dishonest lawyer or politician
Mr. Koh Chong Kiang
Block 536 Upper Cross Street #11-245
S(050536)
4 May 2005
Attn:
Director (Professional Standards)
Law Society of Singapore
Complaint under Section 85(1) and Section 75B of the Legal Profession Act
In the year 2000 (April or something, sorry I did not retain a copy), I wrote to your office filing a complaint about a sale agreement between Mr. Koh Wing Chye (deceased within a month from date of sale) and Mr. Ow Koon Thiam over the property known as 10H Jervois Road.
My complaint was that the signature of Mr. Koh Wing Chye, the seller, in the sale agreement, that was witnessed by Ms. Hoo Sheau Farn, the lawyer representing the seller, was an obvious forgery.
The police, of course, wasn’t investigating. Ms. Hoo Sheau Peng is a judge. The law society, of course, wasn’t investigating. It is no longer an independent body.
So why am I complaining? Maybe because I believe the truth will come out one fine day? I’m dreaming, of course.
Anyway, since I was certain the dead do tell tales, I engaged the services of a political figure lawyer to pursue the case of the forged signature. Chiam & Co. offered to help, on condition I represented myself. Chiam & Co. offered only expertise. The case started as DC2514/2000M.
Funny thing was, Chiam & Co. wasn’t being very honest about its intentions. In the words of lawyer Mr. Chan Fook Meng (maybe not his exact words, but the meaning is there), "I’m surprised the case was even allowed to be filed". In other words, the case was dead as filed.
Mr. Koh Chong Huat complained to the police, I was told, in July that year, about having his life threatened, and about e-mail harassment by me in what was to become DAC 54600/2000 and MAC 8668-8673/00.
Mr. Koh Thong is Mr. Koh Chong Huat’s father. They both reside at 71 Faber Green. Mr. Koh Thong was one of two defendents named in DC2514/2000M. Mr. Yik Tze Kong is the lawyer representing the two defendents in DC2514/2000M.
Mr. Yik Tze Kong is not an honest officer of the court either. Mr. Koh Chong Huat made me a "wanted person". Mr. Yik Tze Kong applied to have DC2514/2000M struck off. I refer you to SIC9030/2000/C. Mr. Yik Tze Kong also invited to supply a copy of a will. I refer to his letter, LSY/003807/EK/CT/rs dated December 4 , 2000.
I was duly arrested unaware of what lawyer Mr. Yik Tze Kong and his clients did. The judge presiding over DAC 54600/2000 and MAC 8668-8673/00 wasn’t made aware either. He wasn’t particularly a nice judge. In fact, he looked liked a kangaroo. Anyway, I was standing way-off what could have been a hundred yards?. I wasn’t allowed anything so I cannot measure the distance. I cannot be sure if he was or wasn’t an animal. Anyway, animal or not, he duly struck off the charge of criminal intimidation.
Something was not right. The District Public Prosecutor was sweating profusely. The witness, Mr. Koh Chong Huat, I was questioning was speaking in ever softer tones. I couldn’t hear the replies to my questions, but the judge said he could. I read somewhere that kangaroos have good hearing, or was it bats? Or was it kangaroo bats?
The judge got hungry or something. Or maybe he felt sorry for the rookie District Public Prosecutor that was handed my case. He offered to screw my ass on only half the e-mail harassment charges if I capitulated. I had been worried about being in jail for seven years. That wasn’t going to happen now. I was in jail for five months already. One more month wasn’t going to make much of a difference. I was more worried about not being able to empty the post office box I was renting as I wasn’t able to renew the rental. So I capitulated to the kangaroo.
The rest, like they say, is history. Once I was arrested, it was important the actions taken by lawyer Mr. Yik Tze Kong and his clients be swept under the carpet. If not for the honesty of the postman, the kangaroo and myself would happily or unhappily have lived on unawares. I was released five days after my post office box rental was due. There was still time. Postmasters are honest, believe me. At least the one in charge of post box rentals. I think I can still dig up his name somewhere if you require a referral as to who may make an honest lawyer.
