Dumb 4th Gear July 31, 2012 Share July 31, 2012 But some one said he is unfit to practise. ↡ Advertisement Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
LoverofCar 6th Gear July 31, 2012 Share July 31, 2012 When u are up against the mighty force.....many things will be pulled out to make sure u can't bite anymore..... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
HOUSENUMBER Neutral Newbie July 31, 2012 Share July 31, 2012 what is that ? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heartlander Turbocharged August 1, 2012 Share August 1, 2012 On 7/31/2012 at 6:00 PM, LoverofCar said: When u are up against the mighty force.....many things will be pulled out to make sure u can't bite anymore..... Please do not blame everything on the mighty force. In this case, there is obviously something wrong with the guy with his past and what he has just done in Hong Lim Park. Gave me alot of goose pimples just knowing that, and I really mean alot. Come in, a sane guy will do what he has done? Just stamp and chop himself that he is nut. If you do not bother to read his history, then please do the wise thingy. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lala81 Hypersonic August 1, 2012 Share August 1, 2012 If u think Ravi doesn't have a few screws loose, I don't know what to say ... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dumb 4th Gear August 1, 2012 Author Share August 1, 2012 Was just wondering whether he has a license to practise and if he has then why is he considered not fit to fit to practise. Can I give license to a doctor to practise and at the same time say in public that he is not fit to practise? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Branteo Clutched August 1, 2012 Share August 1, 2012 On 8/1/2012 at 1:18 AM, Dumb said: Was just wondering whether he has a license to practise and if he has then why is he considered not fit to fit to practise. Can I give license to a doctor to practise and at the same time say in public that he is not fit to practise? Why not? At the point of awarding the certification / admission to the Bar, .. one can be competent - at that point in time. Eg. A surgeon, .. top notch in his field ... suddenly developed severe blurred vision, coupled with trembling hands. You reckon he can still be a surgeon? And I mean to actually & personally carry out the ops in the operating theatre, and not consultancy tasks. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dumb 4th Gear August 1, 2012 Author Share August 1, 2012 On 8/1/2012 at 1:38 AM, Branteo said: Why not? At the point of awarding the certification / admission to the Bar, .. one can be competent - at that point in time. Eg. A surgeon, .. top notch in his field ... suddenly developed severe blurred vision, coupled with trembling hands. You reckon he can still be a surgeon? And I mean to actually & personally carry out the ops in the operating theatre, and not consultancy tasks. Then the license issuer should immediately withdraw the licence instead of bringing a letter from a doctor all the way to the court to inform the judge that the licensee is not fit to practise. Now at this point of time, has the license being withdrawn? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jman888 Moderator August 1, 2012 Share August 1, 2012 On 8/1/2012 at 1:02 AM, Lala81 said: If u think Ravi doesn't have a few screws loose, I don't know what to say ... other way to look at it mean we are suppressing ourselve [laugh] Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joseph22 Turbocharged August 1, 2012 Share August 1, 2012 On 8/1/2012 at 1:59 AM, Dumb said: Then the license issuer should immediately withdraw the licence instead of bringing a letter from a doctor all the way to the court to inform the judge that the licensee is not fit to practise. Now at this point of time, has the license being withdrawn? Are you posting to suggest that there is a conspiracy involved with regards to this dealing?? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dumb 4th Gear August 1, 2012 Author Share August 1, 2012 On 8/1/2012 at 2:08 AM, Joseph22 said: Are you posting to suggest that there is a conspiracy involved with regards to this dealing?? What conspiracy? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
