A court drama that is playing out in Malaysia this week says a lot about growing tensions between conservative Islam and the rule of law in this Muslim-majority nation that has long been known for its religious tolerance. It concerns the legal battle for the body of Elangesvaran Benedict, who died June 22 at age 34.
As his family mourned his death, Mr. Elangesvaran's body was seized by Islamic authorities, who claimed that he had secretly converted to Islam and must be buried as a Muslim. The family responded with a court case claiming he was Hindu, but hours before the case was to be heard, a Shariah court -- in which none of his family was present -- ruled that the deceased was Muslim. After that, the civil court refused to hear the case. On Monday another civil court refused to issue a staying order while the family appeals the case. Later that night, the body was buried in a Muslim cemetery, without the family's approval.
It's been 20 years since Malaysia's dual court system was enshrined in the constitution: Non-Muslims are tried in civil courts, and Muslims can be tried in Shariah courts, whose scope traditionally has been limited to issues of family law. This system has always been full of potholes, but in recent years a worrying trend has emerged: the enlargement of the jurisdiction of the Shariah courts, as civil courts stand by silently.
In 2005, a Hindu, Maniam Moorthy, was buried as a Muslim after Shariah courts determined that he had converted and civil courts refused to hear the case. Earlier this year the same thing nearly happened to a Christian woman, Wong Sau Lan, whose body was handed back to her husband only after a Shariah court determined her "conversion" to Islam had been improper.
In 2006, the case of Lina Joy gained attention world-wide when she tried to win legal approval for her conversion from Islam to Catholicism so that she could legally marry her Catholic fiancé. She went into hiding after the court rejected her request.
Malaysia's constitution guarantees religious freedom, and the dual court system was designed to protect that. But the system works only if the right checks and balances are in place to ensure that the Shariah court is not abused by Islamic fundamentalists. The country's political leaders need to empower the civil courts to make sure all Malaysians have the freedoms they've been promised.
WALL STREET JOURNAL ASIA
10/07/08
2 comments:
Only in Malaysia can this kind of macabre behaviour be found being practised by the"Islamic Authorities".A dead body of a loved one in my opinion is only of value to the immediate family,extended family and friends for them to say farewell and perform whatever rights deemed necessary to ensure the deceased has a smooth journey in the afterlife.At times such as this I am ashamed to be a Malaysian.50 years after independence we have made tremendous progress but in matters such as body snatching we are still in the stone age.This can only lead to further religous polarisation and suspicion among the different religions,as though we don't have enough problems as it is.God help us!!
Yap Chong Yee,
5a Prinsep Road,
Attadale, W. Australia,
Date : 10th July, 2008
To,
The Editor,
Malaysiakini.com.my,
Dear Sir,
Re :KL High Court Originating Petition No. : D2-26-41-2001
Lim Choi Yin v. McLaren Saksama(Malaysia) Sdn. Bhd. & 5 others.
In the present climate of political upheaval in Malaysia and the most vociferous call by the people of Malaysia for reforms to be made to the judiciary of Malaysia I call on the brave media to participate in the activism of Malaysian bloggers to force reforms to be made by the weight of public pressure. If such influential web newspaper like the Malaysiakini will not support the people’s call for change how can there be any hope for the people to bring about change ?
The Laws of Malaysia are adequate for a society that practices good governance; but in Malaysia it is the weakness of our judiciary that has turned Malaysia into a lawless nation. At the time of Merdeka, both Malaysia & Singapore had the same British colonial judicial & legal systems, but today there is a world of difference between the two. Singapore is a shining example of a first world modern nation, while Malaysia has regressed into a Malay feudal Banana republic, more medieval than modern.
It is the duty of the media to force reforms in the judiciary, and from my perspective the most effective way to bring about reform is to prosecute judges who have abused the law with impunity and for this purpose I am sending to you my draft of my STATUTORY DECLARATION, that will charge Zainon binti Mohd. Ali with Buse of judicial powers. My discussion are based on facts and can be defended by the case records that filed in the KL High Court registry. I shall be coming to KL to sue Judge Zainon binti Mohd. Ali, but at a time AFTER THE BEIJING OLYMPICS.
This letter forms only the first half of my analysis and a second will be written soon because the public do not like to read too long a story.
