Chiam See Tong Cannot Be Trusted

now available in pdf format.

2010-08-08T16:34:00.000-07:00

Chiam See Tong cannot be trusted.pdf (16.443 MB)
or
Chiam See Tong cannot be trusted.pdf (16.06 MB)
or
Chiam See Tong cannot be trusted.pdf (16.06 MB)

chiam see tong is nothing but a filthy double-agent

2010-07-08T18:58:00.000-07:00

There was no Grant of Probate or Grant of Letters of Administration of the Estate of Koh Wing Chye. An allegedly valid Will would only be produced by his wife, Lim Swee Ying, if she were compelled by a Court. Meanwhile, she exhausted all underhand means available to avoid being brought to Court. The man died destitute, his property sold a couple of months ahead, starved into submission. Who you take for a wife is very important. If you marry a whore, you'd bet she'll take care of you in your later years.

This was probably the only instance Chiam See Tong really represented me. When this letter went out, the possible counter-parties to a lawsuit were alerted, and Chiam See Tong was bought over.

Yap Kok Kiong is a lawyer who doesn't really care how he comes by his money. He has been let off by the Law Society of Singapore a couple of times. It's always useful to network. Naturally, he kept an eye blind to the fraud and forgery committed by his erstwhile partner in his law firm, Hoo Sheau Farn. One could even suspect he approved going by the number of times he was hauled in front of the Law Society Disciplinary Committee. Maybe he didn't see that there could be any harm with Hoo Sheau Peng headed for the Court Bench.

What was so damned important about the letter from K. K. Yap & Partners were the attachments. It was necessary to buy Chiam See Tong over straight away because the signatures on the acknowledgements of receipt of settlement arising over the sale of property differed from those on the transfer document, where lawyer Hoo Sheau Farn bore witness, even though both were allegedly signed on the same day of 8th of December, 1994. Both sets of signatures also differed from Koh Wing Chye's usual. The man had a simple signature, but he was consistent, and he never changed it over the years.

Hoo Sheau Farn. The bitch has a sister sitting on the Court Bench.

Signature of Koh Wing Chye in November 1961.

Signature of Koh Wing Chye in June 1991.

Signature of Koh Wing Chye in August 1991.

Koh Wing Chye was diagnosed with senile dementia and Parkinsonism in October 1994, just before the sale of his property in December 1994. He was at the mercy of his wife. She wanted him out of hospital the same day he was admitted. She started starving him soon after his property was sold. I tried to feed him when I realised his wife wasn't. He choked almost straight away. He died before morning could break on 31st of January 1995. The man never saw his money.

This was what Lim Swee Ying bought with some of her ill-gotten gains.

This is what the murder was all about. Note the free gift to Koh Cheong Soon in November 1996, her love-child with Koh Thong.

The buyer was Ow Koon Thiam alias Oh Koon Thiam, the next door neighbour from 10-F Jervois Road.

In one short year, Ow Koon Thiam made close to half a million dollars. Were there any prior arrangements between him and Lim Swee Ying?

When I sent a barrage of e-mails to Lee Kuan Yew, the CPIB called me over. During the interview I was accused of harassing the Old Fart, but I kept a straight face. Then I was shown a Will, purportedly of Koh Wing Chye's, by Miss Tracy Lai of the CPIB, but I was denied a copy. After that, I was dismissed. The Will was purportedly made at Irene Ng Lee Ling & Co. Always use a retiring lawyer's name when you fake a Will.

The CPIB involved in a cover-up?

Cannot get hold of the Will, therefore don't know who to sue, and therefore any-oh-how sue? Not according to Chan Fook Meng whom I consulted much later. What Chiam See Tong said to me was he didn't want to appear in the case sheet, so he'll help me sue but in my own name. What he meant to do was to lead me by the nose. Never use a lawyer who doesn't want to appear in the case sheet.

Koh Thong actually paid me $500 x 12 = $6,000 by cheque. I have recovered cheques totalling $4,500.

Koh Thong wasn't a concerned uncle as he alleged. For all my life until 1992, I never saw his fuck face. As I've always understood, this guy wasn't on speaking terms with Koh Wing Chye. But from 1992 to 1994 he visited Koh Wing Chye occasionally. This I believed was engineered by Lim Swee Ying. How Mrs Koh Wing Chye got so close to Koh Thong is a mystery to me. Lim Swee Ying needed to hand over the sold property. She initially tried to get rid of me by calling Wong Kan Seng's goons who then handed me to the military police for AWOL. This didn't work out when the C.O. of the reservist unit I was attached to knew me by face, and offered to release me for a $75 fine. So Koh Thong had to show his hand to find me accomodation. He actually went out of his way and bought a 2-room flat just to get me to move. Why would a man do something like that for somebody else's wife that he apparently wasn't too close to, unless there was something going on behind appearances. And I didn't ask Koh Thong for money. He gave me more than the $500 x 5 or 6 <= $3,000 he claimed. There's proof of at least $4,500.

