Wednesday, March 20, 2024

Berjaya back in court and in the limelight- Former Chief Justice Richard Malanjun, the recently retired BLand chairman, runs the risk of being a successor to the legacy of Eusoff Chin

 by Ganesh Sahathevan 



    Tun Richard Malanjum, former Chief Justice Malaysia served as Chairman Berjaya  Land after                retiring as Chief Justice



Berjaya is  back in court and in the limelight.
The DailyMail has reported:



A heartbroken family has been told they 'should be grateful' to property developers in Malaysia who covered up the discovery of an Adelaide woman's buried remains.

Greg Jenkins, 44, has spent the last six years on a quest for justice after his mother Anna Jenkins, 65, went missing while on a trip to the island of Penang in 2017.

Mr Jenkins said the comment - made this month by a Malaysian High Court judge as she threw out a negligence case against local police he alleges failed to properly investigate - 'highlights the disrespect' his family have consistently encountered. 

Mr Jenkins said the judge told his family they should be grateful that construction workers involved the police when his mother was found but he alleges they only did so after he put pressure on them. 

After his mother disappeared, Mr Jenkins, a member of Australia's Defence Force, got leave from his post in Hawaii. He flew back to his home in Adelaide before making 34 trips to Malaysia at a cost of more than $300,000 in an effort to track her.

His persistence paid off when a construction worker in 2020 replied to a missing persons flyer he posted saying his mother's body had been found during works on a building site and it had been quietly moved nearby to not disrupt the development. 


The developer concerned is Vincent Tan Chee Yioun's Berjaya Land.
Former  Chief Justice of Malaysia, Tun Richard Malanjun was chairman of Berjaya Land between December 2019 and December 2023.
Given Berjaya and Vincent Tan's interference with the judiciary, which involved another Chief Justice Of Malaysia, Eusoff Chin,  this latest instance of questionable judicial conduct in  a matter that involves Berjaya and Vincent Tan cannot  but be seen  as  another instance of  improper interference in a matter before the courts.  Malanjun runs the risk of being a successor to the legacy of Eusoff Chin 2023.       


To Be Read With 


JC Roz Mawar Rozain orders plaintiff in negligence claim against Vincent Tan's Berjaya Land to be grateful to Berjaya and its employees,dismisses suit,orders costs be paid before any appeal - - Annapuranee Jenkins decision one more reason to purge the record of Vincent Tan linked decisions, Annapurnee decision smells like the conviction of Sun reporter S.Arulldas

 by Ganesh Sahathevan 















     The Hon. Judicial Commissioner Roz Mawar Rozain



THE SON of Australian grandmother Annapuranee Jenkins, whose partial remains were found scattered n Penang some four years ago, has vowed to continue seeking justice for her after yet another setback in the Malaysian courts over a case that has moved into its eighth year.

Steven Greg Jenkins said that he will consult his Malaysian lawyers with a mind to appeal the decision of the Kuala Lumpur High Court, which ruled on technicalities that a negligence suit filed by him against a developer and site project manager was unjustifiable.

Jenkins filed the suit last year, through his counsel Sankara Nair, where the plaintiff named the federal government, the police, Berjaya Land, its project manager Terrence Theseira and landscape worker Kew Kee Seng as defendants.


On February 26, Judicial Commissioner Roz Mawar Rozain ruled on technical grounds that Jenkins did not have a legal right to file the lawsuit without obtaining permission from his late mother's estate first.

Roz elaborated that Jenkins, despite being the deceased’s biological son, was unable to show that he was its duly appointed legal representative.

Theseira was alleged to have instructed Kew to rebury the remains but later he also told Kew to lodge a police report after the remains were believed to have been tampered with.

Roz also ruled that those facts were insufficient to establish a cause of action in negligence against Berjaya Land and Theseira while Kew was not deemed to be an employee of the construction giant.

She said the Jenkins should be grateful to Theseira for convincing Kew to report the discovery of the remains to the police.

She ordered Jenkins to pay them RM20,000 in costs to the defendants and set aside March 8 for case management concerning the other respondents.

JC 
Roz Mawar Rozain decision that Jenkins needs the permission of his mother's estate to sue in negligence sounds rather strange, and her order that he pay costs before appealing a bit too much like doing the work of the defendants' lawyers.

Her comment that Jenkins should be grateful to Theseira for convincing Kew to report the discovery of the remains to the police gives rise to an apprehension of bias. 


Her  decision smells like the conviction of  Sun reporter S.Arulldas . The Annapuranee Jenkins decision is one more reason to purge the record of Vincent Tan linked decisions.

TO BE READ WITH 












Monday, December 20, 2021

Conviction of Sun reporter S.Arulldas may have involved a perversion of the course of justice -investigation pursuant to S.182 of the Penal Code of Auldass' superiors at Sun Media Group, including its directors required

 by Ganesh Sahathevan 


Readers will be aware that Sun reporter S.Arulldas was convicted for contempt of court by publication despite he not having any power to publish. That power rested solely in his editors, and Sun Media Group Sdn Bhd, and its directors ((see story below).

It does appear that the reporter's duty to provide the court and prosecutors information that was true had been interfered with. That interference (which could include acts and omissions by the persons concerned) would be a  perversion of the course of justice under Malaysian law, pursuant to Section 182 of the Penal Code.

The law in Malaysia has been summarised by Malaysian lawyer Saleh Buang in his column in the NST: 

In Malaysia, the matter is dealt with under Section 182 of the Penal Code. It states that whoever gives to “any public servant” (a term which includes a police officer) any information, orally or in writing, which he knows or believes to be false, intending thereby to cause such public servant to use his power to “the injury or annoyance” of any person, shall be punished (upon conviction) by a prison term not exceeding six months or to a fine of up to RM2,000 or both.

It is likely that those who interfered in Aruldass' communications with the court and any other public officer in the course of the contempt proceedings brought against him were in breach of Section 182 of the Penal Code.

The matter of Aruldas  demands attention for the additional reason that it is among the Vincent Tan cases that ought to be purged from Malaysian case law.  Tan controlled Sun Media at all relevant times, as he does now via his Berjaya Group. 



TO BE READ WITH 

Saturday, January 23, 2021

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

tokoh 15 (8)            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
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
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
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



December 20, 2021                                                                                                                     



No comments:

Post a Comment