I am set on a course to make Judge Dato Zainon binti Mohd. Ali the presiding judge at the adjudication of the my wife’s originating petition criminally accountable. Judge Zainon binti Mohd. Ali had abused her powers and in the process had acted criminally and I intend to hold her accountable for her criminal behaviour .
MY WIFE HAD THROUGH HER ATTORNEY (my Daughter), by letter dated 10 of July, 2008, to her solicitor M/s Lim & Hoh, of Bangunan Ming, Jln. Bukit Nanas, instructed M/s Lim & Hoh to withdraw that NONSENSE of an appeal relating to Judge Zainon binti mohd. Ali’s order approving the striking out of my wife’s petition and was filed by M/S Lim & Hoh, and for the life of me, I do not know what it is that M/s Lim & Hoh has to appeal against; because in approving the striking out Dato Zainon binti Mohd. Ali had committed several criminal offenses of “ABUSE OF POWER”, PERVERTING THE COURSE OF JUSTICE, AIDDING & ABETTING Stephen Lim Cheng Ban, Kwong Sea Yoon and Wong Kem Chen to obtain money under false pretenses and other criminal offenses as will be set out and argued
below. :
(a)
Judge Zainon binti Mohd. Ali had no judicial powers in the circumstances to approve respondent Stephen Lim Cheng Ban’s application for striking out of said petition; for the reason that respondent Stephen Lim Cheng Ban had already taken the said Rm. 60,000 security for costs, and Judge Zainon binti Mohd. Ali, having personal knowledge that Stephen Lim Cheng Ban had been awarded Rm.60,000 security for costs, and also Judge Zainon binti Mhd. Ali knew that Stephen Lim Cheng Ban had accepted and taken possession of the Rm.60,000.
BOTH STEPHEN LIM CHENG BAN & JUDGE ZAINON BINTI MOHD. ALI KNEW THAT SAID RM.60,000 WAS POSTED BY MY WIFE AS SECURITY FOR COSTS PURSUANT TO THE COURT ORDER APPROVED & ISSUED BY JUDGE ZAINON BINTI MOHD. ALI.
All 6 respondents applied for security for costs (for a total sum of Rm.550,000 or thereabouts ) and the supporting affidavits of Stephen Lim Cheng Ban, Wong Kem Chen had deposed that my wife had “transferred her share”, and they were supported by Kwong Sea Yoon who deposed that he (Kwong Sea Yoon) as secretary of 1st respondent company “had personally witnessed my wife sign the share transfer form”. My wife filed a 2nd affidavit and annexed to it a copy of my police report that was made by me at the Balai Polis, Jln. Tun HS Lee, and affirmed by me that the statements of Wong Kem Chen, Kwong Sea Yoon and Stephen Lim consist of PERJURY and that she denied the allegations of all 3 deponents; and my wife applied to judge Zainon binti Mohd. Ali for leave to cross examine Kong Sea Yoon (as secretary representing the company), Wong Kem Chen & Stephen Lim Cheng Ban.
AT THIS POINT IT IS IMPORTANT TO TAKE NOTE THAT KWONG SEA YOON HAD ABANDONED ANY FURTHER PARTICIPATION IN THE PROCEDINGS OF THIS CASE. Kwong Sea Yoon did not at any time DENY MY WIFE’S CHARGE THAT HE HAD PERJURED. In spite of this anomaly (the guilty behaviour of Kwong Sea Yoon in avoiding exposure for perjury under cross examination, Judge Zainon binti Mohd. Ali, went ahead and awarded to the respondents security for costs of Rm.60,000. PLEASE bear in mind that KWONG SEA YOON HAD NOT DENIED MY WIFE’S CHARGE THAT KWONG SEA YOON HAD PERJURED ! Here is a case of blatant abuse of power by Judge Zainon binti Mohd. Ali because she had openly REFUSED to apply the normal standards of Justice according to law. Judge Zainon binti Mohd. Ali by refusing to give leave to my wife to cross examine the respondents named for perjury had by law DENIED MY WIFE HER LEGAL RIGHT TO NATURAL JUSTICE.By the refusal of Judge Zainon binti Mohd. Ali my wife was denied her right in law to be heard. THIS C9ONSTITUTES ABUSE OF POWER BY JUDGE ZAINON BINTI Mohd. Ali.
