🔊 Listen to this

From appealing to the Director General of Immigration to depending on lawyer’s expertise journey

Earlier in July of 2018, I had a Kuala Lumpur-resident friend to deliver an appeal letter to the office of the Director General of Immigration (DGI). This appeal letter is concerning the lifetime immigration blacklist and ban on me entering Malaysia. This ban will affect my five Malaysian properties and two cars. These assets were acquired after having the MM2H visa. Without the long term MM2H visa, which foreigner would want to bring fund into this country? On hindsight, at this point in life and after so much grief, I can only say that this is a decision that I regretted greatly in life, not believing the wise words of LKY spoken in this famous speech concerning bring fund into or investing into Malaysia, quote: “This is an economic field of co-operation in which, you must remember, we are putting investments on Malaysian soil,” Lee said. “And at the stroke of a pen they can take it over” unquote. Indeed, “at the stroke of a pen” or in my case “at the mercies of corrupt officials and civil servants”

Now all these assets are in limbo and jeopardizing my investment. Such a dire situation is a big blow to me and my family, all because of helping-and-instead-getting-betrayed by one ex-housekeeper, JS, together with her corrupt immigration boyfriend, MZ. It is made worse also because when an immigration officer offered a contact (fixer) who “supposedly can help to” me remove my name from immigration blacklist for RM10,000 but I refused to pay a single ringgit for an illegal service. This is the meaning of “Malaysia boleh” applicable to foreigners, if any foreigner still does not understand what is “Malaysia boleh”.

High Commission of Malaysia and MM2H director

When I seek the advice of staff officer with the High Commissioner of Malaysia in Singapore, I was told that I could appeal to the good office of the director general of the KL immigration HQ. Hence, I wrote in to appeal to the good sense of this immigration director-general about the dire situation that I am faced with and pleaded with him. I described why this is an unjust ban and the justifications for removing the ban which is the same as justification as what has been presented to a high court judge MNBMG. And I find it ludicrous that the judge made this observation that my court application is a “convenient afterthought”. I take great exception to such ludicrous statement. He should check out the fact that my life was upended for the 16 months prior to the revision application.

So, the appeal letter was hand delivered to DGI’s office. But the appeal letter just went into a black hole. Act 155 section 9(8) is a nice piece of Little did I knew at that time that this DGI was also complicit in this whole matter and a waste of time, effort and energy. This DGI’s complicity is proven in the courts of Malaysia when it was declared that my two parts detentions are illegal and unlawful.

After quite some time, I sought help from the director of MM2H and wrote to request for her assistance. The director, Datin SIBSIA of MM2H was very professional and helpful, pleaded on my behalf to the DGI. I believe it is out of courtesy to SIBSIA, the DGI allowed a ridiculous “concession” of a three-month special pass that is to facilitate to settle my Malaysian properties and cars. This is a ridiculous “concession” as it is impossible to close up my properties and cars in just three months. To accept this ridiculous “concession” is the end of the road for me in this matter. That “concession” ended this appeal process. It also allowed me to get a new Singapore passport and to return all the undeserved shame back to Immigration Department of Malaysia officers’ heads spiritually. As at 31.10.2022, I have won three court victories concerning the matter of illegal, unlawful and unconstitutional detention perpetuated against me by Immigration Department of Malaysia officers. Indeed, these three court victories have set in stone concerning Immigration Department of Malaysia’s two illegal detentions and return the ignominy and shame back to the Immigration Department of Malaysia.

My Malaysian lawyer, AK enters as the main character

I started exploring my next option on ways to resolve my few main issues, most importantly is the lifetime ban on entering Malaysia. Apart from the lifetime ban matter, there is the matter to clear my name and for the truth of the matter concerning my detention in oppressive, hostile, unhygienic and inhumane condition cell to be determined.

