BRAVEMOHICANS

*OFFICERS AFFECTED
ARMY
Regular 14 (Sandhurst)
Regular 15 (Sandhurst, Portsea & RMC)
Regular 16 (Sandhurst, Portsea & RMC)

ARMY AND AIR FORCE
SSC 20 (Relegated to SSC 21)
SSC 21
SSC 22 (Incl Kakul & Dehra Dunn)
SSC 22 (Regulated to SSC 23)

NAVY
All appointed as Officer Cadets
before 1-8-72 (Including Dartmouth)
but were appointed as
Acting-Sub Lt. after the date.

* Irrespective of rank and length of service.

Officers Affected are Graduates of :
Royal Military College at Sungai Besi, Malaysia
Royal Military Academy at Sandhurst, UK
Officer Cadet School at Portsea, Australia
Pakistan Military Academy at Kakul, Pakistan
Indian Military Academy at Dehra Dunn, India
Britannia Royal Naval College at Dartmouth, UK
Naval Cadet School at Woodland, Singapore.

ALL OFFICERS MENTIONED ABOVE ARE ELIGIBLE TO JOIN OUR CLASS ACTION LAWSUIT.

PROFILE :: LEAD PLAINTIFF
Capt (R) T Z Abidin graduated from Royal Military College in 1972.
He read law at University of Buckingham, England and at the Inns of Court School of Law London.
He did further research at King's College London, University of Malaya and the National Archives.

COPYRIGHT NOTICE 1980-2006.This lawsuit is a research and intellectual property rights of Capt (R) T Z Abidin.

