SMALL TALK

Pahang had filed by a Writ and Statement of Claim dated the 22^nd of December, 2008 against SGM. That Writ & Statement of Claim is yet to be extracted from the Kuantan High Court. I have a full copy of the Writ & Statement of Claim and since it is not extracted from Court it cannot be produced in full here. It is also not served on the Defendant SGM yet. Nevertheless the gist of the Statement of Claim are listed below :-

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MALAYA AT KUANTAN

CIVIL ACTION NO. 2008

BETWEEN

1. KERAJAAN NEGERI PAHANG DARUL MAKMUR

2. PENGARAH PERHUTANAN NEGERI PAHANG ..........................................................PLAINTIFFS

AND

SERUAN GEMILANG MAKMUR SDN BHD ....................................................................DEFENDANT

STATEMENT OF CLAIM

1. The 1^st Plaintiff is the State Government of Pahang with an address for service at Setiausaha Kerajaan Negeri Pahang Darul Makmur, Wisma Sri Pahang, Jalan Gambut, 25000 Kuantan Pahang Darul Makmur.
   
2. The 2^nd Plaintiff is the Director of Forestry for the State of Pahang with an address for service at Tingkat 5, Kompleks Tun Razak, Bandar Indera Mahkota, Kuantan Pahang Darul Makmur.
   
3. The Defendant is a private limited company incorporated under the laws of Malaysia and having its address for service at No. 10 Tingkat 1 Lorong Tun Ismail 1, 25200 Kuantan, Pahang Darul Makmur.
   

In the earlier case whereby SGM sued the State of Pahang, the Judge had ruled in favour of SGM. His findings can be summarised as follows:-

Findings of the learned Judge

The learned Judge accepted the testimony of inter-alia the Defendant's 1^st witness in particular the purported approval of the Pahang state exco of the said blue plan tendered by the Defendant. The learned Judge made such a finding, even though the Defendant had not produced any form of documentation at the trial of the abovementioned matter evidencing the Pahang state exco's approval of the said blue plan. The critical findings made by the learned Judge are inter-alia in essence as follows:-

1. That the plan approved by the Pahang state exco on 5/4/2000 was the said blue plan as tendered by the Defendant.
   
2. The 2^nd Plaintiff had acted negligently in refusing to adhere to the new plan approved by the Pahang state exco in April 2000 and by insisting on the utilization of the original plan approved by the Pahang state exco in 1998.
   
3. That there was no evidence before the Court indicating that the plan approved by the state exco on 5/4/2000 was not in existence and therefore it can be assumed that the said new plan approved by the state exco on 5/4/2000 was in fact the latest plan approved by the state and correspondingly the 2^nd Plaintiffs failure to adhere to the said blue plan amounted to negligence.
   
4. The evidence before the Court detailed that there was an area of 3000 acres that the Defendant was prevented from extracting timber from and the said 3000 acres had a high density of trees.
   
5. No concrete reasoning and/or explanation was advanced by the 2^nd Plaintiff as to its failure to utilize the purported current plan approved by the Pahang state exco on 5/4/2000.
   
6. Although the Defendant had failed to call the licensed surveyor who signed off on the said blue plan the Court was of the view that this was not fatal as what was important was the outcome and/or product of the survey which on the facts the Court was the view was the said blue plan tendered by the Defendant herein.
   
7. The Plaintiffs' contend and will contend that the learned Judge's finding of liability against the Plaintiffs in the abovementioned Civil Suit No.: MT(2)-21-9-2002 was primarily premised upon the evidence led by the Defendant that the said blue plan bearing number JB-P/P/8044 (P2) had received the approval of the Pahang state exco in the year 2000.

Fraud / Perjury

1. Pursuant to a report of corruption, the files of inter-alia the Pekan District land office pertaining to the parcel known as PT 6959 Mukim Bebar were seized by the Pahang State Anti Corruption Agency ("ACA"). This seizure, the Plaintiffs contend occurred prior to the commencement of the abovementioned trial in Civil Suit No.: MT(2)-21-9-2002.
   
2. As a result of it's investigations, the 1^st Plaintiff has discovered that the Pahang state exco at the exco meeting held on 5/4/2000 pursuant to its decision MMK 5/2000 had approved a plan as contained in enclosure 22 in the Pekan District land office file bearing number PTP7-1015.
   
