a nightstick. Snyder was hospitalized.

Local TV news stations throughout the US offer an endless stream of police brutality videos, which are then posted on the stations’ web sites, often with an opportunity for citizens to express their opinion of the incidents.

There are many disturbing aspects to police brutality cases.
One disturbing aspect is that the police always arrest the people that they have gratuitously brutalized. There was no justification whatsoever to arrest councilman Snyder, or the UCLA student, or the University of Florida student. The cops committed assault against innocent citizens. The cops should have been arrested for their criminal acts. Instead, the cops cover up their own crimes by arresting their victims on false charges that are invented to justify the unprovoked police violence against citizens.

Another disturbing aspect is that no one tells the police to stop the brutality. “Free” Americans are so intimidated by police that on February 19 of this year male customers in a Chicago bar stood aside while a drunk cop weighing 251 pounds beat a 115 pound barmaid, knocking her to the floor with his fists and repeatedly kicking her, for obeying the bar rules and not serving him more drinks.

Yet another disturbing aspect is that a minority of citizens will justify each act of police brutality no matter how brutal and how unprovoked. For example, WNDU.com’s poll of its viewers found that 64.2% agreed that Snyder was a victim of police brutality, but 27.8% thought that Snyder got what was coming to him. “Law and order conservatives” and other authoritarian personalities invariably defend acts of police brutality. Perhaps the police brutality pandemic will bring the day when we will be able to say that a civil libertarian is a law and order conservative who has been brutalized by police.

The most disturbing aspect is that the police usually get away with it.

I remember decades ago when civil libertarians in New York City tried to stop police brutality by establishing civilian review boards to introduce some accountability into the police’s interaction with civilians. Law and order conservatives at William F. Buckley’s National Review went berserk. Accountability was “second-guessing” the police. The result would be a crime wave. And so on.

Police forces have always attracted bullies with authoritative personalities who desire to beat senseless anyone who does not quake in their presence. In the past police could get away with brutalizing blacks but not whites. Today white citizens are as likely as racial minorities to be victims of police brutality.

The police are supreme. The militarization of the police, armed now with military weapons and trained to view the general public as the enemy, against whom “pain compliance” must be used, has placed every American at risk of personal injury and false arrest from our “public protectors.”

In “free and democratic America,” citizens are in such great danger from police that there are websites devoted to police brutality with online forms to report the brutality.

Nine years ago Human Rights Watch published a report entitled, “Shielded from Justice: Police Brutality and Accountability in the United States.” The report stated:
“Police abuse remains one of the most serious and divisive human rights violations in the United States. The excessive use of force by police officers, including unjustified shootings, severe beatings, fatal chokings, and rough treatment, persists because overwhelming barriers to accountability make it possible for officers who commit human rights violations to escape due punishment and often to repeat their offenses. Police or public officials greet each new report of brutality with denials or explain that the act was an aberration, while the administrative and criminal systems that should deter these abuses by holding officers accountable instead virtually guarantee them impunity.

“This report examines common obstacles to accountability for police abuse in fourteen large cities representing most regions of the nation. The cities examined are: Atlanta, Boston, Chicago, Detroit, Indianapolis, Los Angeles, Minneapolis, New Orleans, New York, Philadelphia, Portland, Providence, San Francisco, and Washington, D.C. Research for this report was conducted over two and a half years, from late 1995 through early 1998.

“The brutality cases examined, which are set out in detail in chapters on each city, are similar to cases that continue to emerge in headlines and in survivors’ complaints. It is important to note, however, that because it is difficult to obtain case information except where there is public scandal and/or prosecution, this report relies heavily on cases that have reached public attention; disciplinary action and criminal prosecution are even less common than the cases set out below would suggest.

There is no way to hold police accountable when the president and vice president of the United States, the attorney general, and the Republican Party maintain that the civil liberties and the separation of powers mandated by the US Constitution must be abandoned in order that the executive branch can keep Americans safe from terrorists.

Even before the “war on terror,” federal police murdered 100 people in the Branch Davidian compound at Waco, and no one was held accountable.

