🔊 Listen to this

Journeying the trail of deceits is a post to challenge and expose the attempts of officers lacking integrity in cahoots with one another to brand me “criminal” by using deceits. As we journey to the end, we will see that these officers themselves are the ones in that criminal category. For their criminal offences, four police reports were made on 8.12.2021 against immigration officers.

This journey is along rough and difficult terrains fighting “mythical evil centaurs” while trying to get to the “light at the end of the tunnel”. There is a saying, “darkness can never overwhelm light, and evil can never overcome righteousness”. With this conviction, I decided to journey this trail of deceits equipped with faith in an awesome God.

Throughout the journey’s trail, we will find that the trail is scattered with many officers’ lies & deceits, cahooted with one another. All such lies and deceits are being exposed and displayed.

Start of journey along this trail of deceits

On the 16.7.2019, a Tuesday, this marks the start of journey on this trail of deceits.

The trail started with my affidavit in support (AIS) being submitted to the KL High Court to mount a legal challenge against the Immigration Department of Malaysia DG concerning the 35-days detention that I was subjected to.

To help tell the story, we will use those points relating to the 35 days detention and events, taken from affidavits submitted to the high court under Permohonan Jenayah No. WA-44-178-07/2019 case.

This 35-days detention clearly infringed my constitutional rights as a Singapore citizen. As for the question that being a foreigner detained under Malaysia law and their Malaysian Federal Constitution, whether this 35-days detention has infringed my human rights or not according to their Federal Constitution? We shall find out as we journey through this trail of deceits.

Constitutional safeguard is lost in trail of deceits.

My Malaysian lawyer, YHK informed in his lawyer’s report in email to me that the Immigration Department of Malaysia officer had infringed my constitutional rights by not producing me before a magistrate for a remand order. However, he could not do anything about it because he was already discharged from acting for me after 27.3.2018.

“You were arrested on 28.2.2018 at 11.05 p.m. *You should have been brought before the Immigration Magistrate’s Court the next day for remand order. It was located in the immigration depot.  You should have been brought there again within the next 4 days and then the next 3 days. I am not sure whether such had been done as it was before my engagement. Given its location and environment, it is possible you did not realize that you had been brought to a court or that there had been court proceedings at all”.

Quote from Lawyer YHK‘s lawyer report

*Note: * – This is a legal requirement under the Federal Constitution Article 5(4). But this second issue in my Saman Pemula No. WA-24-5-01/2020 case, “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)” was later not pursued.*

Firstly, the Immigration Department of Malaysia officer did not produce me within 24 hours and then secondly, they also did not produce me within 14 days according to the Immigration Act Section 51(5)(b). They only brought me before a magistrate after 26 days on 26.3.2018 to face a charge under the Immigration Act. This was an infringement of the Malaysia Federal Constitution Article 5(4). See the image below.

Immigration Act 155 Section 51(5)(b) where any person other than a citizen is arrested or detained under this Act, whether for an offence against this Act or otherwise than for such offence, and has not been earlier released, or charged in court for an offence against this Act or removed from Malaysia under this Act, he shall, within fourteen days of his arrest or detention, be produced before a Magistrate who shall make an order for his detention for such period as may be required by an immigration officer or a police officer for the purpose of investigations into an offence against this Act.

This proviso in their Immigration Act now differentiates the Magistrate Remand Order requirement between citizens and non-citizen. This is an anti-foreigner and anti-human rights Act. Worse is that it is proven in court that there is no objective evidence showing that there are checks and controls on the power of immigration officers to complies to 51(5)(b). It is optional requirement for the Immigration officer to produce before a Magistrate within 14 days, with selection of choice on Yes/No option to be ticked. This is clearly seen from the Magistrate remand order in my case before the high court. IT IS ONLY AN OPTION FOR SECTION 51(5)(B).

