DALAM MAHKAMAH SESYEN MALAYSIA

NO. KES 62-548-2007

(Mahkamah Sesyen Jenayah Kuala Lumpur)

DI ANTARA

PENDAKWARAYA

DAN

UTHAYAKUMAR A/L PONNUSAMY

__________________________________________________________________

WRITTEN SUBMISSION OF ACCUSED

____________________________________________________________________________

M/s M. Manoharan & Co,

Advocates & Solicitors

Suite C5-5, 5^th Floor,

Tower C, Wisma Goshen,

Plaza Pantai,

Off Jalan Pantai Baru,

59200 Kuala Lumpur

Accused reply to Prosecution’s Submissions on the issue Prolix Cross Examination

Introduction

Unlike in a typical criminal prosecution where the charge/s are specific, the charge against the Accused here appears to have been originally drafted in a haste and which is extremely wide ranging for allegedly committing an act which has a Seditious tendency ie writing a letter dated 15/11/07 addressed to The Rt Hon Gordon Brown, the then Prime Minister of the United Kingdom. The charges are also specifically underlined as in the said letter dated 15/11/07 in Jadual A of the Charge Sheet and in the rest of the said letter dated 15/11/07 as follows:-

a) “Re: 1. Commonwealth ethnic Indian peace loving subjects in Malaysia presecuted by government backed Islamic extremist violent armed terrorist who launched a pre dawn violent armed attack and destroyed the Kg Jawa Mariaman Hindu temple at 4.00 a.m this morning (15.11.2007). 2. Appeal for U.K to move emergency U.N Resolution condemning “Ethnic Cleansing” in Malaysia. 3. Appeal to refer Malaysia to the world court and International Criminal Court for Crimes against it’s own ethnic minority Indians”.

b) Appeal for U.K to move emergency U.N Resolution condemning “ethnic cleansing” in Malaysia.

c) Since independence in 1957 the Malaysian Indians have been permanently colonialised by the Islamic fundamentalist and malay chauvinists UMNO led Malaysian government.

d) 100 over Indians were slashed and killed by the UMNO controlled Malaysian government in the Kampung Medan mini genocide.

e) The UMNO controlled Malaysian courts struck off a victim’s public interest civil suit for a Public Inquiry to be held without even the said UMNO controlled government having to file in their defence.

f) Every week one person at average is killed in a shot to kill policy and in every 2 weeks one person is killed in police custody.

g) A violent armed pre down attack at 4.00 a.m this morning was launched by the UMNO controlled Malaysian government backed by about 600 police, riot police, Islamic extremist and armed terrorist which completely destroyed this temple.

h) State sponsored direct discrimination against the Indians in Public University intakes. Indian (Tamil) schools, skills training institutes, civil service and private sector job opportunities, business and licence opportunities and in almost all other aspects of daily life.

i) We fear that this peace loving Indian community of Tamil origin having been pushed to the corner and the persecution getting worse by the day may be forced to into terrorism in a matter of time as what has happened to the Sri Lankan Tamils.

j) As per the rest of the said two (2) page letter 15/11/07.

The aforesaid charges are so wide that it is in effect the A to Z of the critical problems of the nearly 3 Million Indian poor in Malaysia vis a vis the Accused in his 16 years (as at 13/11/07) as a minority and human rights lawyer and activist pointing out the errors or defects in any Government or Constitution as per the defence accorded to the Accused in Section 3 (2) (b) of the Sedition Act 1948 as per the Accised’s “hundreds of letters, appeals and memorandums to the…..Prime Minister, Attorney General, Inspector General of Police (page 2 of the said letter dated 15/11/07)……. The Accused’s case is also that this Sedition charges are politically motivated.

The whole of the Prosecutions’ Written Submissions and Bundle of Authorities does not cite even one single criminal case authority on the supposed Prolix Cross Examination.

