Sessions Court judge Saufee Affandi who was specifically assigned to Vincent Tan's Sun Media matter had just prior served as Chief Justice Eusoffe Chin's Special Assistant- Chin, Vincent linked by among other things, VK Lingam judicial interference Royal Commission findings -live MACC matters for which witnesses are available, among them Tokoh Wartawan Negara Datuk Rejal Arbee

 by Ganesh Sahathevan

It was recently reported on this blog that 

Sessions Court judge Saufee Affandi  who convicted reporter S.Arulldass  in  a matter involving Vincent Tan's Sun Media served disgraced former Chief Justice  Eusoffe Chin as Special Assistant before before being appointed to the Sessions Court.

Readers are reminded that Affandi was specifically assigned to the Arulldass matter (see stroy below).

Affandi's condiuct allowed Tan's Sun Media , its directors and its editors Rejal Arbee and Andy Ng, to escape being charged. 

Vincent Tan and Eusoffe Chin were subsequently linked in amongst other things, the VK Lingam tapes, and the Royal Commission that followed, which found that Vincent Tan had interfered with the judiciary. 

These issues remain live,and issues for the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Agency, especially given Vincent Tan's dramatic return to the defamation arena. Witnesses to the above include Tokoh Wartawan Negara Datuk Rejal Arbee. 

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

Sessions Court judge who convicted reporter in case involving Vincent Tan's Sun Media served Eusoffe Chin as Special Assistant before before being appointed to the Sessions Court

 by Ganesh Sahathevan 

 Former Chief Justice Eusoffe Chin,and the disbarred lawyer VK Lingam

The following was read in honour of former Sessions Court Judge Saufee Affandi: 

The vast experience that he had acquired through the various positions he held was recognized when he was appointed as a Special Officer to Y.A.A. Chief Justice of Malaysia, Federal Court, Kuala Lumpur from September, 1996 to June, 1998.  Thereafter he served as a Sessions Court Judge Batu Pahat from August, 1998 to June, 2000

.In June 1998 Suafee convicted Sun reporter S. Arulldass, while excluding from the proceedings his editors, Sun Media Sdn Bhd, and its directors.

Sun Media was then, as it is now, owned and controlled by Vincent Tan Chee Yioun. His lawyer, the VK Lingam, who has since been disbarred, and he,   were named by the VK Lingam Tapes Royal Commission for their interference with the judiciary, and in particular Eusoffe Chin. 

TO BE READ WITH 

Tuesday, January 19, 2021

Conviction by Judge Sauufee Affandi of SUN reporter S. Arulldas may well be a case of judge playing prosecutor, in addition to other wrong doing -Arulldas conviction may require erasure, with compensation paid

by Ganesh Sahathevan

The conviction by Judge Sauufee Affandi of SUN reporter S. Arulldas may well be a case of judge playing prosecutor, in addition to other wrong doing. 

As reported previously on this blog, the Judge Affandi managed to find a reporter guilty of contempt by publication of a story in The Sun, despite the reporter not having any authority to publish, and despite the fact that he did not think it necessary to make any finding against the publisher, Sun Media Sdn Bhd, the managing editor Rejal Arbee, and the Editor-In-Chief, Andy Ng (see story below).

As reported, Judge Saufee does have a record  of working outside the bounds of his authority; making findings of defamation as an Industrial Court chairman is one example. In the case of Arulldas the judge seems to have taken the liberty to fill in the blanks in the prosecution's case. In that sense he has acted as if he were the prosecution. In addition he failed to inquire about the obvious gaps in the evidence he would have had to rely on to convict Arulldas. 

Arulldass may well be entitled to compensation, and Judge Saufee's decision in the matter may well be one that needs erasure. 

TO BE READ WITH 

 -Arulldas conviction needs erasure, with compensation paid

Much is rotten in the 1998 Sessions Crt conviction by Judge Sauufee Affandi  of SUN reporter S. Arulldas:   Malaysia's judiciary cannot possibly stand by decision to convict  reporter for contempt when the offending story was  published by SUN Media and its editors , who were not even charged 

 by Ganesh Sahathevan

As reported yesterday, in 1998 then Sessions Court judge Saufee Affandi was specifically assigned to a contempt matter involving Vincent Tan's Sun Media, but managed to place blame solely  on the Sun reporter S.Arulldas while excusing Sun Media, the publisher, and its editors, Rejal Arbee and Andy Ng.

How that esteemed jurist managed  a finding of guilt  given the facts is a matter that requires investigation for the reporter concerned, S.Arulldas could not possibly have published the article on his own. In fact, he could never have published, ever.

