Proposal that Keng Yaik and I set an example for fast justice in Malaysia by agreeing to the pretrial narrowing down of the defamation issue for trial

Press Conference Statement by Parliamentary Opposition Leader, DAP Secretary-General and MP for Tanjong, Lim Kit Siang, at the Kuala Lumpur High Court on Thursday, June 16, 1994 at 11.45 a.m.

Proposal that Keng Yaik and I set an example for fast justice in Malaysia by agreeing to the pretrial narrowing down of the defamation issue for trial

I have instructed my lawyer, Karpal Singh, to apply for reinstatement of my defamation suit against the Gerakan President and Minister for Primary Industries, Datuk Dr.Lim Keng Yaik.

The defamation suit was struck out by the Kuala Lumpur High Court last Friday.

As I said, if I had known that I am required to be in the Kuala Lumpur High Court last Friday for the defamation case hearing, I would definitely had been present.

Keng Yaik was clearly very thrilled by the cheap victory last Friday following the striking out of my defamation suit against him – when he knew very well that there is nothing for – him to boast about, as he had not won on the merits of the defamation case after a court hearing.

My defamation suit against Keng Yaik stemmed from Keng Yaik’s allegation six months before the 1990 general elections of a DAP-PAS Secret Jakarta Meeting on April 16, 1990.

If Keng Yaik have all the evidence to substantiate his allegation of the DAP-PAS Secret Jakarta Meeting on April 16, 1990, he would not want my defamation suit to be struck out, but would want a full hearing to produce his evidence. If Keng Yaik had all the proof, he would have agreed to the postponement of my defamation suit and would not force his lawyer, Dominic Puthucheery, to renege his earlier agreement with Karpal Singh’s legal assistant to a postponement of the case.

The new Chief Justice of Malaya, Tan Sri Mohamad Eusoff Chin, said on his appointment last week that court cases would be disposed faster in future with the implementation of pre-trial hearings soon.

He said under the pre-trial hearings, parties involved can exchange documents and narrow down the issue for trial to ensure faster justice.

I propose that Keng Yaik join me in setting an example for fast justice in Malaysia by agreeing to the pre-trial narrowing down of the defamation issue for trial – that the whole trial revolves around the ability of Keng Yaik to produce proof of the so-called DAP-PAS Secret Jakarta meeting on April 16, 1990.

If Keng Yaik dare not agree to pre-trial narrowing down of the defamation issue for trial – proof of the so-called DAP-PAS secret Jakarta meeting on April 16, 1990 – then this will tantamount to a confession by Keng Yaik that he was telling a lie when he made the allegation, and that he had defamed me when he called me a ‘liar’ for denying his allegation.

If Keng Yaik dare not agree to the pre-trial narrowing down of the defamation issue on whether he could produce proof of the so-called DAP-PAS Secret Jakarta Meeting on April 16, 1990, then it justified my strong and hard line against Keng Yaik in 1990 for four reasons:
* to expose the lies of Keng Yaik about the DAP-PAS secret Jakarta meeting;
* to teach Keng Yaik a lesson for telling such lies;
* to warn other Barisan Nasional leaders of the serious consequences of concocting and spreading lies about the DAP; and
* to forewarn Malaysians that they should expect more lies and falsehoods from Barisan Nasional leaders with the approach of general elections.

Is Keng Yaik prepared to publicly apologise if he could not produce proof to substantiate his allegation of DAP-PAS Secret Jakarta meeting on April 16, 1990 in response to my readiness to resign as DAP Secretary-General if he could produce the proof?

Keng Yaik had claimed that he does not want to use the courts to resolve political controversies. I am prepared to accommodate Keng Yaik that we resolve his allegation of the so- called DAP-PAS Secret Jakarta meeting on April 16, 1990 through political means.

I said yesterday that if Keng Yaik could produce proof, without having to wait for a court hearing, of the so-called DAP-PAS Secret Jakarta Meeting, I would fulfil his ‘dream’ of over two decades and step down as DAP Secretary-General and retire from politics.

I am net asking Keng Yaik to resign as Gerakan President and Minister for Primary Industries if he could not produce proof to substantiate his allegation of the so-called DAP-PAS Secret-Jakarta Meeting on April 16 – but to have the basic decency and morality to withdraw his unfounded allegation and to tender a public apology.

Is this too much to ask of a Cabinet Minister of a Government which is preaching ethics and morality as an important component of Vision 2020?

Is Keng Yaik prepared to publicly apologise if he could not produce proof to substantiate his allegation of DAP-PAS Secret Jakarta meeting on April 16, 1990 in response to my readiness to resign as DAP Secretary-General if he could produce the proof?
Another defamation action against Keng Yaik

I have also today filed another defamation action against Lim Keng Yaik. This is in connection with his remarks over RTM TV English news on January 29, 1994 that my quick and strong reaction to the Sydney Sunday Telegraph about “Australian spies have paid senior opposition politicians in Malaysia and Singapore tens of thousands of dollars” showed my ‘guilty conscience’ -implying that I was an Australian spy,

I had asked my lawyer, Sdr. Karpal Singh to write to Lim Keng Yaik to give him an opportunity to deny what he had said over RTM TV English news, but it is most pathetic that Keng Yaik dared not reply to Karpal Singh – to deny or to have the courage to confirm what he had said over RTM TV English news.