Without Prejudice to the Prosecution proving a prima facie case at the end of the Prosecution case, the Accused defence is that the said criminal prosecution was finally brought against him after the Accused numerous Resolutions proposed at the Malaysian Bar Annual General Meetings, Memorandums and hundreds of letters to the government of Malaysia running into thousands of pages and spanning over a 16 year time period with the view to point out the errors or defects in any government or Constitution ….. with the view to the remedying of the errors or defects which defence is provided for in Section 3 (2) (b) of the Sedition Act 1948. And thus the Accused Cross Examination to this effect. But the Prosecution’s application is that this in itself is Prolix Cross Examination and thus their application before the Court today. Our reply is Justice hurried is Justice buried.

This supposed Prolix Cross Examination application goes against the grain of the accused right to a fair trial and the right to defend himself. Also the right to adduce relevant facts, facts in issue as per Sections 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 14, 38, 39 etc of the Evidence Act.

The Prosecution is also obviously trying to get around the time honored legal principle in DPP v Woolmington where Viscourt Sankey L.C held that “Throughout the web of the English Criminal law one golden trade is always to be observed that is the duty of the prosecution to prove beyond all reasonable doubt the accused guilt….

Reply to Prosecution’s Submissions

1. In reply to Item 3 of the Prosecution’s submission the word Prolix has been defined in the Black’s law Dictionary, 9^th Edition, at page 1331 as:-

The unnecessary and superfluous stating of facts and legal arguments in pleading or evidence. Also Prolixity may consist of irrelevant matter.

But in the whole of the Prosecution’s written submission, nowhere has it been specifically pointed out of even one instance of where the Accused’s Cross Examination has been unnecessary, superfluous or irrelevant to the Charge Sheet.

2. For each and every of the aforesaid ten (10) categories of the charges aforesaid, the Accused has relevant to the Charge documentary evidence running into thousands of pages ranging from 1990 to 11/12/2007 (16 years as at the date he was prosecuted) in his defence which he has to establish during the Prosecution case stage itself amongst others are as per listed out in Appendix 1 and enclosed herewith. In addition to the above the Accused also similarly has hundreds of relevant to the charge letters to tender at his trial.

3. Because of the very wide nature of the charges against the Accused as is in the charge sheet, the accused is forced to advance his best defence. But which to the Prosecution it is Prolix Cross Examination.

4. The above cannot be superfluous as the charges against the Accused is that the facts are happening right up even to this day.

5. The accused submits that also as a result of his aforesaid criticism, the highest political level Cabinet Committee on the Indians was formed and headed by no less that the Prime Minister Dato Seri Najib Tun Razak himself. Therefore in no way is the Accused Cross Examination irrelevant with this admission of the Accused’s pointing out the errors of the government as aforesaid especially so when the allegations/charge appears very explicitly in the very charge sheet.

6. In reply to paragraph 6 on the Cross examination to be confined to the relevant facts as is provided for in Section 138 of the Evidence Act, our humble submission is that all and any fact as aforesaid that is contained in the very wide charge sheet in itself becomes a relevant fact simply because it is expressly stated in the charge sheet.

7. Still in reply to paragraph 6, the Prosecution concedes that by virtue Section 148 of the Evidence Act the credibility of a witness is always relevant and questions may be asked in cross examination to test a witness’ veracity.

8. In this case the First Prosecution Witness “SP-1” at the material time is no less than Dato Acryl Sani bin Abdullah Sani, the immediate past Federal Deputy Director of the Criminal Investigations Department in charge of the key Intelligence and Operations and the Joint Director of Operations of Ops Padam Hindraf vis a vis this politically motivated Sedition Charges (and now the Chief Police Officer of Sarawak). This SP-1 is the best placed witness for the Accused to draw evidence in support of his anticipated defence vis a vis on all matters stated in the charge sheet as listed in items (a) to (j) hereinabove in the Introduction. What more the Second Prosecution Witness “SP-2” ASP Redzaime who is the very Investigating Officer.

9. Still in reply to Paragraph 6, the word Prolix does not appear at all in the authority of R V Chhoa Mui Sai that was cited by the Prosecution.