As anyone with even a cursory knowledge of how newspapers are published would comprehend, reporters can at best write their stories, but it is the editors who decide if the stories are actually published, their form, and content. A lesser known fact is that even after the editors make their decision, the sub-editors often make their own changes , ostensibly under the supervision of the editors. At The SUN, it was the sub-editors, not the reporters, who decided the headline. 

One need not be an esteemed jurist to understand that one can only be held accountable for what one does. Additionally an esteemed jurist  such as Saufee would have understood that the doing must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt, and that there must be a clear unbroken chain of facts proven beyond a reasonable doubt between the intention to do wrong and the criminal act. 

How then Suafee might have convicted  Arulldass must concern anyone in charge of the Malaysian justice system. As it stands this judgement sits on the books, and cannot be said to foster confidence in Malaysian common law.

That Arulldass first claimed trial and then pleaded guilty before Saufee only adds to the stench surrounding this decision. To quote  Mr Justice NH Tan  in the Ayer Molek decision:

Something is rotten in the State Of Denmark.

It is for the Chief Justice Of Malaysia to have the matter investigated, and all concerned charged as required. 

TO BE READ WITH 

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

Vincent Tan v Sanusi RM 200 Million defamation - Vincent very likely to rely on decision in Vincent Tan v MGG PIllai which was written by his disbarred lawyer VK Lingam

 by Ganesh Sahathevan 

                                              

Vincent Tan appears to be seeking a return  to the days of multi-million dollar defamation awards in his action against Kedah caretaker Menteri Besar  Datuk Seri Muhammad Sanusi Md Nor. As Wan Farid J pointed out  the decisions going back to Vincent Tan v MGG Pillai marked the advent of multi-million dollar  defamation awards in Malaysia, and they remain good law. 

That decision was revealed to have been written by Tan's lawyer who has since been disbarred, VK Lingam.

TO BE READ WITH 

Lingam prepared judgement in Vincent Tan's civil suit12 Feb 2008 12:00 am

©Bernama (Used by permission)

KUALA LUMPUR, Feb 12 (Bernama) –– The judgement in a civil suit awarding RM10 million in damages to corporate figure Tan Sri Vincent Tan Chee Yioun was written by lawyer Datuk V. K. Lingam, the Royal Commission of Inquiry was told today.

Lingam's former secretary, L. G. Jayanthi said it was subsequently incorporated as the official judgment of the then High Court judge, Datuk Mokhtar Sidin who heard the case.

She made this revelation in her statutory declaration which was produced at the inquiry, affirming that the contents of her statutory declaration were true.

Jayanthi, 45, said that between November and early December 1994, she and two other colleagues, Sumanti Jaaman and Jamilah Abdul Rahman who also worked as secretaries for Lingam, were 'detained' by their boss to type a confidential document.

She later discovered that the purpose of their 'detention' was to prepare and type a judgement in relation to a civil suit brought by Tan against seven defendants, namely Haji Hassan Hamzah, Saw Eng Lim, the late M.G.G Pillai, V. Thavanesan, Dr Barjoyai Bardai, Media Printext (M) Sdn Bhd and Ling Wah Press Sdn Bhd.

"Lingam was dictating from some handwritten notes, the draft judgment in that case, for Sumanti to type.

"I was seated somewhere in the vicinity of the office and every now and then, Lingam would order me to get various reported judgements from the library to be incorporated in the judgment," said Jayanthi, adding that the lawyer completed dictating the full judgement about 3am, before the judgement was printed out for Lingam to read.

"Lingam then corrected in red ink on certain pages of the draft judgement such as pages 3,7,9,19,24,28,32,35,39,40,42. Sumanti then did the corrections accordingly, and made a copy of the said draft judgment in a floppy disk which was to be given to Justice Datuk Mokhtar Sidin by Lingam," she said.

Jayanthi said she later discovered that the judgment as was written by Lingam, was fully incorporated as the official judgment of the said judge.

"I must stress here, that when Lingam was dictating the judgment that night, he was aided by his brother, Datuk V.Sivaparanjothi and Adam Bachek and W. Satchithanandan.

"I have kept Lingam's handwritten corrections of the draft judgement in my possession until handing it over, together with the corresponding formal judgement, to lawyer Muhammad Shafee Abdullah on the same date which I handed over the other exhibits," she added.

Questioned by conducting officer Datuk Nordin Hassan on why she kept all documents and photographs of the holiday trip of Lingam and former chief justice Tun Eusoff Chin, Jayanthi said before she resigned from the firm, Satchithanandan advised her to keep all the document because according to Satchithanandan, Lingam was a dangerous and vengeful person.

