1. On last Friday, Ravi (Roy Ngerng’s lawyer) sent a letter of ten paragraphs to Davinder Singh (PM Lee’s lawyer). This post shall only focus on the last two paragraphs of the letter.
2. The last two paragraphs focused on having the PM to have a dialogue and frank conversation with Roy on issues related to the CPF. These two paragraphs raise a question, that is whether it is within the scope and duties required of Ravi to include these last two paragraphs in the letter. Is it not only required of Ravi to convey, on behalf of his client, to Davinder and his client, that the apology and undertaking had been carried out? By including those last two paragraphs, is it unprofessional on the part of Ravi?
3. Now let us shift attention to the irony within the last part of Ravi’s letter. While Ravi had acknowledged in paragraph 8 that Davinder’s letter had only focused on the “misappropriation” portion of Roy’s post, and not on the CPF related issues, why then did Ravi’s letter so abruptly switched to raising the CPF issues and dialogue with the PM at the final portion of the letter?
4. That answer is clear when Roy, at 2159 hours of Friday, posted on his Facebook (Read it at https://www.facebook.com/sexiespider/posts/10152189872144141).
5. So what does that post by Roy says? It mainly, once again, seeks to milk yet more political capital and to mislead the people! He wrote that he had “hoped that the prime minister would have accepted the invitation for an open dialogue as to where [and] how Singaporeans’ CPF is being used” but it was not mentioned in the latest letter of demands. Roy repeats these points again in a blogpost on Saturday (which has been removed as per the latest letter of demands sent on 26 May).
6. One may ponder WHY should Davinder give that issue any mention at all when it wasn’t at all an issue pursued by the PM, and being TOTALLY UNRELATED to the case! One may also ponder WHY must Ravi include that issue in his letter and sort of expect Davinder to engage him on that? I suggest that the second question can be answered when Roy posted on Facebook.
7. It is a case of unprofessionalism displayed by Ravi, and of which Roy tapped on to milk more political capital and mislead the people that the CPF related issues have always been part of the case brought about by the PM? The law profession is a very important one, with the judiciary being one of the three pillars of our system. Will anyone turn a blind eye to the unprofessionalism displayed by Ravi, which was then built on to mislead the people? How will the unprofessional conduct by Ravi affect the image of the law profession and perhaps even the judiciary system as a whole?