🔊 Listen to this

Background Information

On 26.3.2018, I pleaded guilty to what the Immigration claimed was my purported immigration offence. This was after my illegal detention of 13 days (13.3.2018 to 26.3.2018) and a total of 26 days in detention since 28.2.2018.

The Special Session Court magistrate ordered a fine of RM30,000 or six months prison in default of paying the fine. However, my family paid the RM30,000.00 fine on the same day.

I attached the receipt for the payment of the RM30,000 fine that shows the time-stamped 26.03.2018 @13:16:46.

Thereafter the Session Court issued an Order of discharge for my release upon payment of the RM30,000 fine. This order of discharge was dated 26.3.2018 as shown on image below.

The discharge order and official receipt showing the payment of the fine was handed over to the prison authorities on 27.3.2018 whereby a family member visited me. She was accompanied by my Malaysian lawyer.

However, I was not discharged or released forthwith to road in spite of the court-issued order of discharge. I should be released from any further confinement for the fact that I am in possession of a valid MM2H 5-year visa and a valid Singapore passport. My Singapore passport was surrendered to the Setia Tropika Immigration HQ office on 4.3.2018. Upon surrendering, I was issued an official acknowledgment receipt as shown on the image below.

My MM2H visa for 5 years was valid from 10.2.2016 to 13.11.2020 meaning that I am still legally allowed to remain in Malaysia unless it is immediately revoked by the Malaysian Government. However, it was not revoked until 4.4.2018 as shown on the image below.

However, the immigration officers involved with my confinement showed total disregard of the court-issued discharge order. These immigration officers continued to confine me inside Kluang Prison till the morning of 29.3.2018.

Instead of releasing me on the morning of 29.3.2018, the Immigration Department of Malaysia officers arranged a 40-seater excursion bus to transfer me from Kluang Prison to Pekan Nenas Immigration Detention Depot. Here, at the Pekan Nenas Depot, they continued to detain me without any known official reason given for continual detention. It has become clear that these immigration officers were detaining me at their whims and fancies, and I am simply powerless against their abusive action.

No valid official explanation or reason for my detention

On the 1.4.2018 (Sunday), a Malaysian friend visited me at Pekan Nenas Detention Depot. While I was waiting for my turn to see her, one of the escorting immigration guards helps me check on the status of my release on his handphone apps. He then told me that my Singapore passport was not delivered to Pekan Nenas Depot. Their SOP is that any detainee to be released must have their passport ready at Pekan Nenas Depot Administration office in order to complete the process for releasing the detainee.

I was told that if my passport was not sent over from Setia Tropika Immigration HQ by Sunday, I will be detained for one more extra week for sure. According to their SOP, the release date is on one set day per week which is a different date for different nationality detainee. This would mean that the immigration officers will detain me by one more week and release me on the next subsequent week release date. It is also possible that immigration officers would also detain me even longer than two weeks, three weeks as every detainee was attesting to me to expect the worst. This was what detainees have observed and also based on historical occurrences.

These immigration officers running the immigration detention depot are like little “Napoleans”, detaining foreigners according to their whims and fancies. They don’t need to give valid explanation or reason for your detention. There has been lots of hearsay that were heard from some long-staying detainees that these “Napoleans” can “falsified” Orders and documents to fix you or to free you. Though it is unspoken or not spoken openly, most back-door deals can be arranged through the checker or Kawasan for monetary bribe to these immigration officers/guards.

After being given copies of “falsified” or “manufactured” Orders, I surely have seen one now. Why is it a “falsified” or “manufactured” orders given to me? It is because I am educated and educated people don’t thumbprint on documents (see image of Order of Removal shown below).

The 8 days after 26.3.2018 were declared illegal, unlawful and unconstitutional

It was really a Godsend that my Malaysian good friend visited me on this 1.4.2018, Sunday. I had an opportunity to inform her to convey an urgent message to my family. This message is to inform my family to seek help from the Singapore Consular attaché to intervene for my release. On the morning of 2.4.2018, my family contacted the Attaché to intervene with Setia Tropika Immigration HQ. My family requested Attaché to help on an urgent basis for my release on the coming set day, 4.4.2018, without fail.