The kangaroo wasn’t aware. I tried to make him aware. But I only had $400+ in my pocket. Had to sell my scanner and printer to get the "+". A member of his flock wasn’t too keen about straining her eyes, apparently, when I filed a complaint about undisclosed facts of my case.
Nobody appeared for SIC9030/2000/C. I refer you to letter dated 19 April 2001 by Glen de Souza for Registrar. Two days after I capitulated, Mdm. Lim Swee Ying, the other defendant in DC2514/2000M changed her lawyers to Messrs. Tan Loh & Wong. Did I mention that no lawyer is honest? It was written somewhere in a Buddhist magazine, in an article contributed by a lawyer.
Anyway, I am not saying that Tan, Loh or Wong, whoever was representing Mdm. Lim Swee Ying now, was not honest. There is nothing to indicate him or her to be not honest. The change of lawyers by Mdm. Lim Swee Ying was made so that what was offered by Mr. Yik Tze Kong in his letter, LSY/003807/EK/CT/rs dated December 4 , 2000 need not be carried out.
I can’t read minds, as you may be aware already. I can’t possibly tell what was going through the mind of Chiam & Co. when he saw me out so soon. He dragged DC2514/2000M all the way to almost the time for it to lapse, told me he was retiring, returned my files after a few days of delays, never mentioned about DC2514/2000M lapsing, and took almost a year after that to finally close shop.
After consulting with lawyer Mr. Chan Fook Meng, who mentioned that "on top of his head, without checking, so don’t quote him, if a case such as was aforementioned, where the seller died so close to the sale, the time period allowed for legal action is twelve years and not six years" as was advised by Chiam & Co. and the legal aid bureau.
Chiam & Co. wasn’t apparently representing me. I checked the files returned more carefully now that I had an honest and comprehensive alternative opinion. There were too many liquid paper marks over the court submissions. Even the clerk serving the summons wrote that he took instructions from me personally when, in fact, I never saw his face.
I think, if you represent an independent body, you might look into the case. But, alas, you do not any longer represent an independent body.
If, however, you should require to see more evidence, I can supply them, as I live nearby right now. But I should imagine, the court possess more than sufficient evidence, as I’ve already mentioned them above.
If you require the police to investigate the case first, then I suggest you let cows into your council meetings. They’re better than shredders. They have four stomachs, I’m told. Virtually unrecognizable as documents after the four stomachs. They won’t get jammed either.
In confidence
(Attachment)
Mr. Koh Chong Kiang
Block 536 Upper Cross Street #11-245 S(050536)
27 May 2005
Attn:
Ms. Prabha Dubed
Director (Professional Standards)
Law Society of Singapore
Fax: 65363855
Re: LS/4/2005/ML/PD
I believe my letter to be not that badly written, but that you choose to fudge the issue.
My previous correspondence with your society was a complaint against Ms. Hoo Sheau Farn. The complaint was about a forgery in which she was involved. That complaint was made in year 2000. I'm sorry, but I do not now have the reply from Ms. Yasho Dhoraisingam. Maybe you want to refer to her or to Jennifer or something, who is her secretary?
Mr. Chan Fook Meng is the lawyer who gave me second opinion. If you can trace him to Unilegal LLC, you should be able to figure out that Messrs. Chiam & Co. only had one lawyer. But I guess your brain is not quite up to that sort of strenuous deduction.
Do not forever more send me your information leaflets regarding the lodging of complaints under sections 85(1) and 75B of the Act, which is poorly written and which obviously does not explain anything clearly.
My complaint, to put it simply, is that the sole former lawyer of the former law firm, Messrs. Chiam & Co. and Mr. Yik Tze Kong colluded to pervert justice. Which does not mean my previous complaint in the year 2000 against Ms. Hoo Sheau Farn no longer stand. Whether the former law firm Messrs. Tan Loh & Wong was involved is not so clear-cut. If you want me to spell it out to you, maybe you should provide me with your society's version of the penal code.
