When the witness becomes the accused

The police officers started investigations after a report was lodged in Kajang based on the article which was published on April 28. The least they could have done was to read and digest the contents. If they had done so, they won’t be asking questions on Yeo and his famous quote.

by R. Nadeswaran

EVER WONDERED why the police force is unable to close files and solve crimes? Do you know why witnesses to crimes do not want to come forward? Why do witnesses suddenly have memory lapses and declare: “I did not see anything.” I got the answers yesterday. Two police officers from the Commercial Crime Division of Bukit Aman gave an insight into how investigations are carried out and I can tell you with a clear conscience that it was an exercise in futility because their line of questioning would have insulted the intelligence of any rightthinking person.

Assistant Superintendents Wan Zainal Wan Mat and Albany Hamzah turned up at the office and said that they needed to record my statement in relation to police investigations into the transfer of funds from Balkis. To say that they came ill-prepared would be an understatement. To say that they never read any of the reports in theSun or any other newspaper would be the bitter truth. They are supposed to be investigating the transfer of RM9.9 million, and yet had no clue as to how to go about doing the job. This is because they came with pre-conceived notions and pre-prepared questions, perhaps drafted by their superiors, in the hope that this writer would shoot himself in the foot by implicating himself.

After the caution was administered under the Criminal Procedure Code and the usual questions on my qualifi cations and my career, it was crystal clear they wanted me to reveal my sources and wanted documents in my possession. Not that I had run foul of the Official Secrets Act because none of the documents cited were classified, but they came on a fishing expedition to get me to expose my hand and to find out what is going to be published in the future. They expected me to sing like a canary!

Terence Fernandez and I looked at each other in despair when asked: Merujuk kepada petikan yang terdapat dalam artikel berkaitan dengan memetik kenyataan Yeo Yang Poh (former president of the Bar Council), dari manakah sumber petikan berkenaan diperolehi? (Your article had a quote from former Bar Council president Yeo Yang Poh. What is the source of the quote?) If only the two officers had cared to read the first paragraph of my report which was in front of their eyes they would have known where it came from – the Malaysian Bar website. But no, they had read nothing. What has Yeo’s comments got to do with their investigations?

They wanted to know if “I was instructed to write” and wanted to know if I had read the constitution of Balkis. If they had read all the reports on Balkis, they would have known that I quoted its constitution extensively. But no, they just cast the line hoping for a bite. The next question: Adakah kamu ada menyimpan perlembagaan Balkis. (Are you keeping a copy of the constitution) Did they expect a “Yes” from me? Even if I had it, does it make it an offence unless of course they thought they are putting the fright into me?

Are you in possession of a letter from the Registrar of Societies dated April 14 addressed to the mentri besar? Well, that’s not a classified document and even if I had it, would they have expected me to say: “Yes, I have it.”? They showed their hands too early and they thought they trumped me by asking: “You write that “according to documents sighted by theSun”, can you tell me what the documents are. My curt reply: “I cannot tell you because it is unethical for journalists to reveal what (documents) they saw or read.”

By which time, they had no more cards to play. They threw in the sai-lang card: “Dimanakah kamu dapat dokumen-dokumen berkenaan?” (Where did you get the documents from?”) Was this an investigation into Balkis or a probe to trace the source of my documents?

When they asked the final question, I blew my top because it not only became harassment but also bordered on stupidity. I was asked: Adakah kamu tahu siapa hakim bertindak sebagai penasihat undang-undang kepada Bakti sebagaimana yang dinyatakan oleh akhbar theSun? (Do you know the identity of the judge who acted as the legal adviser of Balkis?)

I asked the relevance of such a question. The answer was: ‘When the case goes to court, we need to answer all these questions”.

Don’t they read the newspapers? Didn’t theSun name the judge after which the Bar Council and the former UN Special Rapporteur on the Independence of Judges and Lawyers commented on it? My answer: “This was previously reported in theSun. Please refer to the papers.”

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

PBT issue goes to RoS

by Opalyn Mok

GEORGE TOWN: The wives of the Pakatan Rakyat assemblymen and MPs in Penang will be filing a formal request with the Registrar of Societies (RoS) regarding the status of Persatuan Bunga Tanjung (PBT) today.

Chief Minister Lim Guan Eng, who disclosed this yesterday, declined to give further details except that the wives of the assemblymen and MPs will hold a press conference about it.

Asked to comment on former PBT president Puan Sri Chui Kah Peng’s allegations that Lim had insulted and demeaned women by his statement “leave the poor lady alone”, Lim said it was just an English expression which means “don’t make it hard for her”.

“There is nothing derogatory about it. I think they know what I meant,” he told reporters.

Lim also read out a transcript of what he had said: “Maybe we need the former chief minister to clarify. I do not want to mention Puan Sri. She may not be familiar with the rules required to follow. I do not want to blame her. She may get advice from the adviser. Otherwise, why do we need advisers? I don’t think we should go for the poor lady. Let’s leave the poor lady alone.”

He said he just meant to say “do not put too much pressure on her”.

“I was only trying to say that maybe she has been wrongly advised. If she’s wrongly advised, then you ask the adviser to explain,” he said.

“They are making an issue of nothing. It is now more important to address the issue at hand rather than talk about such personal attacks, which distract attention from the real issue.

“We should address the issue as to whether the members had the right to dissolve the organisation and distribute the money. This body was established for the wives of assemblymen and MPs, except from the Opposition.

“By refusing to address this issue, I think the people can judge for themselves. Why is it that they do not want to address this issue when the PBT constitution clearly states that this association is for the wives of the state government’s wakil rakyat and had expressly excluded the Opposition.”

theSun reported that PBT had followed Balkis, the association of wives of assemblymen and MPs in Selangor, in transferring its funds to Bakti, the federal association of wives of ministers and deputy ministers, an action the RoS is now scrutinising.

In reply, Chui said PBT donated the RM590,665 which was in its account before its dissolution. It gave RM350,000 to Bakti, RM220,000 to the Bureau on Learning Difficulties, and RM20,665 to the Penang Cheshire Home, Mental Health Association and Mount Miriam Hospital.

Jelutong MP Jeff Ooi then questioned the details of the donations. He alleged that checks showed Mount Miriam Hospital had yet to receive any amount greater than RM2,572.63, which was paid on April 1.

He also alleged that the Cheshire Home and Penang Mental Health Association received only RM1,000 each, while referring to the PBT members as “desperate housewives”.

On May 1, Chui called a press conference declaring that the former PBT members were not desperate housewives and issued a challenge to Lim and Ooi for an open debate over the handling of the group’s funds and its contentious dissolution.

They gave Lim and Ooi 48 hours to respond to the challenge.

Lim declined the challenge and invited Chui for a private meeting with him instead.

Chui then issued a media statement threatening to “take appropriate measures to defend our integrity and dignity”, and Lim’s political secretary, Ng Wei Aik, issued another statement, reiterating the invitation to Chui to meet with Lim.

PBT has turned down the invitation and declared that it will no longer engage in a war of words through the media with Ng or Lim.

On the state government’s next course of action, Lim said he will let the RoS decide.

Lim also said:
» he will chair the Penang Tourism Council, which will be set up within two weeks;
» there is a need for closer cooperation between the state and federal governments to develop the tourism industry in the state for mutual benefits;
» the tourism sector, which is the second largest income earner for the state, has remained stagnant for the past 10 years;
» Penang International Airport needs to be upgraded and the state hopes the federal government will upgrade it for the sake of the tourism industry.