With Labor leaders and community representatives for an anti-18c campaign 

Sydney, 25 March, 2017

I was  with Labor Leaders and community representatives at Punchbowl for an anti-18c campaign.

We are against any change in 18c, but are in favour of the amendment in complaints-handling process by Human Rights Commission to allow frivolous and vexatious 18c complaints.

Dr Yadu Singh



MP Ravindra Gaikwad should be charged, arrested and suspended from Parliament 

Sydney, 24 March, 2017


Ravindra Gaikwad MP


Shiv Sena MP from Maharashtra, Ravindra Gaikwad is in news. He allegedly abused, manhandled and physically assaulted Air India employee onboard an Air India plane at IGI Airport, New Delhi, Thursday, 23 March, 2017. Apparently, he was upset that he had to travel Pune-Delhi in economy Class. He refused to deplane at Delhi. When AI staffer requested him to do so, he was assaulted. News reports are stating that the AI plane did not have any business class as it was an all-economy class plane.

This MP, when interviewed by the media, brazenly admitted the assault and refused to introspect and apologize. He justified the attack. Shiv Sena Party has asked for an explanation. Lok Sabha (Parliament) speaker has refused to take any action on Suo Moto basis, even though this news is literally in every newspaper.

There is a huge uproar against MP’s behavior. A FIR (First Information Repirt) has been lodged with Delhi Police.

Air India, IndiGo, SpiceJet, Jet Airways, GoAir and Vistara airlines have placed Mr Gaikwad in a no-fly list, which is a good beginning.

That is not enough. Further actions are warranted.

1. Lok Sabha Speaker, Sumitra Mahajan, should initiate a disciplinary action. He should be suspended from Lok Sabha.

2. He should be ordered to undergo anger management course.

3. Delhi Police should review the video, conduct a thorough investigation and charge Mr Gaikwad. Nobody has any right to break the law. Nobody is above Law.

Dr Yadu Singh


This is not enough.

Why, How and What of Uttar Pradesh Election 2017

March 24, 2017

During recent assembly elections in India, Bhartiya Janata Party (BJP) had a landslide victory in the state of Uttar Pradesh (UP) and Uttarakhand. Indian National Congress (INC) had a huge success in Punjab. The political mandate in Manipur and Goa was fractured, but BJP was able to form alliance Governments there with smaller parties and independents.

The magnitude of verdicts in UP and Punjab was clearly unexpected. Aam Admi Party (AAP) was projected to win Punjab if pre-election opinion polls were to be believed, but the final result was not in favour of AAP. Instead, INC had an almost a landslide under Capt. Amarinder Singh’s leadership. AAP was a distant second.

 Yogi Adityanath (Chief Minister)                             

In Uttar Pradesh is the most populous state, which sends 80 MPs to the Lok Sabha (Federal Parliament). Like 73 seats captured by BJP alliance in 2014 national elections, the landslide for BJP alliance in 2017 was also clearly massive. Their vote share this time (40%) was very close to what they had in 2014 (42%). The alliance won 325 (BJP 312, Apna Dal 9 and Suheldev Bhartiya Samaj Party 4) out of 403 seats. Samajwadi Party (SP) of incumbent Chief Minister (CM), Shri Akhilesh Yadav won 47 seats, INC 7 seats and Bahujan Samaj Party (BSP) under Ms Mayawati only 19 seats.  It was unexpected and nobody thought this will happen. BJP did not have a declared CM face in comparison to popular sitting CM, Shri Akhilesh Yadav, who had managed, only a few weeks before the elections, to have the full control of SP. The timing of this was probably too late. UP is known for a caste and religion-based voting, but it did not matter this time. All calculations based on specific castes and Muslim votes failed.

There were many factors, which gave a landslide victory to BJP and worked against others.

1. SP-INC alliance did not help them, largely because INC doesn’t have much influence in UP. There are reports that supporters of these parties might have not helped one another at the ground level. The alliance formation was announced too late and there wasn’t much time to get them to work together effectively.

2. SP-INC alliance pushed Jats of Western UP, a numerically important community in the region, to go in mass with BJP, instead of Rashtriya Lok Dal (RLD) of Ajit Singh, because of their political rivalry with Muslims in that region. This movement of the Jat votes helped BJP in Western Uttar Pradesh.

3. Excessive public focus on Muslim votes created a political backlash for SP-INC and BSP, thus creating a polarisation of Hindus away from them and towards BJP. Hindus felt that political parties were more focused on Muslim votes and didn’t care for their interests.

