Kota Kinabalu: The Sessions Court hearing the case of two former Sabah Water Department officials and one of their wives charged with money laundering heard, Friday, that no action was taken against the two former State Infrastructure Development Ministers by MACC regarding the allegations against them.
Teo Chee Kong, the prosecution’s 29th witness, said as far as he knew there was no action taken by MACC against Datuk Raymond Tan and Tan Sri Joseph Pairin Kitingan.
Teo said this when questioned by counsel Datuk Tan Hock Chuan who was representing former State Water Department Deputy Director Lim Lam Beng (third accused) during cross-examination.
Teo in his testimony during examination-in-chief on Feb. 22, this year, testified that both Tan and Pairin received “contributions” from the centralised collection system for four and seven years, respectively.
The witness recalled giving the contribution to Tan from the third quarter of 2005 until the end of 2009 and to his successor Pairin from 2009 until Sept 2016.
Teo was the Deputy Director after Lim Lam Beng retired. Lim was jointly charged with State Water Department Director Ag Mohd Tahir Mohd Talib (first accused) and his wife Fauziah Piut (second accused) on 37 counts of money laundering charges, involving cash and bank savings amounting to RM61.57 million, as well as unlawful possession of luxury goods.
They had on Dec. 29, 2016 pleaded not guilty to the charges.
To a question, Teo agreed that the meeting with Tan in 2005 was a courtesy call on the Minister.
Tan: Before that occasion, you have never met YB Datuk Raymond Tan. Is it your first time meeting him?
Teo: Yes. As long as I remember.
Tan: True or not, is ministerial approval required for emergency works?
Teo: Not true. No need for approval from the Infrastructure Development Minister.
Tan: On instruction, my client introduced you to the Minister as Water Engineer Kota Kinabalu Division, so that in future you can deal directly with Raymond Tan. Agree?
Teo: Disagree.
Tan: I put it to you that there is no such a thing to offer a bribe to Raymond Tan as you alleged. This is totally false. Agree?
Teo: Disagree.
Teo also disagreed with Tan’s suggestion that he prepared to give false testimony to implicate a Minister in exchange for the settlement he reached with MACC.
Tan: I put it to you, you are prepared to ruin the reputation of the Minister with scurrilous allegations when he is not even in court to defend himself. Do you agree?
Teo: Disagree.
Teo also disagreed with counsel’s suggestion that he created the scurrilous allegation against the Minister only after he reached the settlement with MACC and the 146 charges against him were withdrawn.
Teo also disagreed with Tan’s suggestion that his testimony of handing over money to Lim to hand to the Minister is a total fabrication.
Tan: When did you first raise this allegation to the MACC?
Teo: During my remand in October 2016 and after being released and after going back to MACC for 20 over times.
Tan: As far as you know, did MACC take any action against Raymond Tan after you raised this allegation?
Teo: So far MACC did not take any action.
Tan: I put it to you that even the MACC did not believe your allegations hence no action was taken against Raymond Tan. Do you agree?
Teo: Disagree.
Teo also disagreed with counsel’s suggestion that his allegation against Pairin and making a contribution to him (Pairin) was reckless and false.
Tan: As far as you know, after you raised this allegation to the MACC, did MACC take action against Pairin?
Teo: As far as I know, there is no action taken by MACC against Pairin.
Tan: Therefore, I put it to you even the MACC did not believe your reckless allegation against Pairin. Do you agree?
Teo: Disagree.
Tan: I put it to you that Lim had introduced you to Raymond Tan and Pairin but Lim was not involved in any meeting with other people like Datuk Pg Hasanal, Datuk Felix Madan and Datuk Michael Emban, Datuk Maznah Ghani and Datuk Ahmad Hashim.
Teo: Disagree.
Teo also disagreed with counsel’s suggestion that he was the one who made up stories that Lim was with him in the meeting with those names except Raymond Tan and Pairin.
To another suggestion by Tan, Teo disagreed with his suggestion that he was the mastermind of the whole centralised collection system scheme because he was the one giving all the instructions to his subordinate officers.
Tan: I put it to you that you were the mastermind that you have control of the whole scheme and there was no need for you to brief the third accused about the meeting on April 6, 2005 with the Divisional and District water engineers, do you agree?
Teo: Disagree.
Teo agreed with the counsel’s suggestion that the extent of his involvement in the scheme was from the beginning to the end and agreed with his suggestions that his action and involvement from start to the end was against the law and that he did not care about the effects and consequences of his actions from start to the end.
Teo also disagreed with Tan’s suggestion that he had amassed his wealth as a result of his having control over the commission collected and kept in his house.
Teo disagreed with the counsel’s suggestion that Lim was never involved in the discussion on the formula as alleged in his witness statement.
Teo agreed with Tan’s suggestion that he was the one dealing with the contractors, approving the contracts as the quotation committee chairman.
Together with Tan in representing Lim were counsel Baldev Singh, Karpaljit Singh and Kelvin Wong while Ag Mohd Tahir and Fauziah were represented by counsel Priskila Akwila Sinem and Mohd Fareeez Mohd Salleh.
Counsel Ram Singh and Kimberly Ye held a watching brief for Teo.
Trial adjourned to April 11.
* Follow us on Instagram and join our Telegram and/or WhatsApp channel(s) for the latest news you don't want to miss.
* Do you have access to the Daily Express e-paper and online exclusive news? Check out subscription plans available.
