Top Group's share price sinks to new low, taking with it the NSW LPAB & its chairman Tom Bathurst's standing as guardians of the NSW legal profession : Bathurst should stand down as chief justice, submit himself and his NSW LPAB to investigation; time overdue for Andrew Bell to be appointed Acting Chief Justice NSW

 by Ganesh Sahathevan

This story below was published on a related blog yesterday:

Zhu Minshen's Top Education Group sinks to new low of HK 0.22 cents: Top will not comment on suspension of law school enrolments because it might be price sensitive'

Meanwhile, the regulator responsible for granting the law school its right to issue law degrees, the NSW Legal Profession Admission Board (NSW LPAB) and all others who oversee it have chosen to remain silent about these issues which are very much in the public domain:

Top Group(1752:HK) IPO investors entitled to answers from the NSW LPAB & NSW AG Mark Speakman -Suspension of Top Group law school enrolments raises questions about the value of the IPO which relied on NSW LPAB & Speakman's granting Top Group its license to issue law degrees

The issuance of that license to award  law degrees, and the IPO that followed would have raised red flags from Sydney to Hong Kong, but not it seems for Bathurst and his NSW LPAB officers, who renewed the license just before enrolments were suspended, and despite other issues: 

Zhu Minshen announces that NSW LPAB review "went smoothly": AG NSW Mark Speakman and officers unconcerned by Clive Hamilton's disclosures of threats, intimidation and defiance of AFP directives ,share price collapse

For all of the above  reasons and more Mr Bathurst needs to stand down as Chief Justice of NSW and submit himself and his team at the NSW LPAB to investigation. The President Of the Court Of Appeal, Andrew Bell, can be appointed as Acting Chief Justice:

NSW LPAB has a new Executive Officer: Three EOs in under two years suggest even more audit red flags and more reasons why LPAB Chair Tom Bathurst should step down as chair, and as chief justice


As Chief Justice Tom Bathurst has been intent on pursuing a social and political agenda. In doing so he has walked into a matter of national security.In doing so he seems to have neglected his actual duties.

The case of Sauffee Afandi bin Mohamad ,formerly of the Sessions Crt,Industrial Crt,and all involved in matters involving Sun Media Group justify renewed calls for RCI into judicial corruption

 by Ganesh Sahathevan 

The article below is being reposted given the recent calls for a Royal Commission Of Inquiry into judicial corruption.

See first 

Sessions Court judge Saufee Affandi's conviction of former Sun reporter S. Arulldass cannot be divorced from lawyer VK Lingam's interference with the judiciary, dealings with Eusoffe Chin



 

Eusoff Chin,2nd from left ,standing next
to disgraced Malaysian lawyer VK Lingam

RCI into judicial corruption needs to review work of Sauffee Afandi bin Mohamad ,formerly of the Sessions Crt,Industrial Crt,and all involved in matters involving Sun Media Group

by Ganesh Sahathevan


Dato' Sauffee Afandi bin Mohamad was a judge of the Sessions Court and the Industrial Court. In 2006 as chairman of the Industrial Court he handed down the decision in Sahathevan v Sun Media in a decision which is probably best described as imaginative,bold and courageous.


In 1998 the then "Sessions judge Saufee Affendi"...(went to Penang) from Kuala Lumpur to "specially hear" a matter against S. Arulldas a reporter from The Sun newspaper, who was charged with defying a court order which prohibited the publication of a matter before the courts.


Saufee's decision in '98 is reported in the stories below.Readers are reminded that mere reporters have no control over publication, which is entirely the decision of the editors. Despite that fact it was only the reporter who was charged, and finally found guilty as charged, after admitting sole guilt, by a judge brought up from Kuala Lumpur to "specially hear" the matter. It does appear as if the decision against the reporter was pre-determined so as to ensure that his superiors,and the publisher of The Sun, Sun Media Group Bhd, did not suffer any penalty.


Many of those involved remain active in the media and in public life in Malaysia, and hence their conduct with regards the above are well within the ambit of the upcoming Royal Commission Of Inquiry into judicial corruption.Readers are reminded that the RCI is meant to restore confidence in the judiciary.