Who is a terrorist? If the police and the US government have the mentality of airport security, they cannot tell a terrorist from an 86-year old Marine general on his way to give a speech at West Point. Retired Marine Corps General Joseph J. Foss was delayed and nearly had his Medal of Honor confiscated. Airport security regarded the pin on the metal as a weapon that the 86-year old Marine general and former governor of South Dakota could use to hijack an airliner and commit a terrorist deed.

In America today, every citizen is a potential terrorist in the eyes of the authorities. Airport security makes this clear every minute of every day, as do the FBI and NSA with warrantless spying on our emails, postal mail, telephone calls, and every possible invasion of our privacy. We are all recipients of abuse of our constitutional rights whether or not we suffer beatings, Taserings, and false arrests.

The law makes it impossible for Americans to defend themselves from police brutality. Law and order conservatives have made it a felony with a long prison sentence to “assault a police officer.” Assaulting a police officer means that if a police thug intends to beat your brains out with his nightstick and you disarm your assailant, you have “assaulted a police officer.” If you are not shot on the spot by his backup, you will be convicted by a “law and order” jury and sent to prison.

No matter how gratuitous and violent the police brutality, a “free” American citizen can defend himself only at the expense, if not of his life, of a long stay in prison. Osama bin Laden must wish that he had such power over Americans.

Now enjoy this:

Governor at the Pearly Gates

The governor (slang : one looked upon as governing) stood before the pearly gates of heaven.

The Angel of the gates asked him: Why did you allow police brutality, false imprisonment and excessive fines?

The governor asked: “What do you mean”.

The Angel replied: Quality control! Was there ever any quality control? Did government EVER scientifically ask questions of the arrested? Did you ALWAYS assume the police were right? Was communication to government limited by fear of police reprisals, police lies, falsified evidence, police harassment, excessive or false imprisonment or threats of imprisonment made to the victim or the witnesses?

The governor replied: “America’s courts are the best in the world. I have always refused to let the courts be criticized!”

The Angel replied: “You still don’t know that the American courts committed extortion and torture?”

The governor replied: “I, I don’t understand”

The Angel replied: “Indeed! Did you think the police had intelligent, sane judgment?”

The governor replied: “Well, not during high school …”

The Angel replied: “Don’t you have an expression on earth – Garbage In, Garbage Out?”

The governor replied: “I know, but we all liked to believe all the cop stories on TV. Did you ever see…”

The Angel replied: Was American Justice ever a double-edged sword? Did the police usually get prosecuted for their lies, errors, and excessive force? Was any case against the police be prosecuted simultaneously with the victim’s crime?

The governor replied: “The police investigate police.”

The Angel replied: “Did that work?”

The governor replied: “Ah, well actually Uh, only when the media got involved.”

The Angel replied: “Did the media get involved?”

The governor replied: “A few times. I wouldn’t have been elected if I criticized the police…”

The Angel replied: “But you would get into heaven.”

The Angel continued: Did you allow the suppression of litigation against government? Did fear of reprisal and longer sentences limit justice? Were the police allowed to accuse people of false crimes that resulted in days, weeks, or months or even years in jail?

The governor replied: “Yeah, but other countries were worse…”

The Angel replied: “Is that good logic?”

The governor replied: “No, but, but, everybody said it was…”

The Angel replied: “No man is a friend of force received. You were taught that to Turn the other cheek”.

The governor replied: “But everybody knows that doesn’t apply to governments!”

The Angel replied: YOU WILL BE SENT BACK TO HELL FOR ANOTHER LIFETIME! You will reincarnate!

The governor whined: “But what about the police?”

The Angel replied: “You will be one…”

Was nice to hear that someone tried to highlight my blog entry Singapore Dissdent Goes Awry? as the (unofficial) Police perspective on the issue (albeit in another thread). I hope that there is enough information in the entry itself for readers to form their own opinions with regard to the event.

Well, I hope that lionnoisy will not be taken to task too hard for his indiscretion in opening a new thread - the upside being that his efforts have resulted in a new member to this community - me. Thank you for considering my intellectual contribution worthy of discussion.