A Singapore Consulate officer intervened and contacted the Setia Tropika Immigration HQ to get the immigration officer overseeing my detention to process my release without any delay. The purported reason for the delay in my release and my continual detention, as told to the Consulate General of Singapore, was that Setia Tropika Immigration HQ did not receive my passport. In responding to their purported reason, my family produced the passport acknowledgment receipt and give to the Consular officer. With the acknowledgment receipt, Setia Tropika Immigration HQ office/officers had no more excuses but to deliver my passport to Pekan Nenas Detention Depot for processing my release.

On 4.4.2018, I was brought to Setia Tropika Immigration HQ and my MM2H visa was revoked on this day. Thereafter I was escorted to the Singapore Tuas ICA Checkpoint.

I was handed over to Tuas Immigration and Custom Authority of Singapore in handcuffs under false pretext that I am a criminal from Kluang Prison and an illegal immigrant from Pekan Nenas Immigration Detention Depot, despite not being so.

At all material times, I had a valid Singapore passport and a valid MM2H visa until it was revoked on 4.4.2018, the day that I was released.

Since the day the discharge order was produced to Kluang Prison on 27.3.2018, I was not released till 4.4.2018, a period of 8 days. The KL High Court Judge, AS A/L SS had declared these 8 days of detention as illegal, unlawful and unconstitutional in his Declaratory Order for Saman Pemula No. WA-24-16-04/2022.

Made Police Report on 2nd part of unlawful, illegal and unconstitutional detention

As there was no official reason and valid explanation for this detention and having a court order declaring the detention illegal, unlawful and unconstitutional, I had to seek justice for this criminal action perpetuated by these Immigration Department of Malaysia officers.

I therefore lodged a police report on this illegal detention on the 8.12.2021 via Interpol Singapore and Interpol Malaysia to transmit to the Royal Malaysian Police for their investigation. The police report, L/20211208/2001 is shown on image below.

It was after making the police report on 8.12.2021 that I also decided to mount a legal challenge in the Malaysian High Court to seek justice against this abuse of power and criminal action by Immigration Department of Malaysia officers.

Regarding this detention, it is a 2nd part of an illegal, unlawful and unconstitutional detention (8 days) and is a continuation from my 1st part illegal, unlawful and unconstitutional detention (13 days).

The 1st part illegal detention is from 13.3.2018 to 26.3.2018 for which the KL High Court had already declared in the court order for Saman Pemula No. 25-4-01/2020 as illegal, unlawful and unconstitutional on 4.5.2021.

On the 31.10.2022, the Appeal Court had confirmed in the court order for Rayuan Sivil No. W-01(A)-282-05/2021 the detention illegal, unlawful and unconstitutional. See image of court order below.

The Singapore Chinese news media, Zaobao carries this news on 1.11.2022 and you can read this news here.

Made Police Report also for 1st part illegal, unlawful and unconstitutional detention

I also lodged a police report, L/20211208/2005 on the 1st part illegal detention from 13.3.2018 to 26.3.2018 as shown on image below.

This police report on the1st part illegal detention was based on court order from the KL High Court. The KL High Court on the 4.5.2021 had declared the detention from 13.3.2018 to 26.3.2018 illegal, unlawful and unconstitutional.

And when the Immigration Department of Malaysia appealed against the 1st part illegal detention victory, that was when I decided to proceed with the second legal challenge on 2nd part illegal detention. This was to make sure that should the 1st part illegal detention gets overturned by the Appeal Court, there is still one court record of an illegal, unlawful and unconstitutional detention.

Either I get two orders for these two parts illegal detentions set in stone from the two court victories, or I could still take home one court victory should the Government of Malaysia succeed in its appeal against the 1st part illegal detention.

