10 May 2006

How Interesting

Right now, we don't really know what kind of trouble this (ex)-PAP MP has gotten himself into. So Mr Wang will just post the article here for record purposes, and review the matter again if/when more details become public.
ST May 10, 2006
Former MP to answer complaint against him

LAWYER and former Hong Kah GRC MP Ahmad Khalis Abdul Ghani will appear before the Court of Three Judges as he battles a complaint filed against him.

This would be the highest level a disciplinary hearing can reach for a lawyer. No date has been fixed for the hearing.

Since the complaint was raised to the Law Society, Mr Ahmad, 46, had faced two rounds of disciplinary hearing.

Recently, the society's Disciplinary Committee decided that the case would be referred to the High Court.

Confirming it on Wednesday, Mr Ahmad said he was determined to fight the allegation levelled against him.
It is believed that the complaint was about estate matters which he was involved with.

However, Mr Ahmad declined to shed any light on it, explaining that the case is still ongoing.

'It's very unfair for me now, because I can't tell my side of the story,' he said.

He had earlier confirmed that the hearing was one reason why he decided not to stand for a second term in the recent General Election.

Last month, he announced his decision to step down as an MP because of 'pressing work commitments'. He also said that he could not discuss details.


Anonymous said...

Ever since I heard James Gomez had his passport and boarding pass impounded, and his sorry ass prevented from leaving for Sweden, I have been staring at the ceiling, the words 'what the fuck' pounding through my brain. And it is Section 506 & 507 of the penal code that had got me near berserk. I had to write this.

I was slapped with 8 email harassment charges back in 2000. Because 8 email harassment charges couldn't have kept me locked up, Investigating Officer Oem Prakash Singh of Clementi Police Division (hereafter referred to as 'the modern singh') slapped an additional charge of criminal intimidation on me so as to raise the bail amount the judge then pegged at $50K (the same amount which, may I remind you, TT Durai is presently running around loose on). Of course the modern singh counted on me not having a bailer with $50K, so I spent 5 months inside awaiting trial.

The excuse for the criminal intimidation charge was a phone call I made to Koh Chong Huat (a cousin of mine) telling him in exact words 'You are 50+, sooner or later, you have to die'. I thought it was a given, nothing being more certain than death and taxes, that reminding somebody, anybody, of his age couldn't possibly constitute a criminal offense, especially since the guy was actually 50+ (I'd admit Lee Kuan Yew may be offended to be reminded of his age, and that death was likely to be knocking on his door anytime, but not enough to constitute a criminal offense, especially when he's going to be continuing to be having birthday parties, and his cronies are going to be showing up not trying to pretend, I hope, that it is something other than birthdays that they are going to be celebrating.)

But not to digress. The reason why I was locked up was because I had finally found something I was looking for on and off since 1995. And I was showing up at all the awkward places, the CPIB, the Law Society of Singapore, and the Legal Aid. They all found excuses of one sort or another. Sooner or later I was going to latch on to a lawyer, yes?

I latched onto the wrong lawyer, however. Someone by the name of Chiam See Tong. He suggested leaving Hoo Sheau Farn out of the lawsuit, and sue principally Koh Thong (Koh Chong Huat's old man), and Lim Swee Ying (my late father's old hag), and he also told me that he didn't want to figure in the case, and therefore would be helping me sue my relatives in my own name. Who's to know Chiam See Tong would be colluding with Yik Tze Kong, the lawyer representing the respondents to the suit.

Time was of essence. If I wasn't latching onto Chaim See Tong, I would've to latch onto some other lawyer pretty quick. The plan was to have this Chiam See Tong set up a case for me, I land in jail, and the case applied to be struck out by the respondents, the lawyers acting for the parties being in collusion.

So Koh Chong Huat made a complaint against me. That made me a 'wanted' person. And I was supposed to know that (not that I did). Then Yik Tze Kong applied to have the case that Chiam See Tong set up for me struck off by the civil court expecting me not to show up to defend.

But I got arrested at Changi cargo complex going through the check-point reporting to my first day of temporary work. And I was held for 5 months awaiting trial. I made calls to Chiam See Tong then at the police lockup, wrote to Chiam See Tong whilst I was remanded, met Chiam See Tong whilst I was at the Subordinate Court, and Chiam See Tong visited me whilst I was held at Buangkok Chalet, but he wouldn't help me with these fresh charges I was up against, and resisted suggestions that the civil case he was helping me with and the criminal case I was facing were connected.

