Misnaming of decision in favour of Tan Sri Dato Seri Vincent Tan Chee Yioun by judge Saufee Affandi who was closely linked to Eusoffe Chin and Tan's disbarred lawyer VK Lingam adds to the urgent need for a long overdue review and expungement of Tan related decisions

by Ganesh Sahathevan 



As recently reported on this blog:
Conduct and circumstances surrounding former Sessions and Industrial Crt judge Saufee Affandi suggest his judgements were written for him as were disgraced Chief Justice Eusoffe Chin's by disbarred lawyer VK Lingam - Investigation into Affandi's judgements and lawyers and parties he favoured warranted



Given the above and the prior reports of Affandi's misnaming a decision in favour of Vincent Tan there is now an even more  urgent requirement for a long overdue review,  and expungement,  of Tan related decisions 


Tuesday, May 30, 2023

Vincent Tan case misnamed so it would seem as if he had won another multimillion defamation matter - Industrial Court says it does not know how or why the misnaming occurred, but can Sahathevan v Sun Media remain precedent in any court



by Ganesh Sahathevan


As previously reported:




After approximately SIX years of correspondence and after prolonged periods of silence and much ding-donging the Industrial Court of Malaysia has at least admitted that the case name in Sun Media v Ganesh Sahathevan, in which Ganesh Sahathevan was in fact the plaintiff, is incorrect. As any first year law student would know, the correct order is Plaintiff v. Defendant, in this case, Ganesh Sahathevan v Sun Media.




However, the Industrial Court has then gone on to say that it does not know how the error occurred, and will not therefore correct its records. The partial admission, after a fashion, adds to the evidence that the Industrial Court also was subject to the legal manipulation of disgraced former lawyer VK Lingam,and his primary cli Vincent Tan Chee Yioun, at least in the matter of Ganesh Sahathevan v Sun Media.
The Industrial Court's admission begs the question : how can Sun Media Group Sdn Bhd v. Ganesh Sahathevan' [2006] 2 ILR, 1057 be precedent for anything?

If it cannot be precedent, how can it remain on the books?
This is clearly a matter that needs clarifcation by the Chief Justice, Federal Court Malaysia.


TO BE READ WITH
Monday, April 17, 2023

Industrial Court admits error in VK Lingam , Vincent Tan decision, but will not correct error - MACC investigation into Human Resources Minister Sivakumar and officers should be expanded to include current and historical misconduct at the Industrial Crt



by Ganesh Sahathevan

















After approximately SIX years of correspondence and after prolonged periods of silence and much ding-donging the Industrial Court of Malaysia has at least admitted that the case name in Sun Media v Ganesh Sahathevan, in which Ganesh Sahathevan was in fact the plaintiff, is incorrect. As any first year law student would know, the correct order is Plaintiff v. Defendant, in this case, Ganesh Sahathevan v Sun Media.




However, the Industrial Court has then gone on to say that it does not know how the error occurred, and will not therefore correct its records. The partial admission, after a fashion, adds to the evidence that the Industrial Court also was subject to the legal manipulation of disgraced former lawyer VK Lingam,and his primary client, Vincent Tan Chee Yioun, at least in the matter of Ganesh Sahathevan v Sun Media.

Interference in the workings of the Industrial Court is very likely to have been driven down from the Ministerial level (Tan and Lingam only dealt with their equals) and hence an investigation into the Industrial Court's misconduct can serve as a platform for investigation into the current Minister V.Sivakumar , and his predecessors. It was the case until at least 2018 that the Minister for Human Resources determined ,which cases were heard by the Industrial Court. It would be naive to assume that the Minister and his officers do not still exert influence over the Industrial Court.










TO BE READ WITH



UESDAY, DECEMBER 18, 2007

Saufee Affandi of The Industrial Court and the law he created for Vincent Tan and VK Lingam

The Sun Media Group Sdn Bhd was sold by shareholders who included Berjaya's Vincent Tan Chee Yioun and his lawyer V.K. Lingam to Nexnews Bhd sometime in 2003. One of the conditions imposed on that sale by the Securities Commission Malaysia was that the vendors indemnify Nexnews for any amount of damages awarded by any court against Sun Media Corp in relation to all legal proceedings commenced prior to the completion of the acquisition of Sun Media Corp by Nexnews.