So, on the 27.1.2022, I began an Originating Summon action against Immigration Department of Malaysia for this 2nd part illegal detention.

The second legal challenge for the 2nd part of unlawful detention

When the Originating Summon was filed on the 27.1.2022, it must come as a big surprise to the Immigration Department of Malaysia officers to be challenged a second time after losing the 1st legal challenge on 4.5.2021.

The Immigration Department of Malaysia tried to have the KL High Court strike out the case at the initial stage during case management. They claimed that the filing was not with the Special Court. My Malaysian lawyer then re-filed the case as directed by the court.

Then the Immigration Department of Malaysia counter-filed with another application to strike out my case again by using the three-year time bar limitation law. This would mean that there will be two applications now for the high court to hears and decides.

The high court hears the application by the Immigration Department of Malaysia on their attempt to strike out my case on 29.6.2022 and if the Immigration Department of Malaysia is successful, it would mean that my case ends here.

However, the KL High Court agreed with my Malaysian that the 3-year time bar limitation law cannot be used to protect officers in doing illegal acts. These officers were not sued when in their lawful and official duties but on the contrary. The high court subsequently ruled against the Immigration Department of Malaysia’s strike-out application. My application was allowed by the KL High Court and the case moves forward. The Singapore news media, the Straits Times carries this news here.

The following were contentions from both the defendant (Immigration Department of Malaysia) and the Plaintiff (Myself) during the proceedings:

Defendant’s contention

The Defendant contend that Deputy Asst Director, officer NBJ had on 27.3.2018, issued an Order of Removal and Order of Detention against me. The Order of Removal was issued under Section 56(2) and the Order of Detention was issued under Section 34(1) of the Immigration Act 1959/63 respectively. However, I am very clear in my mind that there was no such Order of Removal and Order of Detention issued to me. Furthermore, how could any immigration officer serve me these two orders because I was imprisoned in Kluang Prison and not in Pekan Nenas Immigration Detention Depot. The Immigration Administration office is inside Pekan Nenas Depot compound.

The Defendant claimed that the said Order of Removal and Order of Detention were served on me on 27.3.2018 and that I had purportedly acknowledged receipt by placing my thumbprint on both orders.

But this is a false assertion as I am an educated person and sign all documents and I don’t do thumbprint on any document.

Next, it is asserted that both Order of Removal and Order of Detention were thumb printed to show my acknowledgment but there is no thumbprint found on the Order of Detention making it a false claim.

Defendant’s allegations

The Defendant submitted an affidavit, D-AIR1 of a Deputy Assistant Director, officer NBJ with the following in para 7, Quote “Referring to para 8 and 9 of P-AIS, I verily state as follows: a) On 27.3.2018, I have issued the Order for Removal against the Plaintiff under s 56(2) Immigration Act wherein the Plaintiff is ordered to remove from Malaysia and I have issued the detention order against the Plaintiff under s 34(1) Immigration Act wherein the Plaintiff is ordered to be detained for the purpose of removal from Malaysia.

A copy of the said detention order is enclosed herein as NJ-1. b) The Order for Removal and detention order was given to the Plaintiff by Senior Immigration Officer, MHBI on 27.3.2018. c) In line with the Order for Removal and detention order: (i) Plaintiff was detained in Kluang Prison from 27.3.2018; (ii) On 29.3.2018, Plaintiff was transferred to Pekan Nenas Immigration Depot and further detained.” End of quote.

As mentioned in the affidavit by NBJ, it was claimed that a Senior Immigration Officer, MHBI served both the Order of Removal and the Order of Detention on me on 27.3.2018. However, on 27.3.2018 till 29.3.2018 morning I was imprisoned in Kluang Prison and MHBI was stationed elsewhere in Immigration Depot or location for his immigration duty. It is therefore a big question mark on how he served both Order of Removal and Order of Detention on me.

