Mr. Koh Chong Kiang
Block 536 Upper Cross Street #11-245
S(050536)
4 May 2005
Attn:
Director (Professional Standards)
Law Society of Singapore
Complaint under Section 85(1) and Section 75B of the Legal Profession Act
In the year 2000 (April or something, sorry I did not retain a copy), I wrote to your office filing a complaint about a sale agreement between Mr. Koh Wing Chye (deceased within a month from date of sale) and Mr. Ow Koon Thiam over the property known as 10H Jervois Road.
My complaint was that the signature of Mr. Koh Wing Chye, the seller, in the sale agreement, that was witnessed by Ms. Hoo Sheau Farn, the lawyer representing the seller, was an obvious forgery.
The police, of course, wasn’t investigating. Ms. Hoo Sheau Peng is a judge. The law society, of course, wasn’t investigating. It is no longer an independent body.
So why am I complaining? Maybe because I believe the truth will come out one fine day? I’m dreaming, of course.
Anyway, since I was certain the dead do tell tales, I engaged the services of a political figure lawyer to pursue the case of the forged signature. Chiam & Co. offered to help, on condition I represented myself. Chiam & Co. offered only expertise. The case started as DC2514/2000M.
Funny thing was, Chiam & Co. wasn’t being very honest about its intentions. In the words of lawyer Mr. Chan Fook Meng (maybe not his exact words, but the meaning is there), "I’m surprised the case was even allowed to be filed". In other words, the case was dead as filed.
Mr. Koh Chong Huat complained to the police, I was told, in July that year, about having his life threatened, and about e-mail harassment by me in what was to become DAC 54600/2000 and MAC 8668-8673/00.
Mr. Koh Thong is Mr. Koh Chong Huat’s father. They both reside at 71 Faber Green. Mr. Koh Thong was one of two defendents named in DC2514/2000M. Mr. Yik Tze Kong is the lawyer representing the two defendents in DC2514/2000M.
Mr. Yik Tze Kong is not an honest officer of the court either. Mr. Koh Chong Huat made me a "wanted person". Mr. Yik Tze Kong applied to have DC2514/2000M struck off. I refer you to SIC9030/2000/C. Mr. Yik Tze Kong also invited to supply a copy of a will. I refer to his letter, LSY/003807/EK/CT/rs dated December 4 , 2000.
I was duly arrested unaware of what lawyer Mr. Yik Tze Kong and his clients did. The judge presiding over DAC 54600/2000 and MAC 8668-8673/00 wasn’t made aware either. He wasn’t particularly a nice judge. In fact, he looked liked a kangaroo. Anyway, I was standing way-off what could have been a hundred yards?. I wasn’t allowed anything so I cannot measure the distance. I cannot be sure if he was or wasn’t an animal. Anyway, animal or not, he duly struck off the charge of criminal intimidation.
Something was not right. The District Public Prosecutor was sweating profusely. The witness, Mr. Koh Chong Huat, I was questioning was speaking in ever softer tones. I couldn’t hear the replies to my questions, but the judge said he could. I read somewhere that kangaroos have good hearing, or was it bats? Or was it kangaroo bats?
The judge got hungry or something. Or maybe he felt sorry for the rookie District Public Prosecutor that was handed my case. He offered to screw my ass on only half the e-mail harassment charges if I capitulated. I had been worried about being in jail for seven years. That wasn’t going to happen now. I was in jail for five months already. One more month wasn’t going to make much of a difference. I was more worried about not being able to empty the post office box I was renting as I wasn’t able to renew the rental. So I capitulated to the kangaroo.
The rest, like they say, is history. Once I was arrested, it was important the actions taken by lawyer Mr. Yik Tze Kong and his clients be swept under the carpet. If not for the honesty of the postman, the kangaroo and myself would happily or unhappily have lived on unawares. I was released five days after my post office box rental was due. There was still time. Postmasters are honest, believe me. At least the one in charge of post box rentals. I think I can still dig up his name somewhere if you require a referral as to who may make an honest lawyer.
