Honesty in court dealings

Do we have such a weak judiciary system which cannot even uphold appointments? The Malaysian government needs to appoint serious people to become magistrates and judges.

Saravanan Forever

I am Saravanan, who is residing overseas. Last year, I filed a civil suit case in a local Malaysian court through my lawyer. 2 months back they called me for a hearing in a short period of time and I could not attend the case due to my health condition. I requested my lawyer to postpone the case so that I can attend the next case. And the magistrate was told that I was to come from overseas.

The hearing was fixed for the end of this month and my lawyer informed me 1.5 months in advance. The system in the West is not the same as in Malaysia. They are very strict and punctual in all dealings. I had to apply for a special permit to leave the country because I am under Social Security. Normally, a patient is not allowed to travel overseas. But I insisted to go because my lawyers are doing all the arrangements and I personally have to respect their efforts. This is simple understanding between human beings.

For Malaysians’ understanding, the Westerners are very particular about their appointments. For example, if they want to have dinner with someone they will make an appointment 1 or 2 weeks in advance and they will write it down in their diary. The same goes for any offices – they will write it down clearly and will not have 2 appointments at the same time. If they promise to meet us, it will definitely happen. There are 2 possibilities if they want to make changes in appointments. First, the person who is going to meet us will appoint his or her colleague otherwise they will change the date to the soonest date possible. So far, living in the West I have never seen hanky panky in legal matters. That is how they keep their country honest and punctual.

It goes the other way around in Malaysia. I was supposed to have a 2 days’ session in the court which will be the hearing too. One week earlier, I received an email from my lawyer saying “We regret to inform you that the trial for this matter which has been fixed on end of January 2015 has been adjourned by the Court to a later date. Therefore, you are not required to attend court on the above stated dates.
The reason given to us for the adjournment is that this matter will be transferred to another Court and will be heard before a new Magistrate”.

This was done after the magistrate understood that I am coming from overseas. The ticket has been bought and preparations for travel has been made. It concerns a person’s effort, money and time. Do we have such a weak judiciary system which cannot even uphold appointments? The Malaysian government needs to appoint serious people to become magistrates and judges.

The Bar Council and the Malaysian judicial body should be accountable for having bad appointments and promises. I am not living in Malaysia currently; who will be responsible for my effort and money wasted? According to my lawyer the magistrate is asking for a next date in March. Do you think it is easy to go back and come back the next month? This trip is already wasted, they are asking me to come again next month. Who is going to be responsible for my trip? There is no simple understanding in this matter.

I have been reading the latest news, for example even in some high profile cases they are changing the public prosecutor and judges according to the government’s will. It is really a shameful matter where there is no honesty in the judicial body which is supposed to hold the country’s pillar of truth. This letter is just my personal opinion, who have some guts to write about the truth. How about other people who have gone through such hassles? All my questions are to be answered by our truthful Malaysians.
I am also seeking the attention of Malaysian Bar Council.

Thank you

Court orders man’s body exhumed to probe death 4 years ago

Crossing the first hurdle in what is expected to be a painful experience ahead, the mother of a doctor who died under mysterious circumstances in Langkawi four years ago today obtained a High Court order to exhume his body for the purpose of another post-mortem.

The Alor Setar High Court also granted Santaamal Philip's application for an inquest to determine how Dr Sebastian Joseph, who was a medical officer at the Kuah government clinic in Langkawi, died.

DPP Mohamad Rizal Fadzil and the family's lawyer also came to a compromise that the post-mortem will be jointly handled by the family’s choice of Australian pathologist Dr Richard Byron Collins and local pathologists.

The family will also bear all costs related to the exhumation and post-mortem.

Santaamal's lawyer M.Visvanathan told The Malaysian Insider that he expected the exhumation of Dr Sebastian's remains from a cemetery in Shah Alam to take place this month, after he extracts the relevant orders from the court next week.

He said the next step would be to liaise with the Attorney-Genral’s Chambers, the police and Dr Collins on the scheduling of the exhumation.

"We want Dr Collins to be here when the exhumation takes place, so I am hoping we can do this by the end of this month," Visvanathan said.

