Tuesday, December 16, 2008

VT & VK-Time for the ISA

Is there reason to believe that there are grounds which would justify the detention under s 8 of the Internal Security Act of Tan Sri Dato Seri (x9) Vincent Tan Chee Yioun, and his lawyer Dato VK Lingam?

Answer: If the Malaysian Government believes there are reasons, that is sufficient

Have Tan Sri Dato Seri (x9) Vincent Tan Chee Yioun,and his lawyer Dato VK Lingam
acted in a manner prejudicial to the security of the country?

Answer: As concluded by the Royal Commission of Inquiry into the V.K. Lingam video clip :


• It is sufficent for us to state here that the collective and cumulative actions of the main characters concerned had the effect of seriously undermining and eroding the independence and integrity of the judiciary as a whole.
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0WDQ/is_/ai_n25457487

It should be obvious that "seriously undermining and eroding the independence and integrity of the judiciary as a whole" is prejudicial to the security of the country.

Wednesday, December 3, 2008

Probe into Eusoff Chin’s NZ holiday completed-but has not AG pre-judged the matter?

As reported in THE STAR, 4 December 2008:

The Anti-Corruption Agency (ACA) has completed its probe into former Chief Justice of the Federal Court Tun Eusoff Chin’s holiday trip with lawyer V.K. Lingam in New Zealand.

Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department Datuk Seri Nazri Abd Aziz, in his written reply to Wee Choo Keong (PKR–Wangsa Maju), said the investigation papers had been sent to the Attorney-General’s office for a decision and that the A-G was studying the case.
http://www.thestar.com.my/news/story.asp?file=/2008/12/3/nation/20081203201427&sec=nation

However, readers will recall:
No criminal offence appears to have been committed in a video recording of a telephone conversation between a well-known lawyer and senior judge allegedly discussing appointments to the Bench, the attorney-general said.

Tan Sri Abdul Gani Patail, however, said he was "getting further opinion on the matter and studying other information in the video clip".

Responding to the video released by Parti Keadilan Rakyat adviser Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim on Wednesday, Gani said the lawyer was in a monologue over his mobile phone and it was unclear who he was talking to.

"There is no clear reference that he was talking to a top judicial officer," he said.
(http://www.malaysianbar.org.my/bar_news/berita_badan_peguam/no_criminal_offence_seen_says_gani.html)

Tuesday, June 24, 2008

VK, VT etc seek judicial review-but the Commissions of Enquiry Act has no proivision for review

Vincent (The Cheetah) Tan ,his lawyer VK Lingam and their friend Tengku Adnan are seeking a "judicial review" of the findings of the Royal Commission into the VK Lingam tapes.(
http://thestar.com.my/news/story.asp?file=/2008/6/25/courts/21647927&sec=courts)

It appears however that THE CHEETAH (www.forbes.com/global/2008/0602/030.html) has run a bit too fast (again),not appreciating that slow moving elephants can trample on tired cheetahs with little effort(for a human analogy think of an over-geared,under-funded business, bereft of patronage, facing its bankers).

The first problem The Cheetah is likely to face arises from the lack of provisions for appeal in the Commissions of Enquiry Act 1950, pursuant to which the Royal Commission was issued.Hence there is a question here as to what basis the three can rely upon to launch their appeal.
For links to the Commissions of Enquiry Act 1950, pursuant to which the VK Lingam RC was called; see http://www.agc.gov.my/agc/oth/Akta/Vol.%203/Act%20119.pdf. For an easy to read primer on Royal Commissions in Malaysia see Malik Imtiaz Sarwar at http://malikimtiaz.blogspot.com/2007/09/why-royal-commission.html

The second problem, which is probably the basis for the reasons underlying the first,lies in the nature of the Royal Commission. A Royal Commission as its name implies, is issued by the sovereign, in the case of Malaysia, the DYMM SPB Agong, the King. Not wanting to labour the point, but having to do so in face of the continuously incredulous legal gymnastics performed by VK Lingam ( LLB, Buckingham) , it should be obvious that a judicial review of the findings of a Royal Commission is a review of a finding and recommendation of the Sovereign,who usually enjoys immunity from not the Executive, or the Judiciary.This writer doubts that the so-called tsunami of democracy that recently swept the country has resulted in the Agong being made subject of ordinary review.

