Ravi Thrown into the Spotlight Again
The lawyer M Ravi is familiar to activists and those watching court battles regarding activists and the government. TOC recently broke the news that the Law Society has censured him. However it was inaccurate and TOC apologised, so all the TOC sycophants would applaud TOC for being honest about its mistakes, explaining away that it is only a humble website and should be given chances again, while its critics would bomb it for reporting unverified stories to gain readership. Law Society and Ravi would watch TOC very closely now as they were painted in a bad light by TOC, while TOC would watch K Jeyaretnam closely too for spreading the damning letter in question. Ravi would watch the government closely also to see if they want to exploit the situation. Mexican standoff it seems over Ravi and his capabilities as a rights lawyer despite his mental illness.
M Ravi is the only lawyer out there in the wild. So there is general sympathy towards underdog M Ravi because if he is not defending civil and political rights of residents in Singapore regardless if they are Singapoeans or not, who else would. Also unspoken is that they/we want to see him snap in court and add sugar and spice to court room dramas. Not much different from the audience in F1 races hoping to see spectacular car crashes right in our faces.
M Ravi has a history of mental breakdowns and only the daft or blind, to put in bluntly like some old guard might say, don’t realise it. Years ago, according to the Falungong activists he was defending, Ravi alarmed them that he possessed by malign spirits. After that, even SDP dropped him and thought that with friends like him, who needs enemies. His mental illness became public when he ranted in a Hindu temple. Supposedly, he did not seek proper treatment from a doctor or priest and recently went berserk in a temple again just last week if rumours are true. Somebody should just ask Ravi anyway to put that rumour to rest. Ravi was “mad”, but people should also be asking if he is “mad” still or prone to it.
However, the real questions are whether it matters if Ravi is “mad” as that is his personal condition? Would he be labelled “mad” if he was not lobbying for civil and political rights? His clients are free to choose if they want to hire a “mad” lawyer and it is a business transaction so caveat emptor. The Law Society are put in a difficult position as should they allow a “mad” lawyer to practice and undermine the professionalism of lawyers? As they struggle out of this mire over real or imagined professional conduct, political interference and personal differences, the truth is unfolding still that the Law Society did not have a hand in this,but someone inside did it solo. If it was the government, the courts would have put at end to Ravi’s career using that excuse. But yet, it was not followed through as the time was not ripe? The plot thickens.