10. In reply to Paragraph 7, the Prosecution in fact concedes in the authority of Alan Thomas v Draf Worldwide Sdn Bhd that “Cross-examination is the best method to elicit evidence which supports the version of the cross examiner of the facts in issue …. A witness under cross examination may be asked leading questions and the answers may be favourable to the cross examiner. Thus the detailed Cross Examination of in particular “SP-1” by the Accused.

11. Still in reply to Paragraph 7, the Prosecution has submitted that the Judge has the overall discretionary power to prevent any question which is unnecessary, improper or oppressive but has not provided any real instances of the Accused’s unnecessary, improper or oppressive questions vis a vis the charge sheet. It is our humble submission that any and every question which is in the Charge Sheet or is linked to the Charge Sheet can and has to be put to the Prosecution Witnesses. And this can in no way be unnecessary, improper or oppressive.

12. Still in reply to paragraph 7 of the Prosecutions’ submission on the Accused’s lengthy cross examination on irrelevant issues, our humble submission is it arises because of the very nature of the very wide charges for which the Accused defence is based on documents that runs over a span of 16 years and into thousands of pages. And denying this right would be tantamount to denying the accused his right to a fair trial and the right to defend himself in a free and impartial Court of Law. We again humbly submit that any and every fact and Cross Examination question which is in and has a link to the Charge Sheet, can by no stretch of the imagination be deemed to be “lengthy cross examination on irrelevant issues”.

13. Still in reply to Paragraph 7 the Prosecution concedes that “the presiding Judge will allow the cross examiner to ask questions not raised during examination in chief but these questions may relate to any fact in issue or is considered relevant to a fact in issue. It is humbly submitted here again that any and every question linked to the charge sheet is a fact in issue or is considered to be relevant to a fact in issue.

14. In reply to Paragraph 8, the Prosecution has also conceded that “It is not always safe, that a Judge should freely interfere with the discretion of Counsel, while cross examining the witness”. But it is humbly submitted that the learned trial Judge having already disallowed up to even 34 questions in just one day on court proceedings on 8/6/12 may amount to interfering with the discretion of Counsel.

15. In reply to Paragraph 9 similarly the Prosecutions’ submission that “when cross examination appears to be unduly protected and irrelevant” our reply is that this is unfounded when the said cross examination is directly linked to the Charge Sheet.

16. In reply to paragraph 14 the Prosecution’s submission on injustice to “SP-1” a civil servant paid allowances for his Court attendances as a Prosecution Witness to be tantamount to be over and above justice to the Accused has never been heard of in any part of the world. What more in contrast to justice to the Accused who has been prosecuted for merely acting in the general public interest of the mere 8% ethnic minority Indian poor vulnerable and downtrodden and facing up to a three (3) years jail sentence for this. Justice to who to prevail over whom is so plain and obvious?

17. In reply to Paragraph 15 the Accused denies that he would be repeating the same things as he has scores more of new documents and letters to the government as outlined hereinbelow in Appendix 1. Which would all be new questions and on very different areas but with direct regards to the very wide charges against the Accused.

18. In reply to paragraph 6 on a question by the Accused as to whether an Indian police officer can become the Inspector General of Police Force, the same is directly related to page 2 of the charge sheet ie “state sponsored direct discrimination against the Indians in … civil service … job opportunities. The post of the Inspector General of Police is certainly a civil service job.

19. In reply to Paragraph 8, “SP-1” was referred to Article 11 of the Federal Constitution on the freedom of religious guarantees. As SP-1 had replied that it is not an offence to demolish hindu temples if it follows the law, the Accused’ direct question then was which law authorizes the demolition of hindu temples? This submission by the Prosecution is unfounded especially by Section 38 of the Evidence Act. (Relevancy of statements as to any law contained in law books) as the said questions are directly related to the Charge Sheet page 2 of exhibit “P-13” of the Charge Sheet as follows “In every three weeks one Hindu temple is demolished in Malaysia. The latest being the demolishment of the Mariaman temple in Padang Jawa, Shah Alam, Selangor early this morning (15/11/07)”.