Sunday, May 18, 2008

The matter of KC Han: A connection between VK Lingam, the AG,Vincent Tan, and Mahathir?

In 2004 a matter came before the High Court in which a member of the Selangor Turf Club, Kim Chean Han, was charged with two offences of cheating involving RM 3 million, which was said to have been raised to fund former Deputy Pahang Menteri Besar Datuk Hasan Arifin's campaign for a seat in the Umno Supreme Council (MT) at the party elections in October, 1996.

The offences were alleged to have been committed in 1996. During the course of the first day of hearing the following transpired:

Deputy public prosecutor Borhan Osman asked judge Akhtar Tahir to set bail at RM250,000 for each charge, but counsel K. Maniam requested that Kim be granted RM20,000 bail for both charges, saying that the businessman had come to court unprepared and had not expected to be charged. "He went to the ACA office in Putrajaya to pursue a complaint he lodged against another party," he said. "He was told they wanted to take his statement pertaining to his complaint, but when he arrived, he was informed that he would be charged today." Maniam said as Kim was not given prior notice, he had not had time to raise the money for bail, and it was unfair to impose such a steep amount although his two sons were prepared to raise the money.

(Businessman faces RM3m cheating charge,By Rosnazura Idrus,
30 July 2004,New Straits Times)

The charges were eventually dropped. So let us now recall:

He went to the ACA office in Putrajaya to pursue a complaint he lodged against another party," he said. "He was told they wanted to take his statement pertaining to his complaint, but when he arrived, he was informed that he would be charged today."


It has been learnt that Chan had lodged a complaint against the Selangor Turf Club's Board, alleging irregularities in the STC's 1996 decision to sell the STC Sungai Besi site to Berjaya's Vincent Tan Chee Yioun.
Advising the STC Board was , and remains, VK Lingam (correct, correct, correct) via a one of his satellites.
To state the obvious,charges in an ACA matter can only be brought by the Attorney General Ghani Patil.
Although by 2004 Mahathir was no longer PM, he continued to have strong ties to the STC Board, via Vincent Tan Chee Yioun and the Board's deputy chairman, Richard Cham. These ties remain strong to this day:

THE Yang di-Pertuan Agong Tuanku Mizan Zainal Abidin and Raja Permaisuri Agong Tuanku Nur Zahirah were the guests of honour at the wedding of the Selangor Turf Club deputy chairman Datuk Richard Cham's eldest son Dr Alvin Cham recently.
The 1,000 guests at the glittering affair, held at the Berjaya Times Square Hotel ballroom, boasts a who's who list of prominent Malaysians.
They include former prime minister Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad and his wife, Tun Dr Siti Hasmah Mohamed Ali, Deputy Finance Minister Datuk Dr Ng Yen Yen, Berjaya CEO, Berjaya Corpo-ration Bhd chairman Tan Sri Vincent Tan, former MCA president, Tan Sri Lee San Choon, former Dewan Negara president Tan Sri Michael Chen and banker Tan Sri Azman Hashim( see http://thestar.com.my/metro/story.asp?file=/2008/2/16/central/20332916&sec=central)

Tuesday, February 12, 2008

Adam Bachek -A direct link to Berjaya and Vincent Tan

As reported in THE STAR, 13 February 2008:
Datuk V.K. Lingam was dictating from some handwritten notes as one of his two secretaries, Sumanti Jaaman, typed out the draft judgment which awarded business tycoon Tan Sri Vincent Tan RM10mil in his libel suit against several journalists, including the late M.G.G. Pillai....His brother Datuk V. Sivaparanjothi, Adam Bachek and W. Satchithanandhan were also helping Lingam, who was dictating handwritten notes to Sumanti....Making this startling revelation yesterday, the lawyer's former secretary G. Jayanti told the Royal Commission of Inquiry that the judgment was typed out throughout the night some time between November and early December 1994.

(http://thestar.com.my/news/story.asp?file=/2008/2/13/courts/20313248&sec=courts)

Adam was appointed director Berjaya Group Bhd on 2 February 1994.

