I appreciate you doing the work to post this. I think it should all be open and transparent. Also, thank you for caring enough to bother checking.

As for the majority of the people here, like /u/dashrandom, who have perused the GD and happily taken it at face value to confirm their beliefs, understand that the Grounds of Decision is the justification written by the Judge for their decision.

The Judge convicted me and then wrote this, after that, to explain his justification for doing it to the Supreme Court. This is not an unbiased review of the facts, it's an argument by the Judge for why he determined I was guilty.

It should come to no surprise to anyone that I think the Judge is wrong. I've said from the very first time I was asked that I never punched Mr. Lim. That's the truth.

Just to clarify, the evidence that I was convicted on breaks down to this:

• Mr. Lim says I attacked him.

• The FIR written by the responding Officer in which the Officer wrote that I told him I threw a walkie talkie into the ocean. This was considered a "confession" even though both Officers testified in Court that I said nothing to them during our interactions. I was never shown this "confession". The DPP only produced it in the middle of the trial. It was written by the Officer, without the benefit of any notes, approximately two hours after it supposedly occurred.

• The claim that I'm a liar.

That's it.

• There were no other witnesses.
  
• No CCTV.

• No cell phone footage.

• The MD that examined Mr. Lim that night, in the brightly lit hospital, found no swelling or bruising on his face, and only small superficial abrasions on his hand and a bruise on his left knee.

So I say again, I did not attack Mr. Lim. He came at me, and I pushed him away, and I tried to leave the situation but he chased me. It seems that the vast majority of Singaporeans I've met since don't like that narrative, and have done mental gymnastics to try to change it to something that fits their expectations better, i.e. 'ang mo beats up cabby'. Who is going to critically look at the case, and who is going to go "aha, I was right."?