MY judge really boleh...

[apollo]

Malaysia murder trial was put off because prosecutor, judge seen playing badminton
2007-06-07 14:01:55 -


KUALA LUMPUR, Malaysia (AP) - A high-profile Malaysian trial over the murder of a Mongolian woman was postponed because the judge was seen playing badminton with one of the prosecutors, an official confirmed Thursday.

The trial of prominent Malaysian political analyst Abdul Razak Baginda and two policemen was supposed to start Monday, but was postponed two weeks at the last minute, triggering a public outcry and calls for an explanation.
Abdul Razak has strong ties to the ruling party and to Deputy Prime Minister Najib Razak. All three face the death penalty if convicted.
In a report late Wednesday, Bernama news agency quoted Attorney General Abdul Gani Patail as saying that he learned last Thursday _ four days before the trial _ that deputy public prosecutor Salehuddin Saidin had been seen playing badminton with trial judge Mohamad Zaki Mohamad Yasin.

Abdul Gani reportedly said he ordered Salehuddin replaced because he could not «afford to allow negative perceptions to prevail.
«Justice must not only be done but seen to be done,» Bernama quoted him as saying, in his first explanation of a decision that Malaysia's political opposition has slammed as a miscarriage of justice.

A spokesman for the attorney general confirmed the report. He spoke on condition of anonymity, saying he was not authorized to make public statements.

The prosecution caught the court by surprise when instead of Salehuddin, a new government lawyer, Abdul Majid Hamzah, showed up for the trial's opening and sought the postponement, saying he needed time to study the case.

Abdul Razak is accused of abetting the October 2006 slaying of his Mongolian lover, Altantuya Shaariibuu. The two policemen are accused of carrying out the killing and blowing up the woman's body with military grade explosives.
Abdul Razak has acknowledged having an eight-month extramarital affair with Shaariibuu, a 28-year-old freelance translator and interpreter. Prosecutors are expected to contend that he ordered her killed because she was harassing him after he ended the affair.

Abdul Razak is a member of the London-based International Institute for Strategic Studies, and his trial has been keenly anticipated because it is expected to reveal details of one of Malaysia's most talked-about scandals in recent times.

http://www.pr-inside.com/malaysia-mu...ff-r146542.htm

[coffeechip]

boleh what?

[TheSaint888]

boleh play badminton

[DVirus]

ha.. badminton ..

[apollo]

boleh what?

its a very prominent and political case. i think the family of victim r suing for $160million ringgit fr malaysian gahmen due to police officers involved with the criminal master who is a member of badawi admin i think.

and to think judge have game with prosecutor during self declared suspension of trial.

a bit of 'kelong'

[athena]

Haha, they have never heard of 'ex-partie' communications!

[coffeechip]

a bit of 'kelong'

A bit is understatement

[coffeechip]

http://www.channelnewsasia.com/stori...386708/1/.html

KUALA LUMPUR - A Malaysian court has freed a former adviser to Deputy Prime Minister Najib Razak who had been charged with abetting two policemen in the murder of a Mongolian model.

Abdul Razak Baginda had faced a possible death sentence after prosecutors alleged he abetted the 2006 murder of 28-year-old Altantuya Shaariibuu. He had maintained his innocence.

Altantuya's remains were found in a jungle clearing outside of Kuala Lumpur, and her body had been blown up with explosives, police said.

A judge on Friday ruled that Abdul Razak did not have to enter a defence but said that the two men from an elite police unit who have been charged with the murder will have to.

"There is no prima facie case against (Abdul) Razak," said Judge Zaki Yasin.

Najib has denied as "total lies" reports in online media that either he or his wife Rosmah Mansor were involved in the killing of Altantuya.

The court case has been going on for almost six months and earlier, a Malaysian detective has who made and then retracted allegations linking Najib to the brutal murder, went missing.

Abdul Razak refused to speak to reporters after his acquittal. "I just want to go home; get out of my way," he said on the way to his car after he was greeted with hugs and tears from waiting relatives.

- CNA/ir

[Palmed Again]

I think SG judge oso boleh!

Hear one side of case and make ruling.

Save time. SIBEH efficient.

[coffeechip]

In SG, nobody disappeared before a trial.

Also if I recall correctly, the other side either said nothing or said nothing supporting his/her claims (except rhetorics). So not the judge fault, right ?

[Palmed Again]

http://yoursdp.org/index.php/news/si...ing-defendants



District Judge Chia Wee Kiat today ruled that the defence could not ask questions to show that the police had unlawfully discriminated against the Tak Boleh Tahan! (Can't take it anymore!) protesters.


He also sided with the prosecution's contention that the Ministry for Home Affairs' declaration that it would not allow protests of any nature is not unconstitutional, this despite Article 14 of the Singapore constitution guaranteeing citizens the right to freedoms of speech and peaceful assembly.

The defendants had pointed out that the Consumers Association of Singapore (CASE) had also conducted a similar protest outside Parliament House in 2007 and 2008. Why was CASE allowed to stage their protest but not the TBT activists?

To add insult to injury, the Judge made these decisions listening only to the arguments of the prosecution but not the defence.