Perhaps you can get a clearer picture of what I am talking about by perusing the court papers I mentioned or what I have written on my website, http://www.plusminus48degreeswobble.blogspot.com.
Yours sincerely
posted by lee hsien tau @ 10:24 PM
2 Comments:
List of racial discriminations in Malaysia, practiced by government as well as government agencies. This list is an open secret. Best verified by government itself because it got the statistics.
This list is not in the order of importance, that means the first one on the list is not the most important and the last one on the list does not mean least important.
This list is a common knowledge to a lot of Malaysians, especially those non-malays (Chinese, Ibans, Kadazans, Orang Asli, Tamils, etc) who were being racially discriminated.
Figures in this list are estimates only and please take it as a guide only. Government of Malaysia has the most correct figures. Is government of Malaysia too ashamed to publish their racist acts by publishing racial statistics?
This list cover a period of about 48 years since independence (1957).
List of racial discriminations (Malaysia):
(1) Out of all the 5 major banks, only one bank is multi-racial, the rest are controlled by malays
(2) 99% of Petronas directors are malays
(3) 3% of Petronas employees are Chinese
(4) 99% of 2000 Petronas gasoline stations are owned by malays
(5) 100% all contractors working under Petronas projects must be bumis status
(6) 0% of non-malay staffs is legally required in malay companies. But there must be 30% malay staffs in Chinese companies.
(7) 5% of all new intake for government police, nurses, army, is non-malays.
(8) 2% is the present Chinese staff in Royal Malaysian Air Force (RMAF), drop from 40% in 1960
(9) 2% is the percentage of non-malay government servants in Putrajaya. But malays make up 98%
(10) 7% is the percentage of Chinese government servants in the whole government (in 2004), drop from 30% in 1960
(11) 95% of government contracts are given to malays
(12) 100% all business licensees are controlled by malay government e.g. Taxi permits, Approved permits, etc
(13) 80% of the Chinese rice millers in Kedah had to be sold to malay controlled Bernas in 1980s. Otherwise, life is make difficult for Chinese rice millers
(14) 100 big companies set up, owned and managed by Chinese Malaysians were taken over by government, and later managed by malays since 1970s e.g. UTC, UMBC, MISC, etc
(15) At least 10 Chinese owned bus companies (throughout Malaysia, throughout 40 years) had to be sold to MARA or other malay transport companies due to rejection by malay authority to Chinese application for bus routes and rejection for their application for new buses
(16) 2 Chinese taxi drivers were barred from driving in Johor Larkin bus station. There are about 30 taxi drivers and 3 are Chinese in October 2004. Spoiling taxi club properties was the reason given
(17) 0 non-malays are allowed to get shop lots in the new Muar bus station (November 2004)
(18) 8000 billions ringgit is the total amount the government channeled to malay pockets through ASB, ASN, MARA, privatisation of government agencies, Tabung Haji etc, through NEP over 34 years period
(19) 48 Chinese primary schools closed down since 1968 - 2000
(20) 144 Indian primary schools closed down since 1968 - 2000
(21) 2637 malay primary schools built since 1968 - 2000
(22) 2.5% is government budget for Chinese primary schools. Indian schools got only 1%, malay schools got 96.5%
(23) While a Chinese parent with RM1000 salary (monthly) cannot get school-text-book-loan, a malay parent with RM2000 salary is eligible
(24) 10 all public universities vice chancellors are malays
(25) 5% - the government universities lecturers of non-malay origins had been reduced from about 70% in 1965 to only 5% in 2004
(26) Only 5% is given to non-malays for government scholarships over 40 years
(27) 0 Chinese or Indians were sent to Japan and Korea under "Look East Policy"
(28) 128 STPM Chinese top students could not get into the course that they aspired i.e. Medicine (in 2004)
(29) 10% place for non-bumi students for MARA science schools beginning from year 2003, but only 7% are filled. Before that it was 100% malays
(30) 50 cases whereby Chinese and Indian Malaysians, are beaten up in the National Service program in 2003
(31) 25% is Malaysian Chinese population in 2004, drop from 45% in 1957
(32) 7% is the present Malaysian Indians population (2004), a drop from 12% in 1957
(33) 2 millions Chinese Malaysians had emigrated to overseas since 40 years ago
(34) 0.5 million Indian Malaysians had emigrated to overseas
(35) 3 millions Indonesians had migrated into Malaysia and became Malaysian citizens with bumis status.