This writer had in 2009 queried Saufee about his dealings with the owners of Sun Media, but he refused to provide a  response.

END

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.

NSW CJ Tom Bathurst complains that public trust in the judiciary is declining, but still cannot comprehend that publicly undermining Fagan J has contributed to the problem: Bathurst should stand down, allow Andrew Bell to replace him as Acting CJ while public hearings are held to repair the damage

 by Ganesh Sahathevan 

                                                      Chief Justice Tom Bathurst will save us from ourselves-Tim Blair, Daily Telegraph,2017

LSJ Online reported:

The Chief Justice (NSW Tom Bathurst) commented that many members of the public “derive their information about judges and the courts indirectly, whether that is through the media, word of mouth or ever popular courtroom dramas”.

Public trust in institutions is declining not only in Australia but in many other advanced industrialised countries.



Meanwhile Bathurst seems to have forgotten his part in encouraging that decline in public trust. As reported on this blog:

Muslim Legal Network accused Supreme Court Judge Fagan of lacking fairness, failing to perform his role of administering justice impartially: Soon after his Chief Justice Tom Bathurst praised MLN for upholding the rule of law :" doing a good job, cannot see how you can do it better"



This writer cannot recall any other instance where a Chief Justice has so publicly undermined a brother judge. The solution to the scandal is obvious:

Andrew Bell, President, Court of Appeal can be appointed Acting Chief Justice NSW immediately to deal with the judicial crisis created by the Chief Justice: Bathurst CJ's undermining Fagan J while promoting his own agenda not a one-off; Bathurst desire to insert himself into public debate damaged public perception of the judiciary' in 2017



Only by standing down can the damage Bathurst (and his team) have  inflicted on the standing of the judiciary in NSW be properly addressed.The public must be involved in the process if confidence is to be restored. Public hearings are required. 





TOE BE READ WITH 

Muslim Legal Network accused Sup Crt Judge Fagan of lacking fairness, failing to perform his role of administering justice impartially: Soon after his Chief Justice Tom Bathurst praised MLN for upholding the rule of law :" doing a good job, cannot see how you can do it better"

by Ganesh Sahathevan

The video excerpt above has been extracted  from the Muslim Legal Network's Facebook page. While the 2019 Iftar Dinner was held in May, the video at this link was only uploaded in November:

Muslim Legal Network New South Wales

MLN (NSW) Iftar 2019 Highlights

If you missed out on attending our Ramadan Iftar Dinner earlier this year, dont miss out on this highlights ree


Chief Justice Tom Bathurst's words of praise for the MLN are intriguing given this attack on his bother Supreme Court judge, Desmond Fagan: 
“We and various other organisations have made it clear that the comments by his Honour *Judge Desmond Fagan)  were disappointing to say the least,” said Muslim Legal Network NSW president Sarah Khan. “The role of the judiciary is one of impartiality and fairness, and justice should be seen to be done.”

The position of the network that represents Australian Muslim legal practitioners is that Justice Fagan failed to perform his role of administering justice impartially, and rather, conflated crime and religion. And it warned this could lead to further Islamophobic attacks.
The context of the above statements is explained (in part) in the article below, bot that is not really relevant. In most jurisdictions that type of comment from lawyers would be considered a subversion of the judicial system.Lawyers can expect penalties to be imposed, by the courts and their respective professional bodies.
Not it seems in the eyes of Chief Justice Thomas Francis Bathurst, who has recently given a speech in which he expressed some difficulty in discerning community standards.
END 

HOME

• BLOG
• SUPREME COURT JUSTICE CRITICISED FOR DIVISIVE REMARKS ABOUT ISLAM

Supreme Court Justice Criticised for Divisive Remarks About Islam
15/02/2019 BY PAUL GREGOIRE
Remarks made by NSW Supreme Court Justice Desmond Fagan in relation to the interpretation of “hostile passages” in the Quran have caused outrage amongst the local Muslim community, as well as sparked calls from the NSW legal profession for greater understanding of Islam.


Justice Fagan said on the 31 January that a number of NSW and Victorian cases reveal that terrorists rely on Quranic verses “to support an Islamic duty of religious violence”. And unless “Australian Muslims who wish to live in peace” denounce these particular verses, this will continue.