Topmost in the mind of the modern singh must've been whether I had knowledge of the application by Yik Tze Kong to have the case set up for me by Chiam See Tong struck off. If so, and I apprised the court of the fact, the judge would likely find that I have no case to answer. So was it a coincidence then, that when I was finally released, my laptop and papers pertaining to my civil suit were missing from my rented room, and I had to cough up $50 to get them back, and later, when I thought it wise to ask for a receipt for the $50, was refused, and the $50 returned instead?

Because I was arrested in the wrong sequence, and the all important letter was left undiscovered in my post office mailbox, Yik Tze Kong didn't show up at the civil court to have the civil case set up for me by Chiam See Tong struck out (references to it at my blog).

You may be asking me why the modern singh would have me arrested in the wrong sequence. The modern singh didn't have me arrested. I was arrested by the police division (Bedok) in charge of the Changi cargo complex. I cannot be 'wanted' unless there was an APB out for me. With an APB out on me, it was always possible for me to be arrested in the wrong sequence.

There is a lesson in all this for James Gomez.

Even though I was remanded without having visitors (except for the one-time visit by Chiam See Tong at Buangkok Chalet - now upgraded to Buangkok Recreational Club - where I was also warned by Dr George Fernandez to be careful of what I say in Court or face institutionalization on Christmas Day, 2000 - bloody arse hole showed up just to warn me), and therefore could not otherwise seek representation, had the criminal intimidation charge struck off by the kangaroo of a judge in half a day of deliberation.

The trial was scheduled for a 2 day hearing. There was a lot of shenanigan going on in Remand. I was being threatened (and the irony was that I was in there for Section 506 & 507) such that I was disinclined to drag proceedings beyond the day. All that seemed to be coming out of the mouth of Koh Chong Huat was that he was felt 'very harassed'. For nearly half the morning I was standing in the dock with my hands cuffed behind my back (and who said our legal system was just? and there is no kangaroo jumping around in Court?) until the judge noticed.

The judge was screwing me left and right for everything that was coming out of my mouth until Koh Chong Huat said that he had a pretty good idea who was at the other end of the phone (that being me). The judge made certain he heard right what Koh Chong Huat said, then struck out the criminal intimidation charge. As I'm no lawyer, I don't actually know what the fuck happened. But I will try to figure it out here. Section 506 & 507 cannot be liberally applied or else a Pandora’s Box would be opened, and total anarchy will ensue. There must be a threshold above which genuine fear can reasonably be deemed to be inculcated in the criminally intimidated, such as where the victim doesn't know who is victimizing him. A fear transformed into terror by some unknown quantity.

After that the DPP started to sweat like a pig, and Koh Chong Huat started to need a microphone to be heard, and the judge started turning on me. It was as if a big concession had been made to me, and the kangaroo had begun jumping all over the Court again. The biggest problem going for the trial was Koh Chong Huat needed a microphone, I complained to the judge I couldn't hear him without a microphone, and the judge sitting practically next to Koh Chong Huat couldn't understand what the fuck I was unhappy about (and who said our legal system was just? and there is no kangaroo jumping around in Court?). I was practically forced to abdicate my defense.

The judge offered, before his lunch break, to lynch me on 4 charges of email harassment, if I capitulated, or on all 8, if I continued with my defense. What troubled me was my cousin needing a microphone, the DPP needing a towel, and the kangaroo jumping all over the court room. Something just wasn't right. I wondered what was in my post office box (which had rental renewal coming up), and I didn't want to go back to Remand where I was being threatened. So I capitulated, and the judge fined me $6000, and stretched me for more than 30+ days in lieu (which Dr Chee Soon Juan, may I remind you, got off for just a week).

Out of jail, Chiam See Tong was a little scared to meet me along North Bridge Road outside his law office. Until I had a talk with Chan Fook Meng, I wasn't too clear why. Then there was the 2001 general election. But Chiam See Tong was dragging his feet with the case he was 'helping' me with even after that. So I had to start writing my own letters.

A letter I wrote to Standard Chartered Bank caused Ow Koon Thiam to threaten to sue me for defamation through his lawyer Hoh & Partners (now Hoh Law Corp). So I went along to Chiam See Tong to consult (until I had a talk with Chan Fook Meng, I didn't see why not), and he offered to help me with the defamation suit. Even though I hadn't had my talk with Chan Fook Meng yet, I saw a problem. Chiam See Tong was dragging his feet with my civil suit, did not defend me in my criminal case, and now was offering to represent me in this defamation suit.

