Your MP's Question of the Week #13

- Terjemahan oleh Lee Wee Tak - Ucapan ribuan terima kasih dari Wee Choo Keong -

Soalan Mingguan WR Anda #13

Pengumuman pentadbiran Badawi bahawa kenaikan harga minyak sebanyak 41% iaitu sebanyak 78 sen kepada RM2.70 selitre pada tanggal 5 Jun amatlah membebankan semua.

Lebih-lebih lagi apabila Malaysia adalah pengekspot bersih minyak (sila meneliti gambarajah di bawah yang membandingkan harga minyak kita dengan negara-negara pengekspot yang lain)



Harga semua barang akan dipengaruhi dan rakyat jelata akan sengsara kerana pendapatan mereka secara amnya tidak meningkat banyak semenjak kegentingan kewangan tahun 1997.

Harga barang keperluan seperti beras, ikan, telor, gula, minyak masak dan susu pekat dan sebagainya sudah melonjak besar. Dengan jumlah wang yang sama di tangan, rakyat jelata hanya boleh membeli barangan berkurangan. Ini membawa maksud bahawa makanan semua keluarga kena dikurangkan. Kesan buruk kenaikkan harga minyak adalah pada harga rumah dan pengangkutan yang akan menindas kuat ke atas riwayat rakyat jelata pada hari-hari yang akan datang.

Pentadbiran Badawi nampaknya kurang peka dan sedia membiarkan rakyat sengsara dengan membenarkan kenaikkan harga minyak besar-besaran. Rakyat jelata mesti berani menyuarakan perasaan mereka untuk membangunkan perdana menteri yang kuat tidur dan tidak memahami masalah-masalah rakyat. Tetapi pihak polis dan perdana menteri yang pincang itu menerusi media umum telah meminta rakyat supaya jangan membuat bantahan. Oleh itu soalan untuk minggu ini adalah….

Sebagai warganegara negara ini, adakah adil dan wajar untuk polis dan perdana menteri Malaysia ,melarang rakyat jelata berkumpul dan menyuarakan kesengasaraan mereka kepada pihak pentadbiran secara umum dengan hasrat supaya tindakan-tindakan tertentu boleh diambil untuk mengatasi kesengsaraan mereka?

(Tulis comment anda di sini.)

"No more petrol price increases this year"

Wednesday June 11, 2008 MYT 7:45:50 PM (thestar online)

PM: No more petrol price increases this year

BY MAZWIN NIK ANIS & SIM LEOI LEOI

PUTRAJAYA: There will be no further increase to the price of fuel in the country this year despite the possibility of the global price of oil reaching US$200 (RM660) per barrel, the Prime Minister said.

This latest decision by the Cabinet came on top of various measures announced on Monday to help the Government cut costs and channel more subsidies to low income earners.

Datuk Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi said to stem any more increase, the Government would have to think of alternative ways to finance its spending.

“If that is the decision of the Cabinet, this will remain so despite further jumps to the global price of oil.

“Since the Government announced the new price last week, fuel prices have gone up to US$139 (RM459) per barrel and is still hovering at US$130 (RM429).

“In fact, the price of oil is expected to remain at high levels in the months to come. The high price of oil means that the market price of petrol at the pumps have now reached RM3.45 per litre,” he said, adding that the price should be reviewed to RM3.15 per litre instead of RM2.70 beginning next month.

“However, the Government realises that the rakyat (citizens) are still trying to adapt themselves to higher petrol prices. The Cabinet has thus decided there will be no more increase this year,” he told reporters at his office here on Wednesday.

If the global price of petrol should ever drop, Abdullah said the Government would make the necessary adjustments with the 30 sen discount still being given.

In the June 4 announcement of the new petrol price, Abdullah had said that prices at the petrol pump would be adjusted monthly to reflect global market price.

The Premier also said that in the National Inflation Council meeting on Monday, it had been decided that the over one million civil servants would now be paid their monthly salaries in two instalments, staring in August.

“The first instalment will be paid in the middle of the month while the second will be at the end of the month.

“Any income tax, Employees’ Provident Fund or others will be deducted from the second instalment,” he said.

Media release re DBKL, Immigration & Police to take immediate action against illegal immigrants

Released by Wee Choo Keong, MP for Wangsa Maju, on 23-04-08 in Kuala Lumpur

DBKL, IMMIGRATION & POLICE: TO TAKE IMMEDIATE JOINT ACTIONS AGAINST ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS

It has been a glaring fact for a long time that illegal immigrants have dominated Jalan Petaling. Illegal immigrants are one of the biggest national problems in Malaysia. Malaysians have had enough of the illegal immigrants, who are the social menace in the country. It is the duty of all Malaysians to take actions to get rid of these unwelcome illegal immigrants from Malaysian soil.

It is in the interest of the nation that DBKL, Police and Immigration Department must take immediate joint actions to arrest and deport the illegal immigrants in Jalan Petaling and other parts of Malaysia.

The K L Hawkers Petty Traders Association & Its President, ChanKai Mun

In 1991, the police themselves have lodged two reports (Petaling Jaya Reports No: 3375 / 1991 & 1040 / 1991) against Chan Kai Mun, the president of the K L Hawkers & Petty Traders Association (“Association”). It was based on these two police reports that in 1991 Chan Kai Mun was prevented from leaving Malaysia by the Immigration Department at the old Subang Airport and thereafter detained by the police. After the 60 days detention, he was subsequently banished (buang negeri) by Minister of Home Affairs to Cameron Highland.

It is an open secret that Chan Kai Mun was involved with gangsterism and other criminal activities and has been terrorising Jalan Petaling for a long time. It is an undeniable fact that only person of with questionable character and notorious is detained by the police and thereafter banished by the Home Ministry.