The kangaroo wasn’t aware. I tried to make him aware. But I only had $400+ in my pocket. Had to sell my scanner and printer to get the "+". A member of his flock wasn’t too keen about straining her eyes, apparently, when I filed a complaint about undisclosed facts of my case.
Nobody appeared for SIC9030/2000/C. I refer you to letter dated 19 April 2001 by Glen de Souza for Registrar. Two days after I capitulated, Mdm. Lim Swee Ying, the other defendant in DC2514/2000M changed her lawyers to Messrs. Tan Loh & Wong. Did I mention that no lawyer is honest? It was written somewhere in a Buddhist magazine, in an article contributed by a lawyer.
Anyway, I am not saying that Tan, Loh or Wong, whoever was representing Mdm. Lim Swee Ying now, was not honest. There is nothing to indicate him or her to be not honest. The change of lawyers by Mdm. Lim Swee Ying was made so that what was offered by Mr. Yik Tze Kong in his letter, LSY/003807/EK/CT/rs dated December 4 , 2000 need not be carried out.
I can’t read minds, as you may be aware already. I can’t possibly tell what was going through the mind of Chiam & Co. when he saw me out so soon. He dragged DC2514/2000M all the way to almost the time for it to lapse, told me he was retiring, returned my files after a few days of delays, never mentioned about DC2514/2000M lapsing, and took almost a year after that to finally close shop.
After consulting with lawyer Mr. Chan Fook Meng, who mentioned that "on top of his head, without checking, so don’t quote him, if a case such as was aforementioned, where the seller died so close to the sale, the time period allowed for legal action is twelve years and not six years" as was advised by Chiam & Co. and the legal aid bureau.
Chiam & Co. wasn’t apparently representing me. I checked the files returned more carefully now that I had an honest and comprehensive alternative opinion. There were too many liquid paper marks over the court submissions. Even the clerk serving the summons wrote that he took instructions from me personally when, in fact, I never saw his face.
I think, if you represent an independent body, you might look into the case. But, alas, you do not any longer represent an independent body.
If, however, you should require to see more evidence, I can supply them, as I live nearby right now. But I should imagine, the court possess more than sufficient evidence, as I’ve already mentioned them above.
If you require the police to investigate the case first, then I suggest you let cows into your council meetings. They’re better than shredders. They have four stomachs, I’m told. Virtually unrecognizable as documents after the four stomachs. They won’t get jammed either.
In confidence
(Attachment)
Mr. Koh Chong Kiang
Block 536 Upper Cross Street #11-245 S(050536)
27 May 2005
Attn:
Ms. Prabha Dubed
Director (Professional Standards)
Law Society of Singapore
Fax: 65363855
Re: LS/4/2005/ML/PD
I believe my letter to be not that badly written, but that you choose to fudge the issue.
My previous correspondence with your society was a complaint against Ms. Hoo Sheau Farn. The complaint was about a forgery in which she was involved. That complaint was made in year 2000. I'm sorry, but I do not now have the reply from Ms. Yasho Dhoraisingam. Maybe you want to refer to her or to Jennifer or something, who is her secretary?
Mr. Chan Fook Meng is the lawyer who gave me second opinion. If you can trace him to Unilegal LLC, you should be able to figure out that Messrs. Chiam & Co. only had one lawyer. But I guess your brain is not quite up to that sort of strenuous deduction.
Do not forever more send me your information leaflets regarding the lodging of complaints under sections 85(1) and 75B of the Act, which is poorly written and which obviously does not explain anything clearly.
My complaint, to put it simply, is that the sole former lawyer of the former law firm, Messrs. Chiam & Co. and Mr. Yik Tze Kong colluded to pervert justice. Which does not mean my previous complaint in the year 2000 against Ms. Hoo Sheau Farn no longer stand. Whether the former law firm Messrs. Tan Loh & Wong was involved is not so clear-cut. If you want me to spell it out to you, maybe you should provide me with your society's version of the penal code.
Perhaps you can get a clearer picture of what I am talking about by perusing the court papers I mentioned or what I have written on my website, http://www.plusminus48degreeswobble.blogspot.com.
Yours sincerely