So, whether MHBI served both orders on me or not, MHBI sworn an affidavit with the following, Quote “6. I verily confirm the statement in para 7(b) D-AIR1 by NBJ. Further, I verily state that as seen in the Order for Removal and detention order exhibited in NJ-1 of D-AIR1, on 27.3.2018: a) I have served the Order for Removal and the detention order to Plaintiff; and b) Plaintiff has acknowledge receipt of the Order for Removal and detention order by putting down his thumbprint on the said orders.” End of quote.

Analysis of Order of Removal shows a “manufactured” document

#1 – This order has a thumbprint that the Defendant claimed that it is my thumbprint. However, I never used my thumbprint in place of signature for any document of the Defendant. The reason is that I am educated and therefore signs all documents. So, the thumbprint on document is confirmed not mine.

#2 – Further to that, the thumbprint appearing therein is much larger in size and significantly different from mine.

#3 – The Defendant’s claim that the officer, MHBI who purportedly served the Order of Removal on me, namely the deponent of D-AIR2, was at the material time (27.3.2018) a senior immigration officer at Johor Immigration Department of Malaysia. However, on 27.3.2018, I was detained in Kluang Prison and transferred to Pekan Nenas Immigration Depot on 29.3.2018. There was no explanation whatsoever on how the deponent of D-AIR2 could have served the Order of Removal on me on 27.3.2018 when the deponent of D-AIR2 does not work at Kluang Prison.

#4 – He also did not explain the circumstances which led him to be at Kluang Prison on 27.3.2018, if indeed he was there (though strictly denied).

#5 – He did not state the time and place, whether in the prison cell or otherwise, of the purported service. In fact, it is odd for the deponent of D-AIR2 to have personally served the Order of Removal on me when he was not a prison guard or a prison officer working at Kluang Prison.

#6 – This Order of Removal was issued by the Deputy Assistant Director of Immigration pursuant to Section 56(2) of the Immigration Act. However, I was not charged under Section 56(2) but under Section 55E(1) offence.

#7 – The deponent of affidavit D-AIR2 claimed that he had given this order to me personally in paragraph 6. This is in order to corroborate with what the deponent of D-AIR1 had stated in paragraph 7b of her affidavit. Nothing from all the above points justify the truth of this claim by both deponents. It is more of spinning a narrative.

#8 – It was dated when it was served but interestingly not where the order was served on me.

#9 – An Order of Removal could only be issued by reason of Section 9, 15 or 60 of the Immigration Act. This is explained in the below-mentioned Header Section “Whereas Section 33 of the Immigration Act provides as follows“. However, the Order of Removal against me specifically refers to the offence committed by me, namely, Section 55E(1), in which I was charged, sentenced, paid the fine, and was ordered by the court to be discharged forthwith. I cannot be detained again under the same offence.

#10 – Facts concerning me at the point of Order of Removal issuance was as follows: I am not an illegal immigrant. I did not enter or remain in Malaysia unlawfully or illegally. I had a valid visa to remain in Malaysia when the said Order of Removal was purportedly issued. My visa was only revoked on the day I was released on 4.4.2018. All these facts prove that Section 9, 15 or 60 of the Immigration Act does not applies here.

#11 – Noticeably, the date on which I purportedly committed the offence Sec 55E(1) was not stated. The second line of the first paragraph also appears to be overwritten “….an offence under of….”.

#12 – The number “876” was coincidentally my body number identification when I was inside Pekan Nenas. This number, 876 was added later to replace a strike-out number. There was no explanatory note and alteration was not signed-off/accepted by a higher authority.

#13 – The Order of Removal is issued under section 56(2) of the Immigration Acts. It is an anomaly to be using this section 56(2) and details of anomaly is explained in below-mentioned Header Section “Anomaly pertaining to the Order of Removal and Order of Detention“.

#14 – Also notably, Section 56(2) and Section 55E(1) of the Immigration Act have no nexus with each other.