4. Hindu polarisation was accelerated when BSP gave 100 tickets to Muslim candidates and sought their votes in a very public campaign and “Muslim-BSP Bhaichara” meetings, under the leadership of BSP leader, Shri Naseemuddin Siddiqui and his son, Shri Afzal Siddiqui.

5. Minister like Azam Khan did not help the chances of SP, because of his statements, which were not perceived by people to be in good taste. His statements only helped polarisation of Hindus against SP.

6. Smart social networking by BJP with Non-Jatav Dalits (Jatavs are about 10% of the total 21% under Scheduled Castes category) and non-Yadav OBCs (Yadavs are 9% of a total 39% under Other Backward Castes category) paid political dividends to BJP.

7. Demonetisation, despite some concerns and adverse media coverage, was popular among masses, and it did not create a political loss for BJP. Nobody knowns exact benefits to the nation from demonetisation, but its marketing certainly gave political benefits to BJP.

8. Law and Order has always been a problem in a big state like UP, but people had a particularly bad perception (real or imaginary) about it over last few years.

9. People like Gayatri Prajapati, a minister in the SP Government, did not help the image of the Government. Ordering of an FIR against him by the Supreme Court of India in the middle of the election did not help the SP Government’s chances.
10. There has been saturation media coverage of the recruitment drives, with a perception (real or imaginary) of these recruitment drives, selectively and disproportionally benefiting only a few castes over last few years.

11. Shri Akhilesh Yadav is a decent and educated political leader, but suffered political consequences from the perception that he was not in full control of the Government and bureaucracy, because of interference from some influential SP political leaders. Periodical bagging and lashing of his Government by his father, Shri Mulayam Singh Yadav did not help. By the time he asserted and took control of the party, it was already too late.

12. Public infighting in SP and lack of campaigning by Shri Mulayam Singh Yadav created a perception about disunity in his political Party and their chances of a victory. There are suspicions that some SP political leaders worked against their own party due to infighting and to avenge the slight. Things would have been different if change-over in SP has happened at least 6 months earlier.

13. BSP did not succeed in its outreach to non-Jatav castes. Even Muslim votes did not go to it in big numbers.
14. Prime Minister, Shri Narendra Modi’s popularity and his intensive campaigning along with political management by BJP President, Shri Amit Shah, have played a huge role in BJP’s victory.

BJP has elected Shri Yogi Adityanath as the CM of UP, which has created a big news, not only in UP but also nationally and internationally. Yogi is an assertive and outspoken BJP leader, which, obviously, creates an army of detractors and as well as supporters, besides giving him an image of a hardliner.

Will he be a good CM is a question whose answer nobody knows with certainty today. On a positive side, he has already told all ministers to declare their wealth and properties within 15 days, and instructed bureaucracy to control law and order without any delay or favour. He has promised to govern for every person in UP, with the motto “Sabka Saath, Sabka Vikash” which translates as “With everyone and for everyone”. We all know that perception alone may not tell the full story.

Contrary to the popular perception about him, it was pleasing to note that he has great relations with Muslim community in Gorakhpur, where many of his monastery’s managers are from Muslim community. (https://goo.gl/ZYj2xx https://goo.gl/des1Ie)

New CM is not known to be a follower of political correctness and has said many things, which many seasoned politicians will shy away from saying. A classic example of this is his questioning of so-called secular brigade (whose members are often derided in social media as pseudo-seculars) in India, which has a habit of hyping up of even minor indiscretions committed by the majority community, but goes into a totally silent mode when major wrongs are committed by the minority community. A classic example of this hypocritical behaviour is their lack of speaking against or doing anything worthwhile against the exiling of the community of Kashmiri Hindus (Pandits) from Kashmir by Islamists in that state.

Political success of BJP in UP was because they were better at networking and coalition formation with various groups, and were better able to tap into the concerns and anxieties of the people. Their deft management of BJP Government formation in UP can be evidenced by the appointment of two deputy CMs, to complement a CM from Rajput background (although he is a Sanyasi, which means he has no caste) with one deputy CM from Brahmin community and another from OBC community. There is ministerial representation from almost all important segments of society, including Muslims and Sikhs.