One of those proceedings was the matter of Ganesh Sahathevan v Sun Media Group Sdn Bhd.
I have referred to this matter and how its management by the Industrial Court, in light of the VK Lingam video, raises questions about the corruption of that court and a former Director-General of the Manpower Department, Zainol Abidin Abdul Rashid.
http://malaysianjudges.blogspot.com/2007/10/will-zainol-abidin-abdul-rashid-step.html


In Award 893 of 2006 , delivered on 22 May 2006, IC chairman Haji Saufee Afandi bin Mohmad found that the sacking of the claimant , Ganesh Sahathevan , a journalist , by his employer, Sun Media Group Sdn Bhd, publisher of THE SUN daily, was just and for proper cause.



The company had sacked the claimant in January 1997 , for writing a
story that the company had published concerning the business dealings
of Datuk Mokzhani Mahathir and a former stock broker from Singapore,
Peter Lim Eng Hock.

The story written was based almost entirely on statements made by
Mokzhani Mahathir.

Peter Lim issued a cease and desist to the Claimant and company in
regards to the story, but not Mohzani Mahathir.

The company immediately sought to apologise to Mr Lim and retract the
story, before it had obtained from Ganesh Sahathevan a written report
regarding his sources and justification for the story.



Subsequently, the company had claimed that Ganesh did not exercise
proper care in writing the story, claiming that the story was false.
The company alleged that legal action had been commenced against it
by Mr Lim as a result of publication of the story, even though no
legal action had been commenced. Ganesh maintained that the story was
accurate, and alleged victimisation on the basis that Berjaya Group
Bhd, then a shareholder of Sun Media Group, was also a party to the
business dealing revealed in the story.Company searches were provided
as evidence of Berjaya's involvement.


In finding for the company , Haji Saufee Afandi held:

"The Claimant has made issue with the Company's offer to apologize to Peter Lim.I agree with the Company that the offer to apologize is irrelevant to whether or not the dismissal of the Claimant is for just cause or excuse. If the Claimant had indeed written the Peter Lim article negligently ie without proper basis then he has committed a misconduct. That is so whether the Company offered to apologize or not. In fact even if the Company decides to fight the claims and wins based on evidence or fair comment that it obtains subsequently or through other parties still the Claimant is guilty of misconduct if he wrote the article without proper basis. "


The company had relied on a number of defamation cases in its submission.
Thus, the Industrial Court in this case considered the matter as one of defamation.

In the words of the learned Chairman:
Although these are defamation cases, they are relevant to guide the Court on the type of justification a journalist must have when he writes an article, especially one that contained allegations which may affect the reputation of the person mentioned .


The decision opens to the door for plaintiffs in defamation matters another avenue when seeking suppression of stories they are not happy about.
Parties who feel aggrieved by any matter published need not now seek the more legally rigorous and expensive route of an action in defamation, and related interlocutory injunctions. They can now attempt to ensure that the publisher of the article is pressured enough,with the mere threat of an action in defamation, to act against its own journalist,who would be denied the defence of fair comment.

In one fell swoop Saufee Affandi destroyed the centuries old defence of fair comment, quite an amazing feat for a chairman of an Industrial Court, who was formerly a judge in the Sessions Court. Like the case of Vincent Tan v MGG Pillai, this too appears to be a case where the court was prepared to create, re-write the law to suit the plaintiff for reasons best known to the judge concerned.

POSTED BY GANESH SAHATHEVAN AT 4:01 PM

- April 17, 2023

Conduct and circumstances surrounding former Sessions and Industrial Crt judge Saufee Affandi suggest his judgements were written for him as were disgraced Chief Justice Eusoffe Chin's by disbarred lawyer VK Lingam - Investigation into Affandi's judgements and lawyers and parties he favoured warranted

 by Ganesh Sahathevan 

                                                                      

Chin's legacy of corruption lives on in the judgements he and his acolytes handed down

The personal conduct while on the Bench  and  the circumstances surrounding former Sessions and Industrial Court  judge Saufee Affandi suggest his judgements were written for him (see below).  These are issues that Affandi seems to have shared in common with the  former  disgraced Chief Justice  Eusoffe Chin who he served as special ooficer  before being elevated to the Bench. 

