Call on Abdullah to explain whether the ACA  had completed investigations and submitted to the Attorney-General’s Chambers its recommendations  whether  Liong Sik should be arrested and prosecuted for obstructing  ACA investigations

(Petaling Jaya,  Thursday): The Parliamentary Secretary to the Home Ministry, Datuk Seri Abu Zahar Isnin, told Parliament yesterday that the police had submitted its investigations papers into my arrest by the Ipoh police at the Pasir Pinji Market on 5^th June, 2002 for distributing the “No to 911, No to 929, Yes to 1957” People’s Awareness Campaign pamphlet under the Sedition Act and that it is now up to the Attorney-General to decide whether to charge and prosecute me in court.  

 When replying to an adjournment speech by DAP MP for Bukit Mertajam, Chong Eng, Abu Zahar said that I was arrested by the Police under Section 4(1)(c) of the Sedition Act 1948 which carries a maximum sentence of three years’ jail, RM5,000 fine or  both. 

As I am released on RM3,000 police bail until 5^th July 2002, I will know by next Friday whether I would be charged and prosecuted in court under the Sedition Act.  

What happens to me in Ipoh next Friday will be an important test case as to whether Malaysian democracy, human rights and the rule of law have deteriorated to  a stage of development where it is only permissible to support the “929 declaration” of the Prime Minister, Datuk Seri Dr. Mahathir Mohamad at the Gerakan national assembly on September 29 last year that Malaysia is an Islamic State, while any criticism or opposition is not permissible and constitutes a grave  “sedition” offence.

If this is the case, then the  Malaysian Consultative Council of  Buddhism, Christianity, Hinduism and Sikhism (MCCBCHS) will also be guilty of sedition because of their statement of  31^st January this year, signed by its President, Archbishop of Kuala Lumpur Most Reverend Anthony Soter Fernandez, opposing the “929 declaration” for violating the 1957 Merdeka Constitution and “social contract”  and reaffirming that Malaysia is a secular state.

I will wait for the outcome of the Attorney-General decision on the expiry of my RM3,000 police bail in Ipoh next Friday. 

But in the meanwhile, I call on the Home Minister, Datuk Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi to tell Malaysians whether the enforcement authorities have completed their investigations and submitted to the Attorney-General’s Chambers their recommendations  whether  the MCA President and Transport Minister, Datuk Seri Dr. Ling Liong Sik should be arrested and prosecuted under the Anti-Corruption Act 1997 for  obstructing  Anti-Corruption Agency (ACA) investigations. 

The Ipoh police lodged a report on 6^th June  for my arrest, but two days earlier, I had lodged a police report at the Dang Wangi police station  in Kuala Lumpur, asking for police investigations as to whether Liong Sik  had committed an offence under Section 19 of the Anti-Corruption Act disclosed by  his former  MCA protégé and businessman Soh Chee Wen’s interview with Malaysiakini.

In my police report on 4^th June 2002, I had referred to my ACA report of 13^th June 1997, asking for full investigations as to how :Liong Sik’s son, Ling Hee Leong,  could at the age of 27 embark on corporate acquisitions exceeding RM1.2 billion in a matter of months and whether there had been improper use and influence of his father’s political and Ministerial position – which had ended up as one of the “high-profile” criminal cases which had “gone nowhere”  recently mentioned by the Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department, Datuk Dr. Rais Yatim,.

 In my police report, I referred to the Malaysiakini report of of 28^th May 2002 on  its   interview with  Soh Chee Wen, where Soh  said that Liong Sik asked him not to “implicate” him in the ACA investigations into my 1997 ACA report. The Malaysiakini report stated:

”’It was around that time that opposition party DAP lodged a report against Ling with the Anti-Corruption Agency (ACA).

”’And what was Ling's reaction?

"’He asked me to assist him in not implicating him in the ACA
investigations and to omit stating both Ling and his wife's roles and the benefits derived by them from the previous deals,’ recalled Soh.

”’He said he abided by that request out of ‘fear of losing my posts in MCA’.

“’But, ‘in hindsight, I regret my doing so and I intend to put things right by disclosing the true picture to the ACA in due course’, he said.’

If Soh was telling the truth in his interview with Malaysiakini, then it disclosed Ling committing an offence of obstructing the ACA investigations, which is an offence under Section 19(1) of the Anti-Corruption Act 1997 with maximum sentence of RM100,000 fine, ten years’ jail or both.

I have been informed that the ACA had gone to Malaysiakini to conduct investigations in connection with my police report of June 4 against Liong Sik arising from Soh Chee Wen’s interview.

Investigations into my police report of June 4 should be very simple and  straightforward, and there can be  no reason for taking more than a week – or for the Attorney-General to require a longer time to come to a decision whether to arrest, charge and prosecute Liong Sik especially as my police report against Liong Sik was made earlier than the Ipoh police report on my arrest in connection with the “No to 911, No to 929, Yes to 1957” pamphlet.

For this reason, I call on Abdullah to explain whether the ACA  had completed investigations and submitted to the Attorney-General’s Chambers its recommendations  whether  Liong Sik should be arrested and prosecuted for obstructing  ACA investigations.

(27/6/2002)