Keshav Prasad Maurya

Keshav Prasad Marya, Deputy CM

Recent UP election has done many things, and a huge victory to BJP

Dr Dinesh Sharma.jpg

Dr Dinesh Sharma, Deputy CM

and demoralising defeat for the opposition are not the only ones. It has given a serious blow to the reliance of political parties on castes and Muslim votes (19% of UP population). Political pundits are talking about BJP receiving significant support from people from even those castes as well as Muslims, who are not supposed to vote for BJP. Out of 42 Muslim dominated seats, BJP won 32 compared to only 6 in 2007, and 7 in the 2012 elections. And, the vote share of the BJP in these constituencies (39.2%) was very similar to their State average (40%). Also, 35 of the 42 Muslim-dominated constituencies had a Muslim candidate fighting from a major party, (either the SP-Congress alliance or the BSP; the BJP did not field any Muslim candidate across UP). Of these 35, 26 were won by BJP and 9 by SP. It appears that even many Muslims voted for BJP this time. (https://goo.gl/EYCkDM).

This election verdict will push all political parties to rely more on policies, not caste equations and Muslim votes. This is good as, after all, everyone including Muslims need the same good infrastructure, crime control, and development.
Yogi is an untested CM for the obvious reason, but he is the CM of Uttar Pradesh now. He should be judged by what he and his Government  will do in Uttar Pradesh, not some of his fiery speeches around the elections. People from UP want to have the best governance for everyone, and with the focus on development, infrastructure and jobs, and crime control, without any favour or discrimination for anyone. It would be equally fitting for every political party in UP to respect this verdict from the people, provide constructive support to the Government, not oppose everything for the sake of opposing, and get into the reaching out to the people with rational and balanced policies, which treat people as people, and not as some specific vote banks.

The sooner they accept that caste and religion have had their days, and better strategies are needed for getting people’s votes, the better chances they will have in returning back to the power in 5 years.

*A version was originally published in Desi Australia https://tinyurl.com/kncpzol

Dr Yadu Singh, Sydney, Australia

Shaheed Diwas (Martyr’s Day), 23 March, 2017

Sydney, 23 March, 2017

Today is Shaheed Diwas (Martyr’s Day). On March 23, 1931 at 7.30pm, India’s freedom fighters, Bhagat Singh, Shivaram Hari Rajguru and Sukhdev Thapar, were hanged by the British Government in Lahore Jail.  Their bodies were cremated on the banks of the Sutlej river.

Let us pay our heart-felt & grateful respect to the brave sons of India.


Dr Yadu Singh



It’s a crime to present yourself as a Doctor if you are not registered

Sydney, March 23, 2017

Fake Doctor.png

If you are not a registered medical practitioner in Australia, and present yourself, directly or indirectly, as “Dr”, you are in breach of section 116 of Health Practitioner Regulation National Law. This section is reproduced below. http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/nsw/consol_act/hprnl460/s116.html

AHPRA is the authority to register health professionals and accept complaints. https://www.ahpra.gov.au/

We support this Act to be amended to include punishment of a Jail term in addition to fines.

Previous Posts: https://yadusingh.com/2017/03/11/not-just-fines-jail-terms-should-also-be-given-to-fake-doctors/


Dr Yadu Singh




HEALTH PRACTITIONER REGULATION NATIONAL LAW (NSW) – SECT 116 Claims by persons as to registration as health practitioner

116 Claims by persons as to registration as health practitioner

(1) A person who is not a registered health practitioner must not knowingly or recklessly-

(a) take or use the title of “registered health practitioner”, whether with or without any other words; or

(b) take or use a title, name, initial, symbol, word or description that, having regard to the circumstances in which it is taken or used, indicates or could be reasonably understood to indicate-

(i) the person is a health practitioner; or

(ii) the person is authorised or qualified to practise in a health profession; or

(c) claim to be registered under this Law or hold himself or herself out as being registered under this Law; or

(d) claim to be qualified to practise as a health practitioner.

: Maximum penalty-

(a) in the case of an individual-$30,000; or

(b) in the case of a body corporate-$60,000.

(2) A person must not knowingly or recklessly-

(a) take or use the title of “registered health practitioner”, whether with or without any other words, in relation to another person who is not a registered health practitioner; or

(b) take or use a title, name, initial, symbol, word or description that, having regard to the circumstances in which it is taken or used, indicates or could be reasonably understood to indicate-

(i) another person is a health practitioner if the other person is not a health practitioner; or

(ii) another person is authorised or qualified to practise in a health profession if the other person is not a registered health practitioner in that health profession; or

(c) claim another person is registered under this Law, or hold the other person out as being registered under this Law, if the other person is not registered under this Law; or

(d) claim another person is qualified to practise as a health practitioner if the other person is not a registered health practitioner.