Readers will recall that Chin's judgements were written by  disbarred lawyer VK Lingam  An investigation into Affandi's judgements  and lawyers and parties he  favoured is warranted for the judgements are precedents that may be followed by other courts.

TO BE READ WITH 

Thursday, January 7, 2021

In 1998  Sessions Crt judge  Saufee Affandi was specifically assigned to a contempt matter involving Vincent Tan's Sun Media, and managed to place blame on the Sun reporter while excusing Sun Media and its editor Rejal Arbee; Saufee's conduct in '98 adds context to his legal innovation in favour of Sun Media, Singapore billionaire Peter Lim, Vincent Tan ,their business partners , and others in the matter of Ganesh Sahathevan v Sun Media 

 by Ganesh Sahathevan

            YBhg Datuk Ahmad Rejal Arbee

As reported earlier on this blog, former Industrial Court Chairman Saufee Affandi managed to turn an Industrial Court claim by this writer against Vincent Tan's Sun Media into a defamation matter where he undertook to prosecute the case for Singapore billionaire Peter Lim and his business partners, despite not having any authority to do so, and despite Lim himself never commencing a claim against Sun Media or this writer. 

It has also been reported here how Saufee mismanaged  and in essence attempted to discredit evidence against Bursa companies Gamuda Bhd, Litrak Bhd and the EPF which had financed their privatised LITRAK toll road project, which had been discovered by this writer.

It can now be revealed that Saufee had a prior, and perhaps more questionable involvement with Sun Media in 1998 when he served as a Sessions Court judge. The matter was reported by The SUN (which is published by Sun Media): 

A Sun reporter was fined RM 2,500 today when he admitted defying a court order which prohibited the publication of certain information in the case of a sessions judge who allegedly performed oral sex on a man. Sessions judge Saufee Affendi, who had come from Kuala Lumpur to specially hear the case. 

A conviction under this sub-section carries a maximum fine of RM 5,000 or jail up to three years or both. Arulldas, who paid the fine, was accompanied by Sun Media Group editor-in-chief Ahmad Rejal Arbee and editor Andy Ng.

Why Vincent Tan's Sun Media and its editors Ahmad Rejal Arbee and Andy Ng who actually published the story were not also charged is mystifying. 

Even more mystifying is the fact that Saufee  accepted that the crime of contempt had been proven beyond a reasonable doubt  against a  reporter who had absolutely no power to publish. The contempt, described above involved the publication of facts which were subject to a court order against publication. 

TO BE READ WITH  

Court fines Sun reporter RM2,500.

By Cynthia Blemin

335 words

17 June 1998

The Sun

English

(c) The Christchurch Press, INL 1998

Butterworth, Tues: A Sun reporter was fined RM 2,500 today when he admitted defying a court order which prohibited the publication of certain information in the case of a sessions judge who allegedly performed oral sex on a man . Sessions judge Saufee Affendi, who had come from Kuala Lumpur to specially hear the case, delivered his ruling after a 90-minute mitigation plea by defence counsel R. Rajasingam.

He said the court had taken into account the facts of the case, the counsel's mitigation and the prosecution argument. Saufee said accused S. Arulldas' admission of guilt was the main mitigating factor which carries weight when passing sentence . He stressed the need for the media to maintain close rapport with the court. He warned Arulldas against repeating such a mistake and fined him.

Arulldas had earlier claimed trial and the hearing was fixed for three days from today. He admitted commiting the offence through an article published in the paper on March 25, after the facts of the case were read out to him. Arulldas, 42, was charged with contravening Section 101(2) of the Subordinate Courts Act, 1948 (Act 92), which had been invoked by the prosecution in the case involving Butterworth sessions court judge Rungit Singh.

Rungit had been charged with gross indecency and using criminal force to outrage the modesty of a man whose identity has been withheld by the court. The sub-section reads that "a court may, at any time, order that no person shall publish the name, address or photograph of any witness ... or any evidence or any other thing likely to lead to the identification of the witness."