20. Still in reply to paragraph 8, our humble submission here is why is the Prosecution complaining when the above Cross Examination questions are specifically in the Charge Sheet and is specifically a defence afforded to the Accused by virtue of Section 3 (2) (b) of the Sedition Act 1948 ie “to point out the errors or defects in any government or Constitution………. with the view to the remedying of the errors or defects”.

21. In reply to paragraph 9, on the Cross Examination questions on why the top 31 police officers cannot be an Indian, the same is contained in Item 4 at page 2 of “P-13” of the Charge sheet ie “state sponsored direct discrimination against the Indians in…. civil service …. job opportunities”.

22. In reply to paragraph 10,11 and 12 on the questioning of the said SP-1, we repeat that “SP-1” is no less than the very powerful Federal Deputy Director of the Criminal Investigations Department in charge of Intelligence and Special Operations which has a direct bearing with the Accused vis a vis Ops Padam Hindraf, where the Accused was not only charged for Sedition herein but was also detained under the Internal Security Act (ISA) for about 17 months (514 days).

23. It is hereby submitted herein that “SP-1” cannot say that he does now know about matters involving Intelligence and Special Operations or that he is not competent to speak vis a vis Ops Padam Hindraf or this Sedition Charge. The Accused’s case is that SP-1 is the very No.1 Police Officer ie the Joint Director of Operations in charge of “Ops Padam Hindraf” vis a vis this Sedition Charge against the Accused with the other Joint Director of Operations being Dato Ramli Shaari the Federal Director of Special Branch who has since retired and who would not have access to all documents to testify in this Court. Thus SP-1 being the most important witness in the Accused’s case.

24. In reply to Paragraph 13 on the Cross examination of the demolishment of hindu temples in Malaysia (which explicity appears in the Charge sheet) at the rate of “one hindu temple being demolished in Selangor alone in every ten (10) days” as was the official reply by the Selangor Menteri Besar to the Selangor State Assembly, (which proof the Accused would be tendering in Court), SP-1 had replied that he had only heard of a mere 1 or 2 such cases in the last 50 years. This is a direct contrast and thus the Accused line of Cross Examination questioning to get to the truth of the matter. Why not?

25. In reply to the Cross Examination ethics submission by the Prosecution referring to Section 138 of the Evidence Act, all the Accused questions relate and is linked to the Charge Sheet and therefore relate to relevant facts.

26. In the whole of the Prosecution’s submission, they are yet to pin point to even one Cross Examination question by the Accused that has no link and/or is not referred to in the charge sheet.

27. In reply to the Cross Examination ethics submission by the Prosecution referring to Section 151 of the Evidence Act, all the Accused Cross Examination questions relate to facts in issue as per the charge sheet and never otherwise.

28. How can the same be construed to be Indecent or scandalous questions when the same is specifically specified and/or directly linked in the Charge Sheet in the first place.

29. Referring to the authority of Mechanical & General Inventions Co Ltd v Austin 1935 AC 346 (House of Lords) at page 17 on the examination being 80 pages and cross examination being 265 pages and the same being trivial in relation to the main issues, our reply is that the Accused is being prosecuted for his public interest work spanning over 16 years as aforesaid and that “SP-1” is no less than the Director of Operations of Ops Padam Hindraf vis a vis this politically motivated Sedition Charges as is outlined hereinabove. In any event his House of Lords authority is a civil case and not a criminal case. The charges against the Accused is not trivial but very serious charges and carrying up to three (3) years imprisonment.

30. In reply to the Prosecution’s submission at paragraph 1 at page 19, we couldn’t agree more that it is doing justice between man and man. And so that the Accused should not have been charged in the first place especially so when he has already served a 17 months jail sentence without trial under the ISA for in effect the same and overlapping charges as in the Sedition Charges and was at all material times merely acting in the general public interest.