On 18.6.2019, I initiate correspondence with a Malaysian lawyer, AK regarding engaging his professional service as a lawyer to represent me for my legal challenge against conviction that happened on 26.3.2018 in Malaysia. I confirmed a Letter of Engagement for Lawyer AK‘s service to be my lawyer. He will act for me in a Criminal Motion Permohonan Jenayah No WA-44-178-07/2019 to set aside plea of guilt and conviction.

Malaysian lawyer, AK now has the track record of three court victories against government officials, namely government lawyer, MSBMA for three times.

From then, I start my search for a “suitable and capable lawyer”, one who has the track record and exposure, fearless and unintimidated by government officials. This is a make-or-break, and the choice of lawyer must be a correct one because I will only get one-shot go at it.

At that time, it is so coincidentally that another Singaporean, was also subjected to detention inside Pekan Nenas Immigration Detention Depot, and his case was reported in the news. And lawyer AK was this other Singaporean’s lawyer. After some research on AK‘s background and expertise, I and my daughter decided to consider using his service. That was how Lawyer AK appeared later in this whole court journey.

The start of the 1st court journey

On 16.7.2019, I affirmed my affidavit (AIS) to initiates this Criminal Motion (Permohonan Jenayah No WA-44-178-07/2019) trial at the KL High Court for application on the following grounds:

With respects to para 40 of AIS, I have a suggestion to the government of Malaysia. Why don’t the police put all their corrupt officials facing charges into lock up for 26 days, kept incommunicado before bringing them to court. I am sure the government will save effort, energy and resources in getting their “guilty pleas”. If the government of Malaysia cannot accept my suggestion, then what made the government of Malaysia thinks that it is right to be done on me and the “guilty plea” is justified.

Defendant’s affidavit in opposition (AIO)

5.8.2019 – On this day, senior immigration officer, MHBK filed his affidavit-in-opposition (AIO). One of his allegations was, in para 9 and para 10, that my detention was in accordance with the Act’s requirement and that he, as an investigating officer, had ensured that it was being done according with procedure. In my affidavit-in-support (AIS), I have challenged him to answer my allegation of unlawful detention as per Immigration Act Section 51(5)(b) – to produce me before a magistrate for a remand order within 14-days. To that allegation, he simply made the allegation stated in para 9 and para 10. I also requested the court to allow me to cross-examine him and the immigration officers. He must have been unnerved by this request and which he objected strongly to the court.

English Translation of para 9 & 10 of AIO affirmed by immigration officer, MHBK. Deponent MHBK is also the investigating officer:

” 9. I also certainly deny paragraph 26, 27, 28 and 29 Applicant’s Affidavit in Support. The applicant has been detained in accordance with legal procedure.

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. 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 also ensure that the Applicant who is the suspect under my custody is detained in accordance with the procedures prescribed by law”.

Affidavit in reply (AIR) to AIO

On 23.8.2019, I replied in my affidavit (AIR) the following paragraphs to AIO para 9 & 10:

After my reply as stated in para 7 and para 8 in AIR, MHBK realized that his allegation did not have any supporting evidence and I believed that he roped in another immigration colleague, HBB to be a second witness who submitted a further-affidavit-in-opposition (FAIO) to help him out.

Defendant’s further affidavit in opposition (FAIO)

On 26.8.2019, Defendant submit another Deponent, immigration officer, HBB‘s further affidavit in opposition (FAIO) to my AIR mainly because of para 7, 8, 13, and 14 allegations as shown above.

English Translation of para 16 & 17 of FAIO, affirmed by immigration officer, HBB. Deponent HBB is also the camp commandant:

“16. I also strongly reject paragraph 39 of the Applicant Support Affidavit. The applicant was detained and brought before a Magistrate under Article 5 of the Federal Constitution and section 51(5)(b) of the Immigration Act 1959/63.