His Story

The Mohicans' classaction lawsuit. High Court Action of Malaysia Misfeasance in Public Office. Mohicans mean noble and loyal warriors, we soldiers are loyal to the King, Country and noble in the pursuit of justice.
The History
1st August 1972 is the blackest day in the history of the Malaysian Armed Forces.On this darkest day the status, privilege, dignity and honour of the entire officer corps were humiliated and downgraded. We were the first victims of this draconian scheme. Mohicans is the name adopted by 404 serving and retired armed forces officers of the Malaysian Armed Forces who are collectively suing the past top civil servants of the country for downgrading them to second class officers of the public service.
The lawsuit is now subject to an appeal at the Court of Appeal at Putrajaya. It all began in 1971 when the Prime Minister of Malaysia the late Tun Abdul Razak wrongly appointed Tan Sri Sheikh Abdullah to head a team of top civil servants of the Malayan Civil Service MCS to review the salaries and conditions of service of members of the Malaysian Armed Forces MAF.
Whereas the other sectors of the public service were reviewed by Royal Commissions appointed by the King, the armed forces was reviewed by a cabal of top five civil servants of the MCS. This was a clear breach of General Orders and violating article 8(1) of the Federal Constitution. The setting up of the committee was therefore illegal, unconstitutional, bias and in serious conflicts of interest.This was a post-colonial inter service rivalry between the MCS and the officer corps of the Malaysian Armed Forces. Before Independence in 1957 the prestige, esteem, dignity and honour of the officer corps was in parity if not better than the officers of the MCS. In 1956 during the British Colonial administration they attempted to downgrade the officer corps but was thwarted by the existence of British officers at strategic levels.
The year 1972 was their second and successful attempt in downgrading the officer corps.This was made possible through the cabinet appointed committee known as TSAR No.1 or Tan Sri Sheikh Abdullah Report of 1972. This committee had deceived the Prime Minister and his cabinet by submitting a fraudulent report and used strategy of textual fraud to deceive the Prime Minister and his cabinet and therefore reduced the salary of the armed forces officers in the ranks of officer cadets up to majors by up to 30% for 23 years. The damage done is irreversible to the honour, dignity and esteem of the officers of the armed force.The only possible way to reverse this state of affairs is by setting up a Royal Commission of Enquiry chaired by an eminent Federal Court judge. These allegations are contained in the current writ of summons and statement of claims filed at the High Court on 16th February 2001.
In 1977 the PTD chieftains again deceived the Prime Minister the late Tun Hussein Onn through another committee known as Tan Sri Abdullah Report or TSAR No.2 which perpetuated the wrongful act till 1980.This time it was headed by Tan Sri Abdullah Ayub.
On 23rd April 1980 a memorandum was handed to the late Tun Hussein before the cabinet meeting requesting for a rectification of the situation and all the service chiefs were informed of this memorandum. An unofficial tribunal was set up to hear the case which was presented and argued by Captain T. Z Abidin before the tribunal chaired by Lt. Gen. Dato' Jaafar bin Onn. The tribunal recognised the merit, injustice and legality of the case and it was later tabled at the Chief of the Armed Forces Staff Committee and the decision made was to refer this case to the full cabinet.
In June 1982 the case was presented to the Cabinet Commiittee chaired by Dato' Musa bin Hitam the then deputy Prime Minister and the case was rejected. It was rejected because of a fraudulent cabinet paper presented by the Public Service Department. This began the long story and is continuing to this very day. Why the case was not presented to the cabinet is a real mystery and all these facts point to a cover up by the very top civil servants of the highly prestigious MCS or known as PTD now.
This is the first part history of the case and is the basis for the classaction lawsuit of misfeasance in public office a potentially a major landmark case in Malaysia ie a case of abuse of office by very top civil servants of the country. This tort requires mental elements of bad faith, dishonesty and recklessness and we are confident of proving these ingredients during the trial.
The suit was struck out by the deputy registrar Ruzilah Salleh and was upheld by the High Court judge Dato' Wahab Patail solely on the ground that the suit was timebarred under Public Authorities Protection Act 1948 S 2(a).
The case was heard before him on 15th January 2003 and we filed notice of appeal on 14th February 2003. Till today we have not received the written notes of proceeding and grounds of decision which is about 14 months overdue.The normal time of issuing written notes of proceeding and grounds of decision is 6 weeks.
The lawsuit is now stalled, without the notes of proceeding the required memorandum of appeal cannot be submitted and the hearing date of the appeal could not be fixed by the Appeal Court.
Our other causes of action are fraud, conspiracy, undue subordination and on equitable principles of unjust saving and using statute as instrument of fraud.
Our main argument is that Public Authorities Protection Act 1948 S 2(a) has no application in this suit principally because fraud, conspiracy and misfeasance are not "act" protected by PAPA, the alleged wrongful acts are antithetical to the meaning and spirit of the Act.This will be thoroughly argued at the Court of Appeal in Putrajaya soon.Therefore the suit should not be struck out summarily but must go for full trial before a trial judge at the high court.
The deputy registrar and the high court judge had both erred in their decisions when striking and upholding their decisions and this will be argued vigorously at the appellate court.

The Donkey and it's spots

The following was a story as narrated by my teacher - an extremely witty story teller and very partial to embellishments, in order to give colour and life to his characters - while I was in the Malay school some 46 years ago [ this was written in January 1973] There was a good and brave king of a far distant land, who had participated in 300 battles without the dishonour of losing any of them.These glories, as well as the hardships that preceded them, were faithfully shared by his loyal donkey, LIKA - a beast of burden which was charged with the responsibility of transporting the king's personal baggage and armour. The king would gladly part with half of his kingdom, if only LIKA had the qualification for promotion to a full general. Unfortunately LIKA was not so qualified because HE COULD NOT READ. The King's War Minister wisely suggested an alternative honour in the form of tattooing bright coloured spots on the donkey's body with as many bright coloured spots on the donkey's body with as many dots as the number of battles the donkey had personally been through. The King readily agreed. from that day, the poor donkey - not unlike the vain ladies with overdone make-up of our time - had lost his natural identity to the 300 multicoloured man-made tattoo marks. After hearing the teacher's tale, I wondered in my childhood mind (8 years old) whether LIKA's tattoo spots were not really the forerunner of the now-famous service ribbons, which adorn the breasts of brave soldiers and sailors, and airmen too, all over the world. He who does not bother to read, is no better than the donkey he rides. PONDER column The Straits Times Malaysia, January 1973. Chapter 11 of the book of the same name.