(36) 600000 are the Chinese and Indian Malaysians with red IC and were rejected repeatedly when applying for citizenship for 40 years. Perhaps 60% of them had already passed away due to old age. This shows racism of how easily Indonesians got their citizenships compare with the Chinese and Indians
(37) 5% - 15% discount for a malay to buy a house, regardless whether the malay is rich or poor
(38) 2% is what Chinese new villages get compare with 98% of what malay villages got for rural development budget
(39) 50 road names (at least) had been changed from Chinese names to other names
(40) 1 Dewan Gan Boon Leong (in Malacca) was altered to other name (e.g. Dewan Serbaguna or sort) when it was being officially used for a few days. Government try to shun Chinese names. This racism happened in around year 2000 or sort
(41) 0 temples/churches were built for each housing estate. But every housing estate got at least one mosque/surau built
(42) 3000 mosques/surau were built in all housing estates throughout Malaysia since 1970. No temples, no churches are required to be built in housing estates
(43) 1 Catholic church in Shah Alam took 20 years to apply to be constructed. But told by malay authority that it must look like a factory and not look like a church. Still not yet approved in 2004
(44) 1 publishing of Bible in Iban language banned (in 2002)
(45) 0 of the government TV stations (RTM1, RTM2, TV3) are directors of non-malay origins
(46) 30 government produced TV dramas and films always showed that the bad guys had Chinese face, and the good guys had malay face. You can check it out since 1970s. Recent years, this tendency becomes less
(47) 10 times, at least, malays (especially Umno) had threatened to massacre the Chinese Malaysians using May 13 since 1969
(48) 20 constituencies won by DAP would not get funds from the government to develop. Or these Chinese majority constituencies would be the last to be developed
(49) 100 constituencies (parliaments and states) had been racistly re-delineated so Chinese voters were diluted that Chinese candidates, particularly DAP candidates lost in election since 1970s
(50) Only 3 out of 12 human rights items are ratified by Malaysia government since 1960
(51) 0 - elimination of all forms of racial discrimination (UN Human Rights) is not ratified by Malaysia government since 1960s
(52) 20 reported cases whereby malay ambulance attendances treated Chinese patients inhumanely, and malay government hospital staffs purposely delay attending to Chinese patients in 2003. Unreported cases may be 200
(53) 50 cases each year whereby Chinese, especially Chinese youths being beaten up by malay youths in public places. We may check at police reports provided the police took the report, otherwise there will be no record
(54) 20 cases every year whereby Chinese drivers who accidentally knocked down malays were seriously assaulted or killed by malays
(55) 12% is what ASB/ASN got per annum while banks fixed deposit is only about 3.5% per annum
There are hundreds more racial discriminations in Malaysia to add to this list of "colossal" racism. It is hope that the victims of racism will write in to expose racism.
Malaysia government should publish statistics showing how much malays had benefited from the "special rights" of malays and at the same time tell the statistics of how much other minority races are being discriminated.
Hence, the responsibility lies in the Malaysia government itself to publish unadulterated statistics of racial discrimination.
If the Malaysia government hides the statistics above, then there must be some evil doings, immoral doings, shameful doings and sinful doings, like the Nazi, going on onto the non-malays of Malaysia.
Civilized nation, unlike evil Nazi, must publish statistics to show its treatment on its minority races. This is what Malaysia must publish……….
We are asking for the publication of the statistics showing how "implementation of special rights of malays" had inflicted colossal racial discrimination onto non-malays.
sad sad person.
Post a Comment
<< Home