Jayanthi said Satchithanandan had complained to her that Lingam did not keep his promise to recommend him (Satchithanandan) to the chief justice to be elevated as judicial commissioner, despite having introduced the lawyer (Lingam) to the chief justice.

She said that after leaving the firm, she met Satchihanandan in Penang where he told her that Lingam had recommended Datuk K.L. Rekraj as judicial commissioner, instead of him (Satchithanadan).

Questioned by Rekraj's counsel, David Gurupathan whether she knew for a fact that Lingam had recommended Rekraj to be appointed as a judicial commissioner, Jayanthi replied: "I don't know".

Earlier, she testified that during her tenure with Lingam's firm, Lingam's younger sister, Chinmaya Devi and his younger brother, V.K. Thirunama were working respectively, as accounts clerk and odd job/despatch office worker.

Questioned by her counsel Shafee, on why she left the firm, Jayanthi said she was accused of stealing RM1 million worth of Berjaya Group shares belonging to Lingam as she was in charge of the shares and assigned to send share certificates to a securities company, two floors below Lingam's office.

She said the shares went missing for a while but two weeks later, Lingam called her to say that they (shares) were found and asked whether she wanted to rejoin the company.

Jayanthi said she chose to resign and Lingam acknowledged her resignation.

VK Lingam fails in final bid to practise law

The lawyer had been barred from practising law after being implicated in a judge-fixing scandal.

V Anbalagan - 30 Mar 2022, 1:22pm

Former lawyer VK Lingam was implicated in a judge-fixing scandal in 2001.

PUTRAJAYA: The Federal Court today affirmed that former lawyer VK Lingam, who was implicated in a judge-fixing scandal in 2001, is barred from practising law.

This follows the decision of a three-member bench, chaired by Chief Justice Tengku Maimun Tuan Mat, to dismiss Lingam’s final appeal.

Stay up-to-date by following FMT's Telegram channel

FMT

Tengku Maimun, who sat with Mary Lim and Zabidin Mohd Diah, said the Advocates and Solicitors Disciplinary Board had given its reason to strike Lingam’s name off the rolls following an order on Nov 6, 2015.

“As such, appellate intervention is not warranted and the Court of Appeal ruling is affirmed,” she said.

Ads by

The top judge said Lingam had likened the complaint made against him and the proceedings that ensued thereafter to a “charge” or criminal proceeding.

“The Federal Court has reminded in emphatic terms that disciplinary committee proceedings are not to be regarded as criminal proceedings,” she said.

She said Lingam had been given the right to be heard and to address the complaint against him.

Tengku Maimun said a specific allegation made against Lingam was that he had
interfered with judicial appointments, which is an allegation of misconduct.

“That relates directly to his conduct irrespective of whether he was acting
alone or in concert with others,” she said

She added that it was undisputed that the disciplinary committee, the disciplinary board, the High Court and the Court of Appeal, had all made concurrent findings of Lingam having interfered with judicial appointments.

Tengku Maimun said Lingam’s lawyer R Thayalan had said his client was unable to contradict the account of Loh Gwo Burne who heard the appellant (Lingam) attempting to interfere with judicial appointments.

“It is our view that it does not matter which judicial appointments exactly the appellant (Lingam) attempted to interfere with and findings to that extent are not relevant,” she said.

The important point, Tengku Maimun said, was that findings were made on Lingam’s attempt to interfere and these were not rebutted.

On the admissibility of the video which was used to prove the misconduct, she said Lingam argued it was not the original but a downloaded copy and that it did not amount to secondary evidence.

“The fact remains that the maker of the original video itself (which was said
to be made in 2001) was called to testify on the video. This was Loh Gwo
Burne,” she said

In other words, quite apart from the veracity of the video, itself, Gwo Burne was the one who directly witnessed Lingam speaking on the phone as alleged in the video.

“We are satisfied that Gwo Burne did in fact testify on the video and confirmed that the contents were in fact uttered by the appellant (Lingam),” she said, adding that Lingam did not challenge these points.

The bench also ordered Lingam, who is believed to be overseas, to pay RM30,000 in costs to the board and the Bar Council, represented by Razlan Hadri Zulkifli.

Last year the Court of Appeal bench chaired by Lee Swee Seng said the High Court was correct in maintaining the findings of the disciplinary board to strike Lingam’s name off the rolls.

Lee said the findings of the board to accept the evidence of Gwo Burne and his father Mui Fah that Lingam was on the telephone communicating with then chief judge of Malaya Ahmad Fairuz Sheikh Abdul Halim were justified.

