By Andrew Loh | Yahoo!
Newsroom – 5
hours ago
This article was
first published on publichouse.sg on Tuesday. The article has
been reproduced here in full with permission from the
authors.
By Andrew Loh / Richard Wan
On Monday morning at the High Court, a representative from the Law
Society of Singapore attempted to have lawyer Mr M Ravi disallowed
from carrying out his legal duties in Court, Mr Ravi told
publichouse.sg and TR Emeritus in an exclusive interview
in the same afternoon.
Mr Ravi was acting on behalf of Mdm Vellama Marie Muthu in her case
to request the Court to declare that the Prime Minister does not
have unfettered discretion in deciding when to call
by-elections.
Before the proceedings began in the morning, the representative
from the Law Society, Mr Wong Siew Hong, had approached both senior
counsel Mr David Chong, acting on behalf of the Attorney General,
and Mr Ravi, outside the Court room. Apparently, Mr Wong had a copy
of a letter from Mr Ravi’s psychiatrist, Dr Calvin Fones, which Dr
Fones had earlier sent to the Law Society. The letter was shown to
both Mr Chong and Mr Ravi.
In his letter, Dr Fones said: “I reviewed Mr Ravi on Saturday 14
May in my clinic following concerns expressed by his friends about
his recent moods and behaviours.”
Mr Ravi has confirmed that the date – 14 May – is wrongly stated by
Dr Fones. It should be 14 July instead.
Indeed, Mr Ravi had gone to see Dr Fones because his law firm
partner, Ms Violet Netto, was concerned that Mr Ravi was feeling
the pressure of the workload he was bearing. Ms Netto, according to
Mr Ravi, had asked him to see if he needed for Monday’s court
hearing to be adjourned. If so, he would require a doctor’s letter
to give to the Court.
On Saturday, Mr Ravi went to see Dr Fones who`gave him a letter, if
he needed to provide it to the Court. “I said I don’t need any
letters for adjournment and I am shocked that a letter was
written,” Mr Ravi said. Dr Fones also told Mr Ravi that he could go
back to him if required and provided Mr Ravi with the letter. Dr
Fones basically said Mr Ravi is under a lot of stress and that he
may not be able to attend Court. In effect, it was a medical
certificate.
On Sunday, however, Mr Ravi was already feeling better and felt he
could attend Court on Monday, which he did. Dr Fones’ letter to the
Law Society, however, said Mr Ravi “is having a manic relapse of
his Bipolar Disorder” and added that Mr Ravi “is currently unfit to
practice law and his illness is likely to affect his professional
capacity.” Dr Fones' letter, noticeably, was written in the present
tense, although he had seen Mr Ravi two days prior.
Dr Fones letter was dated 16 July 2012 which, incidentally, was
Monday, the day the hearing into the by-election case took
place.
According to Mr Ravi, Mr Chong seemed disinterested in what Mr Wong
had to say at first. Both parties then proceeded to Court to submit
their arguments on the case at hand, the PM’s discretionary powers
on by-elections.
Mr Ravi made his submissions, followed by Mr Chong. However, before
Mr Chong spoke on the by-election issue, he informed the Court that
there were certain matters to be addressed in Chambers before he
proceeded.
Justice Philip Pillai, the presiding judge, asked Mr Ravi if he had
anything to raise in Chambers. Mr Ravi said he had none. The judge
then proceeded with the hearing and Mr Chong went on with his
submissions on the by-election case.
After the proceedings had ended, Mr Wong – the Law Society
representative – asked to address the Court. Justice Pillai then
called all parties into Chambers where Mr Wong argued why Mr Ravi
should not be allowed to continue with the case.
Justice Pillai, who was reported to be upset with Mr Wong’s
intrusion into the Court room earlier, said that the behaviour of
Mr Wong was “unprecedented” and admonished Mr Wong and the Law
Society for it. He asked Mr Wong if Mr Ravi currently had a valid
practising certificate, to which Mr Wong answered affirmatively.
The judge said that was the only thing he was interested in and
said since Mr Ravi had a valid certificate, he was free to act in
Court.
“Justice Pillai made clear that the Law Society had nothing in the
day’s proceedings,” Mr Ravi told publichouse.sg and TR
Emeritus.
In the afternoon of the same day, an associate from Mr Ravi’s law
firm was representing Mr Ravi in another case in a separate Court
involving another client. The Law Society too tried to get that
Court to halt proceedings on the same grounds, that Mr Ravi was
unfit to practise – even though Mr Ravi was not in Court for that
hearing. The judge dismissed the Law Society’s arguments and
allowed proceedings to continue.
