Expert Opinion by Prof Lewis


 04 May 2022

  • Expert Opinion By Law Professor from the UK which supports my claim of perjury by NUS witnesses in Court trial has been filed to Court.
  • Court finally confirms that the Court of Appeal did not decide on the merits of my allegation about perjury, which means that it is still a matter to be decided.
  • As a public institution, NUS must stop protecting perjurers within its ranks and hide behind its lawyers who falsely argued that there is “no evidence” of perjury.

Dear friends,
I have filed the Expert Opinion provided by a Law Professor from the UK on 29 April 2022.  The Expert Opinion supports my allegations of perjury by NUS witnesses during the High Court trial in Suit 667 in 2017.
Read the Expert Opinion here.  


The Expert Opinion is critical to getting the Court’s attention and treat my allegations seriously. In an ideal world, judges should not have to wait till there is an Expert Opinion to back up my allegations to take my allegations seriously.  Since I am a litigant-in-person, I am my own lawyer so to speak. My allegations of perjury should be considered as gravely as the opposing side’s denial. But my allegations did not seem to have carried the same weight as the opposing lawyers dogged assertion that there was no evidence of perjury. 
“Was there an innate tendency to place a disproportionate weight on the statements by trusted establishment figures?” This is a question that Associate Professor Eugene KB Tan asked of judicial officers when he weighed in on the case of the wrongful conviction of an Indonesian domestic helper Ms Parti Liyani by the Singapore States Court. Ms Parti’s accusers were family members of a very distinguished Singapore family, who had employed Parti Liyani to work as a live-in helper, and subsequently accused her of theft.  In a newspaper commentary, Professor Tan observed that “the lower court’s decision and reasoning was problematic and troubling. It was riddled with fundamental errors … The lower court judge also did not appear to have kept an open mind … the High Court overruled the trial court on every major finding of fact … the lower court judge appeared to have fallen way short of the expected standards” – this article is available online at the links below:

Professor Eugene Tan

Professor Tan’s commentary above, my concern about the Court placing equal weight on the arguments from both sides is a legitimate one. 
Hence the Expert Opinion is critical to getting the Court’s attention and to take my allegations seriously. No more side-stepping the issue. Justice delayed is justice denied. 
The Court of Appeal Refused to Hear my Appeal
Professor Eugene Tan’s commentary (above) also underscores the importance of access to an appeal in any courts of justice. Judges are humans and susceptible to making mistakes in their judgment; an appeal structure enables matters to be reviewed and rebalanced, thereby correct errors and minimalising the miscarriage of justice. 
In my case, I have asserted that NUS witnesses lied in Court thus committing perjury, and deceived the judge. A law professor has provided an expert opinion which supports my 
Singapore has a two-tier structure which enables an appellant to appeal against the decision of a lower court as of right.  Unfortunately, the Court of Appeal rejected my application to appeal the High Court decision in Suit 667 because I was unable to pay security costs to the sum of $20,000 on time. Although I had filed a Notice of Appeal to appeal the decisions in Suit 667 on time, thus registering my intention to appeal, my inability to submit the security costs on time costed me my right of appeal. I subsequently managed to raise the $20,000 but the Court of Appeal denied me the right of appeal because of the delay. Money appears more important than justice.
Despite the fact that I had complained about perjury by NUS witnesses both in Suit 667 and to the Court of Appeal, the Court of Appeal still denied me my right to appeal on the basis that the $20,000 was paid out of time. 
NUS was thus able to rely on the High Court decision in Suit 667 to demand costs order from me for losing Suit 667. In its denial of my right to appeal Suit 667, the Court of Appeal also made a perfunctory remark about the issue of perjury that I had submitted.
This did not stop NUS from using the Court’s passing remark on perjury as a Court of Appeal finding that NUS witnesses did not commit perjury.
Unfortunately for me, NUS’s lawyers used the Court of Appeal’s passing remark related to perjury to tell judges in the bankruptcy court that the Court of Appeal had cleared NUS witnesses of my perjury allegations. 
In its relentless effort to bankrupt me, NUS had successfully convinced other judges throughout 2021 that the one sentence statement in 4-page “minute sheet” which was not signed by any judge as a finding of the …

The Court of Appeal Did Not Make A Judgment Regarding the Question of Perjury By NUS Witnesses
Contrary to the arguments of NUS lawyers, the Court of Appeal did not make a judgment regarding the question of whether Lily Kong or any other witnesses for NUS committed perjury in Suit 667.
The Court only made this clarification on 16 December 2021.  
However, up to that point NUS had managed to control the narrative that the Court of Appeal had made a finding that the witnesses did not commit perjury.  NUS has gone before other courts and made this assertion. In OSB 3/2020 and RA 355/2020, the  judges appear to believe NUS despite my insistence on the contrary, and the judges allowed NUS to start bankruptcy proceedings against me.

One may ask: “Is there an innate tendency to place a disproportionate weight on the statements by trusted establishment figures and their lawyers?”

The Court of Appeal refused to hear my appeal against Suit 667

To recap, as well as enable you my readers to understand how I got here…

If the Court had taken my allegations seriously, had investigated it in properly and not side-stepped this matter, then the perjury allegations would have been resolved long ago.  Instead, I have suffered the thwarts put up by NUS to stop the Court from considering my case.  Justice delayed is justice denied. 
Finally, I filed the Expert Opinion provided by a Law Professor from the UK which supports my claim of perjury. NUS lawyers have doggedly argued that there is no evidence of NUS’s witnesses committing perjury in Court for years now. NUS even went to the extent of arguing that the Court of Appeal has already made a finding that there was no perjury. But the Court clarified in December 2021 that the Court of Appeal has NOT made a judgment on the merits of my perjury allegations.

At this point in time, the Court is refusing to hear my allegations of perjury by NUS witnesses, despite my compelling evidence of perjury. At the same time, the Court has said that it has not made any conclusive judgment on the merits of my perjury allegations.

I hope that the Expert Opinion I just submitted would urge the Court to look into my allegations of perjury instead of continuing to side-step the issue. Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong said in Parliament on 15 Feb 2022 that “perjury is a serious criminal offence” and that “the same rules [apply] equally to everyone” and that “nobody is above the law.” Such fine words. Are PM Lee’s words matched by the actions of the relevant authorities, who have allowed perjurers like Lily Kong to get away scot-free with their perjury, year after year, with what appears to be total impunity, as though they are “above the law” in Singapore.

After a period of inaction due to Covid-19 infection, I managed to file an expert opinion provided by a UK law professor (Dave Lewis) which support my allegations of perjury by NUS witnesses.

NUS obtained by means of “fraud upon the Court” in the form of perjury. I have been forced to take this approach, ra

To recap, I have asserted perjury by witnesses for a number of years now, but the Court has sidestepped the issue. To make matters worse, NUS and its lawyers have capitalised on the situation to argue that to say that the Court has already made the finding that there was no perjury.

Fraud Upon The Court

NUS obtained by means of “fraud upon the Court” in the form of perjury. I have been forced to take this approach, ra

Dr Wong’s misuse of my MA Thesis idea and content by attempting to pass off the fruits of my MA thesis project as his original research proposal, was after all, what triggered my whistleblowing on Dr Wong, and which led to my expulsion from The National University of Singapore (“NUS”) 18 months later in September 2006. I have been fighting for transparency and accountability from NUS ever since.

How useful was this post?

Click on a star to rate it!

Average rating 5 / 5. Vote count: 1

No votes so far! Be the first to rate this post.

As you found this post useful...

Follow us on social media!

We are sorry that this post was not useful for you!

Let us improve this post!

Tell us how we can improve this post?

Leave a Comment