I told Chiam See Tong I was getting the hang of it with this Court thing, fresh from my victory against the modern singh and his Section 506 & 507 and all that, and since a defamation suit is something somebody else set up for me, and all I have to do is show up and get fucked by the judge, I'd handle it myself, thank you very much. And I was pressing him to carry on with the original civil suit. I wrote to Ow Koon Thiam's lawyer, a Ms Petula Wong, that I would've been most pleased to see them in Court (and you should read the reply I got at my blog). And you can understand why Chiam See Tong decided to be a full time member of parliament after that. And you can understand why I have a price on my head.

Can you understand why Lee Kuan Yew and Wong Kan Seng are such mother fucking idiots? (and those people who voted for them as well?) If you can gerrymander the laws just to keep yourself in power (for whatever honorable or dishonorable intentions), you cannot then call to account those certainly more dishonorable persons from using the same laws to their own personal advantage.

If Lee Kuan Yew is going to be troubled by James Gomez not suing for being called a liar, the mother fucker is going to have a hard time going to sleep every night. The Cantonment Complex, even if it is re-built into the Cantonment Catacomb, is not going to be able to handle half the lying population asked to show up every day justifying themselves. And would he then be going to be going after Ow Koon Thiam because he didn't after all sue me and SOMETHING HERE IS GENUINELY NOT RIGHT.

And worse still, which fucking moron came up with the idea that Section 506 & 507 would stick on James Gomez when it didn't even glue on me for half a day in Court? And me not even being represented? And should Section 506 & 507 be bounced around all over the place from now on when somebody tells a lie such as when a student is late for school and fib to his principal?

Is James Gomez and his 'lie' such a big issue to the MIW that they have to scrape barrel bottom for something as inappropriate as Section 506 & 507. Or is Lee Kuan Yew trying to cover up for his one, ever, and only election strategy gone berserk (which even the UMNO deceased would be sick of by now). From my own personal affront at the wrong end of Section 506 & 507, I can assure you that everybody in the know, including Dr Chee Soon Juan, just have to be uncontrollably laughing their socks off. And the courtroom is caught between a pit bull and a lapping dog. How is the court ever going to placate Lee Kuan Yew and Wong Kan Seng over the James Gomez non-event without losing its dignity?

I do not pretend to not to know that should Lee Kuan Yew, if he were to read all this, whether he'd pin me up together with Dr Chee and his sister. It would've been my privilege, my honor. Go tell him. I need political asylum to live beyond of next month. There is after all a price on my head, whether I keep my trap shut or not. So I'm not worse off by it.

Anonymous said...

Interesting when you consider the James Gomez saga. PAP leaders and ministers were crying hoarse that Gomez should be withdrawn from the election on the basis of yet unproven facts. It was all about integerity and honesty.
However, here was a sitting MP going through two rounds of disciplinary action and put up to the High Court and it never occurred to anyone that the high standards of integerity and honesty should have meant that he quit his parlimentary position immediately instead of waiting for the dissolution of Parliament.

Anonymous said...

other bloggers comments:

Thursday, May 11, 2006

I did a Google News search for "Ahmad Khalis" on 11 May 2006. From all the available news clippings, it was apparent that no reason was given for Ahmad Khalis stepping down in all available online news except for the fact that he was elected in 2001.

It is now disclosed only in May 2006, 11 that Khalis has already gone through 2 rounds of hearings (1 inquiry committee and 1 disciplinary committee) before today. This must have happened in April 2006 or before. Khalis has disputed the claims of the Law Society and the case has been brought before the Supreme Court.

The fact remains that whilst PAP has labelled the opposition ineffective in recruiting able, honest and credible candidates in the General Elections 2006, they have omitted to disclose the proceedings against one of its own until 11 May 2006, 5 days after the polling day.


From Yawning Bread


PAP MP accused of unprofessional legal conduct WHILE he was MP

Another case that puts our domestic media in very bad light is that of lawyer Ahmad Khalis Abdul Ghani. It was reported on 11 May 2006 that he is scheduled to appear before a Court of Three Judges over allegations of unprofessional conduct.

He has been accused of giving "false assurances", a role in "breach of trust" and "suppressing relevant evidence", according to the Straits Times. All this was in relation to his client's family dispute about the ownership of a piece of property.