17. I hereby deny paragraph 40 of the Applicant Support Affidavit. The applicant was brought before the Magistrate for further detention under section 51 (5) (b) of the Immigration Act 1959/63 from 13.3.2018 and allowed until 26.3.2018. On 26.3.2018, the Applicant was arraigned in court. A copy of the order by the magistrate is exhibited and identified as “HB-1”. End

AS for Exhibit “HB-1”, page 3 of 3 is missing from this set of a 3-pages document. It is deliberately removed, and a red flag, to deceive ignorant people.

HBB also submitted many exhibits which were not congruent with allegations in her affidavit that she had affirmed which I could see that she was “arrowed” to rush out her supporting affidavit (FAIO).

Submission of a further affidavit in reply (FAIR) from me

On the 18.9.2019, I submitted a further affidavit in reply (FAIR) in response to the new affidavit, FAIO from Deponent, HBB.

How would I not be aware of whether I was brought before a Magistrate? And so, this allegation by immigration officer HBB is definitely a lie that I have to vehemently deny. Both immigration officers have now turned this allegation into a “he-says-she-say” kind of situation, and it is up to the good judge to decides who is the truthful witness. But guess what? The judge, MNBMG believed HBB and the other immigration officer, MHBK who had averred that I was detained in accordance with procedure. The judge’s written judgment in para 59 tells us who he believed are truthful witnesses, but poor choice indeed in the light of the subsequent revelation in the Saman Pemula No. WA-24-5-01/2020 case that I was indeed the truthful witness.

A last-minute affidavit from a third immigration officer, MZ

On the 19.9.2019, another immigration officer, MZ named in my affidavit (AIS) submitted a late affidavit. I was not allowed to do a further affidavit in reply as it was a day earlier on 18.9.2019 that I had submitted a further affidavit in reply. Paragraph 11 of MZ‘s affidavit is his replies to my allegation in paragraph 17 of my affidavit (AIS).

English Translation of para 11 of affidavit affirmed by immigration officer, MZ. Deponent MZ is the immigration boyfriend cohabiting with his married girlfriend, JS:

Quote: “11. Referring to paragraph 17, I acknowledge the Applicant arrived with the police at the house. At that time, I was there to give a helping hand to Jennifer whose son is unwell”. unquote.

Here is a late affidavit submitted and sneak in that clearly do not allow me to respond to MZ‘s lie. The truth is he was caught trespassing on my property illegally despite being warned a day earlier that I do not want him inside my property sleeping with a married woman. It was when I do a random check in the wee hours of 3.00 am that I caught him and the ex-housekeeper, JS red-handed cohabiting together. This is substantiated with an exhibit, “W-7” – police report on the illegal trespassing.

And this shows that the judge, MNBMG is contradictory based on his statement in para 59 of his written judgment, i.e. “not substantiated by any forms of evidence”. It appears that the judge is helping to cover for MZ‘s lie because what MZ alleged is without substantiation while my allegation is with substantiation.

The conclusion of this Criminal Motion (Permohonan Jenayah No WA-44-178-07/2019) trial

On 19.12.2019, the judge, MNBMG dismissed my case as unmeritorious with his conclusion as in paragraph 60 of his written judgment, dated 21.2.2020. He also likened my allegations as scandalous in para 59.

Little did he realized that the “scandalous” word was prophetic for himself when he was investigated by MACC as reported in the news.

However, a miracle happened during the court hearing. By an act of God, hard copy of the exhibits “HB-1” was distributed to the court and my lawyer, AK during the hearing. They inadvertently included the missing page 3 of 3 and gave the hard copy to my lawyer during the court session. This is indeed an act of divine intervention with regards to the perfect timing of the appearance of documentary evidence that will eventually substantiate my averment in para 40 of AIS, para 7 & 8 of AIR and para 11 & 12 of FAIR. Thank you, Lord Jesus, for this “opening of the Red Sea moment” when there seems no way ahead for me.

