Farcical machinations of the PAP

Posted: August 7, 2008 in Uncategorized

In his latest blog entry, Mr Nair exposed the farcical machinations of the PAP administration. His trial was held in Court 6, Subordinate Courts, Singapore at 9.30 am on Monday July 28, 2008. Readers may read the whole entry here: http://singaporedissident.blogspot.com/2008/08/continuation-of-disorderly-behaviour.html

Here are some revealing excerpts for readers to consider.

1) The police could not provide evidence that Mr Nair knocked on their police van.

“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”!”
-Excerpt from blog entry

That’s an outright lie – a lie told so badly that you just have to laugh at the attempt! According to Mr Nair, the night he was arrested, the police fingerprinted him at the station. All they (the police) have to do now is to compare records, and if the prints on the van were indeed Mr Nair’s, the police would end up looking good in court. BUT they came up with a lame “they don’t have any records of the accused person”. One has to wonder why.

2) The phantom knocker

“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.”
-Excerpt from blog entry

Kang is one of the police officers involved in arresting Mr Nair on the 4th of July. According to his court testimony, he DID NOT see Mr Nair knocking on the police van. And he said ‘I only saw the male Indian walk past the car, and therefore as such I cannot see who knocked the car’. Was it a Freudian slip? Did he mean to say the male indian who walked past his van (allegedly Mr Nair) and the phantom knocker were 2 different persons?

Singa Crew


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s