Journeying the trail of deceits
Journeying the trail of deceits is a post to challenge and expose some unscrupulous officials’ attempt to brand someone as “criminal” by using deceits. At the end of this post, we can see that such officials themselves are likely in that category.
So this is the start of a journey along rough and difficult terrains fighting “dark enemies”, trying to get to the “light at the end of the tunnel”. There is a saying that darkness cannot overwhelm light and evil cannot overcome good. With this conviction, I started to walk this journey.
As we journey on this trail, we see the trail is scattered with officials’ deceits being exposed and on displayed.
Start of journey on trail of deceits
On the 16.07.2019 (Tuesday), this marks the start of this journey on this trail of deceits.
It started with the launch of an Affidavit-in-Support (AIS) to sue the Malaysia Immigration Department over my 37 days detention saga.
From the affidavits throughout the legal suit, points relating to the 37 days detention saga, events and snippets of such points were used to help tell the story.
This 37 days detention infringed my constitutional rights as a Singapore citizen and even as a foreigner in Malaysia does not deserves this according to the constitutional rights guaranteed under the Malaysia Federal Constitution.
Constitutional safeguards missing in trail of deceits
My Malaysia counsel advised me that the Malaysia Immigration officers infringe my constitutional rights by not presenting me before a Magistrate for a lawful detention.
Firstly, they did not presented within 24 hours and then secondly they also not presented with 14 days. They only presented me before a Magistrate after 26 days, a serious violation of the Malaysia Federal Constitution.
However there was no recourse for me against these unscrupulous officers until I sued these Immigration officials in Malaysia court.
Snippet of AIS para 39 and para 40:
Respondent’s denial found on trail of deceits
On the 06.08.2019 (Tuesday), the Immigration Investigation Officer (the same officer who led the raid and arrested me) responded to my AIS with his Respondent’s Affidavit-In-Opposition (AIO).
Snippet of AIO
English translated version
Snippet of AIO para 10 (original in Malays language):
This Investigating officer makes a blanket denial of every point in my affidavit and makes an unsubstantiated claim that I was “detained in accordance with the procedures prescribed by law”.
English translated version
Unsubstantiated claim found on trail of deceits
On the 24.08.2019 (Saturday) I submitted my Affidavit-In-Reply (AIR) to Respondent’s Affidavit-In-Opposition (AIO) to rebut his unsubstantiated and unsupported claim as follows:
Snippet of AIR Para 8 and 9
And snippet of AIR Conclusion Para 13 – 16
I have put forth a challenge to allow me to cross-examine the Investigation officer on how he presented me before a Magistrate since I have only seen him once throughout my 37 days detention.
Para 13 of AIR must have unnerved him that he strongly objected to my application to be in Court to cross-examine him regarding his “claim” that he personally brought me before the Magistrate.
Surprisingly two days later, on the 26.08.2019 (Wednesday), another Immigration officer jumped in and filed a Respondent’s Further-Affidavit-In-Opposition (FAIO)
Snippet of FAIO Depot Pekan Nanas Commander
English translated version
1. I am a Commander in the Immigration Depot Unit of Malaysia, Pekan Nanas, Pontian, Johor
Snippet of FAIO Para 16 and para 17
English translated version
Now the storyline had changed hastily from “the Investigating Officer personally presented me before a Magistrate”; to “the Commander of Pekan Nanas arraigned me in court before a Magistrate”.
To support her claim, she submitted Exhibit HB-1
Snippet of Exhibit HB-1
Exhibit HB-1 Pg 1
And Exhibit HB-1 pg 2
From the snippets above, we can see that the numbering system print-out from the fax machine indicated that there is a set of three-page document. But page 3 of 3 is missing from this exhibit.
Why is pg 3 missing? We can only guessed that it does not suit their narrative.
New allegation of “arraignment in court”
When I averred that I saw the Investigation officer only once, this Commander step into the picture. Now it is this Commander who “arraigned” me before Magistrate.
I don’t even knew who this person or seen her at all. How did she qualified to make this allegation that she arraigned me in court before a Magistrate? From the Investigating Officer alluding vaguely that he personally brought me personally before a Magistrate to this Commander’s allegation. The story keeps changing.
The FAIO made a new claim, i.e. the Commander of Pekan Nanas Depot arraigned me in court. In response, we submitted a Further-Affidavit-In-Reply (FAIR) refuting this allegation on 18.09.2019 (Wednesday).
In fact in another affidavit (OS_D-AIR Para 10) months later, the Investigation Officer averred that he personally brought me before the Magistrate. This Investigating officer cannot keep his story straight throughout the whole court episode as you reads on.
Snippet of FAIR Para 11 and 12
Real evidence appeared in trail of deceits
27.11.2019 (Wednesday) was the day of the High Court hearing. The Malaysia Immigration barred me from entering Malaysia to attend the hearing and cross-examine witnesses. I could only be represented by counsel throughout the hearing without my participation.
During the open court hearing, Immigration inadvertently handed a hard copy of HB-1 pg 3 of 3 to my counsel who then forwarded the same copy to me. As this official court document came from the Immigration side, it is the most important piece of irrefutable evidence proving that I was never presented before a Magistrate.
This is indeed an act of divine intervention on my behalf. Thank you Lord Jesus!
However my counsel had the presence of mind not to speak about this piece of hard copy document during the hearing but kept and delivered to me for further instructions.
No matter how they can vehemently deny, we can be pretty sure that they cannot denied their own official documents.
Snippet of HB-1 Pg 3 of 3
The High Court Judge delivered his judgment and oral verdict on 19.12.2019 (Thursday).
Snippet of the Judge’s verdict.