31. In reply to paragraph 4 the questions the Accused ask are questions which are in the charge sheet but the learned Prosecutor alleges that this is in itself Sedition.

32. In reply to Paragraph 4 at page 19 on the alleged comments insulting SP-1 etc we reply that the same did not happen especially so when not even a single example was citied.

33. In reply to paragraph 5 at page 19, we reply that we had never raised any question/s on the alleged discussion on the Accused case between SP-1 and the Prime Minister as was alleged by the Prosecutor. In fact this allegation does not tally at all with the Question and Answer that follows at page 19 and 20 of the Prosecution’s written submission which merely suggested that SP-1 did not attend Court the previous day because……..

34. In reply to paragraph 6 at the page 20, the Accused maintains that the prosecution against him is a politically motivated, selective and malicious prosecution and that he was singled out to be punished for organizing the unprecedented 100,000 Indian poor Hindraf peaceful Rally on 25/11/2007.

35. In reply to Paragraph 7 at page 21 that the Accused had stated that he might as well just be sent to jail (without the trial) and that the proceedings were a mere formality, the Accused can only reply that it is Res Ipsa Loquiteour.

36. In reply to paragraph 8 at page 21, SP-1 was evading from answering relevant and very serious questions in particular with reference to Section 148 (d) of the Evidence Act on the police “Ops Padam Hindraf”, the mysterious Kg Medan “ethnic cleansing” where five (5) Indian poor were killed and 100 others caused grievous bodily injuries believed to be state sponsored etc which is stated in the Charge Sheet and that was when the Accused had asserted that SP-1 is the very senior ie technically No.3 in lineage to the Inspector General of Police. But the Prosecutor again submits that this is Prolix.

37. In reply to paragraph 9 at page 21 we reply once again that the top positions in the police force has got to do with page 2 of P-13 in the Charge Sheet ie on the “State sponsored direct discrimination against the Indians in the civil service…..”

38. In reply to paragraph 10 at page 21 that the Accused should reserve his submissions at the end of the prosecution case, we reply that this Prosecution submission does not stand. Because the Accused has to lay the foundation of the defence case at the Prosecution case stage itself. Should the Accused only raise the same for the first time at the Defence stage, this may be deemed to be an afterthought as per the Federal Court authorities.

39. In reply to paragraph 11 at page 22 and 23 no examples of ‘Insulting observations during examinations” or “running comments” or “hypothetical questions” were cited by the Prosecution.

40. In reply to paragraph 1 and 5 at page 23 of the Accused being unethical when his questions are rejected by the Courts (for example up to 34 of the Accused questions to the Federal Deputy Criminal Investigations Department Director, Intelligence and Operations being rejected in just one day on 8/6/12), our reply is “justice must not only be done but must manifestly and undoubtedly be seen to be done”. Further by no stretch of the imagination can this very senior and powerful police witness “SP-1” be said to be a “victim” as suggested at page 2340 Tab 4 of the Prosecution’s Bundle of Authorities.

41. In reply to paragraph 3 and 4 at page 23, the Accused reiterate that it is his right to appeal against the decision of the learned trial Judge where he is of the opinion that a failure of justice has occurred. The Accused asked for clarifications from the learned trial Judge as he believes in Justice.

42. In reply to the Prosecution’s conclusion that the Accused line of questioning must be controlled, our reply is again Justice must not only be done but must manifestly and undoubtedly be seen to be done and that the accused has the right to ask all and any questions that is a part of the Charge Sheet or linked to the same.

43. At page 2345 at Tab 4, “SP-1” is about the most competent witness to the Accused in the preparation of his anticipated defence and thence getting a fair trial in an impartial Court of law.

44. The Accused cities paragraph 76 Tab 6 at page 495 of the Prosecution’s Bundle of Authorities in the authority of Alan Thomas Bohlsen v Draft Worldwide Sdn Bhd 2009 8MLJ at page 495 per Abdul Malek Ishak J “Cross-examination is the best method, to elicit evidence which supports the version of the cross-examiner of the facts in issue.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the Prosecution’s submission of the Accused’s Prolix Cross Examination is baseless and unfounded save and except for the said Black’s Law Dictionary meaning and that too the very vague meaning of the same being merely “unnecessary” “superfluous” and irrelevant.