“If Islam accepts the entire Quran as Allah’s eternal instruction to believers, without explicit repudiation of verses which ordain intolerance, violence and domination,” Mr Fagan posited, “that unqualified acceptance will embolden terrorists”.

The Supreme Court justice further claimed that it was beyond the reach of the courts and law enforcement to prove “terrorists’ perceived obligation of jihad” is false, so it’s up to Australian Muslims to assert that the violence inciting passages are “not authoritative instructions from Allah”.

Muslim group have stated that the judge’s conjecture about the religion they adhere to is out of his remit. And while he was present in the court to sentence two offenders convicted on terror-related charges, he wasn’t supposed to be casting doubt upon an entire religion.
Dividing the community

“We and various other organisations have made it clear that the comments by his Honour were disappointing to say the least,” said Muslim Legal Network NSW president Sarah Khan. “The role of the judiciary is one of impartiality and fairness, and justice should be seen to be done.”

Thepositionof the network that represents Australian Muslim legal practitioners is that Justice Fagan failed to perform his role of administering justice impartially, and rather, conflated crime and religion. And it warned this could lead to further Islamophobic attacks.

According to the Muslim Legal Network NSW, “Australian Muslim leaders, religious scholars, community workers, lawyers and advocates have repeatedly rejected teachings relied upon to incite violence”.

Ms Khan further toldSydney Criminal Lawyersthat her organisation “is working to find a solution to such narrative and is endeavouring to engage with relevant professional bodies in order to educate and discuss a way forward and better serve the Australian community”.
Conspiring to do acts

Justice Fagan made the remarks as he was sentencing Sameh Bayda and Alo-Bridget Namoa: the so-called “Islamic Bonnie and Clyde”. Last October, the pair were found guilty of conspiring to do acts in preparation for a terrorist act, contrary to section 101.6(1) of theCriminal Code(Cth).

The now 21-year-olds were charged with this offence – which carries a maximum penalty of life imprisonment – following the planning a violent street robbery of two non-Muslims that Bayda and two other men were going to carry outon New Year’s Eve 2015.

Mr Bayda backed out of the attack at the last minute. And the pair were subsequently arrested. Text messages that Ms Namoa had attempted to delete were retrieved from her phone. These revealed the recently married couple discussing how they wanted to carry out a jihadist attack.

It was heard by the court a fortnight ago that both Bayda and Namoa have given up their extremist views. Justice Fagan found their crimes were of the “low order of seriousness” and he handed down sentences, which meant the pair are now eligible for parole after spending years on remand.
Purported silence

During his sentencing remarks, Justice Fagan outlined that the countless extremist recorded sermons and articles Bayda and Namoa had on their phones quoted “verses of the Quran which unmistakably instruct the believers to undertake jihad in pursuit of universal Islamic dominance”.

The judicial officer went onto list various verses from the Quran to prove his point. And he then cited Dr Rodger Shanahan who’d explained that Islam is not only limited to religion, but it’s also a legal and political system.

Justice Fagan further explained that jihadist propagandists “consistently invoke belligerent verses of the Quran” to justify their actions. And he said the pair should have known that “Allah’s instructions” to attack those of different religious persuasions wouldn’t stand up in the “civilised world”.

And the judge concluded that “the absence of express public disavowal of verses which convey Allah’s command for violence”, contradict the assurances from the Australian Muslim community in regard to Islam being “a religion of peace”.
Mending bridges

A week after Justice Fagan made his incendiary remarks, a number of distinguished members of the judiciary and the legal profession went to the Gallipoli Mosque in Auburn to attendan Islamic servicethat marked the opening of the 2019 law term.

Law Council of Australia president Arthur Moses SC said at the occasion that it’s important for “communication and understanding of the Islamic faith in Australia’s legal profession and judicial process”.

And whilst he said he wasn’t “passing comment on any recent case”, Mr Moses said “the criminal actions of a few” must not be “used to unfairly judge, discriminate against or condemn a whole community or religion”, as, “ultimately, we are one community”.
Exceeding a judge’s duty

The Law Council president also commended the appointment of NSW barrister Bilal Rauf as the new media spokesperson for the Australian National Imams Council (ANIC): an organisation representing Imams, clerics and Islamic scholars across Australia.

