Tanpa menunggu tempoh 7 hari sebagaimana diberikan oleh peguam Perdana Menteri Datuk Seri Najib Razak, bekas presiden MCA, Tun Dr Ling Liong Sik sebaliknya hanya memerlukan kurang 3 hari saja untuk menjawab gertakan mahu mengheretnya ke mahkamah.
Dr Ling memutuskan tidak akan meminta maaf kepada Najib berhubung kenyataannya yang bersetuju dengan Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad agar perdana menteri meletakkan jawatannya dengan alasan "mengambil wang orang lain untuk dimasukkan ke akaun peribadinya”.
Berikutan kenyataan Dr Ling itu, Najib menghantar surat tuntutan peguam yang mahukannya meminta maaf, menarik balik dan membayar sejumlah ganti rugi dalam tempoh 7 hari atau jika tidak, proses tindakan undang-undang akan dimulakan kerana menganggap dakwaan bekas menteri pengangkutan itu sesuatu berunsur fitnah.
"Saya kata kepada perdana menteri, jika anda memilih untuk menyaman saya, saya akan pertahankan diri saya. Dengan penuh rendah diri, saya terima cabaran anda.
"Saya ingin menyaksikan perdana menteri berdiri di kandang saksi kerana tidak syak lagi beliau akan melakukannya bagi membuktikan reputasinya tercalar.
"Saya mahu mengulangi sekali lagi, saya mempertahankan apa yang saya katakan. Saya tidak akan memohon maaf," tegas Dr Ling dalam kenyataannya.
Dengan jawapan Dr Ling itu, beliau seperti menuruti jejak langkah The Wall Street Journal (WSJ) yang tetap mempertahankan laporannya mengenai wang RM2.6 bilion meskipun diminta peguam Najib menjelaskan sama ada laporannya itu bermaksud perdana menteri menyalahgunakan wang 1MDB.
Bagaimanapun, atas ketegasan WSJ mempertahankan laporannya dan sedia ke mahkamah beserta sekali lagi pada minggu lalu memberi jawapan kepada surat kedua sama ada akan menggunakan Akta Speech atau sebaliknya, sehingga sekarang belum juga Najib mengambil tindakan undang-undang sebagaimana dijanjikannya.
Secara jantannya, jawapan Dr Ling yang bertegas tidak mahu memohon maaf dan sedia berdepan di mahkamah adalah cabaran terbuka kepada Najib agar segera mengambil tindakan undang-undang terhadapnya.
Najib pula, sebagai pahlawan Bugis yang kononnya gagah berani serta sanggup mengharungi cabaran sehingga bumi berkeping dua, tentulah tidak ada pilihan lain selain bertindak jantan juga dengan terus saja menyaman Dr Ling tanpa berlengah-lengah lagi.
Selepas ini, kita hanya perlu menunggu apakah Najib sebenarnya berani menyaman Dr Ling dan berdiri di kandang saksi bagi mempertahankan reputasinya yang didakwa sudah tercalar itu?
Atau mungkinkah Najib akan melengah-lengahkan lagi masa seperti dalam kes WSJ dengan menghantar satu lagi surat tuntutan kepada Dr Ling bagi memohon penjelasan lanjut pula tentang maksud sebenar kenyataan yang dikeluarkannya itu?
Harapnya, biarlah hanya WSJ saja yang digertak tapi belum juga disaman dan gertakan saman kepada Dr Ling ini biarlah menjadi kenyataan akhirnya.
Yang nyata, dengan tindakan Dr Ling enggan memohon maaf dan sedia berdepan di mahkamah, gertakan saman Najib tidak lagi ditakuti oleh sesiapa juga pun.
Ia juga secara halusnya bermakna Najib semakin tidak dihormati lagi atas kedudukannya dan kian ramai yang tidak segan-segan membuat pelbagai dakwaan serta mahukannya meletakkan jawatan dengan segera.
Dengan itu, seharusnya lebih ramai yang berani ke depan meminta Najib berundur sambil membuat dakwaan tertentu sepertimana dilakukan oleh Dr Ling ini agar mereka juga kena saman akhirnya.
Lihat apa dakwaan Datuk Mahfuz Omar terhadap Najib semalam. Dengan berani beliau mendakwa negara sedang ditadbir pemimpin korup dan menjalankan cara pentadbiran seperti kumpulan mafia.