So instead of within 24 hours to produce before a magistrate, the Immigration Department of Malaysia officer, MHBK was given up to 14 days to produce me before a magistrate of the Immigration court which my lawyer, YHK has stated is conveniently inside the Pekan Nenas Depot compound. If the Immigration Department of Malaysia officer did not produce me before a magistrate within 14 days of my arrest, then it is an illegal detention according to their constitution article 5(4).

I had averred in para 40 of my affidavit (AIS) under Permohonan Jenayah No. WA-44-178-07/2019 the following: Quote “On 26.3.2018, after 26 days from arrest, I was brought before a magistrate. I was charged and I pleaded guilty as I could not afford and risk further detention any longer as already explained above, and I was convicted and sentenced, as already said above”. Unquote.

I am very clear that no immigration officer nor MHBK produced me before a magistrate for an order to further remand me up to 26.3.2018, making it an illegal, unlawful and unconstitutional detention if the Immigration Department of Malaysia officers cannot disprove my claim as in para 40 of my affidavit. What was their reply?

Defendant’s reply in para 10 of AIO denying knowledge of para 40 of AIS found on trail of deceits

The investigation officer, MHBK (the same officer who led the raid and arrested me) responded to my AIS with his affidavit in opposition (AIO) dated 5.8.2019.

English translated version:

Quote: “10. I further have no knowledge of paragraph 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39 and 40 of the Applicant’s affidavit in support (AIS). While waiting for the investigation to be completed and the charge is being instituted, the Applicant was placed in Pekan Nanas Immigration Depot. During the time that the Applicant was detained there, as the investigating officer of the case, I was never informed of any complaint by the Applicant as raised in the above paragraph either in writing or oral. In addition, as an investigating officer, I will ensure that the Applicant who is the suspect under my custody is detained in accordance with the procedure prescribed by law“. Unquote.

This Investigating officer, MHBK‘s affidavit in opposition (AIO) is in response to paragraph 40 of my affidavit in support makes a blanket denial of every point from para 29 to 40 in my affidavit and significantly denied knowledge of para 40 – I was produced before a magistrate on 26.3.2018. He then proceeds to makes an unsubstantiated claim. He had claimed that I was “detained in accordance with the procedures prescribed by law”.

Inconsistent affidavits by Investigation officer, MHBK concerning detention from 13.3.2018 to 26.3.2018

In para 10 of Criminal Appeal No. W-05-636-12/2019, Note the claim as follows: “It was the stand of the DGI in the OS Action, through the affidavit in opposition affirmed by MHBK that the Appellant was purported produced before a magistrate on 12.3.2018 by the said MHBK, i.e. within 14 days of arrest, prior to being produced on 26.3.2018 when the Appellant was charged and convicted”.

This means that MHBK is of the knowledge of me produced before the magistrate on the 26.3.2018 but has averred in his AIO dated 5.8.2018 as not. MHBK‘s two affidavits is inconsistent.

Para 11 – “Notably, however, the stand taken by the Respondent in the present action/appeal, through an inconsistent affidavit affirmed by the same MHBK is that the said MHBK had no knowledge as to the Appellant’s deposition that he was produced before a magistrate for the first time only on 26.3.2018.” In simple language, it means that MHBK lied or perjured in his affidavits.

Unsubstantiated allegation found on trail of deceits

On the 23.8.2019 (Saturday) I submitted my affidavit in reply (AIR) to Defendant’s affidavit (AIO) to rebut his unsubstantiated and unsupported allegation as follows:

 Snippet of AIR Para 8 and 9

I had henceforth put forth a challenge that may allowed me to cross-examine this investigation officer, MHBK on how he could had produced me before a magistrate since I have only seen him once throughout my 35 days detention.

Para 13 and 14 of my AIR stating a request to be in court to cross-examine him regarding his allegation that I was produced before the magistrate.