Lies and falsehoods incorporated into high court judge MNBMG‘s written judgment

Because the Defendant, Immigration officer, MHBK the investigation officer had averred in para 9 & 10 of his affidavit (AIO) that I was detained in accordance with legal procedure and a second immigration officer, HBB, the camp commandant had also averred in para 16 & 17 of her affidavit (FAIO), Judge MNBMG has successfully been deceived by two untruthful witnesses. Judge MNBMG thus incorporated their lies and falsehoods into his written judgment in para 38 and para 55.

Para 38: “This is not just the absence of any issues raised to the depot authorities and to the investigation officer, but also to the magistrate during remand proceedings, …” This sentence in paragraph 38 have asserted as a fact that I was produced to the magistrate on the 12.3.2018 for remand proceeding was a lie and a falsehood.

Referring to the written judgment document provided by the high court judge, MNBMG in the Permohonan Jenayah No. WA-44-178-07/2019 case. If this judge’s dismissal of my application as unmeritorious on the “replies affirmed by the investigating officer of the immigration department and by the commandant of the depot where the applicant was detained, have raised questions on the validity of the assertations of the applicant” but it turns out that both the immigration officers, MHBK and HBB were untruthful witnesses, it means that all my assertations are true and an error of judgment on his part had occurred.

Para 34 reads “have raised questions on the validity of the assertations of the applicant” and para 59 reads “allegations averred in the applicant’s affidavit were scandalous and not substantiated by any forms of evidence” are flawed and tainted judgment. See snippet below of para 34:

For the lies and falsehoods of the two immigration officers, MHBK and HBB. I had made police reports against them in the two police reports to get to the truth of the matter on these false allegations. At the same time, together with another two police reports pertaining to illegal detentions will helps me in the process of revealing the truth of the matter concerning the corruption motives of all these immigration officers behind my criminalization, detention and lifetime immigration blacklist matter.

Documentary evidence for follow up second court case against Immigration Department of Malaysia DGI

After the case with Judge MNBMG was over in end 2019, I initiated another Originating Summon, Saman Pemula No. WA-24-5-01/2020 sealed with the KL high court on 20.1.2020. The judge for this case is NBB.

My originating summon is asking the high court/judge to make a ruling on a piece of documentary evidence. It is an official court document, a missing one-page document which Immigration Department of Malaysia had tendered as their exhibit “HB-1”. You can read about this case here.

Police reports against immigration officers for perjury in sworn affidavits and “tampering” of exhibit

On the 8.12.2021, I made four police reports against Immigration Department of Malaysia officers. Two of these police reports were related to the lies and falsehoods found incorporated into my KL high court judge, MNBMG‘s written judgment.

The report, reference L/20211208/2016, is for lying in this immigration officer HBB‘s affidavit (FAIO) and submitting a “tampered” exhibit. In my previous work as an ISO auditor, when I am presented with just 2 pages and a missing page 3, it is clearly a red flag. It usually is that there is crucial and critical information on this missing page that is the reason why it has been deliberately hidden away. As an auditor, I will surely ask where is the missing page? It must be presented to me for verification of the facts. So, it is imperative to know why the immigration officer remove this page 3 from the exhibit in her affidavit (FAIO)? Is this a deliberate act of “tampering” evidence and subverting justice?

It must be mentioned that this hard copy, page 3 of 3 of exhibit was miraculously delivered into my hand. It has ultimately revealed the truth of the matter about the non-production of me before a magistrate for remand proceeding on 12.3.2018.

The other police report, reference L/20211208/2013, is for potential lying on oath in another immigration officer, MHBK‘s affidavit. Together with the lying, there is also the submission of a re-typed “manufactured” unsigned remand order as exhibit. This re-typed “manufactured” unsigned remand order is re-defined as “Nota Prosiding” needs to be investigated to determine (1) its origin and (2) all the perpetrators involved.

