Search the Community

But some one said he is unfit to practise.

Why can't the opposition stop sabo-ing one another? Nobody would have known about the letter from M Ravi shrink if Kenneth Jeyaretnam had not taken a photo of the psychiatrist letter and post it on his twitter. Then all the newspaper sibeh happy to report that M Ravi is a crazy man. Then later KJ removed the photo from his twitter. Guilty conscience? Or KJ and M Ravi very smart, leak here leak there so that they can say got conspiracy against them? wtf. http://unbrandedbreadnbutter.wordpress.com...eans-on-m-ravi/

Interesting. This is truely a caring society that take care of everyone Heath concerns. Lots of nut cases lately, very caring gov to help citizens to get mental treatment. Seek treatment will confirmed he is mentally unstable. Refuse to seek treatment also wrong, as the law can impose the mental health act on someone to make him a true blue mental psycho. Psychiatrist from law society state M. Ravi unfit for law practice Mr M Ravi's retort From Today's report Lawyer's condition called into question by Amir Hussain 04:46 AM Jul 17, 2012 SINGAPORE - On the first day of the hearing for what has been dubbed the "Hougang by-election case", a man turned up in court and tried in vain to get the judge's attention. He eventually got an audience with Justice Philip Pillai after he had listened to all the arguments and wrapped up proceedings for the day: Uninvited, the man followed the judge, lawyer M Ravi - who was representing Hougang resident Madam Vellama Marie Muthu - and Chief Counsel David Chong from the Attorney-General's Chambers (AGC) into the judge's chambers. The uninvited man turned out to be a Law Society representative with a letter by Mr Ravi's psychiatrist which stated, among other things, that the lawyer is "currently unfit to practise law". The case involved Mdm Vellama's application for the High Court to declare that the Prime Minister does not have unfettered discretion in deciding whether and when to call by-elections. Justice Pillai reserved judgment. But the spotlight was firmly on Mr Ravi. The letter - its contents were seen by TODAY - was dated yesterday. It was signed by Dr Calvin Fones Soon Leng from Gleneagles Medical Centre and addressed to the Law Society. Dr Fones said he reviewed Mr Ravi on May 14 "following the concerns expressed by his friends". Dr Fones added that Mr Ravi "is having a manic relapse" of bipolar disorder and he "lacks any insight into his condition, as is often the case for patients who relapse". Dr Fones said that Mr Ravi had "refused" to take a break from practice and to take medication. Adding that Mr Ravi's illness "is likely to affect his professional capacity", the psychiatrist said: "I hope to be able to engage him voluntarily in treatment, but would advise that if he remains very uncooperative, we may have to impose the Mental Health (Care and Treatment) Act upon him." The Act provides for the admission, detention, care and treatment of mentally disordered persons in designated psychiatric institutions. When contacted, a Law Society spokesperson confirmed that it received the letter from Dr Fones, who is a doctor "appointed by Mr M Ravi, and not the Law Society". The spokesperson said: "The Law Society informed the judge of the contents of the letter as it felt that it was in the public interest to do so, and as officers of the court. To be clear, there was no application whatsoever by the Law Society to in any way prevent Mr Ravi from appearing in court." The spokesperson said that the Law Society is "not in a position to comment on the contents of the letter, as this is a matter of a member's confidential medical records". Mr Ravi had reportedly been diagnosed since 2006 with bipolar disorder - which is punctuated by episodes of mania and depression - and was also suspended from practising for a year in 2006. In 2008, he was charged - and subsequently fined - with disturbing a religious prayer session, using abusive language and causing mischief, and went into remand for three weeks at the Institute of Mental Health. TODAY understands that Mr Ravi was allowed by the court to practise under certain conditions, including that he has to see his psychiatrist periodically. Attempts by this newspaper to contact Dr Fones were unsuccessful. Speaking to TODAY, Mr Ravi insisted there was a "conspiracy" against him and that "they were just trying to block me from arguing the case". When contacted, Mr Chong said that the AGC "didn't know about this letter at all". Also, it did not ask that Mr Ravi be prevented from arguing the Hougang by-election case yesterday, he said. "It's really done at the Law Society's initiative," Mr Chong added. Mr Chong said that in fact, Justice Pillai - after reading the letter - was willing to allow Mr Ravi to argue the case again today. The offer was not taken up.