As mentioned above that in para 14 of my affidavit, I requested from the court to cross-examine whoever the immigration officers who had produced me before the magistrate. It seems to have unnerved MHBK that after his affidavit (AIO) on 5.8.2019. Not surprisingly, 20 days later i.e. on the 26.8.2019 (Wednesday), another immigration officer, HBB jumped in and filed a Defendant’s further affidavit in opposition (FAIO). This FAIO included many exhibits in support of MHBK‘s many allegations in his AIO. It is especially true in supporting MHBK‘s claim on producing me before a magistrate within 14 days with an exhibit, “HB-1”.

This is done with the aim to help the MHBK out from a tight spot. By submitting this affidavit with an exhibit to show proof of production before a magistrate would avoid dealing with my request to cross-examine the immigration officer who claimed to produce me before a magistrate.

Furthermore, I have also averred that it is not possible for MHBK personally to produce me before a magistrate as I have only seen him on the night of my arrest and no more thereafter.

Snippet of Affidavit (FAIO) submitted by Commandant of Pekan Nanas Depot

Now the storyline had changed from “the investigating officer, MHBK produced me before a magistrate”; to “the Depot Commandant of Pekan Nanas Depot brought me before a Magistrate”.

To support her claim, she submitted Exhibit “HB-1” from the magistrate.

From the snippets above, we can see that the machine print-out the numbering of total pages of this document. The print-out indicated that this set of documents consist of three pages to be read as one document. But why is page 3 of 3 missing from this exhibit “HB-1”. Having work as an auditor previously, it is clear to me that this is a red flag.

Why is page 3 missing? It must be a crucial document that will expose the truth about their testimony. They had to hide this page 3 away so as to deceive the high court judge, MNBMG. Boy, they actually succeeded in deceiving MNBMG as evidenced by MNBMG‘s written judgment for Permohonan Jenayah No WA-44-178-07/2019, incorporating this lie and falsehood, para 38 and para 55.

New claim of brought before a magistrate in court.

When I averred that I saw the Investigation officer, MHBK only once, then this Depot Commandant, HBB quickly step into the picture to help “collaborate” the MHBK‘s story. Now it became this HBB who had brought me before a magistrate.

I don’t even know who this HBB is or seen her at all. How did she qualified to make this claim that she brought me before a magistrate? From the investigating officer, MHBK alluding, albeit vaguely that he had brought me personally before a magistrate, the story is now change to this Depot Commandant, HBB‘s claim. The story had changed.

So, the HBB‘s affidavit (FAIO) made a new claim, i.e. the Commandant of Pekan Nanas Depot was the one who brought me before a magistrate. In response, I submitted a reply, a further affidavit (FAIR) refuting this claim on 18.9.2019 (Wednesday).

Snippet of FAIR Para 11 and 12

Months later, in another affidavit (D-AIO) submitted on 14.5.2020 for Saman Pemula No. WA-24-5-01/2020, MHBK averred that he had “submitted” on the 12.3.2018, not “produced” before the Magistrate. This is from the key word “mengemukakan” used which means submitted.

English translated version:

Quote: “10. Paragraph 13 of the Plaintiff’s Affidavit of Support is denied. On the other hand, I solemnly state that I have already submitted the Plaintiff before the Magistrate, Pontian Magistrate Court, Johor on 12.3.2018 for application for a detention order under Section 51(5)(b) of the Immigration Act 1959/1963 and the application for a detention order has been allowed by a magistrate for the period from 13.3.2018 to 26.3.2018”.

First, we have seen HBB is the one averring that she produced me on the 12.3.2018 before a magistrate. Now it is MHBK averring that he “submitted” me on the 12.3.2018 before a magistrate. Both officers are contradicting one another with their affidavits. This investigating officer, MHBK cannot keep his story straight.

Real evidence appeared in trail of deceits.

27.11.2019 (Wednesday) was the day of the high court hearing. The Immigration Department of Malaysia barred me from entering Malaysia to attend the hearing and cross-examine witnesses. I could only be represented by lawyer throughout the hearing without my participation.

