|
©The
Borneo Post (Used by permission)
 RM70,000 DEPOSIT: Ling (right) submits a cheque at the counter in the presence of Kho. Party executive secretary tells court there is no need for petitioner to repay
additional deposit
KUCHING: The Bandar Kuching election petition can proceed after Umno yesterday
bore the additional deposit imposed by the court on the petitioner, Kho Whai
Phiaw.
Counsel Henry Ling received RM70,000 from Umno on Monday and he yesterday made
the required payment in the form of a cheque around 2pm at the High Court
Registrar here.
Had Kho failed to pay the deposit, the court would have dismissed the case.
Umno executive secretary Datuk Yaakob Mohammad, 58, had on Monday informed the
Election Court here that the party was prepared to assist Kho in the hope of
clearing the image of the party.
Yesterday, during cross-examination by Counsel Wong Ho Leng, Yaakob said “that
Umno is sponsoring Kho in respect of this additional deposit of RM70,000″.
Wong: Do you know is there any written agreement between Kho (and Umno)?
Yaakob: No.
Wong: Therefore am I right to say it is a full sponsorship, that there is no
need for Kho to repay the additional RM70,000 security?
Yaakob: Yes.
Wong: This money comes from the Umno fund, I presume?
Yaakob: Yes.
Although Kho had deposited a sum of RM10,000 when filing the petition, the
application for the order of additional security of costs submitted by Chong
Chieng Jen’s (the respondent) leading counsel, Chan Kok Keong, was allowed on
July 11.
That day, judge Datuk Clement Allan Skinner ruled the sum had to be deposited on
or before July 22 (yesterday). If he defaulted, the petition would be dismissed.
He said the decision was properly made in view of the number of charges levelled
against the respondent in the petition which Chong will be required to rebut.
“Which as I can already see is not going to lead to a short trial,” the judge
said.
On April 28, Kho filed the petition at the High Court Registry seeking a court
order to declare the result of election in Bandar Kuching parliamentary
constituency null and void so that a by-election would be held.
In the parliamentary polls on this March 8, Chong garnered 22,901 votes to
defeat Sim by 9,952-majority votes in a straight contest.
Yesterday, the hearing continued with the cross-examination of Yaakob from Bukit
Damansara, Kuala Lumpur by Chong’s counsel Wong Ho Leng.
Wong: Can you tell this court when was the first time you met with Kho?
Yaakob: About 20 minutes ago outside the courtroom.
Wong: Can we know who asked you to come to this court to testify?
Yaakob: The lawyer, Shafee.
Wong: Can you tell us was it the lawyer or was it Umno who asked you to come to
court to testify?
Yaakob: Upon the request of Dato’ Shafee and upon getting the consent from Umno,
I come to testify.
Wong: This petition concerns a Sarawak election. Can we know from you who are
the MPs from Sarawak you spoke to?
Yaakob: The discussion was unofficial at the Dewan Rakyat cafeteria.
Wong: In Kuching city area, do you know that there is another constituency
called Stampin?
Yaakob: I am not well versed with the areas in Kuching… but I have heard the
name Stampin.
Wong: Do you know Yong Khoon Seng, who is the Sarawak United People’s Party
(SUPP) candidate elected in the Stampin constituency during the 2008
Parliamentary Election?
Yaakob: I do not know.
Wong: YB Yong is also the Works Ministry Deputy Minister?
Yaakob: I do not know.
Yaakob affirmed that he came to Sarawak to testify without knowing that in
Kuching area there are two parliamentary seats.
When Wong asserted that Yaakob had not done enough homework before coming to
Sarawak, the latter disagreed.
Wong made the same remark again when he was said to have established that Yaakob
did not know the SUPP candidates who won in the Parliamentary election in 2008.
Again, Yaakob disagreed with it.
Also, Wong pointed out to Yaakob (one of the allegations in the Petition which
sounds “It is Umno who demolishes Hindu temples…”) that what Yaakob said before
did not seem to corroborate with the information gathered.
Yaakob on Monday told the court that from his record obtained from Shah Alam
Municipal Council whereby a case of demolishing a Hindu temple at Kapar Mukim
Kelang in Selangor was allowed by court order, what had happened was in
accordance to procedures of law as it was built without approval from the
authorities.
“Thus it is not fair in trying to instigate the Indians to trigger their anger
towards Umno and the government. This is also influence and poison…the Hindu
voters in Kuching,” he said.
Wong asked if Yaakob was aware that in 2006 alone, 12 Hindu temples in Klang
Valley (out of four were more than 100 years old while the bulk of others more
than 60 years old) were demolished by local council, Yaakob said he did not
know.
Wong said that 31 demolition notices had been issued that year.
Earlier, the court proceeded with the 11th prosecution witness upon application
by Kho’s counsel.
Datuk Muhammad Shafee Abdullah, the leading counsel for Kho told the court that
the witness had travelled from Sibu and wished to complete his evidence before
travelling to Kuala Lumpur, which was allowed.
Wong Kee Leong, 55, a printer from Sibu, testified that he was the managing
director for a printing company which was asked to print the manifesto published
by Democratic Action Party (DAP).
When cross-examined by Wong Ho Leng on who paid for the expenses incurred in
coming to court to testify, Kee Leong said he received the subpoena and it came
together with the air ticket and hotel fees.
Wong: You received payment without knowing from whom?
Kee Leong: That’s right.
Questions on unfairness relating to issues of local Chinese education were also
raised by Wong.
Wong: Do you know as a fact that the Sarawak Government does not provide annual
allocation to Chinese schools in Sarawak?
Kee Leong: That I am not clear but I did read from the newspaper reports
regarding Chinese schools not being given fair allocation.
Wong: Do you think it is fair?
Kee Leong: Not fair.
Wong: Have you ever read news reports that top Chinese students have not been
given JPA scholarships? Do you think that is fair?
Kee Leong: Yes. Not fair.
Kee Leong also replied that he heard or read news reports that many top Chinese
students were not offered courses of their first choice in local universities.
When he was re-examined by Kho’s counsel Henry Ling, he told the court that he
was not sure whether the news he read were correct or not. He just read from the
newspaper.
He also advanced that he did not know the reason for Chinese top students not
being given JPA scholarships nor did he know the reason for them not being
offered the courses of their first choice.
Chong is also represented by Chong Siew Chiang and Alvin Yong.
 |
Subscribe to this comment's feed
Circular No 297/2008