3. Sometime on / or about the 7/11/2008, just after the state ACA had returned the Pekan District land office file no. PTP7-1015 to the district land office, the legal Advisor for the 1^st Plaintiff had the occasion to check the relevant file and discovered that the said enclosure 22 in file number PTP7-1015 in fact referred to a letter dated 17/7/1998 from Messrs "Jurukur Bersatu", licensed surveyors, to the Pekan Land Administrator. The said letter referred to plan no. JB-P/P/8044. However the said plan No JB-P/P/8044 was mysteriously missing from the said file.
   
4. Upon checks done with the Pahang state ACA whom had made a copy of the Pekan district land office file number PTP7-1015, the 1^st Plaintiff has now obtained the enclosed plan No JB-P/P/8044 which was the plan approved by the Pahang state exco in it's meeting dated 5/4/2000.
   
5. The enclosed plan No JB-P/P/8044 the Plaintiffs have now discovered is similar to the said yellow plan approved by the Pahang state exco in 1998.

Premised on the abovementioned, the Plaintiffs have since discovered that the Defendant has deceived the Kuantan High Court in Civil Suit No.: MT(2)-21-9-2002 and correspondingly inter-alia the Defendant's 1^st witness, the said Lee Sin has committed perjury before the Kuantan High Court.

1. The Plaintiffs contend and will contend that the testimony of the Defendant's 1^st witness, the said Lee Sin, were false and untrue. The specific particulars of the perjury committed by the said Lee Sin.
   
2. The Defendant's 1^st witness the said Lee Sin at the time when the Statements were made in Court knew them to be false and untrue and/or made the statements in the absence of any genuine belief that it is true.
   
3. The Plaintiffs contend and will contend that the documents used at the trial by the Defendant were not what they purported to be and correspondingly the trial was tainted with fraud. As a result of the purported evidence led before the Court, the Plaintiffs contend that the Court was deceived into arriving at it's findings pertaining to the concession approved by the Pahang state exco in the year 2000.

Particulars of deceit

1. Tendering into evidence plan bearing number JB-P/P/8044 (P2) as the plan approved by the Pahang state exco in the year 2000.
   
2. Withholding from the Kuantan High Court the evidence of the surveyor who prepared plan bearing number JB-P/P/8044 (P2).
   
3. The presentation of false testimony in Court.
   
4. Tendering into evidence a comparison of 2 (two) plans as per page 5 of the Plaintiff's (now Defendant) Bundle of Documents.
   
5. The presentation of evidence before the Kuantan High Court detailing a shortage of 3000 acres of purportedly virgin forest wherein the Defendant was not allowed to extract timber.
   
6. The presentation of evidence of purported trespass inside the parcel delineated by the said blue plan bearing number JB-P/P/8044 (P2).
   
7. The presentation of evidence of purported damage suffered inside the parcel delineated by the said blue plan bearing number JB-P/P/8044 (P2)
   
8. As a result of the purported evidence led before the Court, the Plaintiffs contend that the Court was deceived into arriving at it's findings pertaining to the concession approved by the Pahang state exco in the year 2000. The Plaintiffs contend that this deception had spread to and infected the whole body of the Judgment dated 25/5/2007.
   
9. the Plaintiffs further contend that the facts and evidence pertaining to the actual approval for the concession granted by the Pahang state exco on 5/4/2000 were not before the Kuantan High Court during the trial at Civil Suit No.: MT(2)-21-9-2002.

Fresh evidence are now discovered and have also been particularised in the new Writ & Statement of Claim under the heading :-

Discovery of fresh evidence

Wherefore the Plaintiffs claim as follows:-

1. An order that the Judgment of the High Court of Malaya at Kuantan in the state of Pahang in Civil Action No. MT(2)-21-9-2002 entered on 25/7/2007 be set aside and/or rescinded.
   
2. A declaration that plan no. JB-P/P/8044 was the plan approved by the state exco of Pahang on 5/4/2000 in respect of the concession of 10,000 acres in Kampung Nenasi, Mukim Bebar in the District of Pekan, Pahang and consequently the Defendant's claim in High Court of Malaya at Kuantan Civil Suit No. MT(2)-21-9-2002 be dismissed.
   