During the open court hearing, the Public Prosecutor handed out hard copies of exhibit “HB-1” consisting of 3 pages to the court as well as to my Malaysian lawyer, AK. My Malaysian lawyer, for the first time, saw the hard copy page 3 of 3 (this page was removed from the exhibit “HB-1” in the affidavit (FAIO)) and knew that this is a critical piece of evidence.

This is, without any doubt in my mind, an act of divine intervention on my behalf. Thank you, Lord Jesus!

However, my lawyer had the presence of mind not to speak about this page 3 of 3 document during the hearing but kept it aside. He then sent a copy of this document to me for further instructions.

No matter how they vehemently deny, we can be pretty sure that they cannot denied their own official documents. It is a piece of irrefutable evidence that proves I was never produced before a magistrate on the 12.3.2018.

The high court judge, MNBMG delivered his judgment and oral verdict on 19.12.2019 (Thursday).

Hope came in the form of a major Immigration’s slip

Through a divine intervention, a piece of crucial evidence, page 3 of immigration officer, NBB‘s exhibit “HB-1” landed in my hands and my hope ignited again. We can now continue to fight against all these deceits. I decided to lodge an appeal against high court judge, MNBMG’s dismissal of my application.

At the same time, I decided to sue the Immigration Department of Malaysia DG for illegal detention infringement of my rights under Article 5(4) of the Malaysia Federal Constitution.

With this piece of crucial evidence, I submitted an Originating Summon (OS), Saman Pemula No. WA-24-5-01/2020 on 20.1.2020 (Monday).

Snippet of OS Para 13 and 14

First Case Management along this trail of deceits

The court registrar set the first CM on 12.2.2020 (Wednesday), 9.00 am.

However as can be expected, the immigration investigating officer MHBK (Defendant), when faced with this piece of crucial evidence, starring in his face, MHBK failed to attend this first CM.

For his failure to turn up for this first CM without any justification, the Court Registrar just let it pass without any censure or penalty.

The Registrar re-scheduled a second CM on 27.2.2020 (Thursday).

Defendant’s affidavit in reply (D-AIR) misses deadline

In response to my Plaintiff’s Affidavit-In-Support (P-AIS), the Defendant MHBK has a deadline for his submission of the D-AIR. The deadline is latest 20.2.2020 (Thursday).

Similarly, just as it happened for the first CM, the MHBK would have to come up with a water-tight answer first. However, with this piece of evidence given by Public Prosecutor staring him in his face, he must be thinking super hard how to write his D-AIO.

Similar to the first CM, as can be expected when he could not come up with a water-tight answer, he did not meet this 20.2.2020 deadline for submission. He also did not request the court for an official extension of deadline. In plain term, he failed to submit within deadline and with most judges, the court will issue some form of warning or censure.

Was I surprised that this did not happen? No! After all this is not my country and I am a non-citizen, an outsider, in their eyes.

Second Case Management along this trail of deceits

The Registrar scheduled a second CM on 27.2.2020 (Thursday).

And similarly, as expected on the 27.2.2020, my Malaysian counsel informed me that the Defendant, MHBK again failed to attend this second CM, similarly without any justification.

Similar to the first CM, for his absence without justification, there is neither censure nor penalty for such blatant disregard of court dates by this Defendant, MHBK. That speaks a lot of the kind of justice system in Malaysia when it comes to foreigners.

Defendant filing an out-of-time affidavit in reply (D-AIR)

The Defendant filed his D-AIR on 14.5.2020 which was way past the 20.2.2020 deadline.

His filing was out-of-time by twelve weeks but yet the court Registrar, FSBSA accepted this out-of-time filing by Defendant. The excuse for acceptance was because an extension of time was granted by FSBSA due to MCO.

However, MCO started on 18.3.2020 (Wednesday), after the 20.2.2020 deadline. What a lie by the Defendant, MHBK. This can only be done with the Federal Counsel, MSBMA and Deputy Registrar, FSBSA acting in cahoots with one another.

A LIE remains a LIE in this trail of deceits.