A royal commission of inquiry had also recommended that action be taken against Lingam, Fairuz, former chief justice Eusoff Chin, tycoon Vincent Tan, former prime minister Dr Mahathir Mohamad and former minister Tengku Adnan Mansor.

However, nothing came out of it despite a police investigation.

It was revealed in the inquiry that Lingam was engaged in the telephone conversation with Fairuz in 2001 to appoint superior court judges who would be aligned to the establishment.

The video came into public domain in 2007, leading to the government setting up the RCI which made several proposals, one of which was to establish a Judicial Appointments Commission to propose judges for elevation.

SEE ALSO 

Findings of the Royal Commission into the VK Lingam video confirmed that something was in fact rotten in the State Of Denmark - Excision of the rot will require removal of Vincent Tan and related decisions from the body of Malaysian Caselaw

Can Vincent Tan and Liew Yew Tiam be reconciled - Wan Farid J's question can now be tested in court , given Vincent Tan v Sanusi & the demand for RM 200 Million in damages but courts will also have to contend with the Royal Commission finding that Vincent Tan interfered with the judiciary

 by Ganesh Sahathevan 

 Berjaya Group founder Tan Sri Vincent Tan Chee Yioun and Berjaya Land Berhad have demanded a public

 apology and RM200mil in compensation from Kedah caretaker Mentri Besar Datuk Seri Muhammad 

Sanusi Md Nor

In his article published in January 2019 edition of the Journal of the Malaysian Judiciary titled Assessment of Damages in Defamation: Reconciling the Irreconcilable?  High Court Justice Dato’ Wan Ahmad Farid Wan Salleh said, amongst other things:

In Malaysia, until the judgment in Tan Sri Vincent Tan Chee Yioun v Haji Hassan bin Hamzah & Ors, 3 substantial damages awarded in defamation cases were relatively unheard of.

There is no doubt that Vincent Tan had started the trend of the Malaysian courts granting mega awards to the plaintiffs in defamation cases. This was observed by none other than Gopal Sri Ram JCA (as he then was) in a post-Vincent Tan case of Liew Yew Tiam & Ors v Cheah Cheng Hoc & Ors (“Liew Yew Tiam”)11 when his Lordship said: In the process of making our assessment we have not overlooked the recent trend in this country of claims and awards in defamation cases running into several million ringgit. No doubt that trend was set by the decision of this Court in MGG Pillai v Tan Sri Dato Vincent Tan Chee Yioun (supra). It is a decision that has been much misunderstood. At a later part of his judgment, his Lordship further observed as follows at p 395: We would add that we do not regard the affirmation by the Federal Court of the decision in MGG Pillai v Tan Sri Dato Vincent Tan Chee Yioun (ibid) as an insurmountable hurdle of binding precedent to our decision in the present case. For, at the end of the day, the Federal Court affirmed the award made in the circumstances of that particular case as a proper exercise of judicial discretion by the High Court upon the question of damages. The Court of Appeal then reduced the sum of RM1.

The aforesaid observation by Gopal Sri Ram JCA (as he then was) was echoed by Abdul Hamid Mohamad JCA (as he then was) in Karpal Singh a/l Ram Singh v DP Vijandran12 (“Karpal Singh”) when his Lordship remarked: Until the arrival of Vincent Tan in 1995, the highest award ever given by the court in this country was RM100,000.00. Vincent Tan sky rocketed the awards. When the award was confirmed by the Court of Appeal, what was an isolated pinnacle in an otherwise undulating plain, the trend is set. When the Federal Court confirmed it, it became a binding precedent in all the courts in this country. But, now the.  Court of Appeal in Liew Yew Tiam has had second thoughts about it. The learned judge of the Court of Appeal who wrote the main judgment in MGG Pillai has sought to distinguish MGG Pillai’s case. “It is a decision that has been much misunderstood and the trend should be checked,” he said.

To answer the main question posed in this article: Can Vincent Tan and Liew Yew Tiam be reconciled? If the analysis is made from the perspective of the checklist hereinbefore discussed, the short answer to the question is in the affirmative. What stands out in Vincent Tan is the presence of conspiracy which is conspicuously absent in Liew Yew Tiam. In the premises, until and unless Vincent Tan is specifically overruled by the apex court of the country, the principles stated therein remain the law despite some views to the contrary.  Vincent Tan has indeed arrived and it has not departed. It is still the law and if the facts of future cases are in pari materia with the aforesaid case, it is arguable at least, that a court of first instance may exercise its discretion on the principles set out there.