In all of the Prosecution’s Bundle of Authorities, not a single criminal case authority addresses this supposed “Prolix Cross Examination” argument that the Prosecution has advanced save and except in the authority of Rx v Chhoa Mui Sai but where Prolix Cross Examination was on the credibility of the witness and never on questions directly related to the Charge Sheet per se as in the present case.

In fact this Prolix Cross Examination submission in a criminal case is unprecedented in Malaysia or anywhere else in the Commonwealth.

In the circumstances we humbly submit that the Prosecution’s Prolix submission is dismissed. Especially where it was held that Cross-examination is a powerful and valuable weapon for the purpose of testing the veracity of a witness and the accuracy and completeness of his story as per the House of Lords authority of Mechanical and General Inventions Company Limited and Lehwess 1935 AC at page 359 (page 359, Tab 10 of the Prosecution’s Bundle of Authorities).

Dated 18/9/2012

…………………………..

Solicitors for the Accused

Appendix 1

1. Summary on why an Advocate and Solicitor’s statement cannot and should not be recorded under Section 112 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CPC) during police investigation. (Info line magazine September/October 1998 page 17)

2. Memorandum “Illegal, Unlawful and brutal death by police shooting” to Prime Minister Dato Seri Dr. Mahathir Mohammad dated 17^th October 2000. (22 pages)

3. Nota bantahan Satu Tahun tragedi Kampung Medan dan tiada Royal Commission of Inquiry oleh Kerajaan Malaysia kepada Y. A. B Dato Seri Abdullah Badawi, Timbalan Perdana Menteri, Menteri Dalam Negeri dated 8. 3. 2001 (10 pages).

4. Memorandum Tiada perlindungan polis untuk masyarakat India di kampong lindungan dan kawasan persekitarannya to Tan Sri Musa Hitam dated 30th March 2001. (33 pages)

5. Memorandum Seratus Hari Tragedi Kampung Medan to Tan Sri Musa Hitam dated 15th June 2001.

6. Protest note to Suhakam (Malaysian Human Rights Commission) “One Year of the Kampung Medan Tragedy and no open inquiry” dated 30/3/2002.

7. Memorandum (Meritocracy without merit, and the unfair entrance requirement into Public Universities is a violation of Human Rights especially to the Malaysian Indian Community. The Right to Public University education for all irrespective of ethnic origin) to Tan Sri Abu Talib Bin Othman (Chairman Malaysian Human Rights Commission) dated 7/6/2002. (20 pages)

8. Protest note ‘Pembunuhan Insan S. Tharmarajen (remaja 19 tahun) dalam tahanan polis dari 3. 4. 2002 sehingga 21. 6. 2002” to Inspector of General of Police Tan Sri Norian Mai dated 27/6/2002. (18 pages)

9. Memorandum “Assault and death of Tharmarajen a/l Subramaniam (19) and hundreds of others in police custody. Are we heading towards a police state?” to Suhakam (Human Rights Commission of Malaysia) dated 1st July 2002. (31 pages)

10. Memorandum on “A Trigger Happy Royal Malaysian Police Force” (1. 3 Persons shot dead per week by the Royal Malaysian Police Force (635 from 1989 -1999) The Star 11/05/99) as opposed to 18 fatal police shootings in New Zealand from 1940 to 2001 (61 years) to Deputy Prime Minister Dato Seri Abdullah Bin Haji Ahmad Badawi dated 31st October 2002. (27 pages)

11. Memorandum “Stand up for justice its now or never” by Police Watch and human rights committee – Malaysia Reports from 1999- 31/08/2003 to Amnesty International London dated 8/9/2003. (433 pages). (By P. Waytha Moorthy)

12. Usul tergempar (Sidang Parlimen) mengenai penembakan mati secara kejam penuntut STPM Vikines a/l Vesvanathan oleh pasukan polis diraja Malaysia pada 11/10/2003 dan terutamanya masyarakat India Malaysia (60%) dan 1. 3 rakyat ditembak mati oleh polis Di Raja Malaysia setiap Minggu proposed by police watch 2 through Y. B. Dato’ Dr. Hasan Bin Haji Mohamad Ali. (9 pages).