On the day following Justice Fagan’s comments, the ANIC condemned them ina statement. The umbrella organisation said it was disappointing that the judge thought it was “appropriate to give a broader commentary on Muslims”, whilst sentencing two offenders.

The ANIC stated it was clear that in regard to comments about the “‘unqualified acceptance’ of certain passages in the Quran by Muslims”, Justice Fagan had given no consideration to mainstream and orthodox Muslims, who “categorically reject extremist interpretations of the Quran”.

“Of most concern is that the comments and opinions expressed by the judge appear to exceed his duty of passing judgement on the specific case at hand,” the ANIC statement concluded, “rather than judging an entire faith community and its religious text.”

AUTHO
PAUL GREGOIRPaul Gregoire is a Sydney-based journalist and writer. He has a focus on human rights issues, encroachments on civil liberties, drug law reform, gender diversity and First Nations rights. Prior to Sydney Criminal Lawyers®, he wrote for VICE and was the news editor at Sydney’s City Hub.

PAUL'S

EMAIL

WEBSITE

ARTICLES

Malaysian Industrial Court's tendency to over-step its jurisdiction takes a new twist- Can the Court ever have the power to determine matters of sovereign immunity?

 by Ganesh Sahathevan 

It has been previously reported on this blog that the Industrial  Court in Malaysia made findings of defamation despite not having the power to hear defamation matters:

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

It has also been shown that the Court in that instance imagined facts to suit its decision. 

That overreach has now gone to higher level.FreeMalaysia Today and others have reported: 

A three-member Court of Appeal bench chaired by Kamaludin Md Said, in allowing an appeal by L Subramaniam and the human resources minister, said it was for the (Industrial Court) to determine whether the foreign mission had absolute immunity from local laws.

 

To Be Read With 

Industrial Court to hear unlawful dismissal case against US govt
FMT Reporters
-February 3, 2021 5:11 PM

A former security guard at the US embassy in Kuala Lumpur is seeking reinstatement or compensation, alleging he was unlawfully dismissed from his job. (AFP pic)

PUTRAJAYA: The industrial court has been ordered to hear an unlawful dismissal case brought by a former security guard against the US government.

A three-member Court of Appeal bench chaired by Kamaludin Md Said, in allowing an appeal by L Subramaniam and the human resources minister, said it was for the tribunal to determine whether the foreign mission had absolute immunity from local laws.

Ragunath Kesavan, who represented Subramaniam said he submitted that there is no absolute immunity and the issue is a question of fact to be decided by the industrial court.

“The bench has quashed the High Court’s decision to allow a judicial review application last year that the embassy enjoyed immunity from local laws,” he told FMT.



Lee Swee Seng and M Gunalan were the other judges on the bench who heard the appeal conducted via virtual hearing.

The embassy, represented by Lim Heng Seng, could go to the Federal Court but it has to first obtain leave to appeal.

The embassy sacked Subramaniam in 2008 but in April 2019, the then human resources minister M Kula Segaran referred the matter to the industrial court to arbitrate the dispute.

However, the embassy went to the High Court to determine the immunity issue when the case was before industrial court chairman Gulam Muhiaddeen Abdul Aziz.



Subramaniam, 52, who served the embassy for 21 years, is seeking reinstatement or compensation as a substitute for returning to work. He was earning RM2,000 a month at the time of the dismissal.

Sessions Court judge Saufee Affandi's conviction of former Sun reporter S. Arulldass cannot be divorced from lawyer VK Lingam's interference with the judiciary, dealings with Eusoffe Chin

 by Ganesh Sahathevan 

                                   Eusoff Chin,2nd from left ,standing next
                                   to disgraced Malaysian lawyer VK Lingam

VK Lingam, who is no longer a lawyer, and who has been found by a Royal Commission  to have interfered with the judiciary, became a shareholder of Sun Media Group Sdn Bhd sometime between 1995 and 1996. He sold his stake to Gemtech Sdn Bhd in August 2000.