He was described in the Berjaya announcement concerning his appointment as a 44 years old, who was a lawyer and senior partner of the legal firm, Messrs Adam Bachek and Associates. He was then also a director of Bridgecon Engineering Sdn Bhd, an associate company of Berjaya Group.

Monday, January 28, 2008

"My voice was not heard in the video" :-Has Fairuz confessed?

Is this not a confession:

I read both documents several times the next day and proceeded to draft a letter.

"I issued letters to the Prime Minister, Deputy Prime Minister and the Minister in the Prime Minister's Department to express my opinion and position on the video," Ahmad Fairuz said, adding that he attached both documents as appendix to his correspondence.

"I sent the three letters because the Prime Minister, Deputy Prime Minister and the Minister in Prime Minister's Department are representatives in the executive. I am the head of the Judiciary. Therefore, I need to inform the chief of the executive of the allegations (made) against me and my position on it," he said, when asked why he wrote to the three personalities.

On why he referred to the conversation as a "monologue" in his letters, Ahmad Fairuz replied: "My voice was not heard in the video. Only Datuk V.K Lingam's voice is heard."
http://www.malaysianbar.org.my/bar_news/berita_badan_peguam/ahmad_fairuz_it_was_a_fabrication.html

To state the obvious, why did this man, a lawyer, a former chief justice say "my voice" , "instead no other voice", or "another's voice, - etc etc why specifically, "My Voice"?

Thursday, January 24, 2008

Eusoff Chin, pensioner-another chair,and current office

Extract from the New Straits Times Press (Malaysia) Berhad 31 October 2007
Personality Profile, 31 October 2007:


MOHD EUSOFF CHIN, TUN



Chairman, Alcatel Network Systems (M) Sdn Bhd.

(Former Chief Justice of Federal Court)

Office Add:


Alcatel Network Systems (Malaysia) Sdn Bhd
Plot 19 Tingkat Perusahaan 6 Fasa IV
Kawasan Perusahaan Prai
13600 Perai Pulau Pinang

Tel: 04-5070542
Fax: 04-5071932
03-78763706 (House)


From The Business Times, Malaysia

Eusoff is chairman of Alcatel's Malaysian unit


PARIS-based Alcatel has named Tun Mohd Eusoff Chin as the chairman of its Malaysian subsidiary, Alcatel Network Systems (M) Sdn Bhd. Alcatel managing director in Malaysia, Datuk Yusof Ampuan Kecil, said the combination of Eusoff's leadership ability and extensive government service will be an asset to the company.

Eusoff was the Chief Justice of Malaysia for six years until his retirement in 2000.

Eusoff, in a statement released in Kuala Lumpur, said since retiring from government service, "I have been looking for an opportunity to further contribute to our country's development.

"In accepting this offer from Alcatel, I have found that opportunity, given the vital role that technology will play in Malaysia's future," he added.
(17 January 2006
Business Times)

Why did Eusoff Chin tell the RC that he is a pensioner?

At the start of his testimony, Eusoff, 73, told the court interpreter that he was a “pensioner.”
(http://thestar.com.my/news/story.asp?file=/2008/1/19/nation/20060975&sec=nation)


But see BINTULU PORT HOLDINGS BERHAD



CHAIRMAN

Y. A. Bhg. Tun Dato’ Seri Hj Mohd Eusoff bin Chin



(http://www.bpsb.com.my)


Bintulu Ports is a company listed on the KLSE.One doubts if its chairman could be considered a "pensioner".

Monday, January 21, 2008

VK Lingam's "looks like me" but I cannot remember: Solution may lie in law created for Vincent Tan,VK Lingam

In the matter of Ganesh Sahathevan v Sun Media, Industrial Court chairman Saufee Affandi, in deciding for Sun Media said that in a case
where only the Claimant could have knowledge of the matters on
which his sacking was based, it is the Claimant's duty to prove that
his sacking was not just or for proper reason.

In doing so Affandi overturned long established law which requires the employer to show just cause.

Affandi placed reliance on S.106 of the Evidence Act, 1950:
"When any fact is especially within the knowledge of any person, the burden of proving that fact is upon him"

The section had been raised in argument by counsel for Sun Media, S.Rutheran, who runs a VK Lingam satelite firm.