The Association never had a membership of more than few hundred members let alone 100,000 as claimed by Datuk Ang Say Tee, who is also a Committee member of MCA Ampang Division. 100,000 members is just a white lie by Datuk Ang, who is a business man trying to portray himself as a hawker. It is also an open secret that less than 100 members attended any of its meetings. This Association is just a front for Chan Kai Mun.

To leave a comment, please click here.

Wangsa Maju MP demands termination of DBKL's subcontractor

To leave a comment, please click here.

Pixs of the Jamuan Makan Malam at Taman Bunga Raya on 19 March 2008

Despite the continuous drizzle in the evening, they all came to partake of the small celebration. Total turnout was estimated to be about 500 people. Thank you all for making the evening a success.

Photographs for Order

Dear Friends and Supporters,

I have been informed by my colleague Dr. Eric Kwan that you have expressed wishes to purchase photographs of our campaign activities.

Those who would like to order the photographs are welcome to send an email to Dr. Eric Kwan at topgunretrievers@gmail.com and liaise with him.

He has also gracefully agreed to supply the photo prints from 4R - 10R size "at cost" for each print. You can pick your photos from the Contact Prints featured here. Thank you.


Contact Print 1 (click on pix for larger view)


Contact Print 2 (click on pix for larger view)


Contact Print 3 (click on pix for larger view)


(Post your comment here.)

Written submission: Royal Commission of Enquiry on VK Lingam video clip

The Royal Commission of Enquiry ON the Video Clip Recording which contains images of an Advocate & Solicitor talking over the phone with regard to the Appointment of Judges

This is the Written Submission prepared for and on behalf of Mr. Thirunama Karasu A/L Kandar Velupillai.

Honourable Commissioners

The Commission’s terms of reference are as follows:

1. To enquire and ascertain the authenticity of the video clip;

2. To enquire and identify the speaker, the person he was speaking to and the persons mentioned in the conversation;

3. To enquire and ascertain the truth of the content of the conversation;

4. To determine whether any act of misbehaviour has been committed by persons identified or mentioned in the clip; and

5. To recommend appropriate action against those found to have committed any misbehaviour.

It is submitted that item 3 of the above term is wide enough for the Commission to investigate into the contents of the conversation. Unfortunately, the hearing proceeded under very much restriction. All other important witnesses had to submit statutory declarations for the Commissioners to consider before testifying except for Dato V K Lingam, Tun Eusoff Chin, Tun Ahmad Fairuz, Tan Sri Vincent Tan, Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamed and Tun Mohamed Dzaidin.

A. To enquire and ascertain the authenticity of the video clip

In relation to this term of reference we submit that the man in the video clip is Dato’ Kanagalingam Veluppillai (Dato’ V K Lingam).

Our submission belies the following salient facts:-

1. The evidence of Mr Loh Mui Fah (CW3) that Dato’ V K Lingam had invited him (Mr Loh) to his home. (Please refer to Notes of Proceedings (“NP”) Day 1 page 4).

2. The evidence of Mr Loh Gwo Burne that he had gone to Dato’ V K Lingam’s house on 20 December 2001 with this father Mr Loh Mui Fah (NP Day 6 page 2).

3. The evidence of Mohd Zabri Adil bin Talia from Cyber Sekuriti that

• a. the video recording was genuine (NP Day 2 page 24 and 25).

• b. That the unknown voice comes from the same source as the known voice. (NP Day 2 page 26).

4. The “known voice” was that of Dato’ VK Lingam.

5. Mr Thayalan himself had admitted to the question of the Honourable Commissioner Dato’ Mahadev Shankar that he did not in any of his questions suggest that the evidence of Mohd Zabri Adil was wrong. (NP Day 9 page 7)

6. The evidence of Chua Lay Choo (NP Day 12 page 4) that it was Dato V K Lingam who had told her that the Chinese man in the video clip was Mr Loh Mui Fah (NP day 12 page 3 & 4). It is our submission that surely if Dato V K Lingam can recognize Mr Loh Mui Fah in the video clip, he can recognize himself as well.

7. The evidence of Mr Thirunama Karasu A/L kandar Velupillaiwho had said that he recognizes the man in the video clip as Dato V K Lingam from the body language and his voice. Thirunama Karasu A/L kandar Velupillaiwho is the brother of Dato V K Lingam had said that Dato V K Lingam gets excited when talking on the telephone (NP Day 13 page 4).

8. The evidence of Ms Jayanthi, who was the personal secretary of Dato V K Lingam, that the man in the video clip is Dato VK Lingam (NP Day 17 page 17).

9. The evidence of Mr Ramachandran, who was the personal driver to Dato V K Lingam for 6 years, that the man in the video clip is Dato V K Lingam (NP Day 17 page 23).

10. Honourable Commissioners, there is no contrary evidence denying the authenticity of the video clip.

11. The closest denial, if ever it was to be considered as a denial is the lame excuse by the Dato’ V K Lingam that the man in the video clip “looks like me and sounds like me but I am not sure if it is me.”

• 11.1 Further, during cross examination on the telephone conversation in the video clip, Dato’ V K lingam has testified that he can say what he like in his house and that he could also said that he was talking to President Bush.

• 11.2 It is clear from this evidence in paragraph 11.1 above that Dato’ V K Lingam has indirectly admitted that it was him who was speaking on the mobile telephone in the video clip.

12. Dato V K Lingam is the one who had identified Mr Loh as the Chinese man in the video clip. He gave the personal particulars to Ms Chuah Lay Choo the ACA investigation officer. Mr Loh admitted in his evidence that he was the person in the video clip. Surely this would mean that the Indian man in the video clip who “looks like and sounds like Dato V K Lingam, has to be Dato V K Lingam.