It is important to mention, as it carries some very serious legal issues arising from this development. I had at the outset of court proceedings written to Chief Justice Tun Fairoz that Judge Zainon binti Mohd. Ali had improperly asked our counsel, Mr David Hoh to request my wife to withdraw her application for leave to cross examine the 3 mentioned respondents for perjury. The truth can be borne out by my discussing this matter with my former classmate, Mr Justice Mokhtar Sidin and he advised me “NOT TO WITHDRAW THE APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO CROSS EXAMINE”. There was nothing fishy to my talking to Mr Justice Mokhtar because I had told him that I was not asking for his help. There is an interesting twist to this saga, best said in court. My wife REFUSED TO WITHDRAW her application; and in spite of the irregularity and illegality to the conduct & actions of Judge Zainon binti Mohd. Ali, she (Judge Zainon binti Mohd. Ali) went on and approved respondents’ application for security for costs.
For the reasons that are set out above I CHARGE JUDGE ZAINON BINTI MOHD. ALI FOR COMMITTING THE FOLLOWING CRIMINAL OFFENCES :
(a) aiding & abetting Kwong Sea Yoon, Stephen Lim Cheng Ban and Wong Kem Chen to commit PERJURY & FORGERY,
(b) Aid & Abet all 6 respondents to OBTAIN MONEY UNDER FALSE PRETENSES,
(c) Aid & abet all 6 respondents to pervert the course of justice,
(d) Aid & abet all 6 respondents to obstruct police investigation into the commission of criminal offences
Judge Zainon binti Mohd. Ali is an unashamed LIAR, and she had the co-operation and improper support of our counsel Mr David Hoh, who wrote and had published an article in the web publication “MALAYSIA TODAY” in response to my article which was published in the web newspaper, “MALAYSIA TODAY” & “MALAYSIANS UNPLUGGED”, and this article can be read in the archives of the web publication. I still have not read Mr David Hoh’s response as yet and I will only read it when the article becomes relevant in any court proceedings. I had written to the then Chief Justice Tun Fairoz stating that Judge zainon binti Mohd. Ali had improperly asked petitioner through her counsel Mr David Hoh to withdraw my wife’s application for leave to cross examine the 3 named perjurors. I did not inform David that I was coming to KL nor the purpose for my visit. However, I received in the evening on the day that I handed my letter to the office of Tun Fairoz, a call from Mr David Hoh to attend his chambers. This surprise arose because Judge Zainon binti Mohd. Ali, when called upon by the chief Justice to explain my letter, Judge Zainon binti Mohd. Ali, called Mr David Hoh to get me to retract my letter. I was in the chambers of Mr David Hoh’s father Mr Frank Hoh, while the letter of retraction was being drafted by the joint collaboration of Mr David Hoh and Judge zainon binti Mohd. Ali.
How do I know that my letter of retraction was drafted by both Judge Zainon in collaboration with Mr David Hoh ? It is a long story but INTERESTING ! I got very angry with Mr David Hoh when he asked my wife to withdraw her application for leave to cross examine. I did not tell Mr Hoh that I was in KL when I handed my letter to the Chief Justice in the morning, but I received a phone call at my sister’s house where I was staying in the evening; only Mr Hoh would know where I stayed David called and asked me to attend his chambers the next morning and I went. I was made to do “chit- chat” with Mr Frank Hoh, while I waited for the letter to be drafted and I know that Judge Zainon binti Mohd. Ali was at the other end of the phone, but you will also be right to say that I guessed it. However, I told Mr David Hoh that I will not read what is written in the letter of retraction, and I will nevertheless sign it but that this fact will be recounted when it becomes necessary. BEAR IN MIND THAT I WILL TAKE FULL RESPONSIBILITY FOR WHAT I SIGNED. Be that as it may, let me shame all Malaysians that this is the quality of one of your most senior Judges of the highest court. We will deal with this matter when it comes up in court.