Dramatis Personae

Leading Personae Army Officer (Mohican) 411188 Captain TZ Abidin - Lead Plaintiff Politicians/Executives - 1971/1972 Tun Abdul Razak - Prime Minister/Defence Minister Tengku Ahmad Rithauddeen - Deputy Defence Minister. MCS - 1971/72 Tan Sri Abdul Kadir bin Shamsuddin - Chief Secretary Tan Sri Abdullah bin Ayub -Director General Public Service Department Tan Sri Abu Bakar Samad bin Mohd Noor- Secretary General Ministry of Defence Raja Tun Mohar bin Raja Badiozaman - Secretary General Treasury Chief of the Armed Forces Staff 1971 - 1977 General Tun Ibrahim bin Ismail Politicians 1976 Prime Minister/Defence Minister - Tun Hussein Onn MCS 23rd April 1980 Tan Sri Abdullah bin Ayub - Chief Secretary to the government Tan Sri Hashim bin Aman - Director General Public Service Department Tan Sri Yusof bin Abdul Rahman - Secretary General Ministry of Defence MCS TSAR No.2 1976/77 Tan Sri Abdullah bin Ayub Tan Sri Hashim Bin Aman Tan Sri Abdul Aziz bin Zakaria Tan Sri Abdullah bin Kassim Armed Forces Council 1981/82 Chairman- Dato' Seri Dr. Mahathir bin Mohamed, Prime Minister/Defence Minister Cabinet Committee meeting 30th June 1980 Tan Sri Musa Hitam - Chairman/Deputy Prime Minister Tengku Razaleigh Hamazah - Finance Minister MCS - 30th June 1980 Tan Sri Hashim Bin Aman - Chief Secretary to the Government Tan Sri Osman S Cassim - Director General Public Service Department Tan Sri Yusof bin Abdul Rahman - Secretary General Ministry of Defence Tan Sri Azizan bin Zainul Abidin - Principal Private secretary to the Prime Minister