A conviction under this sub-section carries a maximum fine of RM 5,000 or jail up to three years or both. Arulldas, who paid the fine, was accompanied by Sun Media Group editor-in-chief Ahmad Rejal Arbee and editor Andy Ng.

(c) 1998 Sun Media Group Sdn Bhd.

Document thesum0020010928du6h003qw

 

 

SUN REPORTER FINED RM2,500 FOR DEFYING COURT ORDER.

372 words

16 June 1998

BERNAMA Malaysian National News Agency

English

(c) 1998 Chamber World Network

BUTTERWORTH, June 16 (Bernama) - A journalist with the 'Sun' newspaper was today fined RM2,500 for defying a court order when reporting on a case involving a judge.

S.Arulldas, 42, who had pleaded not guilty when charged in the Sessions Court here on April 30, changed his plea today and apologised to the court.

He was charged with defying an order issued by the court on March 24 prohibiting the reporting of any evidence or details that might reveal the identity of the alleged victim in the case against judge Rungit Singh.

Rungit is facing three charges of using criminal force to outrage the modesty of a man, and two alternative charges of committing acts of gross indecency by performing oral sex on the man.

In sentencing Arulldas, judge Sauffee Affendi said counsel R. Rajasingam's hour-long mitigation was the longest he had heard in his legal career and the points put forward had been noted.

According to Rajasingam, the court order was stale as the authorities had not issued a similar gag-order before Rungit was charged and earlier reports in 'The Star' and 'New Straits Times' newspapers had already identified the alleged victim.

He also questioned why the prosecution did not apply to the court to amend the alleged victim's name in the charge sheet to "Mr X" or "Mr Y" in view of the fact that the sheet would become a public document after that and anyone could obtain it.

Rajasingam said the court should only issue such orders to avoid interference in the administration of justice and not to avoid anyone from embarrassment.

Deputy Public Prosecutor Ahmad Fairuz Zainol Abidin submitted to the court that the March 24 order was not applicable to media reports before the Rungit case came to court.

Arulldas was charged under Section 101 (2) of the Subordinate Courts Act 1948 which provides for a maximum fine of RM5,000 or three years in jail, or both, upon conviction.

Arulldas, who was accompanied by Sun Media Group editor-in-chief Ahmad Rejal Arbee, paid his fine.

Copyright(C) 1998 BERNAMA The Malaysian National News Agency

 

National

Reporter pleads not guilty to defying court order

299 words

27 March 1998

The New Straits Times

Main/Lifestyle; 2*

12

English

Copyright (c) 1998 Bell & Howell Information and Learning Company. All rights reserved.

PENANG, Thurs. - A reporter with the Sun daily pleaded not guilty in the Sessions Court in Butterworth today to a charge of defying a court order stopping the media from publishing the alleged victim's identity in a case involving a Sessions Court Judge.

S. Arulldass, 42, claimed trial to the charge of contravening the Subordinate Courts Act, 1948 (Act 1992) before Judge Tarmizi Abdul Rahman.

On Tuesday, Sungai Petani Sessions Court Judge Ghazali Cha had made the order when another Sessions Court Judge Rungit Singh a/l Jaswant Singh was charged with using criminal force to outrage the modesty of a person.

In the case, Ghazali had invoked section 101 (2) of the Act, to stop the media, both print and electronic, from publishing the alleged victim's name, address, photograph or any information leading to the identification of the alleged victim.

Arulldass was represented by Jagdeep Singh Deo while DPP Yaacob Md Sam prosecuted.

Jagdeep is also one of six lawyers defending Rungit, who is facing three counts of using criminal force to outrage the modesty of the person and two alternative charges of committing an act of gross indecency with a person by performing oral sex.

The five other lawyers are Karpal Singh, Gurbachan Singh, Christopher Fernando, Ranjit Singh Dhillon and Teja Singh Panesar.

Arulldass, who was accompanied by his wife, Theresa, Sun editor Andy Ng, its regional (northern) editor Ng Kee Seng and several colleagues, was alleged to have used words which could identify the victim in the case.

Arulldass, if found guilty, could face a maximum fine of RM5,000 or three years' imprisonment or both.

Tarmizi fixed the case to be mentioned on April 30 and allowed bail at RM5,000.