3. In the alternative, an order that a fresh trial be commenced at a time and date to be fixed in respect of the High Court of Malaya at Kuantan Civil Suit No.: MT(2)-21-9-2002.
   
4. A declaration that all proceedings undertaken by the Defendant to enforce the order of the Kuantan High Court dated 25/7/2007 is a nullity.
   
5. Damages.
   
6. Aggravated and / or Exemplary Damages.
   
7. All other consequential and necessary orders to give effect to the order made herein.
   
8. Any further relief in which this Honourable Court deems proper and / or necessary.
   
9. Costs for the proceedings herein and in High Court of Malaya at Kuantan Civil Suit No.: MT(2)-21-9-2002.

Dated the 22^nd of December 2008

Solicitors for the Plaintiffs

We will have to wait for the outcome of the new Writ & Statement of Claim already filed by State of Pahang as stated above. The earlier claim by SGM will be challenged in Court and new evidence will be produced. If the Court were to later on declare that the claim by SGM is a nullity, SGM will have to suffer serious consequences...

I received this email from a person by the name of Mohd Peter which I think is worth sharing. It was addressed to Friends of Matthias Chang of which I must admit I am one of them...I reproduce the email in full below:-

Dear friends of Matthias,
I am disturbed by Matthias' Malaysian proposal for a flotilla of 100 ships from Muslim nations escorted by a war ship. What is needed instead is LaRouche's solution for the almost completed Israel-Syria peace deal to be finalised on the afternoon that President Obama is sworn into office. Matthias's proposal, an angry response to the barbaric Israeli invasion, will only add to the chaos and expand the war, Muslim against Muslim, as yet another divide and conquer 'British Empire' operation. Muslims must use their heads not their emotions and not fall into the British war trap which appears to have been carefully and skilfully prepared over the last 12 months with full Bush/Cheney complicity.
The British Foreign Office are past masters at these war games. Don't you think they have anticipated such angry response? What this satanic empire cannot handle is serious and genuine negotiations for peace at the highest levels. The vast majority of the world's population want a peaceful and just settlement to the never ending London manufactured Israel-Palestine conflict. An ocean of Nuclear desalinated water and a comprehensive development program which has been prepared over decades by the LaRouche movement for the whole SE Asian region must be part of the peace and will end 100 years of conflict. We cannot miss the golden opportunity presented by what seems to be a well advised Barack Obama becoming President in 11 days time.
Mohd Peter

Source: from Matthias Chang's website 1 Jan 09 http://www.futurefastforward.com/component/content/article/845

I am calling on you Mr. Prime Minister as head of an Islamic government, as well as the opposition parties, to prove to the world that we as a nation stand for justice and morality and not hypocrisy by doing what needs to be done. The Muslims should put to shame the Christians who boast of their civilised behaviour and their so-called justice into action. If Muslims fail to take action, they are no different from the Christians which they have condemned.

I therefore call upon you, Mr. Prime Minister to issue a clarion call that all member countries of OIC, Arab-League, and NAM, each to dispatch a warship to escort a flotilla of merchant ships to ESTABLISH THE NAVAL BRIDGE FOR PALESTINE - "THE PALESTINIAN NAVAL BRIDGE FOR LIBERATION & FREEDOM".

Labels: Miscellaneous

# posted by Small Talk @ January 09, 2009 2 Comments

Rungutan masyarakat dan pengundi Cina yang telah saya temui di Kuala Terengganu antara lainnya adalah seperti berikut:-

1. Masalah Geran Hakmilik Kekal bagi Kampung Baru Cina
   

   Kerajaan Pakatan Rakyat di Perak telah umumkan pemberian geran hakmilik kekal secara berperingkat kepada penduduk Cina Kampung Baru SEDANGKAN Kerajaan BN pula tidak berniat untuk memberi geran hakmilik kekal kepada rakyat.
   

   Jawapan:-
   

   Pemberian ataupun niat untuk berbuat demikian oleh kerajaan Pakatan Rakyat di Perak adalah bertentangan dengan dasar yang telah dikeluarkan olah Majlis Tanah Negara yang mana semua kerajaan negeri adalah menjadi ahli. Perkara ini jelas tidak dapat dilaksanakan dan Perak hanya bermain politik.

2. Masalah Pendidikan Cina
   

   Sekolah Persendirian Cina masih memerlukan bantuan dari masyarakat Cina sendiri TETAPI kerajaan Pakatan Rakyat pula memberi peruntukan dan tanah kerajaan kepada Sekolah Persendirian Cina.
   