Although Sun Media Sdn Bhd had become a subsidiary of Nexnews Bhd at the time the decision had been handed down, the decision had direct consequences for VK Lingam and Vincent Tan. Both men, being shareholders of Sun Media who sold their stakes to Nexnews , are subject to conditions imposed by the Securities Commission on their sale which, amongst others, require that they indemnify Nexnews of any claims brought against Sun Media prior to the sale.

While the VK Lingam Royal Commission may not be bound by the normal rules of evidence, the application of Section 106 of the Evidence Act 1950 may have some bearing on any decision of the RC whether any legal action either civil or criminal ought to be commenced against VK Lingam and Vincent Tan as a consequence of the RC's findings.

Friday, January 18, 2008

In 2000 former CJ Eusoff Chin said that he bumped into VK Lingam on the way to a NZ zoo

Eusoff Chin quoted on 18 Jan 2008:



KUALA LUMPUR, Jan 18 (Bernama) -- Retired chief justice Tun Eusoff Chin told the Royal Commission of Inquiry into the controversial Lingam video clip Friday that he allowed lawyer Datuk V.K.Lingam to tag along with him and his family on a holiday trip to New Zealand in 1994 despite then holding the number one post in the judiciary.


"I bumped into him. He wanted to tag along with me. It is not my problem. How can I stop him?" Eusoff said.

Eusoff said Lingam, who was also in New Zealand with his wife and two daughters, told him that he wanted to come along with Eusoff and his family during their stay in New Zealand.

He also said that Lingam and he took the same flights during the holiday as well as stayed in the same hotel at one point in New Zealand, and took five to 10 photographs together.

"Everywhere I went, he wanted to take pictures with me. How can I stop (him)?" said Eusoff, adding that he (Eusoff) even obliged everybody, including students, who wanted to take pictures with him.

Ranjit Singh also asked whether Lingam had gotten hold of Eusoff's holiday itinerary and planned the trip just to be close to Eusoff.

Eusoff answered: "I can't say what he (Lingam) was thinking but Justice Datuk Edgar Joseph Jr, who had just come back from New Zealand, told me that it was a nice place to visit.

"I then asked my secretary to contact the travel agent to arrange a trip for me for a week or so. However, he (Lingam) wanted to tag along. It was out of my control."


Eusoff Chin in 2000:


Chief Justice of the Federal Court Mohd Eusoff Chin said today he had paid for his holiday in New Zealand in 1994 where he "bumped" into lawyer Datuk V.K. Lingam.

He said he was on the way to a zoo when he met Lingam who tagged along and later posed for photographs with him

(Source:Eusoff: I paid for NZ holiday
Ruslaini Abbas,7 June 2000
The New Straits Times)

Thursday, January 17, 2008

Mahathir's choice of VK Lingam as lawyer: A case of being very stupid or very cunning?

Mahathir was quoted in Utusan Malaysia explaining his choice of VK Lingam as his lawyer in the Anwar Ibrahim defamation matter:

‘‘Saya pernah membaca berita mengenai (VK)Lingam dalam satu kes lain. Saya baca tentangnya dalam akhbar semasa dia mengendalikan beberapa kes dan saya rasa dia boleh menjadi peguam yang sesuai,’’
(http://www.utusan.com.my/utusan/info.asp?y=2008&dt=0118&pub=Utusan_Malaysia&sec=Mahkamah&pg=ma_01.htm)


Readers may recall that the "berita mengenai (VK)Lingam " included the now famous article by David Samuels , as well as numerous references to the Ayer Molk case, previously reported on this blog at link:http://malaysianjudges.blogspot.com/2007/08/azmel-maamor-of-federal-court-ayer.html.

Is it possible that in regards to the Ayer Molek case, Mahathir is not aware of the Court of Appeal's dicta in that case,"Something is rotten in the State of Denmark"?, despite the extensive coverage given the matter and that dicta?

On the other hand, did Mahathir choose Lingam for the job of defending himself against Anwar's claim in defamation precisely because Lingam had been reported to be the agent responsible for the rotting of the House of Denmark?

Mahathir must choose between being seen to be very stupid or very cunning.