Caption: Arulldass ... charged.

SEE ALSO 

Industrial Crt chairman Saufee Affandi decided that Singapore billionaire Peter Lim had been defamed-Industrial Court has no jurisdiction to hear defamation matters, and Saufee did not rely on any decision of any competent court that Lim had been defamed

The Hon Justice Ian Harrison who called Nationals MP “disgusting”, paternalistic , racist, niggardly ,cruel and mean-spirited for supporting the NO vote, appointed Chief Judge at Common Law, NSW Supreme Court - 60% of NSW voters said NO, so where do they stand in the eyes t of the NSW Supreme Court?

 by Ganesh Sahathevan

                                     A scolding will not suffice , an explanation is what is required

Simon Benson of The Australian reported on 24 May 2023 :

A prominent NSW Supreme Court judge has accused a ­Nationals MP of racism over his opposition to an indigenous voice to parliament, in an extraordinary intervention that has raised concerns about the separation of powers between the judiciary and the workings of parliament.

In a highly charged email sent to Nationals MP Pat Conaghan on Wednesday morning, Ian Harrison, a judge with the NSW Supreme Court, described the federal MP’s views as “disgusting”, paternalistic and racist.

In his email to Mr Conaghan, Justice Harrison expressed ­“dismay” at the MP’s speech, ­describing it as the “the lowest ebb in my day”.

“I appreciate that you are a member of Mr (David) Littleproud’s party, one of the first publicly to support the NO vote,” Justice Harrison wrote. “I despaired when he announced that decision, replete as it was with the perpetuation of institutional abuse of Australia’s First Nations people. You (sic) speech last night only increased my despair.

“I am not one of your electors so my opinion on anything has no direct bearing upon you (sic) electoral status. However, I was moved while listening to you speak to write to you now to express my complete sadness, not that you have predictably taken the stand that you have, but that you obviously do not understand or appreciate the depths of paternalism and racism that oozed from your words.

“Your argument is predicated upon the position that the Voice will add nothing practical to the lives of indigenous Australians.

“We can argue about that forever, but I will not do so here. However, what is so subtly disgusting about your contention is that it promotes the counterfeit spectre of harm to the Australian community while ignoring the immense and patently harmless symbolic benefit that recognition of the Voice will give to a long-neglected section of our society.

“There are no sleeping constitutional issues here. It is a simple matter of human decency. Your position, and the position of your party, is niggardly and cruel and mean-spirited. It is patently based upon a political stance that is indecent in its ignorance. May you live long enough, and acquire sufficient wisdom and self-awareness, to be ashamed of yourself.”

The email was signed: “Regards, Ian Harrison”.

The same judge has now been appointed Chief Judge at Common Law , NSW Supreme Court, which makes one wonder how the NSW Supreme Court and in particular the new Chief Judge at Common Law, considers the 60% of NSW voters who said NO. The people of NSW are entitled to an explanation. 


TO BE READ WITH 

New Chief Judge at Common Law appointed to NSW Supreme Court


9 November 2023


One of Australia’s most experienced members of the judiciary has been appointed a Judge of Appeal and Chief Judge at Common Law to the NSW Supreme Court.

The Hon Justice Ian Harrison was admitted as a solicitor in 1975 and called to the bar in 1977. He has practised in areas including building and construction matters, equity and insurance, property law and medical negligence and was an experienced appellate advocate.

Justice Harrison conducted the Australian Federal Police Corruption Inquiry in 1996 and was Assistant Commissioner to the Independent Commission Against Corruption (ICAC) Inquiry into Orange Grove in 2004-05.

He has been Director of the Law Council of Australia, President of the Australian Bar Association and President of the New South Wales Bar Association.

He became a Justice of the Supreme Court of NSW in February 2007.

NSW Attorney General Michael Daley said:

“We are fortunate to have one of Australia’s most incisive legal minds and a highly esteemed judicial officer in the Honourable Justice Ian Harrison.”

“Justice Harrison been greatly respected throughout his illustrious legal career. He is dynamic and wise and has a commanding intellect. He is an auspicious appointment as Chief Judge at Common Law and as a Judge of Appeal to the Supreme Court of NSW.”

Last updated:

09 Nov 2023