ANNEXURE TO REVELATION OF JUDGE ZAINON BINTI MOHD ALI'S AIDING & ABETTING RESPONDENTS' PERJURY & FORGERY

ANNEXURE TO ZAINON J

This annexure focuses on the pivotal issues in context. The purpose is to lay out the gist of what ought to be the correct and normal course for the judge to take on each issue because the law has prescribed it to be. The judge must apply the law as it is unless there are compelling reasons for the judge to action in a discretionary manner and the reasons for such deviation is properly justified by the judge.

(a)Paragraph (5)
Relates to petitioner’s application to cross examine respondents Kwong Sea Yoon, Stephen Lim Cheng Ban and Wong Kem Chen for perjury arising from their affidavits supporting their application for security for costs. Zainon J at the out set (1st hearing on the issue of security for costs) requested off petitioner’s solicitors to ask petitioner to withdraw her application for cross examination. Petitioner refused her request to withdraw. Then Zainon J continuously postponed every date set for hearing over an extended period of 31/4 years.
After the said 31/4 years, Zainon J awarded security for costs to respondents without so much as a mention of petitioner’s application for cross examination. Petitioner paid security for costs of RM 60,000, and upon such payment respondents applied to strike out petition for showing no course of action. Zainon J again in respect of this 2nd application continuously postponed every date set for hearing of this 2nd application, OVER an extended period of 3 years (total of 6 years from 1st hearing). Petitioner, in conference with her solicitors, decided that these unreasonable postponements were to induce petitioner to withdraw petitioner’s application to cross examine, in respect of the application for security for costs only; and accordingly petitioner did withdraw her application.
Zainon J even at this early stage of the hearing of the respondents’ application for security for costs DOES NOT have the right to exercise any judicial discretion in respect of petitioner’s application for leave to cross examine respondents for perjury because, the nature of the pleadings of both the petitioner’s and the respondents’ AMOUNTED TO the parties having CROSSED ISSUES. This is so because a decision on the issue whether petitioner had in fact sold or transferred her promoter’s share would have concluded the hearing of the case; BUT Zainon J had aided and abetted the respondents to evade exposing respondents as having perjured by her refusing to allow petitioner leave to cross examine the respondents.

(b)Paragraph (9)
Zainon J used petitioner’s withdrawal of 1st application (in respect of security for costs only) as a dishonest and disingenuous excuse to dismiss petitioner’s 2nd application for leave to cross examine Stephen Lim Cheng Ban for perjury and forgery. Judge Zainon J cannot deny this because I wrote to Chief Judge of Malaysia and Chief Judge of Malaya, Chairman of Malaysian Bar Council and Secretary of Malaysian Bar.. EACH time that I complained to the Chief Judges, Zainon J would run to our solicitors to ask them to persuade me to withdraw my complaints.
Zainon J claims that the supporting affidavits of respondents were the same as those of the 1st application; and since petitioner had withdrawn 1st application it follows that the 2nd application being the same as the first one is dismissed. This is disingenuous. The inherent differences that exist in the two sets of affidavits is right there in the affidavits that are filed in court as court papers, Compare the two sets and their differences will prove to be as different as cheese and chalk; and we will see that Zainon J had aided and abetted respondents in the perpetration of their crimes of perjury and forgery. There is no evidence that they are the same in any respects at all.

(c) Paragraph (13)
The analysis in paragraph (13) is again prove that Zainon J had aided and abetted respondents in the perpetration of their crimes of perjury and forgery. Stephen Lim had tendered forged documents allegedly in proof of his claim that petitioner had sold her promoter’s share to Stephen Lim. Petitioner applied to cross examine Stephen Lim but as stated above, Zainon J dismissed petitioner’s application on the pretext that petitioner had withdrawn her first application to cross examine Stephen Lim, and since Zainon J finds that respondents’1st supporting affidavit is the same as respondent’s second supporting affidavit; and since petitioner had withdrawn her 1st application to cross examine respondents for perjury and forgery she as judge will dismiss petitioner’s 2nd application for leave to cross examine Stephen Lim, they being the same.
In the circumstances as related in paragraph (13) Zainon J does not have any judicial discretion to strike out petition and to dismiss petitioner’s application for leave to cross examine Stephen Lim, because Zainon J had either suspected or noticed that respondents had tendered forged documents because Zainon J was the only person to state that petition is struck out because petitioner had not pleaded “forgery”. At this point the pleading has ended because the respondents had tendered documents that will prove respondents claim that petitioner had sold her promoter’s share to Stephen Lim. THE PARTIES HAD CROSSED ISSUES; and Zainon J as the presiding judge of the case must judge or decide the issues because parties had crossed issues. Zainon J refused leave to petitioner to cross examine Stephen Lim.
Again zainon J has intervened to protect Stephen Lim from incriminating himself if a cross examination of Stephen Lim was allowed.

To sum up the pivotal 3 issues, we find that Zainon J in each and every instance when she is required to PROGRESS the hearing of the case, which would have concluded the trial of the case, she in each and every case took a course of action that would have PROTECTED respondents from criminal exposure. Zainon J had professional knowledge and expertise to know that her action is not justifiable in law and that her action would definitely protect the 3 respondents and more particularly protect Stephen Lim from criminal prosecution. Zainon J had aided and abetted respondents in the perpetration of the listed crimes of the respondents as stated above.

Signed by Yap Chong yee.











[