updated 5 pm
"Ian Chin is a disgrace to his profession" - Dr M
At Dr Mahathir's lunchtime press conference:"Without evidence or justification, the learned Judge wrongly held that DSK made these decisions. We find that the learned Judge's findings were based on unjustified inferences, speculation, his own preconceived impressions and prejudice.No, these were not Dr M's words. In fact, they are excerpts from a March 25, 2008 judgment made by the Federal Court against Ian Chin's High Court judgement in the Zara Sdn Bhd and Benita Sdn Bhd suits.
"We find the learned Judge's attack on the credibility of SSA (Syed Salem Bukhary, the younger brother of DSK - who represented his incapacitated brother) as unwarranted and does not stand up to examination having regard to the extremely prejudiced view he held about SSA's conduct as apparent in his judgment."
At the press conference, Dr M revealed that there was a police report against Ian Chin for breaches of Judges' Code of Ethics in hearing the Zara/Benita case "in which he has a personal interest".
Dr M added that Ian Chin presided on a case involving Dato Syed Kechik without revealing that "he believed Syed Kechik was responsible for detaining his father and brother 20 years before".Dr M said he believes Ian Chin was trying to curry favour with the Government by demonising him, whom everyone knows is the bete noir of the present Government."Chin joined Party Berjaya and lost (in elections) twice. One of the objectives listed in Party Berjaya's manifesto was to expel Syed Kechik from Sabah. As a party member he must know Berjaya's hatred for Syed Kechik. This alone should have resulted in (Ian Chin) excusing himself from hearing the case," Dr M said.
Back ground of the case:
When Parti Berjaya won the Sabah state elections in April 1976, the Berjaya government cancelled the timber licence of Banita, belonging to Syed Kechik) on October 1, 1976 and published Gazette Notificication No 671 on compulsory acquisition of the entire Zara Land Project of 2.5 ha also belong to Syed Kechik.
On 7 Sept 1977 Banita filed a civil suit against the State government and on 28 Sept 1977 Zara filed for the adjudication of compensation claim in respect of compulsory acquisition of its land for "public purpose".
The Sabah government through the Sabah Foundation, Suiswan Sdn Bhd and Seranum Sdn Bhd filed counter claims against DSK, Zara and Banita. For about 20 years the Plaintiffs went to "sleep; no court action was taken.
Then on 26 October 1996 Justice Tee Ah Siang heard the case involving Originating Summons No 69 of 1977. The Judge ordered teh payment of RM40.9 million in capital compensation by the State Government to Zara with 6 per cent per annum interest from 20 Dec 1976 to the date of settlement)
On 6 January 1997, Ian Chin presided over the case. In his judgment (that was challenged by the Federal Court in March this year) Ian Chin wrote:
"Yes, DSK was from West Malaysia sent to Sabah supposedly to help Sabah politically. Unfortunately, he introduced to Sabah, especially to the then politicians of Sabah, a way to get rich, very rich at that, quickly by way which I have already concluded are wrong in law.
Tribunal?"And (Ian Chin) was quite right because Government Ministers and the PM rushed to accept his story as absolutely true. But other judges had refused to endorse his statement (about threats by the PM then)."
During Q and A, Dr M said there is a "clear cut case" of misconduct where Ian Chin is concerned. I asked him if he was indeed calling for a Tribunal to be set up. Dr M said he was not calling for one but he was merely questioning why a Tribunal has not been set up to determine if there was misconduct."The public is entitled to question if the Government is upholding the law."
The former PM is calling for a media conference at Level 86, Petronas at 12pm today to respond to issues. As usual, bloggers are welcomed.
Updates later, insyallah.