Appeal Argument

Abridged Appeal Argument 15th January 2003. May it please Your Lordship, This is an appeal from the decision of the Deputy Registrar in allowing the defendants' application under Order 18 Rule 19 (1) (a), (b) and (d) of the Rules of High Court 1980 to strike out the whole of the plaintiffs' writ of summons and the statement of claims without liberty to file afresh with cost. Facts of the Case. On 1st January 1957 there were three premier classes in the public sector, first division and gazetted i.e the Malayan Civil Service or MCS, the Judicial Service and the Officer Corps of the Federation Armed Forces whose monthly salaries of entry were $726.00, $726.00 and $712.00 respectively and competitively up to the very top. Between 1964 to 1971 the sixth defendant, in essence the Cabinet of Malaysia, had appointed three Royal Commissions of Inquiry to review the salaries and conditions of service of all members of the Public Sector and quasi Public Sector under the Commission of Inquiry Ordinance, 1950. All the commissions were chaired by prominent judges and independent commissioners appointed by the Yang DiPertuan Agong. For the Malaysian Armed Forces (MAF) the sixth defendant had appointed a Cabinet Committee of Malayan Civil Service (MCS) chieftains which was unpopularly known as Tan Sri Sheikh Abdullah Report or TSAR. TSAR was illegally constituted for it had breached Article 8 (1) of the Federal Constitution and in blatant breach of the General Orders 1969 in appointing MCS officers to review their arch rival (MAF officers) under para 1 - 3 which was a clear case of conflict of interest. TSAR had submitted a report to the cabinet that contained 17 counts of fraud that were not "detected" by 24 ministeries and their KSUs and the cabinet had swallowed the Report hook, line and sinker and had resulted in the downgrading of the officer corps of the Malaysian Armed Forces in a slow death motion between 1972 to 2004. When 95% of the officers' pay were drastically reduced the pay of soldiers ie from private to warrant officer became stunted and retarded.The plaintiffs were the direct victims of this draconian and evil scheme to downgrade the entire officer corps 1972 - 2004. This 'Committee of Butchers' ie TSAR had fraudulently slashed the armed forces officers pay by 30% for 95% of the officer appointments from officer cadet up to major with effect from 1st August 1972 i.e the entire workhorse of the armed forces officer corps.The entry salary as a second lieutenant was slashed from $712.00 to a mere $500.00 per month. The plaintiff and 403 others were given slashed pay eventhough they had joined the service before the effective date as officer cadets. This punitive pay scheme was like punishing the armed forces for war crimes like losing a great war, massacring and raping thousands of innocent civilians or a failed coup d'etat, but it was not. It was the evil work of PTD chieftains cum conspirators and their vehicle of fraud, the TSAR. Their aim was a combination of personal vendetta and institutional greed and jealousy. They wanted to attain the position of undisputed superiority to the armed forces officer corps by way of deceiving the cabinet of Tun Abdul Razak in 1972 and perpetually concealed the fraud by deceiving Tun Hussein Onn and Dato' Seri Dr. Mahathir Mohamed. The whole writ of summons and statement of claims is a product of an intensive forensic research carried out by the plaintiff from January 1980 till January 2001. Grounds of Appeal Firstly, it is inequitable for the defendants to rely on limitation law as the real parties that were defrauded were the three prime ministers Tun Abdul Razak, Tun Hussein Onn and Dato' Seri Dr. Mahathir Mohamed and their cabinets from 1972 to 2002. Whatever evidence that the plaintif got is just a tip of an iceberg and the substantive evidence remained concealed even to the prime ministers till this very day unless the cabinet set up an independent inquiry or royal commission of inquiry, then only the full scope of the