The prominent Malaysian crony business man, Tan Sri Vincent Tan, does not do anything in half measures. He sues any who disagrees with his crony lawyer's assessment of him as an "internationally known business man of unquestioned repute". He makes sure his lawyer, by hook or by crook, wins. So, his lawyer, besides going on holidays with the chief justice in New Zealand, writes, according to a still-unchallenged deposition in a libel action, the judgement which awarded him defamation damages for RM10 million, without witnesses or proof, goes on holidays with the lawyer and the attorney-general, helps to turn upside down the law in Malaysia relating to defamation. But the trail he leaves behind has Malaysian justice on trial in Australia and the United Kingdom. He send a stirring message to the world that justice is for those who can subborn the judiciary. As a prime ministerial crony, and of sundry others, he must take much credit for Malaysia's judicial decline. It is a fact of life that when he comes to court, with his crony lawyer in tow, he cannot lose. He has not. Nor has his lawyer.

THE DE FACTO LAW Minister, Dato' Rais Yatim, says damages awarded for defamation is grossly out of proportion to personal injury cases. He points to the Federal Court's affirmation of the RM10 million awarded to the Berjaya Group supremo and Big Mac chief, Tan Sri Vincent Tan. Dato' Rais' remarks, made when a Bar Council committee called on him on 04 September 00, castigates the Chief Justice (more popularly, Big Chief Injustice, in legal circles), Tun Eusoff Chin, and in terminal shock after He Who Must Be Destroyed At All Cost mercillessly castigated him for his corruption, bias, stupidity, injudicial conduct and much else in court recently. There is more to the bare bones of the news report than meets the eye. But when the government decides the courts cannot be depended upon to decide on defamation damages and on judicial discretion in contempt of court, and wants to codify the provisions, the genteel words exchanged hides not the bitter enmity between the law minister in charge of tables and chairs and the holiday companion of Tan Sri Vincent Tan's bodyguard and lawyer surfaces ineluctably..

This letter of demand -- from Tan Sri Vincent Tan's solicitors, Messrs Adam Bachek & Associates, of Tingkat Satu, Wisma Datuk Dagang, 53 Raja Alang, Kampung Baru, 50300 Kuala Lumpur -- sent me on 6 September 00, is is self-explanatory:

The Attorney-General, Tan Sri Mohtar Abdullah, was, until recently, widely tipped to succeed Tun Eusoff Chin as chief justice. Not any more. A former High Court judge, he was chosen five years ago over the president of the court of appeal, Tan Sri Lamin Yunos. He was under 55 and Tan Sri Lamin not, and the authorities did not want to upset the civil service applecart by appointing someone beyond retirement age. The then outgoing Attorney-General, Tan Sri Abu Talib Osman, had nominated another, but the former Lord President, Tun Hamid Omar, who remains, despite his indiscretions, a powerful figure behind the scenes on matter concerning the judiciary and the legal service, opted for Tan Sri Mohtar. And Tan Sri Mohtar it was. He quickly immersed himself in the perks of office, going off on holidays with such eminent counsel as Dato' V.K. Lingam -- the holiday company of the chief justice who returns the favour by not allowing him to lose a case -- and eminent business men as Tan Sri Vincent Tan. But such actions, which would raise many a legal eyebrow, is commonplace, or was until He Who Must Be Destroyed At All Cost's excoriating diatribe in court against the chief justice and the judiciary in general.

That would not be on Tuesday (20 June 00), when he turned 65, but six months' hence, on 19 December 00. The extension was approved three days before he was due to retire. (The Prime Minister, on the other hand, claims he does not know if this extension is for six months, one year, or for life; that, under present circumstances, adds weight to growing belief that he, irrevocably, is in his second childhood.) Tun Eusoff, who took office under a cloud, would not retire in a cloud. He has yet to explain his incriminating holiday in New Zealand with that eminent lawyer and litigant, Dato' V.K. Lingam, nor his connexions with Dato' Lingam's valued client, the self-proclaimed internationally known business man of unquestioned repute, Tan Sri Vincent Tan. In so doing, he brought the office of the chief justice to depths unimaginable only a few years ago. And with it the judiciary. He claims the anti-corruption agency (ACA) cleared him of all wrongdoing. He claims he "bumped" into Dato' Lingam in a New Zealand zoo. Both are lies. The ACA does not clear anyone, and Tun Eusoff and Dato' Lingam planned and went on the holiday deliberately, and without the subterfuge of a contrived accidentally meeting. Lesser individuals would have been branded liars for such economy with the truth.