Defendant had made a patently false claim in his out-of-time D-AIR para 10 and support it with a re-typed “manufactured” unsigned copy of magistrate remand order as exhibit. This is a re-typed “manufactured” unsigned remand order exhibit which was being sent from a different magistrate. It has no magistrate’s signature on the order and different from the original order. What is the role of this magistrate who is unrelated to this case to send this “manufactured” order is indeed a big question?

An interesting news article dated 9.8.2021 recently is of interest here. Ex-magistrate ordered to enter defense in RM295k corruption case.

In response to the false claim, I filed an affidavit (P-AIR) on 10.6.2020 (Wednesday).

P-AIR para 10 reiterated the truth of the matter and disputed the false claim by Defendant. It is shown that their exhibit “MHK-1” is different from “W-2” as it is a re-typed “manufactured” unsigned remand order. The claim made by Defendant is merely words without substantiation and evidence and thus is false.

It must be reiterated that I have seen this Defendant’s Deponent, investigation officer MHBK only once, i.e. on the night of 28.2.2018 when he arrested me and no more after that as stated on AIR Para 13. What a blatant lie in his affidavit by this immigration investigating officer, MHBK.

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 the judge 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 12.3.2018.

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:

1^st new date was on 25.1.2021,

2^nd new date was on 10.3.2021,

3^rd new date was on 4.5.2021.

Finally, after nearly six months of delays and patient waiting, the case went before the judge, NBB. Indeed, credit to a fair and wise judge.

Looking at how this case took nearly one and a half year; On hindsight, I can see and know that I have made the right decision to plead guilty on 26.3.2018. In doing so, I could get out alive and not being detained for weeks and months according to these criminal immigration officers’ whims and fancies. Within four months of release, on 8.8.2018, I had a heart attack, and I could have died while being detained inside their cruel and inhumane Pekan Nenas Immigration Detention Depot.

Imagine the horrific nightmare it would have been for me if I have chosen to be put through their judiciary system on the 26.3.2018. Imagine dealing with all these crooked, perverse and some evil people seen here. Thanks goodness!

Conclusion of OS court trial along this trail of deceits

The written judgment of the high court judge, NBB on the immigration officer’s affidavit in view of the documentary evidence, i.e. the original order exhibit, “HB-1” (an incomplete set of 2 pages) given into my hands by Immigration Department of Malaysia officer, HBB which then became my exhibit “W-2” (a full set of 3 pages) vs the re-typed “manufactured” unsigned remand order exhibit, “MHK-1”.

At the end of the hearing, Judge NBB declared that the detention by Immigration Department of Malaysia officers was illegal, unlawful and unconstitutional. She awarded the case to me.

This declaration by Judge NBB was appealed against by the AGC. You can read about this case in Presenting “manufactured” evidence to challenge facts.

The three judges form the appeal court unanimously dismissed the AGC’s appeal with costs on 31.10.2022.

Part 2 illegal detention from 27.3.2018 up to 3-4-2018

On top of this illegal detention up to 26.3.2018, there is a further period of detention from the 27.3.2018 to 3.4.2018. This part 2 detention was after the court had issued a Discharge Order for my release after the 26.3.2018. These criminal Immigration Department of Malaysia officers however deliberately continued their illegal detention.

This is solely because I am a defenseless foreigner with no rights and power within Malaysia to stop their blatant abuse of power. Part 2 second detention period of unlawful detention is documented in journal entries of Kluang prison detention and journal entries of 35 days detention.

This part 2 illegal detention was also processed through the Malaysia KL High Court from 27.1.2022 to 12.9.2022 and a second high court judge, AS A/L SS awarded the case to me.

Indeed, there is a string of deceits in so many instances, seen throughout this court case and processes along this trail of deceits. It is like a picture of a whirlpool that sucks one evil centaurs after another evil centaurs, and keep seeing more evil centaurs suck into the whirlpool water and sinking into the deep dark whirlpool.

.