My wife had paid the Rm.60,000 in time but respondents wanted to set aside the payment on some grounds that payment was after the time stipulated; ANY EXCUSE TO THROW THE PETITION. Upon receipt of the Rm. 60,000, Stephen Lim Cheng Ban filed his application for striking out of the petition; and his supporting affidavit affirmed that my wife had sold her “SHARES” to him. FOR THIS STATEMENT ALONE, IT IS THE DUTY FOR JUDGE ZAINON BINTI MOHD. ALI TO ORDER CROSS EXAMINATION because the allegations of Stephen Lim Cheng Ban in his supporting affidavit WAS OPPOSITE TO THE DENIAL DEPOSED BY MY WIFE; and having said that IT IS THE DUTY OF A PRESIDING JUDGE TO DETERMINE WHO HAD PERJURED. Therefore IT IS THE DUTY OF JUDGE ZAINON TO ORDER CROSS EXAMINATION; but instead Judge Zainon binti Mohd. Ali approved Stephen Lim Cheng Ban’s application for striking out of the petition on the grounds that petition showed no cause of action. Please remember that all along (from the very beginning) respondents had already pleaded a “DEFENCE” saying first that my wife had transferred her shares and then later by Stephen Lim Cheng Ban that my wife had SOLD HER SHARES TO HIM. This is a real defense and Stephen Lim Cheng Ban cannot then say that there is no cause of action. Here again is evidence that Judge Zainon binti Mohd. Ali had abused her judicial powers because she refused to apply the normal requirements of justice according to law.
This anomaly becomes more embarrassing for Judge Zainon binti Mohd. Ali because all along my wife had stated that she had the only one and single promoter’s share and not another share more. THIS IS EVIDENCE THAT JUDGE ZAINON BINTI MOHD. ALI did not care what my wife said. Judge Zainon binti Mohd. Ali has to know that a promoter’s only share CANNOT BE TRANSFERRED in the absence of a third share holder, and my wife had deposed that she had never ever passed any company resolution nor had she ever attended any company board meeting whatsoever. THAT BEING THE FACTS ACCORDING TO THE CASE OF KELAPA SAWIT (TELOK ANSON) SDN. BHD, V YEOH KIM LENG (1991) CA states that any company share that are issued without a company resolution that authorized the issue of the share is void absolutely at time of issue (ab initio). My wife had also deposed that both she and the only other share holder and promoter Stephen Lim Cheng Ban were NEVER EVER ISSUED WITH ANY SHARE HOLDER’S SHARE CERTIFICATE EVER. Therefore, my wife’s supporting affidavit had stated all the facts THAT MAKES RESPONDENTS ALLEGATIONS THAT MY WIFE HAD SOLD HER SHARE IMPOSSIBLE IN LAW. The facts deposed by my wife provided the conditions which makes the claim by respondents that my wife had more than one share and that she had sold her shares NOT POSSIBLE IN LAW. Just cannot be achieved in law.
In the context of the above facts deposed in my wife’s affidavits, Judge Zainon binti Mohd. Ali had abused her judicial powers by striking out said petition. The facts deposed by my wife demands by law that judge Zinon binti Mohd. Ali must order cross examination because the contradictory depositions of respondent Stephen Lim Cheng Ban and my wife IS EVIDENCE THAT ONE OF THEM HAD COMMITTED PERJURY. It is the duty for the presiding judge to take judicial notice of any criminal offences committed and to order police to investigate. Judge Zainon binti Mohd. Ali has no judicial discretionary powers to CONDONE CRIMINAL ACTIONS and Stephen Lim Cheng Ban committed Perjury & forgery and many more other criminal offences.
The fact that Judge Zainon binti Mohd. Ali had prior knowledge from the facts and allegations deposed by all the respondents & petitioner, and in spite of her knowledge that respondents had committed criminal offences AND THAT WITH SUCH KNOWLEDGE JUDGE ZAINON BINTI MOHD. ALI STILL WENT AHEAD TO APPROVE STEPHEN LIM’S APPLICATION TO STRIKE OUT SAID PETITION, is evidence that Judge Zainon binti Mohd. Ali wanted to conceal the crimes committed by Stephen Lim Cheng Ban, Kwong Sea Yoon and Wong Kem Chen and by such criminal behaviour Judge Zainon binti Mohd. Ali had AIDED & ABETTED THE CRIMINAL ACTIONS OF THE RESPONDENTS.
.
Post a Comment