Hope in the form of Immigration’s gift along this trail of deceits
Through divine intervention, putting in my hand this piece of crucial evidence, this ignited my hope. We can now continue to fight. We lodged an appeal to Court of Appeal against the earlier court’s verdict whereby the Justice dismissed my application.
At the same time, we used this evidence to sue the Malaysia Immigration for unlawful detention in violation of Article 5 of the Malaysia Federal Constitution.
With the most crucial piece of evidence, we submitted our Originating Summon (OS) on 20.01.2020 (Monday).
Snippet of OS Para 13 and 14
First Case Management along this trail of deceits
The court registrar set the first CM on 12.02.2020 (Wednesday), 9.00 am.
However as expected when faced with such a crucial piece of evidence, inadvertently given by Immigration starring in his face, the Immigration Investigating Officer (Defendant) failed to attend this first CM.
For his failure to turn up for this first CM without any justification, the Registrar just let it passed without any censure or penalty.
The Registrar re-scheduled a second CM on 27.02.2020 (Thursday).
Defendant’s Affidavit-In-Reply D-AIR
In response to my Plaintiff’s Affidavit-In-Support (P-AIS), the Defendant has a deadline for his submission of the D-AIR. The deadline is latest 20.02.2020 (Thursday).
Similarly as for the first CM, he would have to come up with a water-tight answer to the piece of evidence starring him in the face in his D-AIR.
And as expected when he could not come up with a water-tight answer, he could not meet the deadline nor did he request an official extension from the court. In plain term, he failed to submit and with most Justices, the court will award me the case based on non-submission (throwing in the towel).
Was I surprised that this did not happened? No! After all this is not my country and I am an outsider in their eyes.
Second Case Management along this trail of deceits
The Registrar scheduled a second CM on 27.02.2020 (Thursday).
And not surprisingly on the 27.02.2020, my counsel informed me that the Defendant again failed to attend this second CM without any justification.
Similar to the first CM of absence without justification, there is neither censure nor penalty for such blatant disregard of court dates by this Defendant (Immigration Investigating officer). That speaks a lot of what the justice system means for an outsider like me.
Defendant filing an out-of-time Affidavit-In-Reply
The Defendant (Immigration) filed his D-AIR on 14.05.2020 which was way past the 20.02.2020 deadline.
His filing was out-of-time by twelve weeks but yet the court accepted this out-of-time filing by Defendant. The excuse for acceptance was because of extension of time granted by court Registrar due to MCO.
However MCO started on 18.03.2020 (Wednesday), after the 20.02.2020 deadline. What a great way to lie by the Defendant with FC and DR being complicit.
Snippet of the excuse for out-of-time filing of D-AIR
Defendant’s out-of-time Affidavit-In-Reply
Snippet of OS_D-AIR Para 10
Snippet of OS_D-AIR Exhibit
A LIE is still a LIE in trail of deceits
Defendant had made a patently false claim in his out-of-time D-AIR para 10 with a re-typed copy of Magistrate Order as exhibit. This exhibit is a re-typed Order provided by a different Magistrate with no Magistrate’s signature on the Order and different from the original Order. What was the role of this unrelated-to-case Magistrate?
An interesting news article dated 09.08.2021 recently is of interest here. Ex-magistrate ordered to enter defense in RM295k corruption case.
In response to that false claim, we filed an Affidavit-In-Reply on 10.06.2020 (Wednesday).
P-AIR para 10 once again reiterated the truth of the matter with facts and with evidences, not merely words without substantiation.
Snippet of OS_P-AIR para 10
It must be reiterated here that I have seen this Defendant (Immigration Officer) only once, i.e. that was on the night he arrested me and no more after that as stated on my AIR Conclusion Para 13. What a blatant lie on oath before God by this Immigration Investigating Officer!
Snippet of AIR Conclusion para 13:
Submissions by both parties
Both parties file their submissions simultaneously on 15.10.2020 (Thursday).
On our side, we submit on these two issues. Should Justice ruled against me on the first issue, we will proceed on second issue.
1. The issue (First Issue) for determination by this Honorable Court is whether the Plaintiff was produced before a Magistrate on 12.03.2018.
2. If the court were to find against the Plaintiff in the above said issue, then a bigger issue of whether the Amendment Act by which the original Art. 5(4) requiring production of anyone arrested before a Magistrate within 24 hours, a constitutional safeguard and guarantee of personal liberty, is invalid for infringing the original Art. 5(4) and Art. 8(1) [equality before the law], by virtue of basic structure jurisprudence founded on Sixth Schedule oath taken by the MPs to preserve, protect and defend the constitution (Second Issue).
Court Hearing Dates
The Court scheduled the hearing on 12.11.2020 (Thursday).
But on three occasions we received last minute notices one or two days before scheduled hearings. On these 3 occasions, I was informed that the hearing will be vacated to new dates nearly two months later:
1st new date was on 25.01.2021
2nd new date was on 10.03.2021
3rd new date was on 04.05.2021
Finally after nearly six months of delays and patient waiting, the case went before the Justice.
Looking at how this case took nearly one and a half year, I can look back to 26.03.2018 and know that I have made the right decision to plead guilty to get out alive from the cruel and inhumane Immigration detention depot. This whole episode would have been the nightmare for me if I would have chosen to be put through their justice system then. Imagine dealing with so many crooked people as seen here. Thanks goodness!
Conclusion at end of trail of deceits
The view of Justice on the Immigration officer’s affidavit in view of the documentary evidence, i.e. the original order given into my hands by Immigration department, during the hearing. See snippet below:
At the end of the hearing, the wise Justice declared that my detention by Malaysia Immigration Department unlawful.