The Sting

Six members of the Inquiry Committee attended the hearing on 25.5.2019.

However, there were altogether 8 signatories on the findings and dissenting rulings. Five (5) signatures on the ‘Findings’ and three (3) on the ‘Dissenting Rulings’.

This is how the secretary of the Inquiry Committee had changed a ruling of 3 vs 3 to a ruling of 5 vs 3.

I noticed that the names listed on the main page of the findings had 7 names and was puzzled with 8 signatures on the findings and dissenting rulings.

I then wrote an email to the secretary and asked him about the signature of the lawyer whose name did not appear on the front page of the ‘Findings’.

The secretary responded by stating that the name was inadvertently added.

I requested for the name of the ‘inadvertently added’ lawyer/ member to be deleted and after an initial objection the secretary amended the list of signatures.

Now, my question, how did the lawyer whose name was inadvertently added on the list sign his name ‘inadvertently’? Let us not forget that we are talking about the legal profession.

The same question will apply to the 7^th member who must have also 'inadvertently' signed the ‘Findings’.

It took the secretary more than 21 months to release the verdict. Was this done deliberately?

Here is the first page of the minutes of the hearing:

Minutes of hearing

Minutes

27/5/19 Start: 9.00 am

Quorum: Chair – Datuk John

Daniel Tan

Peter Lee

Marzuki Spawi

Clive Jublee

Roger Chin – Secretary

Apologies:

Datin Sa’adah

Brenndon Soh

Lau Cheung Hoon

1. IC 3 – Hearing

Complainant – NRIC No. 520404-05-5139 present

Respondent present and represented by Christopher Chong

Highlight:

I would like to point out that the secretary did not even have the decency to mention my name under complainant and represented me with my Identity card number whilst the respondent was named.