Visvanathan said that while the family is relieved that they are finally on track to finding out what happened to the 30-year-old medical officer, it is not going to be an easy journey for them.

Dr Sebastian was found dead in his government quarters in Padang Matsirat on November 17, 2010.

He was said to be in a kneeling position with his hands clenched.

In her application to the court in November last year, Santaamal said the post-mortem on Dr Sebastian was conducted at Langkawi Hospital by Dr Muhamad Arif Mohamad Rasat but the report stated the cause of death as "unascertained".

She said that the doctor who conducted the post-mortem was not a pathologist but only a general practitioner.

In a previous interview, Santaamal had said that a month before her son's death, she had visited him to help him furnish his five-bedroom quarters, and said he had shared some “troubling” information of what was going on at his workplace.

Declining to elaborate, Santaamal only said it had to do with how many of the patients at the health clinic were prescribed Panadol for all sorts of ailments.

Dr Sebastian had also told his mother that various types of medication prescribed by him were not available in the clinic pharmacy, and that he wanted to report the matter to his superior. – January 7, 2015.

- See more at: http://www.themalaysianinsider.com/malaysia/article/court-orders-mans-body-exhumed-to-probe-death-4-years-ago#sthash.mq74J4OW.dpuf

Nazri looks into bid to close court

The New Straits Times 
by JASPAL SINGH

TAIPING HIGH COURT: Minister to discuss matter with chief justice

PADANG RENGAS:  WITH pressure from the public and the legal fraternity mounting against the proposed closure of the Taiping High Court, the government will  hold talks with the judiciary to resolve the issue.

Minister in the Prime Minister's Department Datuk Seri Nazri Aziz said he would be meeting Chief Justice Tun Arifin Zakaria to discuss the matter.

Nazri, who is also the de facto law minister, said the government respected the separation of powers between the executive and the judiciary.

"(However), I will be meeting the chief justice to discuss the closure proposal in the very near future," he said at a community programme in his constituency here yesterday.

Acknowledging that the closure was related to changes made in the jurisdiction of the Sessions and magistrate's courts, Nazri said the proposal was not advisable after taking into account the long-term needs for a court in Taiping.

"Perak is not a small state. It is one of the bigger states in Peninsular Malaysia," he said, adding that the proposal to close down the High Court, which was set up 20 years ago, was a regressive move.

"In the future, the Taiping High Court may serve not only the northern regions of Perak but also Penang and southern parts of Kedah."

The closure was suggested following amendments to the Subordinate Courts Act two years ago.

Under the amendments, magistrates have jurisdiction to hear claims of up to RM100,000. Previously, the limit was RM25,000.

Sessions Courts have been empowered to preside over civil claims of up to RM1 million, from RM250,000 previously.

On Saturday, Menteri Besar Datuk Seri Dr Zambry Abd Kadir had urged the Federal Government and the judiciary to reconsider closing Taiping High Court.