Analysis of Order of Detention shows a “manufactured” document

#1 – There was only a thumbprint appearing on the Order of Removal, but no thumbprint on Order of Detention. This is contrary to the Defendant’s allegation in officer’s affidavit D-AIR2 paragraph 6b.

#2 – The Defendant’s alleged that the officer who purportedly served the Order of Detention on me, namely the deponent of D-AIR2, was at the material time (27.3.2018) a senior immigration officer at Johor Immigration Department of Malaysia. However, on 27.3.2018, I was detained in Kluang Prison and transferred to Pekan Nenas Immigration Depot on 29.3.2018. There was no explanation whatsoever on how the deponent of D-AIR2 could have served the Order of Detention on me on 27.3.2018 when the deponent of D-AIR2 does not work at Kluang Prison.

#3 – He also did not explain the circumstances which led him to be at Kluang Prison on 27.3.2018, if indeed he was there (though strictly denied).

#4 – He did not state the time and place, whether in the prison cell or otherwise, of the purported service. In fact, it is odd for the deponent of D-AIR2 to have personally served the Order of Detention on me when he was not a prison guard or a prison officer working at Kluang Prison.

#5 – It was dated when it was served but interestingly not where the order was served on me.

#6 – There is no information/indication on the Order of Detention showing that I have acknowledged sighting and receipt of this order from deponent of D-AIR2. This is contrary to paragraph 6b of affidavit of deponent of D-AIR2.

#7 – The Order of Detention is issued under section 34(1) of the Immigration Acts. It is an anomaly to be using this section 34(1) and details of anomaly is explained in below-mentioned Header Section “Anomaly pertaining to the Order of Removal and Order of Detention“.

Anomaly pertaining to the Order of Removal and Order of Detention

The Order of Removal was purportedly issued for an offence under Section 56(2) of the Immigration Act.

The said Section 56(2) of the Immigration Act provides as follows:

56 Offences

…

(2) Any person who is not a citizen unlawfully entering or re-entering or attempting unlawfully to enter or re-enter Malaysia or unlawfully remaining in Malaysia shall whether or not any proceedings are taken against him in respect of the offence be liable to be removed from Malaysia by order of the Director General.

It follows that the Defendant then purportedly issued the Order of Detention against me under Section 34(1) of the Immigration Act.

The said Section 34(1) of the Immigration Act provides as follows:

34 Detention of persons ordered to be removed

(1) Where any person is ordered to be removed from Malaysia under this Act, such person may be detained in custody for such period as may be necessary for the purpose of making arrangements for his removal:

Provided that any person detained under this subsection who appeals under subsection 33(2) against the order of removal may, in the discretion of the Director General, be released, pending the determination of his appeal, on such conditions as to furnishing security or otherwise as the Director General may deem fit.

Whereas Section 33 of the Immigration Act provides as follows:

33 Removal of persons unlawfully remaining in Malaysia

(1) Where the presence of any person in Malaysia is unlawful by reason of section 9, 15 or 60 the person shall, whether or not any proceedings are taken against him in respect of any offence against this Act, be removed from Malaysia by order of the Director General.

(2) Any person in respect of whom an order of removal has been made under subsection (1) may appeal to the Minister* in such manner and within such time as may be prescribed:

Provided that there shall be no appeal under this subsection against an order of removal under subsection (1) made in respect of any person whose presence in Malaysia is unlawful under section 9 by reason of any order made under paragraph 9(1)(a) or by reason of the cancellation of a Pass or Permit under paragraph 9(1)(b) or 9(1)(c) respectively, or is unlawful under paragraph 15(1)(c) or section 60 by reason of the expiry of any Pass relating to or issued to him.