13. Further, there was no evidence from any other experts contradicting the evidence of Mohd Zabri Adil though learned counsel for Dato V K Lingam, Mr Thayalan had informed the Commission that the would be making an application to introduce another expert evidence, which will prove that the it was not Dato’ V K Lingam talking on the hand phone in the video clip.

14. It must be noted that at the end of the hearing Mr Thayalan did not make the application to introduce expert evidence. Mr Thayalan did not produce any evidence to challenge the expert evidence of Mohd Zabri Adil.

B. To enquire and identify the speaker, the person he was speaking to and the persons mentioned in the conversation

I submit that the speaker talking over the telephone to the person, in the presence of Mr Loh Mui Fah and Mr Loh Gwo Burne on 20.12.2001 was Dato V K Lingam. This submission is based on the evidence referred to in the above paragraphs.

I further submit that the speaker on the other end of the telephone, to whom Dato V K Lingam was speaking to, was definitely Tun Ahmad Fairuz, the former Chief Justice. This, we say, can be established from the events that were mentioned by Dato V K Lingam in the telephone conversation as well as the events that happened thereafter. We elucidate the events hereinbelow:-

1. In the telephone conversation Dato VK Lingam had said that he liked the way Tun Fairuz answered the press ie that he was working hard and that he would leave it to God. (Refer to C8 page 5).

2. The Sunday Star on 11/11/2001 had published an article which quoted Tun Ahmad Fairuz saying the same words. (NP Day 8 page 6)

3. We submit that the fact that Dato V K Lingam was repeating the words of Tun Ahmad Fairuz which appeared in the Sunday Star to Tun Ahmad Fairuz himself and saying that he (Dato V K Lingam) liked the statement of Tun Ahmad Fairuz shows that Dato V K Lingam was talking to Tun Ahmad Fairuz.

4. Dato VK Lingam had in the said teleconversation said that he would see to it that the speaker on the other end of the telephone would be bestowed the “Tan Sri” title soon. The words that where spoken were as follows: “ I will also get Tan Sri to remind PM to put your Tan Sri ship this year lah” (Refer to C8 page 5).

5. It was in evidence that Tun Ahmad Fairuz was bestowed the title Tan Sri in June 2002. (NP Day 8 page 6)

6. Tun Dzaiddin had given evidence that he did not recommend the Tan Sri ship for Tun Ahmad Fairuz. In fact it was the evidence of Tun Dzaiddin that Tun Ahmad Fairuz had told Tun Dzaiddin that the “Tan Sri-ship” which he would be getting was recommended by Tengku Adnan and that he (Tun Dzaiddin) was disappointed. (NP Day 11 page 12).

7. It must be noted that Tun Dzaiddin was so sure that Tun Ahmad Fairuz had told him (Tun Dzaiddin) that it was Tengku Adnan who had recommended the Tan Sri ship. The words used by Tun Dzaiddin were as follows: He (meaning Tun Ahmad Fairuz) categorically stated that it (meaning the Tan Sriship) was recommended by Tengku Adnan.

8. Tengku Adnan himself is no stranger to Dato V K Lingam. The fact that Tengku Adnan was close to Dato’ V K Lingam and therefore was in a position to make such a recommendation is seen in the evidence of Ms Jayanthi who confirmed that Tengku Adnan made regular calls to Dato V K Lingam. (NP Day 17 page 16).

9. We submit that it is improper for a member of the executive branch of the Government to make a recommendation for conferment of title to a member of the Judiciary. To put it mildly, it was a serious indiscretion both on the part of Tengku Adnan and Tun Ahmad Fairuz. Such act would have definitely compromised Tun Ahmad Fairuz’s position as a judge.

10. Then there is another statement made by Dato V K Lingam which directly establishes Tun Ahmad Fairuz was the person to whom Dato V K Lingam was speaking. At page 6 exhibit C8, Dato V K Lingam was saying:

“You suffered so much, so much you have done. You know, for the election petition, Wee Choo Keong, everything. How much, nobody would have done all these.”

11. It is a well known fact that in 1995 the Election Petition Judge for the Election Petition was none other than Tun Ahmad Fairuz. In this Election Petition Tun Ahmad Fairuz saw it fit to disqualify Wee Choo Keong as the duly elected MP for Bukit Bintang and Tun Ahmad Fairuz went further to appoint the loser in the 1995 General Election as the duly elected MP for Bukit Bintang. The Tun AHamd Fairuz’s said decision was not based on legal principle and contrary principle of democracy where MP is elected by the voter.

• 11.1 At the hearing of the Royal Commission, Wee Choo Keong did offer himself to give evidence but the Commissioners denied him the right to give evidence. The Commissioners must have came to the own conclusion based on reason best known to time that although the Election Petition against Mr Wee Choo Keong was mentioned in the video clip, it was however very irrelevant. I humbly submit that it was a very strange ruling.

12. Later when the Chinese man (Mr Loh Mui Fah) asks Dato V K Lingam who was he (Dato V K Lingam) talking to over the phone, Dato V K Lingam had replied that it was the Chief Judge of Malaya Tun Ahmad Fairuz and that it was he (Dato VK Lingam) who had “put him up there” (see C8 page 6) implying that Tun Ahmad Fairuz was a Chief Judge because of Dato V K Lingam.

13. During examination in chief by counsel En Sallehudin, Tun Ahmad Fairuz was asked to clarify what he meant by the telephone conversation in the video clip was a monologue. Tun Ahmad testified that: “sebab suara saya tidak boleh didengar.”

14. From the above facts, the surrounding circumstances in which the conversation took place and the events thereafter, it is crystal clear that person that Dato V K Lingam was talking to on the other end of line was definitely Tun Ahmad Fairuz.