According to the Legal Professions Act:
“25C.—(1) If the Attorney-General or the Council is satisfied that
a solicitor’s fitness to practise appears to have been impaired by
reason of the solicitor’s physical or mental condition, the
Attorney-General or the Council (as the case may be) may apply to a
Judge by originating summons for`an order that the solicitor submit
to a medical examination.”
No such summons had been filed by the Attorney General or the Law
Society for Monday’s hearing.
It is however unclear if Dr Fones’ action of providing his
diagnosis of Mr Ravi’s alleged medical condition to the Law Society
is because Mr Ravi had given his permission for the doctor to send
his medical reports, henceforth, to the Law Society, following an
earlier case in 2008. In August that year, Mr Ravi was ordered by
District Judge Carol Ling to submit himself to “psychiatric
evaluation” at the Institute of Mental Health, after the Attorney
General had received the Court's approval to compel Mr Ravi to do
so.
When asked about this, Mr Ravi said there were conditions on how
the doctor could divulge information of his medical evaluation and
to whom. The doctor could only do so after he had examined him and
after Mr Ravi had seen the report. Also, the report was to be made
known only to his law firm partner, Ms Violet Netto, and Mr Ravi’s
younger sister. Neither was informed of Dr Fones’ diagnosis before
the letter was sent to the Law Society on Monday.
Moreover, Mr Ravi said Dr Fones had seen him for only 10 minutes on
Saturday, and thus questions if that is enough time for the doctor
to assess him and to say that he had had a "relapse."
Mr Ravi maintains that he is well and that this was ev)dent in his
behaviour in Court on Monday. He says that the fact that Justice
Pillai allowed him to continue with the hearing and to make his
submissions showed that there was nothing wrong with him.
Also, he said, the Court room was packed in the gallery with
members of the public who would have noticed if he had acted
unusually. He also questioned why, if he was having a relapse as Dr
Fones claimed, were his law firm and family not informed, and why
only the Law Society was informed about his alleged
conditions.
Finally, Mr Ravi asked why Dr Fones had not prescribed him any
medication, if his diagnosis was a serious one.
Mr Ravi said the Court and the Law Society had been fed “wrong
information”, referring to Dr Fones’ letter. He described what Dr
Fones had written as “ridiculous.”
“He did not examine me today,” Mr Ravi said on Monday.
He also referred to Dr Fones’ claim that Mr Ravi’s “friends” had
expressed “concerns” about Mr Ravi’s behaviour. “I do not know
which friends they are,” Mr Ravi said, “because I’ve asked Violet
Netto, who is my associate. If at all anyone should complain, it’s
her. [But] she said she had not spoken to anyone. So this is really
out of line, to damage my character and reputation.”
Mr Ravi admitted that he “is a little stressed” but added that this
was not unusual and that this was understandably so as he has been
involved in many cases” of late.
“To set the record straight, I am well,” he said. “The public saw
my performance, the judge definitely was with me.”
Indeed, a member of the public seated at the public gallery – Mr Ng
- felt that Mr Ravi had conducted himself professionally and had
not noticed anything wrong or unusual about the proceedings, he
told publichouse.sg.
Mr Ravi has been involved in death penalty cases for 10 years and
is recognised as Singapore’s most eminent human rights lawyer. His
most prominent capital cases include those of Nigerian Amara Tochi
and Malaysian Yong Vui Kong, who currently sits on Singapore’s
death row. A week ago, he was invited by the United Nations
rappoteurs on the death penalty to a consultation in New York where
Mr Ravi gave his views on Singapore's use of the death penalty. The
rappoteurs' reports will be presented to the United Nations'
General Assembly later this year.
On Tuesday, Mr Ravi goes back to Court for a pre-trial conference,
to act on behalf of Mr Kenneth Jeyaretnam. Mr Jeyaretnam is seeking
an injunction from the Court to stop the Singapore Government from
providing loans to the International Monetary Fund (IMF) as part of
the IMF’s plan for the Eurozone. Mr Jeyaretnam is arguing that the
Singapore Government was in breach of the Constitution by not first
having sought the approval of the elected president and
Parliament.
As for Monday’s case into the PM’s discretionary powers in calling
by-elections, Justice Pillai has reserved judgement.
“I love Singapore, I love my people,” Mr Ravi said. “That’s the
reason why I am here despite all odds.”