   Peruntukan Sekolah Rendah Jenis Kebangsaan Cina perlu diberi secara sistematik dan terancang.
   

   Memohon agar kerajaan dapat membina Sekolah Rendah Jenis Kebangsaan untuk memenuhi keperluan masyarakat Cina.
   

   Jawapan:-
   

   Kerajaan Barisan Nasional telah pun mengumumkan peruntukan yang begitu besar untuk tujuan seperti rungutan masyarakat Cina ini. Mungkin mereka belum dapat melihatnya secara fizikal kerana perlaksanaannya adalah berperingkat-peringkat. Masalah ini boleh diselesaikan dengan penjelasan yang perlu dibuat oleh Kementerian Pelajaran Malaysia. Maklumat tidak sampai kepada mereka dan perlu disampaikan secukupnya.

3. Kalau pilih Wakil rakyat dari Pakatan Rakyat, dia akan berkhidmat di kawasannya TETAPI Wakil Rakyat dari Barisan Nasional hanya akan berkhidmat di Kuala Lumpur.
   

   Jawapan:-
   

   Ini adalah satu tanggapan yang salah sama sekali. Calon dari Pakatan Rakyat juga akan berkhidmat di Kuala Lumpur untuk ke Sidang Parlimen. Malah masanya akan dihabiskan di Parlimen dan juga sebagai ADUN dia juga terpaksa ke Sidang Dewan Undangan Negeri. Macam manakah dia dapat membahagikan masanya. Calon ini ibarat mahu berkahwin kali kedua dan sudah tentu akan timbul masalah pembahagian masa. Akhirnya nanti "yang dikejar tak dapat yang dikendong berciciran". TETAPI bagi Calon Barisan Nasional, beliau telah dijanjikan jawatan Timbalan Menteri dan sudah pasti akan membawa keuntungan kepada masyarakat Terenganu dan Kuala Terengganu secara khususnya. Kalau beliau tidak disokong dan tidak diberi undi maka hilanglah kedua-dua jawatan Timbalan Menteri yang selama ini milik Terengganu. Allahyarham Dato' Razali yang juga Timbalan Menteri sudah pun tiada. Calon PR ini bukan boleh menjadi Timbalan Menteri kerana kerajaan Pusat di bawah BN. Sebagai ADUN pun beliau tidak boleh jadi EXCO kerana Terengganu adalah di bawah BN juga.

4. Ramai Pengundi Cina telah berpindah ke tempat lain.
   

   Jawapan:-
   

   Ini adalah perkara biasa yang berlaku ditempat lain juga. Keluar ke tempat lain untuk mencari rezeki adalah perkara biasa. Mereka yang keluar ke tempat lain tetap menganggap Kuala Terengganu sebagai kampong halaman mereka. Adalah diyakini mereka akan kembali untuk mengundi. Tiada terdapat apa-apa kajian atau statistic yang mengatakan bahawa mereka itu keluar dari Kuala Terengganu kerana kelaparan atau ketiadaan peluang perniagaan di Terengganu. Merantau adalah perkara biasa. Malah mereka yang berjaya adalah dari gulungan mereka yang pergi merantau dan membawa balik kekayaan.

Jelas sekali tiada isu besar di Kuala Terengganu ini. Bandar ini sudah pun banyak perubahan secara fizikal. Kemajuan adalah amat jelas dan boleh dilihat dengan mata kasar. Tiada pilihan lain bagi penduduk dan pengundi Cina melainkan mengundi dan menyokong Barisan Nasional. Mereka sepatutnya mempertahankan satu-satunya Wakil Rakyat Cina di DUN Bandar. Mereka sepatutnya tidak membuat apa-apa desakan kepada kerajaan BN. Secara fizikalnya tiada terdapat keluarga Cina yang daif di Terengganu ini.

Kepada masyarakat Cina di Kuala Terengganu, saya yakin mereka akan bertindak secara rasional dan munasabah.

THIS SOUNDS VERY FAMILIAR...
Lawyer gets 5-cent IRS bill, 4-cent refund

Detroit defense attorney remains confused over two notices

Labels: Personal

# posted by Small Talk @ January 02, 2009 1 Comments