Pujian sebenarnya harus diberikan dan harapnya Najib akan turut memulakan tindakan mahkamah terhadap Mahfuz juga.
Maka, selepas itu biarlah Najib hanya sibuk turun naik mahkamah saja dan mencatat satu lagi rekod sebagai perdana menteri paling banyak berdiri di kandang saksi. – Shahbudin Husin,tmi
No surprise Rulers could no longer hold their peace...
“The statement stressed the need for transparent investigations into the 1MDB scandal and bringing wrongdoers to justice and also the importance of adhering to the Rukun Negara, upholding the Constitution and respecting the Rule of Law,” he noted.
He said it should surprise no one that the rulers could no longer hold their peace.
“They have watched the 1MDB issue becoming more and more controversial before their very eyes. Yet, nothing seems to be happening that would lead to closure on the matter. All the files on the scandal seem to be gathering dust.”
The royal statement could be the light at the end of the tunnel, he declared.
“However,” he observed, “Prime Minister Najib Razak is silent. Home Minister and Deputy Prime Minister Ahmad Zahid Hamidi is silent. Umno Secretary-General Tengku Adnan Mansor – not sure whether he’s royalty – is silent.”
In short, he said, it seemed as if no one in Umno had heard the royal statement. “This was the first time that the Rulers had spoken up against the administration. Don’t Umno leaders see the seriousness of the statement?”
He noted that the opposition leaders had, in contrast, been quick to respond.
Shahbudin referred to statements by DAP veteran Lim Kit Siang, PKR Deputy President Azmin Ali, PAS Deputy President Tuan Ibrahim Man and Pokok Sena MP Mahfuz Omar.
“All of them urged that the disbanded Special Task Force on 1MDB be brought back to get to the bottom of the scandal and bring wrongdoers to justice,” he said.
“Lim wants Parliament to schedule two days during its forthcoming session to debate the rulers’ statement.”
He noted that Mahfuz had called on the rulers to sack Najib and Attorney-General Mohd Apandi Ali on the grounds that the 1MDB scandal had dragged on for too long under them.
Anyone listening to Mahfuz, said Shahbudin, could be forgiven for thinking that he was deliberately inviting trouble from Najib. “After all, this is the season for suing.”
Mahfuz, said the analyst, was just waiting for an opportunity to see the dirty linen on 1MDB being washed in public. “This can happen if Najib sues him.” - fmt
Anwar's previous convictions ruled out in deciding damages...
The High Court ruled today that PKR de facto leader Anwar Ibrahim’s previous convictions cannot be considered when deciding the quantum of damages in the suit he won against Utusan Malaysia.
Justice Hue Siew Kheng, who made the decision, said she did not think it was correct, by virtue, to rely on particular acts of the plaintiff (Anwar).
“I am bound by this decision that the evidence of previous convictions is not permissible,” Justice Hue told the court in Kuala Lumpur today.
Utusan’s
lawyer, Firoz Hussein Ahmad Jamaluddin, had on Tuesday submitted that
previous convictions could be raised when deciding on the assessment of
damages to show the bad character of the claimant.Firoz argued that the court should take into consideration that evidence of a previous conviction is part of the argument to affect the general reputation of a person and therefore could be used in the assessment of damages.
Today, in seeking more time for his team to prepare the submissions, Firoz was told by Justice Hue that the case was long overdue.
“Cross examination is over,” she said curtly.
The judge then fixed Oct 19 to decide on the quantum of damages.
Not true representation of BBC interview
Anwar’s lawyer Latheefa Koya later told reporters that her team would therefore preparing its submissions.
“The court will assess the evidence and decide on the damages on Oct 19. We will be preparing our submissions,” Latheefa said.
Anwar won his suit against Utusan
and its chief editor Abdul Aziz Ishak, following the daily's
publication citing the former opposition leader's interview with the BBC
two years ago, that he allegedly supported lesbians, gay, transexual
and bisexuals.However it was decided this was not a true representation of the BBC interview.
That judgment was delivered two years ago by Justice VT Singham (photo), who ordered the damages to be assessed later. This was done by Justice Hue.
Anwar’s lawyer N Surendran said there was one decision by the High Court and two by the Court of Appeal to support the argument that previous convictions could not be raised in assessing damages, adding that this was not
provided for in Malaysia under Section 55 of the Evidence Act. - mk
Kroni dapat habuan lagi...
No comments:
Post a Comment