C: To enquire and ascertain the truth of the content of the conversation

In this part, I shall divide my submission to two parts. Firstly the truth of the conversation in relation to judicial brokering that was spoken about by Dato V K Lingam to Tun Ahmad Fairuz.

Secondly, I shall also submit that through the evidence of Mr Thirunama Karasu, Ms Jayanthi (Lingam’s secretary) and Mr Ramahandran (Lingam’s driver), it is clear that Dato’ VK Lingam had a relationship with Tun Eusoff Chin that surpassed ordinary lawyer-judge relationship.

The 1st Issue: about the truth of the conversation in relation to the judicial brokering that was spoken about by Dato V K Lingam to Tun Ahmad Fairuz.

1. Dato V K Lingam was speaking on the telephone about the proposed appointment of three (3) judges namely Dato’ Heliliah, Dato Ramly Ali, Dato Ahmad Haji Maarop and the rejection of two (2) other names namely En Zainuddin Ismail and Dr Andrew Chew. The said proposed appointment and rejection of those persons named above, was spot on and confirmed in the letter between the then Prime Minister and Tun Mohamed Dzaiddin.

2. These were confidential matters as testified by the former Chief Secretary to the Government Tan Sri Shamsuddin Osman (NP Day 3 page 16).

3. In fact Dato Mahadev Shanker made the observation that he himself was puzzled as to how Dato V K Lingam had access to these confidential matters. (NP Day 3 page 17).

4. We submit that the statements made by Dato V K Lingam to Tun Ahmad Fairuz were all true. It was a fact that three (3) judges were appointed and two (2) were rejected. Dato V K Lingam had very specific knowledge that there was a letter sent to Tan Sri Dzaiddin (now Tun) about this matter (see C8 page 1).

5. The former Chief Secretary confirmed that there was such a letter sent to Tun Dzaiddin concerning the appointment of the three judges and the rejection of the two proposed names. This letter was dated 5.12.2001 (Exhibit C41).

6. Dato V K Lingam was talking about this letter to Tun Ahmad Fairuz about this letter on 20.12.2001.

7. The fact that Dato V K Lingam was talking about such confidential matters on the hand phone would go to show that Dato V K Lingam and the person at the other end of the phone shared a common interest on these matters that were discussed in the telephone conversation as shown in the video clip.

8. Further Dato V K Lingam himself admits that he had a hand in these matters. He says this in the video clip:

“Ah, as per our memo, I….I discussed with Tun…aa….Tun Eusoff Chin and we sent the same memo to PM.” (see C8 page 1)

9. Dato V K Lingam himself also said that it is very important that “… key players must be there …”

10. Dato V K Lingam had also said that he had asked Tan Sri Vincent Tan to speak to the former Prime Minister Datuk Seri Mahathir Mohammad (now Tun) to appoint Datuk Ahmad Fairuz as CJM (see C8 page 3)

11. At the end of the conversation with Tun Ahmad Fairuz, Dato V K Lingam then told Mr Loh Mui Fah that when Tun Dzaiddin recommended the late Tan Sri Malek Ahmad to be Chief Judge of Malaya, Tengku Adnan and Dato V K Lingam had gone to see the Prime Minister to influence the Prime Minister to reject this recommendation and appoint Tun Ahmad Fairuz as Chief Judge.

12. Tun Dzaiddin did confirm in his testimony that he had recommended the late Tan Sri Malek as Chief Judge but eventually it was Tun Ahmad Fairuz that was appointed as Chief Judge. These were matters that were spoken about by Dato V K Lingam to Tun Ahmad Fairuz in the video clip and these are true facts.

13. It was a fact that Tun Dzaiddin had suggested that Tan Sri Malek Ahmad be appointed as the Chief Judge Malaya and it was a fact that this recommendation was rejected. It was a fact that eventually Tun Ahmad Fairuz was appointed as a Chief Judge. It was also a fact that later Tun Ahmad Fairuz became the acting PCA.

15. These were matters that Dato V K Lingam had talked to Mr Loh Mui Fah. Dato V K Lingam had also told Mr Loh Mui Fah that he had put up Tun Ahmad Fairuz as Chief Judge and later as Acting PCA.

16. We submit that it was obvious that the reason for Dato V K Lingam to broker the appointment of Tun Ahmad Fairuz as the new CJM was because Tun Eusoff Chin was no longer in power. Dato V K Lingam needs a Chief Judge to fit cases for him or for person or businessman closed to him.

17. Dato V K Lingam had informed Mr Loh Mui Faht that “knowing the law doesn’t give you winning the emperor…(unclear)…..You must also kun tow with the Emperor. (see C8 page 8).

18. At page 2 & 3 of exhibit C8, Dato V K Lingam exclaims albeit proudly that “... sometimes Tan Sri Vincent say half the time we are talking about judiciary rather than doing the work. But if I do this part … my work will be useless. Hah! Hah! Hah! Hah! … ah… yes… Correct … Correct … Correct … Correct”. It is clear from this part of the conversation that if Dato’ lingam does not indulge in judicial brokering then his “work will be useless”.

• 18.9 Therefore, it must follow suits that fixing of judicial appointment was for the specific purpose of the judge to fix court decision in Dato’ Lingam favour.

19. From the above, it is my humble submission that there are more than enough evidence to show that Dato V K Lingam was actively involved in brokering of the appointment of judges.

The 2nd Issue: Dato V K Lingam had a hand in brokering of appointment of judges because of his “more than close relationship” with Tun Eusoff Chin.

I substantiate the about submission on the following facts:-

1. Dato V K Lingam had told Mr Loh Mui Fah that he was extremely close to Tun Eusoff Chin.

2. Dato V K Lingam had also told Mr Loh Mui Fah that when Tun Eusoff Chin was in power, I (meaning Dato V K Lingam) can straight “get Pom, Pom, Pom, Pom…..” Basically this meant that Dato V K Lingam can get whatever he wanted when Tun Eusoff Chin was in power.

