Mahkamah bebaskan Liong Sik dari tuduhan tipu kerajaan...
Bekas Menteri Pengangkutan Tun Dr Ling Liong Sik dilepas dan dibebaskan
oleh Mahkamah Tinggi hari ini daripada tuduhan menipu kerajaan Malaysia
berhubung projek Zon Bebas Pelabuhan Klang (PKFZ).Hakim Datuk Ahmadi Asnawi membebaskan Dr Ling selepas mendapati pihak pembelaan berjaya menimbulkan keraguan munasabah terhadap kesemua pertuduhan di akhir kes pembelaan.
Dr Ling, 70, yang diperintah membela diri pada 9 Mac tahun lepas, didakwa menipu kerajaan untuk memberi persetujuan pembelian tanah di Pulau Indah, Pelabuhan Klang bagi pembinaan projek 'Mega Distribution Hub' yang kini dikenali PKFZ.
Dia didakwa menipu kerajaan apabila tidak mendedahkan kepada Jemaah Menteri fakta berkaitan kadar faedah sebanyak 7.5 peratus setahun adalah tambahan kepada harga pembelian tanah pajakan negeri 7324 Lot 67894 yang berasaskan RM25 sekaki persegi (skp) iaitu RM1.088 bilion sedangkan beliau tahu Jabatan Penilaian dan Perkhidmatan Harta (JPPH) Kementerian Kewangan, dalam menentukan nilai itu, telah mengambil kira kadar kupon.
Dr Ling juga berdepan dua pertuduhan pilihan (pindaan) iaitu menipu dan sengaja tidak mendedahkan kepada Jemaah Menteri fakta berkaitan kadar faedah 7.5 peratus setahun adalah kadar faedah tambahan kepada harga pembelian tanah pajakan 7324 Lot 67894 berasaskan RM25 skp iaitu RM1,088,456,000.
Dr Ling didakwa melakukan semua kesalahan itu di Tingkat 4, Pejabat Perdana Menteri, Bangunan Perdana Putra, Putrajaya, antara 25 Sept dan 6 Nov 2002.-malaysiakini
Kemenangan BN PRU13 Bebaskan Liong Sik Dari Skandal PKFZ...
Pembebasan Tun Ling Liong Sik dari dakwaan menipu kerajaan Malaysia dalam skandal PKFZ merupakan satu lagi detik hitam buat rakyat Malaysia pasca PRU 13. Kehilangan berbilion wang rakyat dalam skandal PKFZ kini menjadi rompakkan yang halal apabila tiada lagi bekas menteri yang akan dipertanggungjawabkan.
Solidariti Anak Muda Malaysia (SAMM) telah menjangka keputusan ini, namun terus mempersoalkan jika Dr Ling jatuh dibebaskan, siapakah pula yang harus dipersalahkan di atas kehilangan wang negara? RM 12 bilion untuk sebuah infrastruktur pelabuhan adalah sangat tidak munahsabah.
Ternyata rakyat terus ditipu dan penjenayah berskala menteri terus selamat mendapat imuniti setelah kerajaan BN kekal kuasa melalui penipuan pilihanraya. Keputusan ini sengaja dilewatkan hingga selepas PRU13. Jika BN tumbang, sudah pasti tiada imuniti lagi buat perompak skala bilion. Sama seperti kes pembunuhan Altantuya yang ditangguh selepas PRU13, pesalah bebas dari hukuman gantung dan kes ditutup rapat hingga tidak ada ruang untuk pencuri setengah bilion didakwa. Altantuya akhirnya didapati mencuri C4 dan mengebom dirinya sendiri di Puncak Alam.
SAMM turut melihat keputusan Dr Ling bebas yang diumum pagi tadi ketika di sebelah petangnya akan berlangsung pembentangan belanjawan 2014 adalah satu helah untuk menenggelamkan isu PKFZ. Pastinya laporan media akan menjurus kepada laporan belanjawan berbanding pembebasan Dr Ling.