Given the recent announcement by Vincent Tan that Berjaya Land and he have  filed suit against the caretaker Menteri Besar Of Kedah, Datuk Seri Muhammad Sanusi Md Nor, demanding an apology and RM 200 Million, Wan Farid J's question can now be resolved before Malaysia's courts. 

There is however a complicating factor. Vincent Tan was found, in 2008, by a Royal Commission, to have interfered with the judiciary. His lawyer in the Vincent Tan decision referred to above was reported to have written that landmark decision.

END 

SEE ALSO 

Lingam prepared judgement in Vincent Tan's civil suit12 Feb 2008 12:00 am

©Bernama (Used by permission)

KUALA LUMPUR, Feb 12 (Bernama) –– The judgement in a civil suit awarding RM10 million in damages to corporate figure Tan Sri Vincent Tan Chee Yioun was written by lawyer Datuk V. K. Lingam, the Royal Commission of Inquiry was told today.

Lingam's former secretary, L. G. Jayanthi said it was subsequently incorporated as the official judgment of the then High Court judge, Datuk Mokhtar Sidin who heard the case.

She made this revelation in her statutory declaration which was produced at the inquiry, affirming that the contents of her statutory declaration were true.

Jayanthi, 45, said that between November and early December 1994, she and two other colleagues, Sumanti Jaaman and Jamilah Abdul Rahman who also worked as secretaries for Lingam, were 'detained' by their boss to type a confidential document.

She later discovered that the purpose of their 'detention' was to prepare and type a judgement in relation to a civil suit brought by Tan against seven defendants, namely Haji Hassan Hamzah, Saw Eng Lim, the late M.G.G Pillai, V. Thavanesan, Dr Barjoyai Bardai, Media Printext (M) Sdn Bhd and Ling Wah Press Sdn Bhd.

"Lingam was dictating from some handwritten notes, the draft judgment in that case, for Sumanti to type.

"I was seated somewhere in the vicinity of the office and every now and then, Lingam would order me to get various reported judgements from the library to be incorporated in the judgment," said Jayanthi, adding that the lawyer completed dictating the full judgement about 3am, before the judgement was printed out for Lingam to read.

"Lingam then corrected in red ink on certain pages of the draft judgement such as pages 3,7,9,19,24,28,32,35,39,40,42. Sumanti then did the corrections accordingly, and made a copy of the said draft judgment in a floppy disk which was to be given to Justice Datuk Mokhtar Sidin by Lingam," she said.

Jayanthi said she later discovered that the judgment as was written by Lingam, was fully incorporated as the official judgment of the said judge.

"I must stress here, that when Lingam was dictating the judgment that night, he was aided by his brother, Datuk V.Sivaparanjothi and Adam Bachek and W. Satchithanandan.

"I have kept Lingam's handwritten corrections of the draft judgement in my possession until handing it over, together with the corresponding formal judgement, to lawyer Muhammad Shafee Abdullah on the same date which I handed over the other exhibits," she added.

Questioned by conducting officer Datuk Nordin Hassan on why she kept all documents and photographs of the holiday trip of Lingam and former chief justice Tun Eusoff Chin, Jayanthi said before she resigned from the firm, Satchithanandan advised her to keep all the document because according to Satchithanandan, Lingam was a dangerous and vengeful person.

Jayanthi said Satchithanandan had complained to her that Lingam did not keep his promise to recommend him (Satchithanandan) to the chief justice to be elevated as judicial commissioner, despite having introduced the lawyer (Lingam) to the chief justice.

She said that after leaving the firm, she met Satchihanandan in Penang where he told her that Lingam had recommended Datuk K.L. Rekraj as judicial commissioner, instead of him (Satchithanadan).

Questioned by Rekraj's counsel, David Gurupathan whether she knew for a fact that Lingam had recommended Rekraj to be appointed as a judicial commissioner, Jayanthi replied: "I don't know".

Earlier, she testified that during her tenure with Lingam's firm, Lingam's younger sister, Chinmaya Devi and his younger brother, V.K. Thirunama were working respectively, as accounts clerk and odd job/despatch office worker.

Questioned by her counsel Shafee, on why she left the firm, Jayanthi said she was accused of stealing RM1 million worth of Berjaya Group shares belonging to Lingam as she was in charge of the shares and assigned to send share certificates to a securities company, two floors below Lingam's office.

She said the shares went missing for a while but two weeks later, Lingam called her to say that they (shares) were found and asked whether she wanted to rejoin the company.

Jayanthi said she chose to resign and Lingam acknowledged her resignation.