Lingam's involvement with the then Chief Justice Eusoffe Chin came to light in the mid 90s as a result of the Ayer Molek affair, and continued to be in the news well into the 2000s. 

Given that history the matter of Sessions Court judge Saufee Affandi's  conviction of  former Sun reporter S. Arulldass cannot be divorced from VK Lingam's interference with the judiciary.

As reported:

Judge Saufee Affandi's conviction of Sun reporter S.Arulldas: Arulldas had initially pleaded not guilty, and an investigation into whether Saufee and Arulldas's superiors at Sun Media played any part in changing his plea is required as a matter of urgency

END 

TO BE READ WITH 

Gemtech acquires 73.65 per cent of Sun Media for RM30 million cash.

By Joseph Chin.

457 words

7 August 2000

The Edge

THEDGE

English

(c) 2000 The Edge Communications Sdn Bhd

Gemtech Resources Bhd has proposed to acquire a 73.65 per cent equity interest in Sun Media Corp Sdn Bhd comprising 81.01 million shares for RM30 million cash, or 37 sen a share.

Commerce International Merchant Bankers, in an announcement to the Kuala Lumpur Stock Exchange on behalf of Gemtech, said the company had entered into a conditional sale and purchase agreement with the vendors - Tan Sri Tan Chee Yioun, Datuk Tengku Adnan Tengku Mansor, Datuk V Kanagalingam and Tanjung Masyhur Sdn Bhd - to acquire the stake.

Among the salient terms, Gemtech shall pay an amount equivalent to 50 per cent of Sun Media's audited after-tax operating profit for each of the next 10 years after the completion date of the proposed acquisition, provided that the latter's financial year consideration shall not exceed RM30 million.

In the event that the total Sun Media financial year consideration paid by Gemtech to the vendors shall be less than RM30 million at the expiry of the 10 financial years, the balance shall be fully and finally settled by a payment of RM1 to the vendors.

"Gemtech intends to finance the purchase consideration for the proposed acquisition of Sun Media from internally-generated funds and/or bank borrowings."

The purchase price was arrived at after considering the comparative valuation of similar newspaper publishing companies in Malaysia; the prospective business potential and future earnings of Sun Media; and the readership and circulation of The Sun.

It also took into consideration Sun Media's net liabilities of RM58.82 million and the audited loss before exceptional items but after-tax of RM27.06 million as at Dec 31, 1999.

Sun Media's principal activity is the publication of The Sun, which was launched in 1993. It is now No 3 in Peninsular Malaysia in terms of newspaper readership and circulation. It has about 205,000 readers and a circulation of 82,474 copies.

Gemtech intends to become an integrated multimedia content provider and also broaden its scope into publishing and broadcasting locally and overseas, which it believes will provide a higher return to its shareholders in the long run.

Recently, Gemtech announced the proposed acquisition of The Edge Communications Sdn Bhd. The proposed acquisition of Sun Media and The Edge will enable Gemtech to venture into multimedia content as the acquired companies are in the publication and distribution of newspapers.

Gemtech does not intend to acquire the remaining 26.35 per cent stake in Sun Media and will apply to the Securities Commission for a waiver from having to undertake a mandatory general offer. The proposed acquisition is conditional upon the proposed waiver.

Document thedge0020010818dw8700083

Judge Saufee Affandi's conviction of Sun reporter S.Arulldas: Arulldas had initially pleaded not guilty, and an investigation into whether Saufee and Arulldas's superiors at Sun Media played any part in changing his plea is required as a matter of urgency

 by Ganesh Sahathevan 

In the matter of  Judge Saufee Affandi's conviction of Sun reporter S.Arulldas, readers ought to be aware that Arulldas initially pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. The issue was reported by the NST on 27 March 1998: 

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.

Later, he was brought before Judge Saufee, who was specifically dispatched from Kuala Lumpur to Penang to hear the matter, and he changed his plea to guilty. However, as explained below, there was no basis for Saufee to accept the plea and enter a conviction. 

That he changed his plea while his superiors were not even charged must surely be cause for concern, and is a matter that requires immediate investigation. He does appear to be a victim of a judge playing prosecutor ,and it does seem as if he is entitled to compensation. 

TO BE READ WITH 

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