JumpySpeedFiend 2nd Gear August 1, 2012 Share August 1, 2012 As long as his license to practice has not been revoked, he is still a qualified lawyer. The fact that he has mental problem as of now, is not disqualifying him. This is the view of the judge when Law Soc handed over the medical report and the judge is spot on. Until the day they revoked his licence, Ravi is a qualified lawyer. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joseph22 Turbocharged August 1, 2012 Share August 1, 2012 On 8/1/2012 at 2:20 AM, Dumb said: What conspiracy? how i know? you are the one who start this thread, that is why i am asking you. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dumb 4th Gear August 1, 2012 Author Share August 1, 2012 On 8/1/2012 at 2:21 AM, JumpySpeedFiend said: As long as his license to practice has not been revoked, he is still a qualified lawyer. The fact that he has mental problem as of now, is not disqualifying him. This is the view of the judge when Law Soc handed over the medical report and the judge is spot on. Until the day they revoked his licence, Ravi is a qualified lawyer. Doesnt that look dumb of the license issuer. The issuer has the right to revoke the license to practise, not the judge. Instead of doing so, went to the judge to with a letter mentioning that the licensee is not fit to practise. Confusing!!! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tonyhawk 1st Gear August 1, 2012 Share August 1, 2012 On 8/1/2012 at 2:58 AM, Dumb said: Doesnt that look dumb of the license issuer. The issuer has the right to revoke the license to practise, not the judge. Instead of doing so, went to the judge to with a letter mentioning that the licensee is not fit to practise. Confusing!!! representative acted "on his own volition". not on behalf of the society. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
JumpySpeedFiend 2nd Gear August 1, 2012 Share August 1, 2012 (edited) On 8/1/2012 at 2:58 AM, Dumb said: Doesnt that look dumb of the license issuer. The issuer has the right to revoke the license to practise, not the judge. Instead of doing so, went to the judge to with a letter mentioning that the licensee is not fit to practise. Confusing!!! Revoking the licence might take a while, probably got to go through a board of review etc... Law Soc just want to bring the medical report to the judge as they feel that they have the "obligation" to alert the judge that Ravi could be having a relapse. They are not applying for him to be removed. The judge rightfully disregard the report and allow Ravi to continue. Edited - Acted "on own volition" is likely a face-saving gesture by Law Soc. :) Edited August 1, 2012 by JumpySpeedFiend Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Damienic 5th Gear August 1, 2012 Share August 1, 2012 On 8/1/2012 at 3:25 AM, JumpySpeedFiend said: Revoking the licence might take a while, probably got to go through a board of review etc... Law Soc just want to bring the medical report to the judge as they feel that they have the "obligation" to alert the judge that Ravi could be having a relapse. They are not applying for him to be removed. The judge rightfully disregard the report and allow Ravi to continue. The whole thing makes that Mr Wong and the law society looked bad. They should have known and gone through the correct procedures to try and get him disqualified if they feel strongly about it instead of barging in like that and warn the judge that Ravi has a problem. Ravi has now served a letter of demand to both Wong and the law society. Personally I do not particularly like Ravi as well but I will have to say that the actions of Wong and the Law Society is wrong too and they brought it upon themselves of the embarassment created. 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joseph22 Turbocharged August 1, 2012 Share August 1, 2012 On 8/1/2012 at 3:33 AM, Damienic said: The whole thing makes that Mr Wong and the law society looked bad. They should have known and gone through the correct procedures to try and get him disqualified if they feel strongly about it instead of barging in like that and warn the judge that Ravi has a problem. Ravi has now served a letter of demand to both Wong and the law society. Personally I do not particularly like Ravi as well but I will have to say that the actions of Wong and the Law Society is wrong too and they brought it upon themselves of the embarassment created. I think they are in a catch 22 situation. as a law society, they have to ensure that the lawyer under them are fit to practices so if they think something is not right, they are only right to notify the judge and let him decide. this is only fair to Ravi's Client. ↡ Advertisement Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In NowRelated Discussions
Related Discussions
Covid-19 - Why moneylender cover their shop?
Covid-19 - Why moneylender cover their shop?
Help! Looking for a Reliable Licensed Private Investigator
Help! Looking for a Reliable Licensed Private Investigator
Leaked psychiatrist letter: Kenneth Jeyaretnam sabo M Ravi
Leaked psychiatrist letter: Kenneth Jeyaretnam sabo M Ravi
Singapore standard practise for smoking other cars
Singapore standard practise for smoking other cars
News: m.Ravi
News: m.Ravi
Loan sharks masquerading as licensed moneylenders
Loan sharks masquerading as licensed moneylenders
Practise Drifting?
Practise Drifting?