The minister should address delays in the judiciary. One man still fights for justice denied him when a judge did not give written grounds for his judgement, making it impossible for him to appeal. This case is almost 21 years old. Another man, now in his late 70s, continues to hit his head against the judicial wall, wanting the grounds of his action, which he lost 27 years ago, which the judge did not write them and has now retired. This is such an embarassment as the case is continually postponed, hoping that the litigant would die. In the M.G.G. Pillai v Tan Sri Vincent Tan, the Federal court heard the appeal 25 months ago, and despite requests, the judgement could well not be released. All three in the cora retire this year. The lawyer in that case, Dato' V.K. Lingam, is alleged, in an affidavit, to have written the judgement in that case for the High Court judge. Delaying writing judgements constitues judicial misconduct, but no judge has ever been penalised for it. The minister should address that -- and demand resignations or removal from the bench for persistent offenders. When the judges involved, as in the M.G.G. Pillai case, are the chief justice and two chief judges, it underlines the irrelevance of such rules enacted to ensure that justice is not delayed. If the judgement of the Court of Appeal is affirmed, as a result, it represents yet again the view that judgement goes to those lawyers who go on holidays with the chief justice.

The Asian Wall Street Journal reporter, Mr Rapheal Pura's sworn statement that the influence-peddling lawyer, Dato' V.K. Lingam, wrote part of Mr Justice Mokhtar Sidin's judgement in the Tan Sri Vincent Tan v MGG Pillai & Others case creates shivers down the spine of lawyers and laymen alike. Dato' Lingam's frienship with the Chief Justice, Tun Eusoff Chin, with whom he goes on holidays, is well known. Several important questions arise from this. Could it be possible Dato' V.K. Lingam helped in writing judgements in other cases where he appeared side? What guarantee is there this is an isolated occasion? Equally important, what guarantee is there that Mr Justice Mokhtar Sidin had had his judgements written by other lawyers in other cases? Can a litigant appear comfortable in an appeal -- Mr Justice Mokhtar has since been elevated to the Court of Appeal -- in which he sits with others known to be friendly with Dato' V.K. Lingam? Worse still, if Dato' Lingam appears on the other side, can the litigant hope for justice?

The Berita Harian editor-in-chief, Mr Ahmad Rejal Arbee, admitted in the Industrial court yesterday (14 July 1999) that when holding a similar position at the Sun Media Group, which publishes the Sun newspaper, he would refer stories written by his reporters about the owner, his companies and his friends -- "in certain instances" -- to that international business man of unquestioned repute, Tan Sri Vincent Tan -- for routine clearance. In 1994, in the libel action he brought against a Malaysian business magazine and several reporters, Tan Sri Vincent insisted, under oath, that my assertion in an article that he interfered in the Sun newspaper's editorial functions was false and libellous; the High Court accepted his unproven assertion -- he brought no witnesses to back up his case for libel -- and awarded a total of RM10 million in libel damages, of which RM2 million was against me. The Court of Appeal dismissed my appeal; the Federal Court gave leave and heard the appeal after postponing the hearing for a year and reducing the promised five-man bench to three, in January 1998. Judgement has not been delivered, despite the passage of 18 months. But Mr Rejal Arbee's testimony yesterday does suggest the probability that Tan Sri Vincent perjured in his evidence in his libel action against me.

The Indah Water Konsortium, as one great privatisation successes of Bolehland, knows what it must do -- scream for public sympathy at the millions it spends to restore Bolehland's sewerage services, almost all in terrible condition, or so it claims; and demand payment, whether lawful or not, for non-existent services. That international business man of unquestioned repute, Tan Sri Vincent Tan, got the RM6,000,000,000 privatisation of sewerage services in the usual cronyistic fashion, quickly transferred it, in a series of corporate moves, to the present owners to untangle the legal minefield. The aim of the privatisation was clear: get as much money from the public and people as it can before the inadequacies of the law shine through. It was awarded in the usual Bolehland manner at a time when official and crony arrogance was breathtaking -- in stealth, secrecy, without making sure that the privatisation was legal. So much so that five years after it was privatised, IWK itself does not know what its basis for charging its alleged consumers are.

Two prominent Bolehland companies, Berjaya Group Bhd and Insas Bhd, in the stable of Tan Sri Vincent Tan, hope to raise RM750 million with irredeemable convertible unsecured loan stocks to reduce bank borrowings and strengthen their respective financial position. The coupon rate of between eight and 10 per cent would make savings deposits more desirable today. Even with the sweetener of four warrants with each loan stock. Berjaya Group proposes a one-for-two rights issue of RM607.88 million in ICULS, with four warrants attached, while Insas proposes a one-for-four rights issue of RM142.7 million ICULS, also with four warrants attached. But with both the companies' share prices languishing 70 per cent below its par value, and with the stock exchange in the doldrums, it would take a brave man to invest in companies like the Berjaya Group and Insas, already pressured by the market downturn.

