\n<\/p>\n
SINGAPORE – Suspended activist lawyer Ravi Madasamy, better known as M. Ravi, has been found dead in the early hours of Dec 24. <\/p>\n
The Straits Times understands police are investigating a case of unnatural death.<\/p>\n
Lawyer Eugene Thuraisingam, who had previously represented Mr Ravi in court, said the pair were friends. He added that he was deeply saddened by the news of his passing. <\/p>\n
\u201cHe has had his struggles but was always true to the cause he fought with all his heart. The cases he argued has helped shape constitutional law in Singapore. <\/p>\n
\u201cHe has contributed to and will be missed by the legal profession,\u201d said Mr Thuraisingam.<\/p>\n
Mr Shashi Nathan said that Mr Ravi, 56, was a good man who had contributed to the law.<\/p>\n
\u201cRavi was often divisive and went against the grain. But deep down I always sensed he had a good heart and wanted the best for his clients. <\/p>\n
\u201cHe was fearless in his advocacy and would often push the envelope,\u201d said Mr Nathan. <\/p>\n
Mr Ravi told reporters in 2005 that his father, who died in 2003, was an alcoholic who was in and out of jail most of his life. <\/p>\n
His mother worked as a construction labourer to support the family. She died in 2000, aged 59.<\/p>\n
Mr Ravi, who was one of seven children in his family, studied law in Britain after graduating from the National University of Singapore with a Bachelor of Arts degree in 1993. He started practising in 1997.<\/p>\n
Mr Ravi had been a strong opponent of Section 377A, the law criminalising sex between men, by arguing that it was discriminatory. <\/p>\n
In 2020, he argued that it was \u201cabsurd and arbitrary\u201d to allow the law to remain on Singapore\u2019s statutes, given that the Government\u2019s official policy position was non-enforcement in respect of consensual homosexual acts in private between men.<\/p>\n
The decades-old law was later repealed in Parliament in 2022. <\/p>\n
Mr Ravi also helped to overturn a 2018 decision that saved his client, Malaysian national Gobi Avedian, from the death penalty. <\/p>\n
Gobi was charged with the importation of 40.22g of heroin after he was caught with the drugs at Woodlands Checkpoint on Dec 11, 2014.<\/p>\n
He was originally sentenced to 15 years\u2019 jail and 10 strokes of the cane in 2017. <\/p>\n
However, the prosecution won the case on appeal, leaving Gobi to face capital punishment. <\/p>\n
Mr Ravi filed an application for the court to review its decision in February 2020, and managed to overturn the death sentence, with Gobi being handed his original sentence of 15 years\u2019 jail and 10 strokes of the cane. <\/p>\n
Mr Ravi, who was diagnosed with <\/p>\n bipolar disorder<\/p>\n <\/a> in 2006, remained a controversial figure in the law fraternity, with one court previously noting that the suspended lawyer was no stranger to disciplinary proceedings. <\/p>\n Past incidents of improper conduct have included making baseless allegations with respect to key legal institutions and being disruptive in the courtroom, to <\/p>\n improper handling of clients<\/p>\n <\/a>.<\/p>\n Over the past two decades, he has been handed sanctions ranging from monetary penalties to suspensions from practice on two previous occasions.<\/p>\n Mr Ravi had been struck off the rolls by the Court of Three Judges over two separate matters.<\/p>\n The first instance was after he made \u201cfalse and unwarranted attacks\u201d on his Facebook page in August 2020 <\/p>\n against then President Halimah Yacob<\/p>\n <\/a>, as well as then Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong and former PM Goh Chok Tong.<\/p>\n Separately, Mr Ravi had<\/p>\n continually interrupted a High Court Judge<\/p>\n <\/a> in November 2021, accusing the judge of being biased and falsely claiming that his client wanted to drop the suit. <\/p>\n He was representing a former SBS Transit bus driver who had sued the transport operator at the time. <\/p>\n Investigations later found that Mr Ravi got a paralegal from his firm to write to the court, indicating that the client wanted him to continue to act for him in the suit, despite having been discharged by the client.<\/p>\n