scandal could be unravelled. Therefore it is a continous fraud uncovered. The cabinet was manipulated by the PTD conspirators from knowing the full fact of the case so as to perpetually conceal the fraud from being unravel hence has concealed the right of action of the plaintiffs. The PTD unilateral war in 1972 was very unequal i.e between the then PTD chieftains who were KSN and KSUs versus officer cadets i.e the juniormost members of the armed forces officer corps. Therefore it is inequitable and unconscionable for the defendants to rely on the limitation law to deny the extraordinary discovery of the crucial evidence of fraud, conspiracy, malice and undue subordination in July/August 2000. Secondly, The defendants should not be allowed to escape a trial on serious issue of fraud, conspiracy, malice and undue subordination committed by the five defendants.The cabinet is as much a victim of fraud as the plaintiffs, and the plaintiffs should not be driven from the judgment seat unless the case is plain and obvious and unsustainable which is clearly far from it. Thirdly, the Government Proceeding Act 1956 section 38 precluded the defendants from using limitation law for it is for the court to determine on facts and evidence and this is a serious question of law. Fourthly, the defendants cannot use both statutes at the same time ie Public Authorities Protection Act 1948 and Limitation Act 1953 for they are mutually exclusive. See sections 3 and 29. Fifthly, this is a 'palace intrigue' case ala Pateh Karma Vijaya during the Malacca Sultanate in the 15th Century. The court ought to 'pierce the public veil' using the company law analogy to see the intra parties conflict between the PTD chieftains and officer cadets of the army, navy and air force who were being used as decoy group to deceive the cabinet and the services chiefs between 1972 - 2004. Sixthly, the fifth defendant the Chief of the Armed Forces Staff Committee is liable for undue subordination in that they had allowed themselves to be duped, cheated and deceived in accepting the apartheid pay scheme. The committee consisted of the armed forces chief, the army, navy and air force chiefs and they had collectively as supreme commanders had failed to protect the interests of the armed forces and in particular the 404 plaintiffs who were officer cadets then who clearly needed their protection. Wrong Procedural Law Used. Firstly, the defendants wrongfully combined Order 18 Rule 19 (1) (a), (b) and (d) together because clearly under Rule 19 (a) and 19 (2) no evidence shall be admissible and only under Rule (b) and (d) evidence is allowed and by combining together the application is defective, misleading and not specific in character. It is high time for the court to make clear ruling on this issue. Application to strike out based on no cause of action disclosed ought to be filed under (b) or (d) and not under (a) because statute of limitation bars remedy not action. So it is clearly vague, uncertain and a blatant disregard of the rules of High Court 1980. Secondly, the defendants have filed an affidavit in support which is a sham affidavit, in which the evidence purportedly deposed by the deponent is misleading for it is an argument or submission masquerading as evidence. All the paragraphs in the affidavit in support clearly show that the statements are the culling of several paragraphs from the statement of claims, arguments by senior federal counsel and put into the mouth of the deponent and then signed and sworn it! This is clearly an abuse of court process and not bona fide and dubious in nature.How could the defendants jointly made used of an army Colonel to file a sham affidavit in support of the application. The affidavit is clearly scandalous, oppressive and irrelevant to the application and ought to be struck out under Order 41 Rule 6 of the RHC 1980. The application is therefore a bare application without any affidavit in support and therefore is fatal and the decision of the deputy registrar ought to be reversed.