SAMM dengan ini mendesak mendesak supaya skandal PKFZ tidak terus didiamkan walaupun Dr Ling didapati tidak bersalah. Mana-mana bekas menteri yang telah menyebabkan negara hilang berbilion ringgit dalam skandal PKFZ harus diheret semula ke mahkamah. Jika Dr Ling didapati tidak menipu, maka siapakah yang menipu dan siapakah yang ditipu?
Edy Noor Reduan
Pengarah Propaganda
Solidariti Anak Muda Malaysia (SAMM)
AG fail pendakwaan cacat pada Ling?
Adakah Pejabat Peguam Negara memfailkan pendakwaan cacat terhadap bekas
menteri pengangkutan Dr Ling Liong Sik supaua dia dapat lepas daripada
pertuduhan berkaitan projek Zon Bebas Pelabuhan Klang?
Persoalan ini dibangkitkan oleh anggota Parlimen Petaling Jaya Utara Tony Pua (kiri) selepas Mahkamah Tinggi membebaskan Ling hari ini.
"Peguam negara sama ada tidak cekap atau bijak membingkaikan pertuduhan dengan mengetahui ia tidak mungkin dipertahankan dalam penelitian," kata Pua dalam kenyataannya.
Ling dilepas dan dibebaskan daripada tuduhan menipu kerajaan berhubung projek PKFZ selepas pembelaan berjaya menimbulkan keraguan munasabah terhadap kesemua pertuduhan di akhir kes pembelaan.
Ling, 70, didakwa menipu kerajaan untuk memberi persetujuan pembelian tanah di Pulau Indah, Pelabuhan Klang bagi pembinaan projek 'Mega Distribution Hub' yang kini dikenali PKFZ.-malaysiakini
Persoalan ini dibangkitkan oleh anggota Parlimen Petaling Jaya Utara Tony Pua (kiri) selepas Mahkamah Tinggi membebaskan Ling hari ini."Peguam negara sama ada tidak cekap atau bijak membingkaikan pertuduhan dengan mengetahui ia tidak mungkin dipertahankan dalam penelitian," kata Pua dalam kenyataannya.
Ling dilepas dan dibebaskan daripada tuduhan menipu kerajaan berhubung projek PKFZ selepas pembelaan berjaya menimbulkan keraguan munasabah terhadap kesemua pertuduhan di akhir kes pembelaan.
Ling, 70, didakwa menipu kerajaan untuk memberi persetujuan pembelian tanah di Pulau Indah, Pelabuhan Klang bagi pembinaan projek 'Mega Distribution Hub' yang kini dikenali PKFZ.-malaysiakini
Did AG file flawed charges to let Ling off...
The defence has raised reasonable doubts to the main charge and the two alternative charges, says justice Ahmadi Asnawi.
In an immediate reaction, Ling said, "No comment", while placing his finger to his lips, gesturing he was keeping quiet.
The 70-year-old former MCA president is charged with cheating the government by not disclosing to the cabinet an additional interest rate of 7.5 percent per annum on the purchase price of the land for the PKFZ project, knowing that it had been fixed at RM1,088,456,000 by the Valuation and Property Services Department (JPPH) based on RM25 per square foot, inclusive of the coupon/interest rates.
He also faced two alternative (amended) charges of cheating and intentionally not disclosing to the cabinet that the 7.5 percent per annum was an additional interest rate on the land price.
This had resulted in the government having to pay an alleged extra RM720 million for the land purchase.
Meanwhile. Did the Attorney-General's Chambers deliberately file flawed charges against former MCA president Dr Ling Liong Sik so that he will be acquitted on the charges against him in connection with the Port Klang Free Zone (PKFZ) project?
This is the question raised by Petaling Jaya Utara MP Tony Pua, after this morning's High Court decision acquitting Ling.
"The
attorney-general must either be incompetent, or especially clever in
framing a charge knowing that it will never stand up to scrutiny," Pua
said in a statement.Ling has been accused of misleading the cabinet in relation to the PKFZ project, the cost of which ballooned from RM1.1 billion to RM12.5 billion.