Yesterday Judge Chia had invited Deputy Public Prosecutor (DPP) Isaac Tan to address him on the question of the constitutionality of the Miscellaneous Offences Act. He also wanted to hear the DPP's arguments on why cross-examination by the defence about the police's handling of the TBT application was irrelevant.

The DPP took the entire morning to research his case and then came back to court to present his findings. The defendants then asked for time to respond to the DPP's arguments.

The Judge had to adjourn the hearing in the afternoon to allow Mr John Tan and Mr Shafi'ie to go the the Hight Court to attend a pre-trial conference regarding their contempt of court charge. The other defendants took the opportunity to prepare their arguments.

When the hearing resumed this morning, Dr Chee Soon Juan asked for more time to prepare his case because of the complex nature of the constitutional arguments: "I am consulting legal experts from overseas and I need more time to put together a proper rebuttal to the DPP on this matter."

The other defendants, including lawyer Mr Chia Ti Lik, also requested for more time to prepare their cases.

Mr John Tan, who is acting-in-person, also argued that he needed time to prepare his arguments because he was at the Hight Court the whole of yesterday afternoon. "I did not take the afternoon off to conduct my own affairs. I am being charged for an offence and I had no choice but to go to the High Court," he reminded the Judge. "As such I did not have time to prepare counter-arguments to the DPP's points."

Mr Shafi'ie also made the same point.

All this fell on deaf ears as Judge Chia ruled that no additional time would be given. Worse, the Judge immediately went on to rule in favour of the DPP's arguments.

Dr Chee protested that this was highly irregular and prejudicial against the defendants' cases: "A judge normally hears both sides of the argument before coming to a decision. In this matter you have only heard the prosecution's arguments and come to a decision based on that."

Dr Chee pointed out that the Judge could have ruled that he was not going to give additional time to the defendants but then allow them the opportunity to submit on whatever they had prepared.

Ms Chee Siok Chin asked Judge Chia to reverse his decision, "wipe the slate clean" and hear the defendants first before making his ruling.

The Judge refused saying: "I have made my ruling. You can now say what you want to say."

[Kena Sabo]

Well, it is not over, cos the parent of the poor Mongolian victim has just appealed.

However, looking at the political situation......very difficult.

[phillipchai]

http://yoursdp.org/index.php/news/si...ing-defendants



District Judge Chia Wee Kiat today ruled that the defence could not ask questions to show that the police had unlawfully discriminated against the Tak Boleh Tahan! (Can't take it anymore!) protesters.


He also sided with the prosecution's contention that the Ministry for Home Affairs' declaration that it would not allow protests of any nature is not unconstitutional, this despite Article 14 of the Singapore constitution guaranteeing citizens the right to freedoms of speech and peaceful assembly.

The defendants had pointed out that the Consumers Association of Singapore (CASE) had also conducted a similar protest outside Parliament House in 2007 and 2008. Why was CASE allowed to stage their protest but not the TBT activists?

To add insult to injury, the Judge made these decisions listening only to the arguments of the prosecution but not the defence.

Yesterday Judge Chia had invited Deputy Public Prosecutor (DPP) Isaac Tan to address him on the question of the constitutionality of the Miscellaneous Offences Act. He also wanted to hear the DPP's arguments on why cross-examination by the defence about the police's handling of the TBT application was irrelevant.

The DPP took the entire morning to research his case and then came back to court to present his findings. The defendants then asked for time to respond to the DPP's arguments.

The Judge had to adjourn the hearing in the afternoon to allow Mr John Tan and Mr Shafi'ie to go the the Hight Court to attend a pre-trial conference regarding their contempt of court charge. The other defendants took the opportunity to prepare their arguments.

When the hearing resumed this morning, Dr Chee Soon Juan asked for more time to prepare his case because of the complex nature of the constitutional arguments: "I am consulting legal experts from overseas and I need more time to put together a proper rebuttal to the DPP on this matter."

The other defendants, including lawyer Mr Chia Ti Lik, also requested for more time to prepare their cases.

Mr John Tan, who is acting-in-person, also argued that he needed time to prepare his arguments because he was at the Hight Court the whole of yesterday afternoon. "I did not take the afternoon off to conduct my own affairs. I am being charged for an offence and I had no choice but to go to the High Court," he reminded the Judge. "As such I did not have time to prepare counter-arguments to the DPP's points."

Mr Shafi'ie also made the same point.

All this fell on deaf ears as Judge Chia ruled that no additional time would be given. Worse, the Judge immediately went on to rule in favour of the DPP's arguments.

Dr Chee protested that this was highly irregular and prejudicial against the defendants' cases: "A judge normally hears both sides of the argument before coming to a decision. In this matter you have only heard the prosecution's arguments and come to a decision based on that."

Dr Chee pointed out that the Judge could have ruled that he was not going to give additional time to the defendants but then allow them the opportunity to submit on whatever they had prepared.

Ms Chee Siok Chin asked Judge Chia to reverse his decision, "wipe the slate clean" and hear the defendants first before making his ruling.

The Judge refused saying: "I have made my ruling. You can now say what you want to say."

Well, whomever wants to say that singapore has 2 sets of law is so wrong....

There is no double standard



There is only one set of law

But 3 sets of judgement:
1 for the elites
1 for the peasants
and 1 for the chees

[apollo]

super off ....

filip chia