: Maximum penalty-

(a) in the case of an individual-$30,000; or

(b) in the case of a body corporate-$60,000.

Welcome reception for NSW Minister of Multiculturalism, Ray Williams MP 

Sydney, 22 March, 2017

I attended the reception for new minister for Multiculturalism, Ray Williams MP at NSW Parliament today. NSW Premier, Gladys Berejiklian MP, was present. There were about 100 key community leaders in attendance.

Dr Harry Harinath and Hakan Harkan (Chair & CEO of Multicultural NSW respectively) were the key officials.

Ray was sworn in as the minister for Multiculturalism 6 weeks ago.

Dr Yadu Singh



Federal MP Julian Leeser quotes us in his speech on 18c inquiry

Sydney, 16 March, 2017

Here is the speech of Federal MP for Berowra, Julian Leeser, which quotes me (Dr Yadu Singh) and Federation of Indian Associations of NSW. Thank you Julian.

Julian Leeser MP for Berowra

Speech: Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights | Inquiry Report


Mr Speaker, I rise to support the recommendations made by the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights.

The Committee’s Report marks an historic breakthrough in what has been a long and difficult debate on section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act. Section 18C has been an intractable political issue since 2011.  Both sides of the debate have dug into their trenches around the principles of freedom of speech and the need for protection from serious abuse on the basis of race.

For the first time this Report provides a path to fix the problems with section 18C, while maintaining its important role as a limited protection against serious racial abuse.

Since late November, the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights has been conducting an inquiry into the operation and administration of Part IIA of the Racial Discrimination Act. The Inquiry has received submissions and heard evidence from a full range of interested parties, including complainants, respondents, jurists, academics, administrators, news organisations, Indigenous and ethnic communities.  In total, the Inquiry received more than 11,000 submissions and heard evidence from 100 witnesses.

The great success of this Inquiry has been that it has revealed the underlying problem that has fuelled the debate on section 18C. That is, that the problem lies in the way the law has been administered and on that point there is bipartisan consensus.  The process for handling section 18C complaints as it currently stands can be slow, onerous for respondents and is at odds with the case law.  The threshold for making a complaint is so low it is virtually redundant.

The problem with having such a poor administrative process is that it makes section 18C seem, to non-experts, to be much broader than it actually is. The way in which the law has been administered, including the extremely low threshold for making a complaint – sometimes only one line dashed off in a quick email – has totally undermined the original intent of the provision.   The ability to make complaints based on very little information, almost a year after the action was taken as in the QUT case, has understandably warped the public perception of 18C, which was always designed to be a very limited protection available for the most serious types of complaint.

Over the course of our Inquiry we have heard from scores of people who, despite having vastly different views on section 18C, have all agreed that the complaints handling process needs to be fixed or as some put it to us: the ‘process is the punishment’.

The QUT case illustrated the problems with the administration of the law. During the Inquiry we heard from some of the students who shared with us their terrible story of not knowing for years a complaint had been laid against them, of being hauled before the Commission and then taken to Court. Over a period of years they incurred significant cost in time, money and damage to reputation, only to have the complaint brought against them struck out as having no reasonable prospect of success.

We also heard from cartoonist Bill Leak who spoke of the stress and anxiety he suffered throughout the process, despite the clear artistic exemption that should have seen the complaint rejected instantly.

Ms Helen Kapalos, Chair of the Victorian Multicultural Commission made the following comments about focussing on process change, ‘I think you are absolutely right in endorsing a stronger process and looking at the complaint-handling mechanism’.

The President for the Federation of Indian Associations of NSW, Dr Yadu Singh, appeared before the Committee and noted that the QUT case highlighted problems with the process. Dr Singh told the committee, ‘…I believe the Australian Human Rights Commission Act should be amended so that the complaints-handling process could be streamlined.’

The Institute of Public Affairs, which has been a vocal supporter for repealing section 18C has conceded that process changes would be an improvement in the law.

Even the Commission itself recognised the need for changes to the way the law is administered.

The process changes recommended in the committee’s report will address the problems identified by the hard cases and ensure that cases like QUT and Bill Leak won’t happen again.

On this point I would like to note the comments of Tony Morris QC in today’s Australian. Tony Morris was the lawyer to the QUT students. He is a hero to many fair minded Australians for offering his services pro bono to the students.

Tony Morris is a supporter of the Repeal of section 18C but his comment illustrates why the reforms to the complaints handling process are so important. I want to draw the attention of the House to these comments because they are very significant.