32nd Anniversary

Today is the 32nd anniversary of the Mohicans' case 1972 - 2004. The last of the Mohicans will have to retire by December 2004.
The date 1st August 1972 is the blackest day for all the Mohicans and the armed forces generally. It was the day the TSAR draconian scheme was made effective and put the entire Malaysian Armed Forces to great shame and humiliation. Men of swords were mercilessly downgraded by men of pens.
Who are the Mohicans?
They are like me, I was enlisted as a soldier on 2nd December 1971 and was simultaneously appointed as an officer cadet and received pay as an officer. Therefore I was deemed to be a serving officer for all intents and purposes and was subjected to the service law as an officer. I was offered the payscale of first division officer and all other perks and privileges as a first division officer of the public service at par with the MCS and Judicial service.
Mohicans are officers who were appointed as officer cadets before 1st August 1972 and were offered first division salaries and perks but were given second division salaries and perks after they were commissioned as second lieutenant, pilot officer and sub lieutenant after the same date. They were considered as nonentity ie neither officers nor other ranks during the time they were under training as officer cadets which was blatantly wrong and malicious. In fact they were already serving officers but under training and that was provided for by the service laws and under the borrowed English Act, the Naval Discipline Act 1957.
On 1st August 1972 all the Mohicans were undergoing training at Royal Military Academy Sandhurst England, Officer Cadets School Portseas Australia, Dehra Dunn Military Academy India, Pakistan Military Academy, Britannia Royal Naval College England and the Royal Military College, Malaysia. They were all considered by TSAR as neither officers nor other ranks and neither military nor civilians. So we called ourselves the Mohicans and are still fighting for our tribal recognition and survival.
Tan Sri Sheikh Abdullah Committee Report 1972 or known as TSAR No.1 had fraudulently reduced our status and honour by recommending the cabinet of Tun Razak to cut 30% of our salaries and allowances for 23 years and therefore had downgraded us to second class officers. This act was very humiliating, shameful and the unkindest cut of all.
Who were TSAR official members?
They were senior MCS officers as follows:
Chairman.
Tan Sri Sheikh Abdullah B.Sheikh Abu Bakar.
Members.
Ahmad Nordin B. Hj. Zakaria now Tan Sri.
Hashim B. Aman now Tan Sri.
Abdul Aziz B. Abdul Wahab now Datuk.
The Secretary
R. Theivendran now Datuk.
The committee was appointed by the then Prime Minister Tun Abdul Razak B. Datuk Hussein on the 27th July 1971 with the terms of reference- to review the salaries and conditions of service of members of the armed forces including the officer corps in accordance with the principles of Tun Suffian Report. All the members belonged to the highly esteemed and prestigious Malayan Civil Service. It was common knowledge at that time that they thought of themselves as belonging to the Brahmin class and officer corps of the armed officers was their arch rival in terms of prestige, social status and salary. They knew the fact that by accepting the appointments they were in very serious breaches of the General Orders and were also illegal for conflicts of interest. As principal advisers to the political executives they were under duty to advise them on the legality of the appointments but they did not and the consequence was an inevitable injustice to the officers of the armed forces in the rank of officer cadets up to majors and equivalents ranks of the air force and the navy. Their salaries were downgraded to second division officers just a few steps higher than the clerks of the general civil service and all the perks and privileges were also downgraded things like first class hospital benefits, travelling claims and hotel accomondations and more other allowances. About 95% of the officer corps at that time were made up of officer cadets to majors and constituted almost the entire workhorse. Only 5% benefited and the other 95% had to suffer ignominously. Only the generals and colonels enjoyed and leaving the others high and dry ! Shame on you.
Tan Sri Ghazali Shafie or King Ghaz was right when he said that the MCS were cleverer lot than their political masters at that time and the result was obvious, they deceived the entire cabinet including the Prime Ministers to carry out their sinister objective of downgrading the officer corps.
Between 1972 to 1977 we were promised by our service chiefs that the issue would be rectified in the next round of salaries review. Actually nothing happened, the promises were all hollow and pure lies to buy time.
The committee that was set up to review the salaries and conditions of service for members of the armed forces was made up of the same officers of the MCS and now known as PTD and the committee was headed by Datuk Abdullah bin Ayub now Tan Sri and was known as TSAR No.2. This committee also submitted a fraudulent report to the cabinet and the injustice was prolonged up to 1980s.
In 1980 Captain T Z Abidin handed a memorandum to the Prime Minister Tun Hussein Onn to rectify the situation and again the PTD submitted a fraudulent paper to the Cabinet Committee that was chaired by Datuk Musa Hitam now Tan Sri and again the entire committee was deceived and the claim by the officers was rejected for stupid reasons. King Ghaz was right again and all the way.
Another memorandum was submitted to Tun Dr. Mahathir but all the same the PTD had the last say and all the cabinet ministers put together were all inferior intellectually to the PTD chieftains, so they believed. That was our fate and even the generals and colonels of the era were weak, spineless and reckless in allowing the officer corps to be downgraded and maligned and all of them are now subject to the tort of undue subordination a new tort to be establised at the full trial.
All these allegations are in the Writ of Summons and Statement of Claims that is currently under appeal. They are all liable under tort of misfeasance in public office, the bedrock of our claim.
If the government is honest, sincere and in good faith with nothing to hide they should set up a Royal Commission of Inquiry to determine all these allegations of abuse of office, fraud, conspiracy and conflicts of interest. After all those culprits are from the previous era. Duty to do justice is timeless and it is inequitable for the government to save costs of running the armed forces by shortchanging the Mohicans and it's our rightful rezeki to earn the quantum we were originally offered.
Bravo Mohicans !