More on the anomaly of both Orders

That is not all. The Order of Detention specifically states “WHEREAS an order has been made for your removal from the federation under Section 5(2) of the Immigration Act 1959/63”. The relevant portion of the Order of Detention is shown below:

The said Section 5 of the Immigration Act provides as follows:

Entry into or departure from Malaysia (1) The Minister may, by notification in the Gazette, prescribe approved routes and declare such immigration control posts, landing places, airports or points of entry, as he may consider to be necessary for the purposes of this Act, to be immigration control posts, authorized landing places, authorized airports or authorized points of entry, as the case may be, and no person shall, unless compelled by accident or other reasonable cause, enter or leave Malaysia except at an authorized landing place, airport or point of entry.

(2) Any person who contravenes subsection (1) shall be guilty of an offence against this Act.

I did not enter or leave Malaysia through an unauthorized landing place, airport or point of entry. In fact, the Order of Detention does not even corroborate or refer to the Order of Removal, although it is the Defendant’s contention that I was detained for the purpose of removal from Malaysia.

Discrepancies points to signs of a “manufactured” documents

There is no explanation offered by the Defendant as to all the discrepancies found on the Order of Removal and Order of Detention. To maintain the integrity of the judiciary, there should be a forensic audit by an independent auditor to audit and find answers to the many discrepancies. The audit needs to look into all associated documentation and files in the Immigration Department of Malaysia relating to these two orders. It is also concerning that an original body number ID shown on Order of Removal was strike out and substituted with my body number ID. No explanation nor details was proffered as to why someone performed this change on important and critical document.

There is also no basis or any explanation for the issuance of the Order of Removal and Order of Detention. It is highly probable that both Order of Removal and Order of Detention were “customized” to suddenly appeared as evidence. In fact, I was shocked when I sees these document the first time as I have never seen these document before as alleged by deponent of affidavit D-AIR1 and deponent of affidavit D-AIR2.

As to when these Order of Removal and Order of Detention were created, no one knows as no proper authentication by any magistrate, or an independent judiciary authority was provided.

Confirmation of hearsay of bribes for “manufactured”/”falsified” Orders

It must be mentioned that while I was detained inside the detention depot, there are many hearsays from long-time stay detainees. The hearsay is that immigration orders can be “manufactured”/”falsified” to be used to alter the legal status of detainees. This is being done in exchange for a bribe. In other words, an undocumented immigrant’s status can be altered to one with “valid” documentation by a back-door deal.

And vice versa for an immigrant with proper work permit or visa, their immigrant status can be altered to one having entered into Malaysia unlawfully or without valid documentation and to be removed (as seen from the examples above that were used in my case).

As a side note: There were two Nepalese nationals that were arrested together with me. They were not charged at all but were deported under suspicious circumstances. These two Nepalese had started work as security guards for the previous MNC company that I had worked for. They had valid work permits and were mentioned in my police reports. The above two orders have added more suspicions about “manufactured”/”falsified” orders and truth to this hearsay.

Further to this, it has been found from my earlier high court cases two examples of perjury, one of “tampered” evidence and one of similar “manufactured” document used as exhibits. Police reports were made on 8.12.2021 on these illegal actions as well.

The high court outcome and conclusion

As can be seen from above, there are many discrepancies as well as anomalies found in the Immigration Department of Malaysia’s Order of Removal and Order of Detention. Such orders, that were the Immigration Department of Malaysia’s exhibits before the high court failed to justify their continual detention of me in Kluang Prison and in Pekan Nenas Detention Depot.

Hence, the Defendant’s own evidence, the suspicious “manufactured” Order of Removal and Order of Detention and the immigration officers’ claims were not accepted by the high court judge, AS A/L SS.

It follows that even if the two orders were true, they were wrongfully issued (there is no explanation for issuing these two orders, hence “manufactured”), and therefore ultra vires and null and void. The same were also issued in defiance of the court order (my discharge order).

The high court agreed with my Malaysian lawyer that the Immigration Department of Malaysia in further detaining me from 27.3.2018 to 3.4.2018 was illegal, unlawful and unconstitutional. The high court also ordered damages compensation to be paid to me and amount to be decided at another hearing.