Ahmad Khalis was the People's Action Party (PAP) Member of Parliament for Hong Kah. He first entered Parliament in 2001, but when the 2006 elections approached, it was announced that he would "retire" due to "work commitments".

It is very unusual for PAP MPs to serve just one term, but typically, our media didn't investigate. Now it's revealed that a complaint against him had been lodged with the Law Society in April 2003 and a hearing was conducted in October 2004, which "culminated in the recent decision to bring the former MP to the High Court".

The Straits Times didn't say when that decision was reached.

It's extremely suspicious. One finds it very hard to believe that nobody delayed the news until the elections were over. Did the newspaper know about it and not report it?

If the newspaper didn't know, did the Law Society hold back on announcing its decision?

Did the PAP know that Ahmad Khalis was under a cloud when it said that he wasn't standing for reelection because of "work commitments"? Does the PAP understand the expression "work commitments" to include facing charges?

The Electric New Paper :
Lawyer Ahmad Khalis must go before Supreme Court judges as hearing moves to highest level
FORMER PAP MP and lawyer Ahmad Khalis Abdul Ghani will be facing the Court of Three Judges of the Supreme Court.
By Leong Ching
11 May 2006

FORMER PAP MP and lawyer Ahmad Khalis Abdul Ghani will be facing the Court of Three Judges of the Supreme Court.

This is the highest level a disciplinary hearing can reach for a lawyer.

It is believed that the case is about estate matters he was involved with.

The decision was taken after two rounds of hearings, first by an inquiry committee, and then by a disciplinary committee.

Mr Ahmad, in a short response to queries from The New Paper, said he is disputing the findings of the Law Society's investigation.

He said: 'The DC (disciplinary committee) tribunal decided that my case be referred to the Court of Three Judges. I am disputing the findings of the DC tribunal.

'As the case is in progress, it is not proper for me to give too many comments.'

Mr Ahmad, 46, had a complaint against him filed with the Law Society.


For a case to be serious enough to warrant the attention of the judges of the Supreme Court, it would already have cleared two stages, according to the Law Society.

First, an inquiry committee reviews the case.

This committee is made up of two lawyers, a judicial or government legal officer and a non-lawyer appointed by the Chief Justice.

This committee can recommend that the case be dismissed or it can fine the lawyer up to $5,000 or refer the case to a disciplinary committee for a formal investigation.

Fewer than 20 cases a year are referred to the disciplinary committee.

'A disciplinary committee is appointed by the Honourable the Chief Justice after a request by the Law Society to hear and investigate a matter against a lawyer who at the material time of the alleged misconduct was in private practice,' said a Law Society spokesman.

'At the DC proceedings, the Law Society is required to act as a 'prosecutor' to prosecute the case before the DC.

'The DC will make its finding after a closed-door hearing and submit a written report on whether the matter referred to it should be dismissed as no misconduct was disclosed.'

The DC can also impose a penalty of up to $10,000, reprimand the lawyer for misconduct - or refer the matter to the highest level, which is the Court of Three Judges.

The court can still dismiss the case if it finds no evidence of misconduct or it can reprimand, suspend or even strike a lawyer from the rolls.

Eleven lawyers have been struck off the rolls in the past two years.

The Law Society declined to comment on the current case.

'The Law Society cannot, by the terms of the Legal Profession Act, comment on any pending complaint or disciplinary matter,' a spokesman said.

Mr Ahmad became an MP in 2001 and was part of Hong Kah GRC. He was not a candidate in the recent General Election.

Our checks showed that his name is no longer on the Law Society's directory of lawyers.

His firm, Wong, Khalis & Partners, also could not be found. It is understood that the case brought against him concerns an estate matter and had to do with beneficiaries.

Cases brought before a disciplinary committee are classified under breaches of professional rules of conduct, breaches of the Solicitors' Accounts Rules or 'conduct unbefitting' a lawyer.

Lawyer struck off after skipping hearing

TWO years ago, Ms Sivakolunthu Thirunavukarasu, 48, disappeared while being investigated over a property transaction.

She allegedly forged signatures to transfer three-quarters of a property to herself and mortgaged it to a bank to get a loan.

She had been involved in a settlement agreement between a man and his six brothers.

The six were to pay their brother $4.52 million and transfer a Tanjong Katong property, a car and proceeds of the sale of a company to him.

In exchange, he was to transfer his share in seven properties to his six brothers.

The title deeds of the seven properties were handed over to Ms Sivakolunthu in September 2002.