Chronology of Events

1st march 1933 The birth of the Malay Regiment 4th November 1936 Malayan officer corps was established. 8th December 1941 War over Malaya. Officer Cadet was defined as serving officer. 1955 The British Colonial government reviewed the Malayan Civil Service salaries and terms of service known as Benham Report. 1956 The British Colonial goverment reviewed the salaries and terms of service of the Federation Armed Forces for local officers only. The scheme was known as "Gaji yang lumayan dan terjamin" or " lucrative and guaranteed pay scheme" and became effective on 1st January 1956. The scheme was at par with the MCS and Judicial service. First division and gazetted officers. 26th February 1964 A Royal Commission of Inquiry was set up to review the salaries of all public servants including the MCS and the Police Force but excluded members of the Malaysian Armed Forces. It was known as Suffian Report and was headed by Justice Tun Suffian. 13th November 1967 Member of Parliament from Pasir Mas Kelantan the late Tengku Zaid bin Tengku Ahmad raised the issue of armed forces pay and allowances in Parliament. The late Tun Razak informed the Parliament that the pay and allowances of officers of the armed forces was adequate for the ranks of Captain and below if compared with other public officers. The late Tengku Abdul Rahman was with him when this statement was made. 27th July 1971 The cabinet established a committee to review the pay and allowances of the Malaysian Armed Forces and Tan Sri Sheikh Abdullah bin Sheikh Abu Bakar formerly the Secretary General of the Ministry of Home Affairs and a graduate in law from University of Wales was appointed as the chairman and it was known as Tan Sri Sheikh Abdullah Report or infamously as TSAR. Other members were members of the MCS. April 1972 The Report was completed and submitted to the Chief Secretary to the Government and was subsequently discussed by a committee of Secretaries General of all ministeries. 11th July 1972 TSAR report was discussed at the cabinet meeting. The main recommendation of the report was to slash 30% of the total remunerations of all officers in the ranks of officer cadets up to majors. Officer cadets and midshipmen were maliciously and fraudulently interpreted as non service officers, this was blatantly in breach of Malay Regiment Enactment 1933, Naval Ordinance 1958, Air Force Ordinance 1958, Naval Discipline Act 1957 (British) and Queen Regulations for Royal Navy(British). Ministers with law degrees at the cabinet meeting were: Tun Abdul Razak Tun Hussein Onn Tan Sri Ghazali Shafie Tan Sri Abdul Taib Mahmud Tun Saadon Jubir Tan Sri Hamzah Abu Samah Tan Sri Kadir Yusof Tan Sri Kadir Shamsuddin as chief secretary Tengku Ahmad Rithaudeen as deputy defence minister 1st August 1972 TSAR was implemented with effect from 1st January 1970 and the pay rates for officer cadets, midshipmen, second lieutenat, lieutenant, captain and majors and of equivalents ranks in the navy and air forces were slashed by up to 30%. This was the entire workhorse of the armed forces which was more the 95% of the officer corps. This was a complete massacre by TSAR. The officer corps was downgraded to second class service from this day except for colonels and generals, a wholesale letdown and betrayal. This was a Malaysian version of ' lions led by donkeys' 23rd April 1980 Captain TZ Abidin submitted a memorandum to the Prime Minister Tun Hussein Onn to remedy the injustice of the TSAR report. 3rd May 1980 Copies of the memorandum were submitted to all services chiefs. 13th October 1980 The Chief of the Armed Forces Staff Committee deliberated this memorandum and it was decided that a tribunal be set up to hear the allegations. 2nd December 1980 A special tribunal heard presentation by Captain TZ Abdin. The chairman of the tribunal was Lieutenant General Dato' Jaafar bin Onn and members were from all services and MCS officers. The tribunal accepted the presentation favourably and acknowledged the injustice and plight of the officers affected. 9th February 1981 The case was deliberated at the Chief of the Armed Forces Staff Committee and Captain TZ Abidin presented the paper together with Lieutenant General Dato' Jaafar bin Onn. The CAFSC decided that the case be presented to the full cabinet for consideration. 13th August 1981 The case was deliberated at the Standing Committee on Terms of Service. Captain TZ Abidin attended but the case was defered to the next meeting because the civil side needed further studies on the technicalities of the issues raised. 15th September 1981 The second meeting of the standing committee. Captain TZ Abidin was chased out from the conference room for lack of authority to attend! No serving officer was informed or called to give explanations. The chairman was Dato' Kamarudin Rani the deputy KSU of the Ministry of Defence. The decision made was to present the case to the cabinet commitee instead of the full cabinet and the only ground of the paper was on humanitarian ground and not legal rights or injustice! April 1982 Captain TZ Abidin retired from the service and left for England to read law. 30th June 1982 The case was deliberated at the Cabinet committee meeting chaired by Dato' Musa Hitam. Captain TZ Abidin was not informed of the meeting. The decision made was to reject the appeal, not even on humanitarian ground considered. No armed forces officer attended the meeting to explain and everything was done behind our back. 10th April 1989 Chief of Defence Staff appealed against the cabinet committee decision but was sabotaged by the Public Service Department. The Chief of Defence Staff was General Tan Sri Hashim bin Mohd Ali. 15th November 1989 Public Service Department or PSD replied that they refused to submit to the cabinet committee again because there was no new ground to appeal. The case was checkmated. 24th April 1991 Letters sent to Generals, Admirals, Air Marshalls explaining this case and only two replied one neutral and the other running away from responsibility. Letters of Demand were sent out to PSD, CAFS and KSU Mindef. 30th March 1995 A writ of summons and statement of claims was filed at the High Court Kuala Lumpur at Denmark House. 30th August 1995 A memorandum was set to the Prime Minister Dato' Seri Dr. Mahathir Mohamed to remedy the injustice and to reopen the case and investigate the misdeeds of the PSD et al. Nothing was heard about this matter. 30th March 1996 The writ of summons and statement of claims was served on the Attorney General. 19th December 1996 Hearing before Justice Dato' James Foong. By consents of all parties the writ of summons and statement of claims was withdrawn with liberty to file afresh. 16th February 2001 A fresh writ of summons and statement of claims was filed at the High Court Kuala Lumpur. 5th June 2002 The deputy registrar Puan Ruzilah Salleh struck out the lawsuit. We filed notice of appeal to judge in chambers before Justice Dato' Hamid Said. 15th January 2003 The appeal was instead heard before Justice Dato' Abdul Wahab Patail and he upheld the decision of deputy registrar. 14th February 2003 We filed our notice of appeal to the Court of Appeal at Putrajaya. We are still waiting for the notes of proceeding and written grounds of decision from the judge since 14th February 2003 which is about 18 months overdue now.