3. DAto’ V K Lingam and family, and Tun Eusoff Chin and family went on a holiday trip to New Zealand together and they took the same flight from Singapore onward and they were also traveling together in New Zealand. There were more than enough evidence to show that New Zealand trip was pre-planned by Dato V K Lingam and Tun Eusoffe Chin.

4. The fact that Dato V K Lingam was close to Tun Eusoff Chin has now become a known fact. We submit that the relationship between Tun Eusoff Chin and Dato V K Lingam is not merely a close relationship but this relationship was the starting point for Dato V K Lingam to put his fingers and meddle in the matters concerning the judiciary.

5. Ms Jayanthi had given evidence that Tun Eusoff Chin used to call Dato V K Lingam’s direct line and that Ms Jayanthi would pick up these calls when Dato V K Lingam was not in the office. Ms Jayanthi had given evidence that she knew that the caller was Tun Eusoff Chin because Tun Eusoff Chin would introduce himself as such. (NP Day 17 page 16).

6. Ms Jayanthi had also given evidence that the two drivers namely Mohan and Mr Ramachandran had told her that they had taken Dato V K Lingam to Tun Eusoff Chin’s house on numerous occasions. (NP Day 17 page 16).

7. In fact, even Mr Thirunama Karasu A/L Kandar VelupillaiA/L Kandar Velupillai had given evidence that he had heard from Mr Ramachandran and Mogan that they had also driven Dato V K Lingam to Tun Eusoff Chin’s house (NP Day 13 page 5).

8. The evidence of Ms Jayanthi clearly corroborated the evidence of Mr Thirunama Karasu A/L Kandar Velupillai who had given evidence as follows:-

• a. That he had answered telephone calls from Tun Eusoff Chin which was made to Dato V K Lingam’s handphone (NP Day 13 page 5).

• b. That he had sent Dato V K Lingam to Tun Eusoff Chin’s house and then later went to fetch Dato V K Lingam from Tun Eusoff Chin’s house and he overheard Dato V K Lingam repeatedly saying “Thank you My Lord, Thank you My Lord” (NP Day 13 page 5).

• c. That he had driven Dato V K Lingam to Tun Eusoff Chin’s house about 7-8 times for the period from 1995 to 1996. (NP Day 13 page 6).

• d. That Tun Eusoff Chin had come to Dato VK Lingam’s house once for dinner and a second time to bid farewell to Dato V K Lingam and his wife who were leaving to Mayo Clinic, USA (NP Day 13 page 7).

• e. That Mogan had on one occasion picked up Tun Eusoff Chin from Subang Airport (NP Day 13 page 7).

• f. That Dato V K Lingam had intended to purchase a house or alternatively a big piece of land for Tun Eusoff Chin (NP Day 13 page 7).

• g. That he had gone inside Tun Eusoff Chin’s house to deliver a handbag and a brown envelope on the instructions of Dato V K Lingam (NP Day 13 page 7).

• h. That he had informed these matters to the ACA (NP Day 14 page 11).

• i. That he had written down Tun Eusoff Chin’s handphone number in his black diary which he had given to the ACA.

Is Thirunama Karasu A/L Kandar Velupillai insane?

Honourable Commissioners, at this juncture it is important for us to highlight that Dato’ VK Lingam had tried to discredit Mr Thirunama Karasu A/L Kandar Velupillai as an insane person. It is submitted that Mr Thirunama Karasu A/L Kandar Velupillai is sane, has a memory of that of any “elephant” and is a truthful witness. I make this submission based on the following evidence:

• 1. Thirunama Karasu A/L Kandar Velupillai had himself explained at length that he was forced to act as a mad man by Dato V K Lingam, V K Lashmi, Dato Kumaraendran, Dato Vijayakumar and Dato Sithambaram.
• 2. There was no evidence from Tan Sri Mahadevan that Thirunama Karasu A/L Kandar Velupillai was insane.

Honourable Commissioners, taking the evidence of Mr Thirunama Karasu A/L Kandar Velupillaiin in totality with the evidence of Ms Jayanthi and Mr Ramachandran it was clear that the Dato V K Lingam had a very close relationship with Tun Eusoff Chin and therefore his statement in the video clip making reference to this relationship and how he can get things done is the truth and nothing but the whole truth. Moreover since Dato V K Lingam was speaking to Tun Ahmad Fairuz there was no reason to tell anything but the truth to Tun Ahmad Fairuz that Dato V K Lingam was close with Tun Eusoff Chin.

To determine whether any act of misbehaviour has been committed by persons identified or mentioned in the clip

Honourable Commissioners, it is clear that Dato V K Lingam and Tun Eusoff Chin are guilty of misbehaviour. The late night meetings between Dato V K Lingam and Tun Eusoff Chin were most scandalous. The delivery of the handbag and a brown envelope by Mr Thirunama Karasu A/L Kandar Velupillai to Tun Eusoff Chin’s house also borders on scandalous behaviour. Tun Eusoff Chin cohorting with Dato V K Lingam in all of these matters has also brought disrepute to the high office of Chief Justice which he held at that time.

Datuk V K Lingam seemed to be privy to classified information under the Official Secret Act.

To recommend appropriate action against those found to have committed any misbehaviour

1. ACA TO REOPEN INVESTIGATION INTO THE ACTIVITIES OF TUN EUSOFF CHIN, DATUK V K LINGAM, FORMER AG AND OTHER JUDGES (INCLUDING ONE SITTING JUDGE) IMPLICATED BY THE EVIDENCE TENDERED BEFORE THE COMMISSION OF INQUIRY.

