EPISODES

/ (4/5) Dramatis Personæ —

9 Q 4 SR

Published in

SARAWAK REPORT COVERUPS

6 min readSep 5, 2015

Who’s Who of Clare Brown

CONTINUED FROM PART III

DATO TING CHECK SII

It beggars belief, but it really seems that Clare Rewcastle Brown really is smitten by this Dato Ting character. The Panel members have never had the privilege of actually getting to know the man, but our first impression is the exact same one we would have taken of a person who would stoop so low as to supply fabrications, not only to any court, but the High Court of Singapore no less.
It does the presiding Judge much credit for showing such a degree of compassion and magnanimity towards Dato Ting, but we certainly wouldn’t recommend entrusting anything but a toothpick in his hands. That is, judging by the words of His Honour himself,

“As a preliminary comment, it is obvious from the proceedings that while both Datuk Tufail and Dato Ting are defendants, Tanaka is in substance, Dato Ting’s mouthpiece.
“However, I completely reject Tanaka’s contention on the Oral Agreements. Tanaka has not discharged its legal burden to prove that it retained beneficial ownership of its money.
“There is simply no credible evidence to substantiate the existence of the oral agreements at all material times.
“I need only outline a few broad reasons here.
“The lack of contemporaneous documentary evidence casts severe doubts on the Oral Agreements.
“Tanaka’s case was originally premised on the purported directors’ resolutions of 1993 and 1994, which I find to be fabricated.
“There is no sound reason for Tanaka to abandon its reliance on them if they are genuine.
“Having found that the Oral Agreements do not exist, I find that Tanaka is unable to discharge its legal burden.”
- Justice Edmund Leow, ‘Suit No 783 of 2012’, June 29, 2015

However, should Clare Rewcastle Brown have been the Judge on that day, the result would have been astoundingly in reverse, for reasons that should be obvious by now — she is madly, deeply in love, and she is hanging by Dato Ting Check Sii’s every syllable.
The evidence of Clare Rewcastle Brown’s mad, blind love for Dato Ting are unmistakably attested by two ‘love letters’ designed to drive a deathblow to her ‘spurned lover’s’ arch-enemy’s reputation, starting from the headlines.

“The Singapore court case is one of several waged against Tufail by former business partners and these have revealed another disturbing deception by Taib’s brother. Tufail was also hiding his ownership of a lucrative timber concession granted by Taib, according to separate court papers.
“Sanyan Lumber Sdn Bhd was the name of the concession, which was the source of much of the money flowing through Tanaka Lumber in Singapore.
“Tufail is not listed as a Director or Shareholder of the company, however, his partner Dato Ting Check Sii, has confirmed that he was indeed the 50% shareholder, which provided the key source of timber behind Sanyan’s exports:
“In 1987, I set up Sanyan Lumber Sdn Bhd which was given a timber concession. The shares of this company are held by me (50%) and Draman @ Morshidi bin Omar (50%) (as nominee of Datuk Tufail). Datuk Tufail told me that he needed to use a nominee because his brother was then and still is the Minister for Resource Planning. Datuk Tufail now denies Draman is his nominee, even though Datuk Tufail and I are the only joint bank signatories for this Company”. [Submission by Dato Ting to Sarawak High Court]
“In other words Mr Bin Omar was merely a nominee, of the sort described by Alvin Chong as a one eyed man in the land of the blind (meaning the Dayak of Sarawak, who were allegedly unaware how they are habitually cheated in this way).”
(‘Tufail Mahmud — How I Evaded Tax On My Secret Timber Concession.’ — Sarawak Report, January 27, 2015)

And what was meant by ‘separate court papers’ by Sarawak Report was their earlier love letter for Dato Ting Check Sii, which was just as unequivocally and devotedly following whatever script they had set to recite together,

“Evidence in a bitter court battle, currently being played out in Sibu, has laid out in devastating detail a mass of shocking information about the corruption at the heart of Sarawak’s State Government.
There has been little reporting of the case so far, because the Taib family have [sic.] been doing their [sic.] best to suppress it.”
(‘Hard Evidence — Sanyan Scandal Exposes Taib.’ — Sarawak Report, November 6, 2010)

As with the rest of the ‘love letters’, the last line in quotation, “there has been little reporting of the case so far, because the Taib family have [sic.] been doing their [sic.] best to supress it,” is another complete and blatant lie, as a quick check on the internet would easily dispel this assertion, with an article published well over a year before Clare Rewcastle Brown made such a gravely faulty conclusion — yet once again:

“A monumental decision favouring Sarawakian and Sabahan lawyers was made yesterday. The Federal Court (F.C.) sitting here said Peninsular Malaysian lawyers cannot appear in an appeal case before the Court of Appeal (C.A.) or F.C. which originates from Sabah or Sarawak, even if the appellate court convened in Putrajaya.
“The decision also meant that lawyers from Sabah and Sarawak may, however, appear before the F.C. or C.A. when the appellate Court sits in Putrajaya, if the appeal is against a judgment of the High Court in Sabah or Sarawak.
“The apex court, therefore, overturned a judgment of the C.A. delivered by Justice Gopal Sri Ram, declaring that Counsel Tommy Thomas, a senior Peninsular Malaysian lawyer, was entitled to represent a former state assemblyman Datuk [sic.] Ting Chek [sic.] Sii in his appeal against a Kuching High Court judgment dismissing his petition to wind up a local company Sanyan Holdings Sdn Bhd.
“Justice Sri Ram held that because the C.A. was sitting in Putrajaya the applicable law to decide if Thomas could practise in the court was the Legal Profession Act 1976.
“Sarawak Advocates’ Ordinance which regulates legal practice before the courts in Sarawak had no extra-territorial effect and therefore Thomas is not subject to the restriction in the Sarawak Ordinance regarding his eligibility to appear before the C.A. in Putrajaya.
“Dissatisfied with that decision, Sanyan Holdings and Tufail sought a ruling from the F.C. on the ground that the C.A.’s judgment eroded a constitutional protection embodied in Article 161B of the Federal Constitution that allows only persons resident in Sabah and Sarawak to practise before the courts in the two states and also before the C.A. and F.C. when dealing with appeals originating from the two East Malaysian states.”
(‘No Peninsula lawyers in East M’sian appeals case.’ — My Sarawak, April 16, 2009)

In case the point was missed, it is a wonder how Sarawak Report never even bothered to look for landmark decisions involving cases that touch on matters of Constitutional importance, especially when it concerns Sarawak — the place Clare had declared such undivided love for — and Sarawakian rights vis-à-vis the upholding of the Malaysia Agreement 1963, itself a hallmarked and cherished legacy of the British to the People of Malaysia. In this context, it is imperative that The NINE QUESTIONS Panel asks, “Who’s news really is the one being suppressed?” Not only is Clare Rewcastle Brown totally and tragically mistaken about her apparent ‘lover’, Dato Ting Check Sii, whose words are her gold standard, but she is also gravely mistaken about simple facts that no self-respecting “investigative journalist” would even make, unless deliberately. Dato Ting Check Sii is — to use a typically Malaysian aphorism — a VVIP on this list not only due to Clare’s obvious and blind devotion to his sentiments, but also provides another frame of reference to Sarawak Report’s suspected modus operandi, vis-à-vis laundering falsities through the court system in order to convert them into facts for public consumption, with the intent to prejudice. And then comes Lester.