Koh Thong claimed I stayed in his 2-room flat for 5 or 6 months. I actually stayed there from March 1995 to February 1996. My mail had to be addressed to his son, Koh Chong Huat's semi-detached property where Koh Thong stayed, and driven over to the flat from time to time. After the first month, there was zilch. That was when I started smelling a rat. Koh Thong initially alleged $166,666 from the sale of Koh Wing Chye's property was bequeathed to me, hence the $500 x 12 = $6,000 monthly interest. I finally realised Koh Thong and Lim Swee Ying planned together to give me nothing. When a neighbour told me someone was accessing the flat when I was out, I added locks of my own. Koh Thong wanted the flat back, but wouldn't give me my $166,666 he allegedly was holding. Never trust somebody who pops up out of nowhere, even if he's rich, for he could be screwing your mother. Koh Chong Huat was HDB Bukit Merah Branch Head, and Koh Thong knew he was breaking then HDB rules by not living in his flat. In February 1996, when he failed to get me to leave by cutting off the water and electricity to the flat, he broke his way in, and moved my belongings to a HDB rental flat at Commonwealth Crescent. I can't guess how he managed to get hold of a HDB rental flat for such a purpose. Sure I took the law into my own hands. Who wouldn't under such circumstances, especially when Wong Kan Seng's goons are as corrupt as their boss. The I/O that prosecuted me was only interested in nailing me. The I/O even went so far as sending me to IMH for psychiatric evaluation. In February 2007, Ko Poh Koon finally landed in Court on 10 counts of corruption and two counts of cheating, for which he was fined $1,500. I may have been jailed 4 months in 1997, but my conduct was better than Wong Kan Seng's 27-year veteran goon, and I dare say, better than the Old Fart himself.

Koh Thong spent $56,000 to buy a 2-room flat in November 1994, preparing to help Lim Swee Ying accomodate me.

The 2-room flat was sold after the minimum required 3 years. Once the objective was achieved, it was surplus to requirement.

I managed to get into IRAS to check on Koh Thong and Lim Swee Ying et al. You can actually check on T.T. Durai, Shi Ming Yi, or even the Old Fart himself. Of course you might get yourself jail-time checking the Old Fart.

You look at this information and the next, and you'd say to yourself, there's no way Koh Thong or Koh Hoon Yee would need a 2-room flat, just as would Shi Ming Yi.

Tan Hui Huang, Mrs Ow Koon Thiam alias Oh Koon Thiam departed on 21st July 2008 from cancer.

Koh Wing Chye was murdered by Koh Thong and Lim Swee Ying et al. Did I ever mention Koh Siow Kin is a whore? Well, her husband, Tan Kian Seng is no better. That's not to say Koh Siow Ling, Koh Siew Mei and Koh Siew Lee are excluded. It's like Macbeth and the famous witches. Tan Zhi Ming died in an untimely accident; see next.

Never think karma won't come and get you. This was pure evil 17-years in the making.

Blame his parents for the way he went?

Every time I mention the Will, trouble starts to stalk me.

Old Fart has his summary judgement. But that is not available to the rank and file. Koh Thong and Lim Swee Ying cannot honestly present themselves in Court. So they had Koh Chong Huat make me a wanted man. This is the classic Justice Bao and Water Margin story-line. Only thing is what we have is a Kangaroo Court.

Oum Prakash Singh is another Wong Kan Seng's goon.

When summary judgement is not available to you, and you cannot present yourself in Court, make him a wanted man. Better still, make him a wanted mad man. Destroy him altogether. This is more advanced than in Justice Bao's time where there was no mental asylum.

Stalk him all over the island, so he has no fixed place of abode, so he can't present his case in Court.

Yik Tze Kong is a corrupt lawyer. He offered me a copy of the Will, knowing I was a wanted man. And he wanted my address.

Yik Tze Kong went one better. Who said Yik Tze Kong cannot try a summary judgement knowing I was a wanted man.

Of course Yik Tze Kong tried a summary judgement based on a technicality. Order 6, Rule 2(f) of the Rules of Court says if you have no fixed place of abode, you can't sue anybody even if your life depends on it. Especially if you are also a wanted man.

This is Chiam See Tong leading me by the nose. By then I was in remand. I can't file a reply whilst in remand. He then never ever meant to move the case further than this. In fact he waited for it to lapse.

I was sentenced on 26th February, 2001 with a fine of $6,000, in default, 30 plus days jail-time. When I was coming out of jail was known. Lim Swee Ying changed her lawyer on 28th February, 2001. Guess why? It's the Will all over again.

Yik Tze Kong never proceeded with the summary judgement once I was in remand. It would abort the criminal case. Even for a Kangaroo Court, that would be too obvious.

Ow Koon Thiam alias Oh Koon Thiam tried to silence me. It didn't work.

can't be helped that the law society is a lair for cheats

2010-06-08T18:54:00.000-07:00

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

so the persecution continues

2010-05-08T18:54:00.000-07:00