Tan Sri Vincent Tan Attempts To Subvert Justice

["M.G.G. Pillai" <pillai@mgg.pc.my>]

Tan Sri Vincent Tan, the self-proclaimed Malaysia's international
business man of unquestioned repute, is quick to protect his reputation
against any who looks upon him less effusively.  So, he and a company he
controls in Australia sued a former Malaysian journalist, Mr Ganesh
Sahathevan, in an Australian court for defamation, serving the writ on
him at his Sydney address.  That wends its way into court, with Mr
Sahathevan countersuing him for defamation.  Tan Sri Vincent knows very
well he does not live in Kuala Lumpur.  But this did not prevent him and
two companies he controls in Malaysia suing him for RM22 million in
defamation damages in a Malaysian court by serving the writ at an
address he does not live in Klang.  When Mr Sahathevan's parents
informed the process server this, the writ was thrown over the fence one
night at 2230 after an order of substituted service was obtained.
Remarkably, Mr Sahathevan is couriered a copy of the writ to his Sydney
address.  Why, when Tan Sri Vincent insists he lives in Klang?  Neither
the Malaysian nor the Australian foreign ministries are aware of any
High Court order to serve this write out of jurisdiction.  But for a
self-important business man as Tan Sri Vincent, such are trifles his
renowned solicitor, one Dato' V.K. Lingam, would resolve in a cinch --
and not for the first time.

     He intends to do just that tomorrow (7 March 00) in chambers before
Mr Justice R.K. Nathan, when he seeks an injunction against Mr
Sahathevan before the case is heard.  Now, Dato' Lingam is, like his
client, a self-important lawyer, who goes off on holidays with the Chief
Justice and the Attorney-General, besides, when necessary, correct the
judgment in a case he is involved in.  So, in all likelihood, he would
get the injunction Tan Sri Vincent Tan wants.  But how could Tan Sri
Vincent instruct his solicitors here to serve a writ on a man who not
only lives in Sydney but sues him there in a case due to come to court
at any time now?  And how could Dato' Lingam proceed with this course of
action knowing the man he seeks lives in Sydney?  Any lesser persons
would have been charged with contempt of court and obstructing justice.
Since Mr Sahathevan is now an Australian citizen, the Australian
government takes a keen interest in this harassment.  For Tan Sri
Vincent's action is just that.  Since Mr Sahathevan lives in Sydney and
is improperly served, this is to threaten.  Though when this duo does
this, it is no more than to serve justice.  Should Mr Sahathevan ever
return to Malaysia, as he must to see his parents and for the continued
hearing of his much-postponed Industrial Arbitration Court hearing over
his dismissal from the Sun newspaper, controlled by Tan Sri Vincent and
with Dato' Lingam as a director at the material time, and which he
claims is unfair, he could then be presented with the proper writ, or
more likely, the judgement taken in default of appearance. 

     When Tan Sri Vincent Tan is upset -- as he clearly is since Mr
Sahathevan's intrusive look into his business empire has led Berjaya
Sports Toto's largest single shareholder, the Singapore Government
Investment Corporation (SGIC), to look into what appears to be
questionable financial dealings in it -- he wants the man who caused it
blanketed in defamation suits running into tens of millions of ringgit. 
This is to frighten the defendant about the power the plaintiff has.  It
does does not always succeed.  The Federal Court suddenly drags its feet
to delivering judgement in the M.G.G. Pillai v Tan Sri Vincent Tan case
26 months after it heard the appeal.  He has more than enough reasons to
be upset with Mr Sahathevan.  His one such look at a company Tan Sri
Vincent controls in Sydney which brought the Australian Stock Exchange
to ask questions he and the company would rather not answer.  But he
does not leave well enough alone. Not satisfied with what he believes is
the last nail in Mr Sahathevan's coffin, he wants another banged in from
another direction.  Besides, the Australian courts does not shiver on
hearing that Tan Sri Vincent of his solicitor, Dato' V.K. Lingam, is on
the warpath.  So, they take a step that can only erode further the
standards of Malaysian justice.  It does not matter that any other judge
would have stood down from hearing the application for reasons Mr
Justice Nathan knows only too well.  But this is Bolehland, remember. 
Even if Tan Sri Vincent Tan's affidavit does not contain the whole
truth:  he avers Mr Sahathevan is a Malaysian citizen when he clearly is
not;  and he does not live with his parents in Klang as he insists he
does.  As matters stand, the Australian Government, through its high
commission in Kuala Lumpur, would monitor this as they would when any of
their citizens are harassed.  But it certainly looks as if one major
casualty in all this is justice itself. 

M.G.G. Pillai
pillai@mgg.pc.my