Pua, who is also DAP national publicity chief, said former prime minister Dr Mahathir's Mohamad's denial of being misled was already suffice to destroy the prosecution's case.
"The High Court judge would have little choice but to acquit the former transport minister because the onus on the attorney-general to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt was almost impossible.
"Not only did the Attorney-General's Chambers pick charges that were the hardest to prove, it also failed to conduct investigations in a competent manner, intentionally or otherwise," he said.
Pua pointed out that this was the second major criminal case where the attorney-general had failed to secure a conviction.The last, he said was the murder of Altantuya Shaariibuu, where prosecutors were blamed for failing to summon key witnesses.
The fact that "big fishes" linked to BN are getting away does not inspire confidence among Malaysians that they will receive the justice they deserve, said Pua.
"Uuntil such big fishes are caught and punished by the Najib administration, all the bells and whistles attached to the 'reform' programmes, such as the 'war against corruption', will just be mere rhetoric without action," he added.-malaysiakini
Judge: Ling can't be blamed over inaccurate PKFZ papers...
Former
transport minister Dr Ling Liong Sik cannot be held accountable for any
mistakes, misleading information or inaccuracies in the preparation of
the ministry's documents on the PKFZ land acquisition as he was not the
ministry’s 'numero uno'.
Justice Ahmadi Asnawi of the High Court in Kuala Lumpur said this was despite Ling (centre in photo) signing the documents.
"If any, the blame should be apportioned wholly and squarely upon the officers of the Transport Ministry who drafted and prepared the same.
"It turned out that the accused was not the numero uno (number one) of his ministry. He was the transporter," said the judge in his 43-page judgment in acquitting Ling of cheating the government on the multi-billion Port Klang Free Zone (PKFZ) project.
Justice Ahmadi also said Ling played no part in the preparation of the documents for the cabinet meeting and this was further verified by other witnesses, including former human resources minister Fong Chan Onn and former Tourism Minister Abdul Kadir Sheikh Fadzir, who had testified in Ling’s defence.
Did the cabinet know about inclusion of interest?
The judgment provides an insight of the workings and running of the cabinet during the prime minister Dr Mahathir Mohamad’s administration.
Central to the issue is whether the cabinet knew that the RM25 per square foot payment over a period of 10 to 15 years included the interest, as papers prepared by the Transport Ministry say it did not, while the Valuation and Property Services Department said interest was included.
Justice Ahmadi said he had no reason to dismiss the testimonies of Fong, Abdul Kadir (right) and Mahathir as they were Ling’s fellow cabinet ministers at that time.
“The cabinet's final decision was based on the Transport Ministry's notes to the cabinet,” Justice Ahmadi said.
“Kadir, Mahathir and Fong all along said they knew that interest is payable over and above the purchase price of RM25 per square foot, based on the papers presented to them. They knew too and were aware that the cabinet made the decision to purchase the land on Nov 6, 2002, and interest is payable over and above the purchase price of RM25.”
There were numerous cabinet meetings, the judge added, and the purchase of the land was not decided in a single cabinet meeting.
Mahathir, Kadir and Fong not cheated
The court also noted that the prosecution has not adduced evidence in court to show that the element of interest was discussed at all in those notes throughout the years when the purchase of land was the subject matter at the cabinet meetings.
“Apart from the views of two (former ministers in the Prime Minister’s Department) Nazri Abdul Aziz and Mohd Effendi Norwawi (who were called by the prosecution), which were in direct opposition of Kadir, Mahathir and Fong, no other cabinet member at the material time was called by the prosecution to indicate their understanding of the said land purchase,” the judge said.
“In light of the views expressed by Kadir, Mahathir and Fong (left),
the benefit of the doubt must be construed in favour of the accused
(Ling). Thus, in all probability when the cabinet decided to approve the
purchase of the land by Port Klang Authority (PKA) from Kuala Dimensi
Sdn Bhd (KDSB), the cabinet knew that interest is to be paid over and
above the RM25psf.”