13. Protest Note “The unlawful and on merciless shooting to death/ of murder of Vikines a/l Vesvanathan by the Royal Commission police force. Why are Malaysian Indians being targeted 75% Malaysians shot dead are Malaysian Indians warning and caution to the Royal Malaysian police force” to Inspector of General of Police Tan Sri Norian Mai dated 15/10/2003. (9 pages)

14. Protest note “Police lords in Malaysia (murderers of innocent people) case of Nagandren a/l Poobalan to Inspector Genral of Police, Malaysia Dato Seri Mohd Bakri Omar dated 28/1/2004. (25 pages)

15. Memorandum on Proposals and opinion/ rationale on the proposed amendments to the penal code and the criminal procedure code to Datuk Mohd Radzi Bin Sheikh Ahmad (Minister in the Prime Ministers Department) dated 19/8/2004. (19 pages)

16. Memorandum on “Police Abuses in Malaysia (1992 to 31-12-2004) –A General Overview to Y. A. Bhg. Tun Mohamed Dzaiddin Bin Abdullah Chairman, Royal Commission to enhance the Operations and Management of the Royal Malaysian Police Force dated 21/1/2005. (153 pages)

17. Memorandum on indiscriminate and unlawful hindu temple demolishment in Malaysia dated 11. 5. 2005 to Prime Minister of Malaysia, Y. A. B. Dato Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi. (19 pages)

18. Memorandum Moorthy’s Struggle Islam – procedures for conversion, procedures on renunciation, jurisdiction and Constitutional crisis dated 28. 12. 2005. (22 pages)

19. Malaysian Police report card 2005 (criminal abuse of police power cases documented from 1. 1. 2005 to 31. 12. 2005) to Dato Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi and Dato Seri Mohamed Nazri Bin Abdul Aziz dated 9. 3. 2006. (107 pages)

20. Protest note on Indiscriminate and unlawful hindu temple demolishments in Malaysia by the Federal, state and local authorities especially the Kuala Lumpur city hall at an alarming rate of at least one hindu temple being demolished in every three (3) weeks to Prime Minister of Malaysia Dato Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi dated 25/5/2006. (5 pages)

21. Formal complaint to the United Nations on the unconstitutional conduct of the Malaysian government in demolishing places of worship belonging to the minority Hindus in Malaysia 2006.

22. Protest Note ‘Uphold Constitution & the law, prosecute hindu temple demolishment criminals who are demolishing hindu temples with impunity & stop hindu temple demolishments in Malaysia dated 29. 6. 2007 to the Hon. Attorney General of Malaysia. (Prepared by P. Waytha Moorthy and together with R. Kengatharan attended a meeting with the present Head of Prosecution Deputy Public Prosecutor Hanafiah at the Attorney General’s office Putrajaya on 29/6/07).

23. Hindraf’s 18 point Demands dated 12/8/2007.

24. Memorandum Bantahan perobohan kuil-kuil, rumah berhala dan dewa- dewa agama hindu di daerah Hulu Langat yang meliputi Kajang/ Semenyih/ Rinching/ Beranang/ Cheras/ Balakong/ Bangi/ Serdang oleh

Majlis Perbandaran Kajang kepada Yang Dipertua Majlis Perbandaran Kajang dated October 2007. (2 pages)

25. Memorandum (No freedom of religion/ worship in Malaysia to United Nations 2007 (30 pages ).

Malaysian Bar (Council) Resolutions (1999-2007) proposed by myself:-

i. Immediately set up and independent commission of inquiry to investigate the Attorney General fully and make its findings public. (arising from Dato Seri Anwar Ibrahim’s case) (54th Annual General Meeting of the Malaysia Bar Council 1999/2000 Annual Report 18^th March 2000, Renaissance Hotel Kuala Lumpur).