Mr Morris told the Australian:

“When you analyse all the impediments that they (and in this, he means the Committee) are putting in the way of someone making an unjustified complaint, the reality is they are putting an end to the industry….The recommendations are not what some of us who oppose 18C wanted, but I suspect they will do the job.’’

The Australian noted that:

Mr Morris said that if the recommendations were introduced, a complaint similar to those against the QUT students would go nowhere.

Mr Morris went on:

“The best part is the combined effect of all the protections they are proposing to put in for respondents to complaints… If the report’s recommendations are adopted, it will lead to a level playing field so that respondents enjoy rights similar to complainants.”

Tony Morris’ intervention in this debate is highly significant.

We can all take a philosophical position on either side of this issue but what this Committee report does is address the practical concerns raised by the QUT and Bill Leak cases. Taking a practical approach provides us with a way forward for the first time in six years. I encourage all members to consider the report and reflect on it carefully.

Some commentators have suggested that the recommendations don’t do anything. Might I suggest that they have a closer look at the report as the recommendations dealing with the complaints handling process are highly significant.


The recommendations will do a number of things.

Firstly, they will raise the threshold for complaints – so that less serious matters will not warrant consideration by the Commission. Specifically, any complaint will be required to allege an act which, if true could constitute unlawful discrimination.  It will need to set out sufficient details of the allegation and a lodgement fee will be required to be lodged with the Commission.  This will set a deterrent for nuisance cases. Penalties would be introduced for legal practitioners who institute complaints that have no reasonable prospects of success and for legal practitioners or complainants who act unreasonably in the process.

Second, the proposals are designed to create a more level playing field by empowering the Commission to give reasonable assistance to respondents to match its current powers for complainants and by imposing time limits on the complaints handling process, in particular for notifying respondents.

Third, the recommendations give the Commission greater powers to terminate complaints, allowing the Commission to terminate earlier and expanding the grounds so that a complaint can be terminated if it is assessed to be unwarranted or to have no reasonable prospect of success.

Fourth, the recommendations will also restrict access to the Courts following a complaint’s termination by the Commission by requiring complainants to seek leave of the Court and to provide security for costs before commencing proceedings.

And finally the recommendations create greater accountability by providing for parliamentary oversight of the Human Rights Commission – which has been accused of being a law unto itself.

The recommendations are ground-breaking for what they will achieve.

First and foremost, they will get section 18C off the front pages and allow it to perform its intended function as a limited but effective protection against racial hatred; they will place the onus on the Human Rights Commission and on the lawyers who bring complaints to get the process right; and they will help bolster freedom of speech by limiting the types of complaints that are deemed worthy of further consideration by the Commission.

I know this Report has been criticised yesterday for providing the Government options for dealing with section 18C reflecting the diversity of opinion on a bipartisan committee. To be clear my own preferred option is to codify the test set out by Justice Kiefel in 2001 and repeatedly applied for the last 16 years that 18C refers to the discrimination which must have “profound and serious effects not to be likened to mere slights.”  Such a codification will help the public understanding that the words in section 18C, have not been given their natural and ordinary meaning but apply to a far more limited range of complaints.

But I want to be crystal clear. The root cause of problem is that the legislation has not been administered properly.  The way in which the legislation has been applied by the Australian Human Rights Commission has allowed nuisance complaints to be treated with the same level of consideration as serious complaints.

But when you look at the problem forensically.

When you try to uncover the root cause.

When you try to properly diagnose so that you can then prescribe the required medicine, all the evidence indicates that the process is the problem.

That is why we have recommended significant and serious process changes.

Should these recommendations be adopted, they will go a long way to bridging the gulf between the public perception of what the legislation does and the reality of its legal application.

It is important that we provide some protection against the worst types of hate speech. While freedom of speech is fundamental to any democratic society the Anglo Australian tradition is not one of unrestrained free speech.

The case law on section 18C is settled. It has provided a limited but important protection against Holocaust denial and serious racial abuse against Indigenous people and ethnic communities. At the same time the defences in section 18D, described by Professor Adrienne Stone as a ‘set of defences which have no equal in their extensiveness in any of the law anywhere in the world’, have allowed fair and reasonable public comment and artistic expression through cartoons and satire. The real problem has been the process. For the first time in six years, the Parliament has bipartisan support to fix it.

Section 18C should go back to being a limited protection for only the very worst kind of behaviour – an ‘in case of emergency break glass’ provision – which is what it was always intended to be.

Mr Speaker, I commend this Report to the House.

Dr Yadu Singh