The judge said Kadir, Mahathir and Fong had testified that there could not be any concealment, deception, misrepresentation or inducement on the part of the accused in respect of the interest element payable.
“None of them harboured any belief that they have been misled, deceived, induced or cheated by the accused in the said purchase. None of the three defence witnesses (Kadir, Mahathir and Fong) were indeed induced, misled, deceived or cheated by the Transport Ministry's notes,” Justice Ahmadi said.
‘Nothing improbable with Ling's explanation’
Justice Ahmadi also said there was no evidence presented before the court as to who initiated the PKFZ project, and that Ling had testified he was not involved in the negotiations between PKA and KDSB.
In addition, the court added Ling had never seen the Transport Ministry's letter dated Oct 2, 2000 to KDSB adverting to the Ministry's purchase of the land.
“He (Ling) relied on his officers at the ministry in respect of any technical report and did not personally prepare any note or memorandum to the Cabinet in respect to the procurement or purchase of the land.
“Ling
also said he did not have any dealing or contact with KDSB and this was
further verified by the company's chief executive officer Faizal
Abdullah (right) that the accused did not have any interest in KDSB,” he said.
The judge also noted that Ling, during his testimony, had instructed his officers to follow the valuation carried out by Valuation and Property Services Department as his Ministry does not have the expertise, and no instructions were given to his officers not to comply with valuation.
The former MCA president also said he did not prepare the ministry's documents as the information were provided by his officers.
“Ling said he would have corrected any letter given to Mahathir who was also finance minister (then), had he known it was not correct or misleading.
“Neither of his officers informed him the information was wrong, misleading and had omitted material facts. Neither did he lodge any report to suggest the ministry's letter sent to Mahathir dated April 2, 2002 was wrong and that he had been misled,” said Ahmadi.
Hence the court, the judge said, accepted Ling's explanation which was unchallenged by the prosecution.
“I am satisfied and accept Ling's explanation that he did not have any intention to cheat, deceive or misled Mahathir (left)
by sending a Transport Ministry's letter dated June 29, 2002. Mahathir
testified he was not cheated or deceived as finance minister as a result
of the letter or its annexures,” he said.
“Mahathir also did not receive any complaint from his officers in Finance Ministry or the Valuation Department or any member of the Cabinet that the letter was false, misleading and contained material omissions,” he said.
Justice Ahmadi said there was nothing improbable with Ling's explanation.
“Having considered Ling's conduct, in my view it weighs heavily to negate the presence of guilty knowledge, intention or dishonesty on the part of the land purchase,” he said.-malaysiakini
Justice Ahmadi Asnawi of the High Court in Kuala Lumpur said this was despite Ling (centre in photo) signing the documents."If any, the blame should be apportioned wholly and squarely upon the officers of the Transport Ministry who drafted and prepared the same.
"It turned out that the accused was not the numero uno (number one) of his ministry. He was the transporter," said the judge in his 43-page judgment in acquitting Ling of cheating the government on the multi-billion Port Klang Free Zone (PKFZ) project.
Justice Ahmadi also said Ling played no part in the preparation of the documents for the cabinet meeting and this was further verified by other witnesses, including former human resources minister Fong Chan Onn and former Tourism Minister Abdul Kadir Sheikh Fadzir, who had testified in Ling’s defence.
Did the cabinet know about inclusion of interest?
The judgment provides an insight of the workings and running of the cabinet during the prime minister Dr Mahathir Mohamad’s administration.
Central to the issue is whether the cabinet knew that the RM25 per square foot payment over a period of 10 to 15 years included the interest, as papers prepared by the Transport Ministry say it did not, while the Valuation and Property Services Department said interest was included.
Justice Ahmadi said he had no reason to dismiss the testimonies of Fong, Abdul Kadir (right) and Mahathir as they were Ling’s fellow cabinet ministers at that time.“The cabinet's final decision was based on the Transport Ministry's notes to the cabinet,” Justice Ahmadi said.