Double standards in sentencing

There are times we hail court decisions and there are times we find them bizarre. But if we ignore the incredible disparities in some court decisions, it is only at our own peril.
Azmi Sharom, The Star
HOSLAN Hussein gets one year in jail for inaccurately chucking (he missed) his slippers at a judge. Noor Afizal Azizan gets a fine and zero jail time for raping a 13-year-old girl.
It boggles the mind. Hoslan’s sentence, in my view, was very harsh and over the top.
But even if one were to believe that the sanctity of the courts is so fragile that a punitively deterrent punishment is required for the flinging of footwear, it is impossible to ignore the incongruous disparity in the punishments meted out to these two men for crimes of such vastly different seriousness.
Much has been said about the judge’s unbelievable comment when sentencing Noor Afizal. Apparently being a national bowler with a bright future is enough to let you escape jail time for rape.
Actually, what is this “bright future” the judge is thinking about? The man is a child rapist; he confessed to it. He should not be allowed to represent the country in anything at all.
And in case you think there are mitigating issues in this case, namely that the sexual act was supposedly consensual, allow me to argue otherwise.
In this case, the girl was under the age of consent. This means the crime committed is statutory rape. The issue of consent does not even arise in such cases.
The reason for this is because we as a society have long ago determined that the young girls of our community deserve protection.
It does not matter in the slightest that children mature at different rates; what matters is that in general, this society believes that girls under the age of 16 are not yet ready to make decisions regarding their own sexual activity.
There are mental, psychological and also physiological elements to this need for protection.
The sexual act by itself could have implications for a child’s well-being, but a child from our society would surely be traumatised in the event that she got pregnant and had to face either childbirth or abortion.
Furthermore in immature bodies, the experience can also be seriously harmful physically.
I use the term “a child from our society” because I realise the age of consent will differ from nation to nation and culture to culture.
But in the case of statutory rape, there is no room for comparative anthropology. What matters is what we value for our girls.
I always believe that Malaysians care for our children. We want them to have a sound and safe childhood so that they can go to school and build a strong foundation for their future.
This is why we want to protect them for as long as possible, for it is this safety that helps to establish an environment where they can mature and flourish at a pace which we believe is healthy.
The judge in making his decision could not possibly have been thinking about this bigger picture. For if he had, he would have realised that his judgment was not only about Noor Afizan and the girl he violated, but also about all the girls in this country and our collective concern for them.
He has in effect dealt a blow to one of the few noble values that the people of this country universally accept — that our children should be cared for and be protected.

AG to declassify documents for Dr Ling’s trial

Dr Liong leaving court after being charged back in July.KUALA LUMPUR, Dec 8 — The Attorney-General (AG) has promised the High Court here he will share top secret government documents over the RM12.5 billion Port Klang Free Zone scandal with the defence in the high-profile trial of Tun Dr Ling Liong Sik who is charged with cheating Putrajaya for the land project.

The High Court has fixed trial for May 3 to 20 next year.

Tan Sri Abdul Gani Patail told the court today he had no problems giving the former transport minister’s defence team the documents on the scandal as requested, but will take some time to process them as there were over 100 documents.

“I have no problems. I will provide the documents,” he said, in reply to lead defence lawyer Wong Kian Kheong who told the court he had yet to receive the documents requested.

The documents, which include minutes of Cabinet meetings, Cabinet committee meetings and post-Cabinet papers on the Port Klang development project are classified under the Official Secrets 1972.

Abdul Gani said he would be able to release them by mid January 2011.

“We have an understanding...that this will be sorted before the trial proper starts,” he added, referring to the documents.

The top government lawyer said he was doing it to ensure the trial would run smoothly.

Abdul Gani will be personally leading the prosecution against Dr Ling, he told reporters outside the courtroom.

The public prosecutor plans to bring in between 15 and 16 witnesses for the trial.

A court official disclosed to reporters that the trial judge Datuk Ahmadi Asnawi from the Shah Alam High Court had been brought in specially for the high-profile case.

The 56-year-old judge had previously been held positions in the KL prosecution team and was the state legal advisor for the Selangor government as well as being part of the advisory panel in the Prime Minister’s Department before being appointed a High Court judicial commissioner on August 13, 2007.

Justice Ahmadi today fixed trial for May 3 to 20 next year.

Justice Ahmadi also agreed to allow Dr Ling out on a RM1 million personal bond.

Dr Ling who was also an MCA president was charged on July 29 with concealing the fact that the Finance Ministry’s valuation and property service department had valued the land for the troubled port project at RM25psf for a repayment period of 10 years, or RM25.82psf for a repayment period of 15 years, including interest chargeable for the repayment period.

He was charged in the Putrajaya Sessions Court under section 418 of the Penal Code with “cheating with knowledge that wrongful loss may be caused to a person whose interest the offender is bound to protect”.

He is alleged to have committed offence at the fourth floor of the Prime Minister’s Office in Putrajaya between September 25 and November 6, 2002.

Dr Ling faces up to seven years in jail and a fine if convicted.

Dr Ling also faces an alternative charge, under section 417, of cheating the government by misleading the Cabinet on the land acquisition for the same project, at the same place and time.

The alternative charge carries a lesser sentence of up to five years behind bars and a fine.