The said activities of both Tun Eusoff Chin and Dato V K Lingam must be further investigated by the ACA based on the overwhelming evidence produced at the inquiry. It must be noted that at the material time the then Attorney-General (AG), the late Tan Sri Mohtar Abdullah, was heavily implicated in the ACA investigation and yet he saw it fit to clear Tun Eusoff Chin, Dato’ V K Lingam of other from corruption charges and closed the ACA investigations on the matter. During the Inquiry, photograph was produced as exhibit showing the late Tan Sri Mohtar Abdullah was on a holiday trip to Spain with Tan Sri Vincent Tan, Dato V K Lingam and their respective spouses and then they proceeded to Morocco. Please see: exhibit C-58 [the group photo taken in Spain]. Dato’ V K Lingam has admitted that he went on a holiday to Spain with Tan Sri Vincent Tan, Tan Sri Mohtar Abdullah.

Therefore, it was most improper for the then AG to close the investigation and clear Tun Eusoff Chin and Dato’ V K Lingam of charges of corruption and corrupt practices when he was heavily implicated in the said investigation. No one should be a judge of his own cause.

1st Recommendation

Based on the above glaring facts, the Honourable Commissioners are duty bound to make a recommendation that the ACA to reopen its investigations into the charges of corruptions and corrupt practices involving Tun Eusoff Chin, Dato’ V K Lingam, the late Tan Sri Mohtar Abdullah, and other judges like Datuk Mokhtar Sidin, Datuk K L Rekraj and Datuk Low Hop Bing, who is still a sitting judge in the Court of Appeal, as there are more than sufficient evidence to warrant an in-depth investigations into their closed relationship with Dato’ V K Lingam.

2. TUN EUSOFF CHIN, TUN AHMAD FIRUZ AND DATO V K LINGAM SHOULD BE CHARGED UNDER SECTION 191 PENAL CODE – GIVING FALSE EVIDENCE/PERJURY.

Tun Eusoff Chin and Dato V K Lingam should be charged for giving false evidence/perjury. There was more than enough evidence to show that both of them have been lying through their teeth when they testified before the Commission. Both of them denied that the New Zealand holidays trip were preplanned and both of them testified that they met by chance in Singapore Changi Airport when there was ample evidence to show otherwise. Air plane tickets (exhibit C-69 [1-15]) for both families of Dato V K Lingam and Tun Eusoff Chin were purchased from the same travel agent, Holiday Tours Sdn Bhd. Many photographs of both families were produced as evidence. Tun Eusoff Chin travel manifest from Holiday Tours Sdn Bhd was sent to Ms Jeyanthi, Dato V K Lingam’s secretary.

Further, in 1998 Tun Eusoff Chin was quoted by the press to have said that he and Dato V K Lingam met each other by chance in a zoo New Zealand.

Both of them denied that they are closed buddies and yet there was evidence of Dato VK Lingam buying expensive gifts for Tun Eusoff Chin and Dato V K Lingam visited Tun Eusoff Chin in his house at late at night un til past mid night on several occasions. There was evidence from Ms Jeyanthi and Mr Thirunama Karasu A/L Kandar Velupillai that Tun Eusoff Chin used to call Dato’ V K Lingam on his mobile phone and direct line in the office. In fact, Mr Thirunama Karasu A/L Kandar Velupillai (Dato’ V K Lingam’s brother) could have produced more evidence to show extremely closeness between Tun Eusoff Chin and Dato’ V K Lingam but the Honoourable Commissioner saw it fit to limit Mr Thirunma Karasu A/L Kandar Velupillai testimonies to only 4 incidents of extremely closeness when he could have produced more.

Tun Ahmad Fairuz should also be charged for giving false evidence/perjury because he also denied that he was closed to Dato V K Lingam and that he was not the person talking at the other end of the line with Dato’ V K Lingam as shown in the video clip. However, Tun Ahmad Fairuz told the Inquiry that it was a monologue conversation because “suara saya tidak boleh di dengar.”

2nd Recommendation

That Tun Eusoff Chin, Tun Ahmad Fairuz Sheikh Abdul Halim and Dato’ V K Lingam should be charged under section 191 of Penal Code for giving false evidence/perjury.

3. ANOTHER ROYAL COMMISSION OF INQUIRY SHOULD BE SET UPTO INVESTIGATE INTO THE ALLEGATIONS OF CORRUPTION OR CORRUPT PRACTICES OR MISCONDUCTS OF RETIRED JUDDGES AND ONE SITTING JUDGE IN THE COURT OF APPEAL.

In exhibit C - 95 there were many more incidents that were prohibited by the Hon Commissioners to tender were:

• - sending poison pen letters, magazine entitled “Commercial Litigation – Malaysian Justice on Trial” by Euromoney to Tun Eusoff Chin and other judges house;

• - Dato V K Lingam hosted dinner for judges (Tun Eusoff Chin and Tan Sri Lamin Yunus, the retired President of the Court of Appeal) in his house;

• - delivering of cakes to Tun Eusoff Chin house;

• - sending mobile telephone application forms to a judge house for distribution to other judges and to collect the forms back from judges’ house;

• - delivered 3 bowls of soup to Tun Eusoff Chin’s house,

• - delivery of a bag to a judge house late at night; and

• - many other matters of compromising nature were prohibited from producing before the Inquiry.

In the course of the investigation, matters that are not within the so-called purview of the Terms of Reference were either disclosed in evidence or totally bared from tendering before the Inquiry and such matters were of public importance. They are as follows:

Dato Wira Low Hop Bing, a judge in the Court of Appeal

Mr Tirunama Karasu A/L Kandar Velupillai did testify that he delivered a large brown bag to Dato Low Hop Bing house late at night that it was received by Dato Low personally.