Leave to Appeal

We are still waiting for the Federal Court to fix the hearing date of our application for leave to appeal. Leave to appeal is an application before three or more judges to determine whether our case would raise new or novel argument of facts and law or has a strong public interests benefits.Whatever it is, the court could throw out our case for good if the judges assigned to hear our application play poodle to the Powers that Be. We must be very careful this time out because this is our last step.We have to reflect and think of the imponderables and further foul plays by those implicated.We cannot trust anyone of them for sure.

Notice of Motion

We have filed our notice of motion seeking leave from the Federal Court on 18th April 2008.This application is to allow us to appeal against the decision of the Court of Appeal which dismissed our appeal on 18th March 2008.The Court of Appeal on 18th March 2008 held that act of deceiving the Cabinet, Prime Minister, Defence Minister, Armed Forces Council and the Agong was act in pursuance of the Public Authority Protections Act 1948 Section 2 (a). We totally disagree with this decision made by the three Court of Appeal judges. How could this blatant abuse of powers be considered as act in good faith by the very top administrators of the country i.e the KSU and KSN class in deceiving the Executive and The Agong to downgrade the officer corps of the Malaysian Armed Forces.We are caught in the era where our judiciary is at the bottomest pit of amorality.How else could we explain why judges are willing to entertain this weird understanding of the limitation law governing this treasonous wrongdoing. It simply means that if any government servant were to commit crimes like corruption,murder,rape, cheating and other illegal acts you must take action within three years otherwise you are caught by statutory time bar of three years. What an asshole interpretation of the law by our learned judges. Judicial subserviency to the Executive at it's worst. Surely we have to appeal to the apex court.

Jumaat, 26 Disember 2008

Tiada ulasan:

Catat Ulasan

Arkib Blog

Mohican Group

Are you a mohican?