Wednesday, January 16, 2008

The Mahathirs and VK Lingam go back a long way, contrary to Tun's "I only got to know him recently"

Bernama reported on 17 Jan 2008:

Leong: Do you know V.K. Lingam?

Dr Mahathir: I've heard about him in the newspapers involving several cases. I only got to know him recently when I engaged his services in a civil suit filed against me by Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim.



However, in 1999 (9 years ago) , the same Bernama reported:
KUALA LUMPUR, March 16 (Bernama) - Mirzan Mahathir, Prime Minister Datuk Seri Dr Mahathir Mohamad's eldest son, has filed an affidavit-in-reply in connection with his RM150 million libel suit against printer Star Papyrus Printing Sdn Bhd.

The affidavit-in-reply was filed by lawyer Datuk V. K. Lingam at the High Court Registrar's Office at Wisma Denmark here yesterday.(Source:MIRZAN FILES AFFIDAVIT-IN-REPLY IN RM150 MILLION SUIT.
16 March 1999,BERNAMA Malaysian National News Agency)

On March 25, 1999, THE SUN, then still owned by Messrs Vincent Tan,VK Lingam et al reported:
Businessman Mirzan Mahathir is suing three Chinese dailies for damages totalling RM750 million for alleged defamation in articles they published about his business activities.

The suits are against China Press, Guang Ming Daily News, Sin Chew Jit Poh and Pemandangan Sinar Sdn Bhd which is the publisher and printer of Sin Chew and the printer for Guang Ming. In the suits filed by Messrs V.K. Lingam & Co in early February, Mirzan also sought injunctions to restrain all the defendants from further publishing the alleged defamatory words.
(Source:Mirzan sues Chinese papers.
By N.Puspa Malar ,25 March 1999
The Sun)


See also story concerning VK Lingam, Vincent Tan, Mokzhani Mahathir and this writer titled "Who Is More Important in Bolehland: Crony or Sibling?" by MGG Pillai at
http://www.malaysia.net/lists/sangkancil/1999-03/msg00924.html



Also reported in 2001:
Deputy Prime Minister and Home Minister Datuk Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi said he has accepted the apology from The Sun and does not think any action will be taken against the newspaper for publishing a story on an alleged plot to kill him and the Prime Minister......Prime Minister Datuk Seri Dr Mahathir Mohamad said he was satisfied with the action of a few top level media practitioners of The Sun newspaper who resigned...."Well, I'm satisfied but it should not happen again... that is important," Bernama quoted him as saying.

After conducting preliminary investigations, the Board of Directors were satisfied that there was no foundation or basis to warrant the publication of the said article. This paper carried a prominent front page apology to the Prime Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister and their respective families.

The board of directors had on Thursday appointed a very prominent lawyer Datuk V. Kanagalingam (also known as Datuk V.K. Lingam) as the deputy chairman of the company together with Mr Frankie Tay Thiam Siew as the executive director of the company.

Datuk Lingam is an expert in media and corporate law and has vast experience in the corporate sector.

Datuk Lingam and Frankie Tay will now guide The Sun in establishing itself as a responsible newspaper to the nation.

((Source:DPM accepts - The Sun's apology - Action not likely for report - on alleged assassination plot. 30 December 2001
The Sun)

Thursday, January 10, 2008

Royal Commission of Inquiry into VK tape should call Digi's Chan Nam Kiong,and some others

Chan Nam Kiong, was deputy GM sales and marketing at Mutiara at and around the time when free handphones etc etc were being handed the judges ( http://malaysianjudges.blogspot.com/2007/11/vk-lingam-bro-mention-of-mutiara.html)

He remains in the company, now remaned Digi, as sales and marketing manager.
He is likely to know to whom phones were given, how their accounts were managed, and how much it all cost.