Dato Mokhtar Sidinl, a retired Judge of the Court of Appeal

In the evidence of Ms Jeyanthi, she has testified that she was present and the secretary were made to type an amended Grounds of Judgment and that Ground of Judgment was subsequently delivered in a floppy disk to Dato Mokhtar Sidin’s house. The said amended Ground of Judgment became the official Ground of Judgment. In this case, the late Mr MCCG Pillai was ordered by Datuk Mokhtar Sidin to pay RM10 million damages to Tan Sri Vincent Tan. Mr Tirunama Karasu A/L Kandar Velupillai further testified that hand phones totaling five units were handed over to Dato Mokhtar Sidin at his house at the instructions of Dato V K Lingam.

In the evidence of Mr Tirunama Karasu A/L Kanda Velupillai, he testified that he was detained in a hotel and was forced by the 3 lawyers, Dato C Vijaya Kumar, Dato Kumarendran and Dato Sitambaram to retract the statement that he earlier made to the ACA. This piece of evidence if found to be true tantamount to interfering with the ACA investigation.

3rd Recommendation

I humbly submit that this Commission, which I would call it the MOTHER of all Commissions, should make recommendations that another Royal Commission with independent members with minimum connection with the judiciary should be immediately set up to further investigate into the alleged corruptions or corrupt practices, which evidence were directly or indirectly produced before the Commission, in general in the judiciary and the tampering/interfering with the ACA investigations.

Lastly, a new Royal Commission should also investigate into the fixing of decision of court cases involving Datuk V K Lingam, as the lawyer for the winning party and the judges that were named by Mr Thirunama Karasu A/L Kandar Velupillai, Ms Jeyanthi and Mr Ramachandran in this Inquiry.

Dated 5th March 2008

Wee Choo Keong

Counsel for Mr. Thirunama Karasu A/L Kandar Velupillai

This Written Submission is filed by M/s Wee Choo Keong & Faaiz, solicitor for the abovenamed witness, whose address of service is at Business Suite 19A-14-1, Wisma UOA-1, Jalan Pinang, Kuala Lumpur. Tel: 03-21619688 Fax: 03-21636733

(Post your comment here.)

"Choo Keong: ‘Flying Dutchman’ akhirnya bertemu tempat berlabuh"

- penjemahan -

WEE Choo Keong, calon PKR untuk kawasan Parlimen Wangsa Maju, telah berada dalam kemelut perundangan dari tahun 1993 sehingga 2007. Kemelut selama 14 tahun bermula apabila beliau dipecat, bukan sahaja dari kerusi bahagian Kuala Lumpur Bandar (sekarang Bukit Bintang) pada 1995, tetapi juga oleh DAP, parti politik yang disertainya ketika itu.

“Saya seperti Flying Dutchman yang tiada pangkalan untuk berlabuh,” akui peguam berusia 53 tahun yang merupakan anak kelahiran Kota Bharu dan dibesarkan di Pulau Pinang itu, mengaitkan cerita rakyat tentang seorang nakhoda kapal yang disumpah untuk terus belayar di lautan kerana tiada satu pelabuhan pun yang menerimanya.

Selepas pemecatan Wee dari DAP pada 1998 atas alasan telah mencalarkan imej parti, beliau menubuhkan pula Parti Demokratik Malaysia dengan tujuan untuk terus terlibat dalam politik. Semasa itu beliau sedang bergelut dengan mahkamah atas tuduhan salah laku korporat susulan tindakan undang-undang yang dimulakan Kumpulan MBF pada 1993.

Beliau cuba menyertai PKR pada tahun 1999, sewaktu kemuncak pergerakan reformasi, namun ditolak oleh Chandra Muzaffar, timbalan presiden parti ketika itu yang berpendapat tiada tempat bagi bekas ahli DAP dalam parti yang baru ditubuhkan itu.

“Saya memandang rendah PKR kerana keputusan itu,” seloroh Wee dalam temu bual bersama Malaysiakini. “Pada pandangan saya, parti tersebut tidak begitu mengambil kira soal prinsip - ditubuhkan atas nama keadilan tetapi menolak individu yang berjuang untuk tujuan yang sama.”

Bagaimanapun, Wee terkejut apabila mengetahui minggu lepas bahawa beliau menjadi calon PKR untuk bertanding di kawasan Wangsa Maju yang mempunyai 54,509 pengundi terdiri daripada 52% Melayu, 38% Cina dan 8% India.

Tidak dinafikan, beliau berada di dalam kelompok berbagai kaum yang menjadi sasaran semula jadi PKR dalam merekrut ahli, tetapi beliau tidak begitu bersungguh-sungguh untuk turut serta kerana apa yang berlaku pada tahun 1999 masih segar dalam ingatan.

Video Lingam titik pertemuan

Apabila pemimpin tertinggi PKR, Anwar Ibrahim mendedahkan video Lingam September yang lalu, yang mana menunjukkan peguam VK Lingam dikatakan berunding mengenai pelantikan dalam sistem kehakiman, Wee tiba-tiba muncul, bukan untuk membalas dendam tetapi lebih kepada untuk membersihkan nama beliau.

Hakim yang dikaitkan dalam video itu adalah Ahmad Fairuz Sheikh Abdul Halim, yang mana pada Ogos1995, sebagai hakim pilihan raya telah membatalkan kemenangan Wee dalam pilihan raya umum April 1995 dan sebaliknya memberi kemenangan bagi kawasan parlimen Bukit Bintang kepada calon MCA. Keputusan luar biasa itu dibuat berikutan denda RM7,000 yang dikenakan terhadap Wee sehari sebelum penamaan calon pada tarikh tersebut. Calon boleh hilang kelayakan untuk bertanding jika mendapat denda sebanyak RM1,000 dan hukuman penjara tidak lebih dari satu tahun.