Charles Dickens, in his novel on the French Revolution, The Tale of Two Cities, asks if removing one thousand aristocrats would be a calamity to the nation. The revolutionaries clearly thought not, as it indeed it proved. Are one thousand aristocrats more valuable to a nation than one thousand chambermaids? Or one thousand school teachers? Or one thousand newspaper boys? This extends the age-old conundrum on whether society exists to benefit the community or a section of the community. Can a thousand Amin Shahs ever be worth a thousand Indonesian maids? Can a thousand Vincent Tans and Ting Pek Khiings equal one thousand Lin Yutangs? Can a thousand Samy Vellus ever equal one, yes, one, Rabindranath Tagore? Is the Petronas Twin Towers, Kuala Lumpur International Airport, the Bakun No-Dam and Putra Jaya worth more than a regular unrestricted supply of clean water or clear traffic or a good health service?

According to this list, Tan Sri Halim Sa'ad controls six companies with a total debt of RM16,671.9 million; Tan Sri Tajuddin Ali two with RM959.2 million, while one Mahathir sibling controlled two companies with debts of RM1,760.6 million and another one with RM545.5 million. Tan Sri Vincent Tan controls two companies with total debts of RM6,505.5 while Dato' (Duta) Yap Yong Seong two owing RM2,143.2 million. Malaysia's Onassis-in-waiting, Dato' Amin Shah, has two companies owing RM509.1 million. Tan Sri Dato' Dr Ting Pek Khing controls Wembley and its debt of RM374.8 million. Dato' Joseph Chong controls Wing Teik, with its debts of RM845.1 million. Tan Sri Quek Leng Chan controls Hume Industries with its debts of RM1,631.1 million. Khazanah Nasional, which controls Tenage Nasional with its debts of RM17,389.2 million, is not only Bolehland company controlling other companies. DRB with Bolton controls two companies which have debts of RM4,144.9 million, while Kumpulan Darul Ehsan controls SAP Holdings with its debt of RM403.1 million and MRCB of Malakoff which owes RM3,159.7 million.

With the debacle of the UEM-Renong affair still fresh in the minds of Malaysians, the Securities Commission has given a waiver to another company, Berjaya Group, from having to make a general offer when the dominant shareholders buys more than the 32 per cent. The Berjaya Group is controlled by Tan Sri Vincent Tan, and he now controls 40.74 per cent, while his brother, Dato' Tan Chee Sing, owns another 4.97 per cent, making a total of 45.71 per cent of the issued share capital. The waiver allows them not to make a general offer so long as their holdings, with those of others acting in concert, does not exceed 50 per cent.

The Federal Court reserved yesterday judgement in the Vincent Tan libel case after a two-day hearing with the three-man court saying each would write separate judgements. The appeal was brought by the publisher and editor-in-chief, and one journalist, M.G.G. Pillai over a libel action brought by Tan brought in 1994 against them, three other journalists and the printer. So many procedural and other defects were highlighted that this threatens to become a leading case.

The Malaysian Government cancelled the Bakun hydroelectric dam project less than a day after Ekran Berhad vitiated its agreement with the Swiss-Swedish-Brazilian consortium, ABB-CBPO, to construct it. Also cancelled -- "delayed indefinitely", in bureaucratese -- were the Linear City project which Tan Sri Vincent Tan was to have developed, and some major highway projects. The announcement came amidst a further meltdown on the Kuala Lumpur Stock Exchange and the UMNO General Assembly. The government, which had ordered stocks on the Composite Index to immediate delivery before buying or selling it earlier this week, has also withdrawn it. The UMNO General Assembly, which begins this morning, is out for blood, since there is hardly a divisional leader who has not lost at least heavily on the stock market. The decline of the currency to 3.04 against the US dollar has made the overall look uncertain. The government has also promised action against local short sellers, amongst whom are reportedly those among the high and mighty of the Malaysian financial scene.

Pak Lah (1364)   United States (636)   Straits Times (412)   Samy Vellu (224)   Putra Jaya (200)   Chief Justice (200)   Saddam Hussein (188)   Vincent Tan (164)   Civil Service (154)   Parti KeADILan (148)   Islamic State (118)   Johore Bahru (100)   Sungei Buloh (94)   Bukit Tinggi (88)   Abdul Razak (80)   Pengkalen Pasir (68)   Ting Pek (64)   Armed Forces (59)   Soviet Union (58)

Malay Dominance (58)   Yong Teck (56)   Hong Kong (56)   Human Rights (56)   Syed Hamid (54)   Puteri UMNO (52)   Islam Hadhari (52)   Royal Commission (51)   Hussein Onn (51)   Rafidah Aziz (48)   Indian Congress (48)   Open House (44)   Vision Schools (44)   Shah Alam (44)   Malay Unity (42)   Chua Jui (42)   Abdul Taib (42)   Ampang Jaya (36)   Ras Adiba (36)

Osama Bin Laden (36)   Nik Aziz Nik (20)   Ling Liong Sik (18)   Lee Kuan Yew (18)

High Court Judge (14)   Wan Azizah Wan (9)   Lim Kit Siang (9)   Megat Junid Megat (8)

Mahathir (2960)

Anwar (2399)