Others who are likely to have information of relevance are:
a) Ho Meng -GM Finance at Mutiara then Digi, who left the company in 2005(http://www.scandasia.com/viewNews.php?news_id=1183&coun_code=no)
He is currently CEO of Vincent Tan's MITV (see http://www.berjaya.com/220806thesun.htm)

b)Kwong Choong Yew-Deputy GM Finance -current whereabouts unknown

c)Chan Kien Sing -Mutiara/Digi director at the relevant time and long time Berjaya man( see http://uk.reuters.com/investing/quotes/officerProfile?symbol=BGRO.KL&officerId=549460)

Monday, January 7, 2008

VK Lingam RC should call former judge RK Nathan

Dato RK Nathan was chosen by Eusoffe Chin to hear ALL defamation cases. This gave him control over the multi-million dollar defamation cases involving VK Lingam and Vincent Tan Chee Yiuon. The report below from THE SUN , then owned by Vincent , VK, Berjaya and others is one example of how RK Nathan assisted in furthering Messrs VK, VT and Chins' interest.


Disclosure of interest: : The article by MGG Pillai at
http://www.malaysia.net/lists/sangkancil/2000-03/msg00126.html details a possible conflict arising out of a matter involving RK Nathan, Vincent Tan, VK Lingam and me.


From THE SUN, 7 September 1999:

Reporters covering court proceedings were today advised to provide full and fair reports of court proceedings and not to embellish stories with unfair comments.

The admonition by High Court judge Datuk Dr R.K. Nathan came after it was brought to his attention that reporter Shaila Koshy of The Star had reported inaccurately - for the second time.

Lawyers for the plaintiffs in a civil action found it "outrageous" that Shaila's latest story details an allegation of bribery in the application to amend defence by Asian Wall Street Journal correspondent Raphael Pura, who faces a RM40 million libel suit filed by Insas Bhd and Megapolitan Nominees Sdn Bhd.

After close scrutiny of all documents for the proposed amendment, Datuk V. Sivaparanjothi said that "nowhere ... has the defendant or the defendant's counsel alleged bribery or corruption". Sivaparanjothi was referring to Shaila's report headlined Court rejects bid to amend statement of defence on Sept 2.

His application to amend his defence was struck out by the court on Wednesday. Sivaparanjothi said the statement by the reporter in her article "is totally false, untrue and quoted out of context".

"The only inference one can draw from this is that Ms Shaila Koshy had deliberately concocted her own imputations for reasons best known to her," said the lawyer.


On Wednesday, another of plaintiffs' counsel Datuk V.K. Lingam told the court that they will file to initiate contempt proceedings against Shaila for writing an article on an issue yet to be heard and decided by court.

Lingam said that The Star's report on Tuesday by Shaila implied that the amendment had already been allowed.

(Source:Provide full and fair reports, reporters told.
7 September 1999,The Sun)

Sunday, January 6, 2008

VK Lingam : Digi handphones, the Mutiara listing, a bin Mahathir etc etc

The matter of free Mutiara (the former name for Digi) handphones for judges has been detailed previously at http://malaysianjudges.blogspot.com/2007/11/vk-lingam-bro-mention-of-mutiara.html.

In that regard, I present here an email note I put out sometime in 2001:

Date: Mon, 14 May 2001 05:54:11
From: ganesh sahathevan
To:

Subject: Mokzhani,Vincent and Kestrel-links to Digi.com


It appears that a promoting shareholder in Digi.com(then Mutiara) was one
Affendi Zahari,who via Alam Nusantara S/B controlled roughly 25 million
Digi shares.
Affendi Zahari also happens to be company lawyer, Tongkah, and one of three bumiputera shareholders who received, in 1996-97 shares in Kestrel Securities Muar, worth approximately RM 12 million in mid-1999.
His is a three man law firm which in '99 operated out of an office in off
Ipoh Rd.

Saturday, January 5, 2008

VK tape Royal Commission-Will TAN CHONG PAW be called?

From the Bowman papers:
Copies of flight tickets have been obtained for VK Lingam, his wife, two children and a
Mr TAN CHONG PAW.These tickets are for exactly the same flights as those shown in Eusoffe Chin's itinerary.Records of internal flights in New Zealand between Queenstown and Christchurh for the Chin family, Lingam family and TAN CHONG PAW indicate that they all flew together.

TAN CHONG PAW is said to be an ex-police Sergeant who was attached to Bukit Aman. He is said to have been recommended to Vincent Tan (Tan Sri, Dato Seri(x9)by one Assistant Commissioner of Police Khiew after he resigned from the force sometime in 1994.
His NRIC number is said to be 5598091.