Wee adalah penasihat undang-undang kepada Thirunama Kasaru, iaitu adik dan juga bekas pekerja VK Lingam, dalam siasatan mengenai video tersebut.. Thirunama adalah salah seorang saksi dalam siasatan itu.

Kesan tidak langsung siasatan suruhanjaya itu membuka peluang membersihkan namanya yang tercemar akibat petisyen pilihan raya pada Ogos 1995 membabitkan kerusi parlimen yang dinafikan kepada beliau. Apatah lagi, mahkamah telah melucutkan semua pertuduhan MBF terhadap Wee berserta kos tahun lalu. Akhirnya, kemelut perundangan yang dialami beliau selama 14 tahun berakhir.

Semua itu akan lebih bermakna sekiranya Wee berjaya merampas kerusi Wangsa Maju daripada wakil MCA, Yew Teong Look, penyandang yang menang dengan majoriti 10,000 undi. Jika beliau tewas sekalipun, Wee seolah-olah telah bertemu jalan pulang apabila Timbalan Presiden PKR, Azmin Ali memperkenalkan beliau kepada penyokong-penyokong parti di kawasan itu.

“Bila mereka tahu saya dilahirkan di Kelantan dan mendengar loghat Kelantan saya, mereka bersorak gembira dan mengetuk meja serta mengalu-alukan saya sebagai sebahagian dari mereka,” Wee berkata.Secara tidak langsung, warga Kelantan di Wangsa Maju telah pun menyediakan Flying Dutchman itu tempat berlabuh.

- tamat -

Jadual Ceramah & Lawatan Wangsa Maju Terkini

Datanglah beramai2! Terima kasih.
Hidup Barisan Rakyat!

Undilah Keadilan!


07 March 2008 (Jumaat / Friday)


8.00 malam


Ceramah at Restoran Ganda Dua
- Opposite pasar malam Taman Danau Kota -

中文版，请点击这里.

"Choo Keong: Flying Dutchman no more"

(This article by Terence Netto was published in malaysiakini on 25 February 2008 and I have reproduced it here verbatim for your reading pleasure.)

- start -

The wilderness has been one of the most romantic stretches of politics ever since famous politicians went there or were forced to, only to return with the most triumphant results.

Wee Choo Keong, PKR’s candidate for the mixed-race parliamentary constituency of Wangsa Maju in the Federal Territory, had been in a kind of legal limbo from 1993 to 2007, a 14-year run of troubles compounded by ejections not only from his seat of Kuala Lumpur Bandar (later Bukit Bintang) in 1995, but also from his former party, DAP.

“I was like the Flying Dutchman with no port of call,” said 53-year-old Kota Bharu-born and Penang-raised lawyer, alluding to the legend of the ship captain who was doomed to sail the oceans because no port would allow him to dock.

After Wee’s expulsion from the DAP in 1998 on grounds that he had sullied the party’s image, he formed the Malaysian Democratic Party in a forlorn bid to stay afloat politically amidst continuing legal wrangles stemming from action taken against him in 1993 by the MBf group for imputing to it corporate malfeasance.

He tried to join PKR in 1999 at the height of the reformasi movement but Chandra Muzaffar, then PKR deputy president, decreed that DAP renegades had no place in the newly-formed party.

“I despised PKR for that decision,” Wee candidly admitted in an interview with Malaysiakini. “I thought the party had little regard for principles. Here was a party named for justice keeping out people fighting for the self-same cause.”

Thus Wee was pleasantly surprised when he learned late last week, despite not having disbanded MDP, that he was PKR’s candidate to contest in Wangsa Maju which has 54,509 voters of which 52% are Malays, 38% Chinese and 8% Indians.

No doubt, he has been within the catchment area multi-racial PKR views as its natural recruiting grounds but he was not keen to join, the memory of his spurning in 1999 still rankling.

Brought together by Lingam tape

When PKR supremo Anwar Ibrahim released the Lingam video last September that purported to show lawyer VK Lingam allegedly brokering judicial appointments, Wee sprang into action, more from exculpatory motives than retributive ones.

The judge being spoken to on the videotape was allegedly Ahmad Fairuz Sheikh Abdul Halim who in August 1995, sitting as election judge, nullified Wee’s election to the Bukit Bintang parliamentary seat in the April 1995 general election and handed victory on a silver platter to his defeated MCA opponent - a bizarre decision based on the RM7,000 fine imposed on Wee a day before nomination day in April. A fine of RM1,000 and jail term of not less than one year disqualifies candidates for elective office.

Wee was counsel to Thirunama Karasu (photo, right), VK Lingam’s younger brother and former factotum, in the recent inquiry of the royal commission that probed the circumstances of the tape. Thirunama was a witness in the inquest.

The collateral damage to reputations stemming from the royal commission’s probe dangled the possibility of Wee’s vindication in the matter of the election petition of August 1995 that deprived of a seat in Parliament. Moreover, last year the courts also lifted all legal restrictions on Wee stemming from the MBf action and granted him costs. His 14-year run of legal wrangles had ended.

All this, of course, will be icing on the cake should Wee wrest the Wangsa Maju seat from the MCA incumbent Yew Teong Look, which he retained in 2004 with a whopping 10,000-vote majority. Even if Wee does not win, he found a home of sorts last Friday when PKR vice-president Azmin Ali introduced him to a crowd of party supporters in the constituency.

“When they heard that I was born in Kelantan and when they heard me speak logat Kelante (Kelantanese dialect) they drummed the tables and cheered and welcomed me as one of them,” said Wee.

Apparently, Wangsa Maju’s Kelantanese fringe has already given Malaysian politics’ Flying Dutchman berthing rights.

- end -

(Post your comment here.
It will appear in Wee Choo Keong homeblog.)