In March 2004, one of the brothers was informed by the Singapore Land Authority that a Maybank mortgage had been taken on one of the properties. A police report was filed the next month.

The lawyer did not turn up for the three-judge hearing and was struck off the rolls.

Copyright © 2005 Singapore Press Holdings Ltd. Co. Regn. No. 198402868E. All rights reserved.
Privacy Statement and Conditions of Access

Singapura : 19 Mei 2006
Mudah cetak | E-mel

MANTAN Anggota Parlimen (AP) GRC Hong Kah, Encik Ahmad Khalis Abdul Ghani, akan menghadapi Mahkamah Tiga Hakim di Mahkamah Tinggi berhubung dakwaan mengenai kewibawaannya sebagai seorang peguam.

Peguam firma Wong, Khalis & Partners berusia 46 tahun itu menghadapi tuduhan berkelakuan amat tidak wajar berhubung satu kes melibatkan hartanah di Lorong Melayu lima tahun lalu.

Kes itu dibawa kepada perhatian Persatuan Undang-Undang pada April 2003.

Dalam kes itu, pemilik hartanah di Lorong Melayu, Encik Ali Bakar, meninggal dunia dalam 1995 dan mewasiatkan peninggalannya itu kepada isteri dan 10 orang anaknya.

Pada Ogos 2001, salah seorang anaknya, Encik Abdul Rasid Ali, mendapatkan khidmat Encik Ahmad Khalis untuk menjadikan beliau pemilik tunggal hartanah itu tanpa pengetahuan keluarganya.

Beliau kemudian memohon pinjaman $200,000 menggunakan hartanah itu sebagai gadai janji.

Apabila tidak dapat memenuhi bayaran pinjaman itu, pihak bank pada 2003 mengambil tindakan memindahkan hak milik rumah tersebut.

Keluarga Encik Abdul Rasid kemudian membuat aduan kepada Persatuan Guaman.

Jawatankuasa Disiplin yang membicarakan kes itu berpendapat Encik Ahmad Khalis tidak memberitahu keluarga Allahyarham bahawa Encik Abdul Rasid adalah anak guamnya.

Bahkan, beliau memberi jaminan anak guamnya itu tidak boleh menjual atau menjadikan hartanah itu sebagai gadai janji.

Namun, pada masa yang sama, beliau telah melaksanakan permohonan pinjaman dan gadai janji anak guamnya itu.

Jawatankusa itu berpendapat meskipun Encik Ahmad Khalis tidak meraih keuntungan peribadi daripada tindakannya itu, sebagai seorang peguam, kelakuannya tidak dapat diterima.

Menyusuli aduan itu, Encik Ahmad Khalis dibicarakan selama empat hari pada Oktober 2004.

Menyusuli perbicaraan tersebut, kes bapa empat orang anak itu dibawa ke Mahkamah Tinggi.

Jawatankuasa disiplin - yang merangkumi antara lain Peguam Kanan Quentin Loh dan Timbalan Pendakwa Raya Eddy Tham Tong Kong - mendapati Encik Ahmad Khalis telah membuat peng isytiharan palsu dalam dokumen guamannya.

Bagaimanapun, Encik Ahmad Khalis - yang mengundurkan diri daripada politik sebelum pilihan raya lalu selepas hanya satu penggal berkhidmat - menolak dakwaan itu.

Semasa dihubungi Berita Harian, Encik Ahmad Khalis meminta maaf kerana tidak dapat memberikan kenyataan lanjut.

'Kes ini sedang dibicarakan mahkamah, justeru tidak sesuai untuk saya membuat sebarang komen.

'Saya meminta maaf kepada semua yang terjejas oleh berita ini,' ujar beliau, yang menambah jadual perbicaraannya belum lagi diputuskan.

Minggu lalu, Encik Ahmad Khalis mengesahkan kes itu adalah punca pengundurannya daripada politik.

unsgu said...

Info yang diberikan bagus sekali, semoga specifications car and motorcycle menjadi berkah dan bermanfaat bagi kita semua price and specifications

unsgu said...

semua yang telah dihadirkan oleh website ini sangat sempurna,baik tampilan dan artikelnya..penuh warna dan penuh makna.. home design and decorating ideas

unsgu said...

informasi yang examples of simple minimalist kitchen design new 2015 aktual, semua informasi yang price and specifications honda sonic 150R 2015 diberikan bermanfaat minimalist house design 1 floor and 2 floor unique sekali untuk kita semua yamaha vixion