These police reports are for the purpose to aid in revealing the truth of the matter concerning the fix up that is part of a hatched dark scheme, concerning the illegal detention that is “tantamount to kidnapping” for corrupt motives, and the reason of the lifetime blacklist is a leverage for corruption through subterfuge. Though it is expected to be resisted by a complicit Royal Malaysia Police that practice double standard, we will equally push this action through the court as well.

High court’s written judgment and order is the basis for making the reports

The basis for these two police reports pertaining to (1) potential lying in sworn affidavits by two immigration officers, (2) An act of ”tampering” exhibit and (3) a “manufactured” fake remand order is the written judgment of the high court of an Originating Summon proceeding, Saman Pemula No: WA-24-5-01/2020.

Para 34: “I find that the replies affirmed by the investigating officer of the immigration department and by the commandant of the depot where the applicant was detained, …” This sentence has been proven a falsehood by the document, Saman Pemula No. WA-24-5-01/2020 with the conclusion that I was never produced to the magistrate on the 12.3.2018.

Illegal, unlawful and unconstitutional detention without magistrate order

Similarly, it is repeated of the same falsehood that I was brought before the magistrate on the 12.3.2018 for remand in Para 55: “The applicant in this case before me not only did not raise complaints whilst in remand with the depot authorities or to the investigating officer, or to the magistrate who had allowed remand, …”.

Both paragraphs 38 and 55 were proven falsehoods by Saman Pemula No. WA-24-5-01/2020, as shown by the conclusion; quote: “I was never produced to the Magistrate on the 12.3.2018.” unquote.

Falsehoods continue to propagate to the court of appeal.

This same falsehood has propagated to the appeal court as well and hereby constitutes serious concerns regarding the Permohonan Jenayah No WA-44-178-07/2019 judgment.

During the appeal court proceeding, the document, Permohonan Jenayah No. WA-44-178-07/2019 containing falsehoods became the document that the DPP relied on and his quote: “And I humbly submit that all these allegations is baseless, and I stand guided by the findings by the learned High Court Judge.”, unquote.

During proceeding, the DPP had specifically quoted paragraph 34: ”The high court judge had meticulously dealt with the allegations put up by the appellant, if I can read in verbatim, Ariff. At paragraph 34, and these are the things that have been dealt by the high court judge, saying that the allegations made by the appellant is purely groundless, baseless and all these allegations were answered by the affidavits, by namely the IO himself, affidavit MHBK, affidavit HBB of depot commandant and affidavit MZ which is the depot officer himself.” unquote.

Lastly, during the appeal court half-an-hour proceeding (attendance via zoom videoconferencing), my lawyer’s closing submission to the appeal court in response to the DPP’s submission based on Permohonan Jenayah No. WA-44-178-07/2019 includes a crucial point in relation to the falsehood as mentioned in line 20.19. The DPP had asserted to the appeal court the falsehood pertaining to the assertion that I was presented for remand on 12.3.2018. The DPP stated this before the appeal court, quote: “In fact, Ariff, he had all the opportunity to voice out his disagreement even during the remand period. In fact, during his remand proceeding, all these were never disclosed.”, unquote. The DPP’s assertion is referring to the falsehood of a remand proceeding before a magistrate on 12.3.2018.

Judgments that contained falsehoods are tainted justice

To date, falsehoods has been the basis of judgment through court document, Permohonan Jenayah No. WA-44-178-07/2019 and also the basis of judgment of the appeal court as well.

In his closing submission, my lawyer submitted and asserted that the DPP did not provides a single piece of evidence. This was in response to the DPP’s assertion of vigorous investigations over the continuous period of 26-days lock up.

Equally vigorous, the DPP had asserted paragraph 34 of Permohonan Jenayah No. WA-44-178-07/2019 – the claim that there was a remand proceeding on the 12.3.2018 that allows me to complain to the magistrate, which turned out patently false.

Is this Malaysian government’s standard of upholding her federal constitution and her judiciary system? or are foreigners to be treated to a different standard? All the above examples shows that foreigners are indeed treated to a different standard and discrimination.