ii. Protesting 3. 1 person per week shot dead by police of which 60% are Malaysian Indians. (56th Annual General Meeting of the Malaysia Bar Council 2001/02 Annual Report 23rd March 2002, Crown Princess Hotel Kuala Lumpur).

iii. Royal Commission of Enquiry on the Kg Medan racial attacks, government failing to protect Indians. Ag to prosecute the Kg Medan criminals who killed 5 Indians and grievous bodily injuries to 100 over other etc. (57th Annual General Meeting of the Malaysia Bar Council 2002/03 Annual Report 22nd March 2003, Renaissance Hotel Kuala Lumpur).

iv. Motion calling for mandatory Inquiry and appropriate criminal action into all cases of death by police shooting, deaths in police custody and all six (6) deaths in the Kg. Medan racial attacks (not racial clashes) targeted at the innocent minority Malaysian Indian Community. . (Annual General Meeting of the Malaysia Bar Council 2003/04 Annual Report 20th March 2004, Crown Princess Hotel Kuala Lumpur).

v. Motion of no confidence against the Attorney General of Malaysia and the Inspector General of Police Malaysia. (Annual General Meeting of the Malaysia Bar Council 2003/04 Annual Report 20^th March 2004, Crown Princess Hotel Kuala Lumpur).

vi. Motion 8. 3 on P. Uthayakumar being (falsely prosecuted) for criminal Intimidation by the Attorney General in arising out of the pro bono Inquest into death in police custody of S. Tharmarajah (19) (58th Annual General Meeting of the Malaysia Bar Council 2003/04 Annual Report 20th March 2004, Crown Princess Hotel Kuala Lumpur). (proposed by M. Manogar).

vii. Item 5 A (iii) of the amendum to the agenda- Motion of no confidence (and Motion on mandatory inquest) against the Attorney General and Inspector General of Police Malaysia (Proposed by P. Uthayakumar) (59th Annual General Meeting of the Malaysian Bar Council 2004/05 Annual Report 19th March 2005, Notel Nikko Kuala Lumpur).

viii. Item 5 (vii) Motion by P. Uthayakumar Seconder: M. Manogar Motion on Independent Police Investigations Tribunal, and Attorney General to prosecute without fear or favour all and any criminal abuse of police powers. (60th Annual General Meeting of the Malaysian Bar Council 2005/06 Annual Report 18th March 2006, Legend Hotel Kuala Lumpur).

ix. Resolution at Bar Council AGM 2006 on 5A. 5 Motion for the Bar Council of Malaysia to institute Public Interest Litigation to compel the Government of Malaysia to form and implement the Independent Police Complaints and Misconduct Commission (IPCMC) within two (2) weeks from 31. 5. 2006. 5A. 6 Motion of no confidence against the Attorney General for being extremely slow in prosecuting criminal abuse of police powers (only 0. 01% of the cases). (61st Annual General Meeting of the Malaysian Bar Council 2006/07 Annual Report 17^th March 2007, Legend Hotel Kuala Lumpur).

x. Item 8 (e)(i) of Motion dated 9/2/07 that the Bar Council files a Civil suit that the IPCMC be implemented, Motion of no confidence against the Attorney General for not prosecuting criminal policemen. (62nd Annual General Meeting of the Malaysian Bar Council 2007/08 Annual Report 15th March 2008, Legend Hotel Kuala Lumpur).

xi. Hundreds of other Memorandums letters, appeals etc to the Government by the Accused.

This Written Submissions is filed by M/s M. Manoharan & Co, at Suite C5-5, 5^th Floor, Tower C, Wisma Goshen, Plaza Pantai, Off Jalan Pantai Baru, 59200 Kuala Lumpur. Tel : 03-22832118, Fax : 03-22831322