“Kadir, Mahathir and Fong all along said they knew that interest is payable over and above the purchase price of RM25 per square foot, based on the papers presented to them. They knew too and were aware that the cabinet made the decision to purchase the land on Nov 6, 2002, and interest is payable over and above the purchase price of RM25.”
There were numerous cabinet meetings, the judge added, and the purchase of the land was not decided in a single cabinet meeting.
Mahathir, Kadir and Fong not cheated
The court also noted that the prosecution has not adduced evidence in court to show that the element of interest was discussed at all in those notes throughout the years when the purchase of land was the subject matter at the cabinet meetings.
“Apart from the views of two (former ministers in the Prime Minister’s Department) Nazri Abdul Aziz and Mohd Effendi Norwawi (who were called by the prosecution), which were in direct opposition of Kadir, Mahathir and Fong, no other cabinet member at the material time was called by the prosecution to indicate their understanding of the said land purchase,” the judge said.
“In light of the views expressed by Kadir, Mahathir and Fong (left),
the benefit of the doubt must be construed in favour of the accused
(Ling). Thus, in all probability when the cabinet decided to approve the
purchase of the land by Port Klang Authority (PKA) from Kuala Dimensi
Sdn Bhd (KDSB), the cabinet knew that interest is to be paid over and
above the RM25psf.”The judge said Kadir, Mahathir and Fong had testified that there could not be any concealment, deception, misrepresentation or inducement on the part of the accused in respect of the interest element payable.
“None of them harboured any belief that they have been misled, deceived, induced or cheated by the accused in the said purchase. None of the three defence witnesses (Kadir, Mahathir and Fong) were indeed induced, misled, deceived or cheated by the Transport Ministry's notes,” Justice Ahmadi said.
‘Nothing improbable with Ling's explanation’
Justice Ahmadi also said there was no evidence presented before the court as to who initiated the PKFZ project, and that Ling had testified he was not involved in the negotiations between PKA and KDSB.
In addition, the court added Ling had never seen the Transport Ministry's letter dated Oct 2, 2000 to KDSB adverting to the Ministry's purchase of the land.
“He (Ling) relied on his officers at the ministry in respect of any technical report and did not personally prepare any note or memorandum to the Cabinet in respect to the procurement or purchase of the land.
“Ling
also said he did not have any dealing or contact with KDSB and this was
further verified by the company's chief executive officer Faizal
Abdullah (right) that the accused did not have any interest in KDSB,” he said.The judge also noted that Ling, during his testimony, had instructed his officers to follow the valuation carried out by Valuation and Property Services Department as his Ministry does not have the expertise, and no instructions were given to his officers not to comply with valuation.
The former MCA president also said he did not prepare the ministry's documents as the information were provided by his officers.
“Ling said he would have corrected any letter given to Mahathir who was also finance minister (then), had he known it was not correct or misleading.
“Neither of his officers informed him the information was wrong, misleading and had omitted material facts. Neither did he lodge any report to suggest the ministry's letter sent to Mahathir dated April 2, 2002 was wrong and that he had been misled,” said Ahmadi.
Hence the court, the judge said, accepted Ling's explanation which was unchallenged by the prosecution.
“I am satisfied and accept Ling's explanation that he did not have any intention to cheat, deceive or misled Mahathir (left)
by sending a Transport Ministry's letter dated June 29, 2002. Mahathir
testified he was not cheated or deceived as finance minister as a result
of the letter or its annexures,” he said.“Mahathir also did not receive any complaint from his officers in Finance Ministry or the Valuation Department or any member of the Cabinet that the letter was false, misleading and contained material omissions,” he said.
Justice Ahmadi said there was nothing improbable with Ling's explanation.
“Having considered Ling's conduct, in my view it weighs heavily to negate the presence of guilty knowledge, intention or dishonesty on the part of the land purchase,” he said.-malaysiakini
Charges against Dr Ling were framed to fail
cheers.
No comments:
Post a Comment