MY BROTHER VK LINGAM

Rocky's notes: The following is the content of Police Report [report no Kelana Jaya A/002187/07] lodged on 19 March 2007 by Thirunama Karasu a/l Kandar Velupillai against Dato V. Kanagalingam. Mr Karasu claimed to be Dato VK Lingam's brother. This report was lodged with the Brickfields police station.

Pengadu menyatakan:
FURTHER TO MY REPORT DATED 16 MARCH 2007 KELANA JAYA REPORT NOMBER 2115/07, I NOW WISH TO ADD FURTHER BECAUSE THE I.O TUAN SAIFUL IN THIS CASE FROM KELANA JAYA REFUSE TO TAKE MY STATEMENTS IN DETAILS AND THEREFORE I HAD TO LODGE THIS FURTHER REPORT TO SET OUT DETAILS. I FEAR MY LIFE AND THE SAFETY OF MY FAMILY BECAUSE I WANTED TO LODGE A POLICE REPORT AT BUKIT AMAN ON 6 MARCH 2007 ON ALL CORRUPTION CASES OF MY BROTHER DATUK V. KANALINGAM AND THOSE INVOLVED IN THESE CORRUPTION CASES WITH MY BROTHER ARE AS FOLLOWS.

1) I WAS USED BY MY BROTHER V. KANAGALINGAM TO CORRUPT THE FORMER CHIEF JUDGE TUN EUSOFF CHIN, THE FORMER ATTORNEY GENERAL TAN SRI MOHTAR ABDULLAH, THE FORMER IGP TAN SRI RAHIM NOOR, THE PRESENT COURT OF APPEAL JUDGES DATUK MOHTAR SIDIN, THE PRESENT COURT OF APPEAL JUDGE DATO LOW HOP BING AND A FORMER JUDGE DATO K.L REKRAJ.

2) IN 1995 I WITNESS MY BROTHER DATO V. KANAGALINGAM CORRUPTING A FORMER INDUSTRIALIST COURT CHAIRMAN MR SATCHI WHERE I SAW MY BROTHER HANDING OVER A CHEQUE IN THE SUM OF RM 50,000.00.

3) IN 1995 I WITNESS A DINNER HOSTED BY MY BROTHER DATO V. KANAGALINGAM AT HIS HOUSE NO 1 JALAN SS 7/24 KELANA JAYA 47301 PJ FOR THE FORMER CHIEF JUDGE TUN EUSOFF CHIN'S WIFE AND CHILDREN WERE PRESENT. ALSO PRESENT IN THIS DINNER WERE THE FORMER COURT OF APPEAL PRESIDENT TAN SRI LAMIN YUNUS AND HIS WIFE, MY OTHER BROTHER DATO V. SIVAPRANJOTHI A LAWYER, MY BROTHER V. PANJARATNAM A ENGINEER, DATO V. KANAGALINGAM'S BODYGUARD ENCIK RAMLI AND BUDIMAN, AND A MALAY SECURITY GUARD. MY BORTHER'S WIFE DATIN GHANAJOTHY AND CHILDREN SIVASAKTI, SIVAJOTHI WERE ALSO PRESENT IN THIS DINNER. I WAS TOLD BY MY BROTHER DATUK V.KANAGALINGAM TO COME FOR THIS DINNER BECAUSE TO CLEAN UP THE HOUSE AND GARDEN, ARRANGE THE TABLE AND CHAIRS PRIOR TO THE DINNER.

4) IN 1996 I DELIVERED A NEW LEATHER BRIEFCASE, A WALLET, A LADY'S LEATHER HAND BEG, SOME DOCUMENTS WERE IN THE BRIEFCASE. I PERSONALLY DELIVERED THIS THINGS TO TUN EUSOFF CHIN IN PERSON IN HIS HOUSE. I WAS TOLD BY MY BROTHER DATO V. KANAGALINGAM TO DELIVER THIS THINGS.

5) I WAS TOLD BY MY BROTHER DATO V. KANAGALINGAM TO GO TO TUN EUSOFF CHIN'S HOUSE WITH MY OTHER BROTHER V. PANJARATNAM TO DELIVER 3 BOWLS OF SOUP WHICH WAS PREPARED BY V. PANJARATNAM'S WIFE REBECCA FOR TUN EUSOFF CHIN WIFE WHO WAS SICK AT THAT TIME. I AND MY BROTHER V. PANJARATNAM WENT THERE IN A PROTON WIRA BEARING NO BDV 1862 BELONGING TO PANJARATNAM.

6) I HAVE ALSO SENT MY BROTHER DATO V. KANAGALINGAM USING MY CAR A NISSAN SUNNY 130Y BEARING NO PLATE WBS 9443 TO TUN EUSOFF CHIN'S HOUSE. I HAVE ALSO WENT WITH MY BROTHER DATO V. KANAGALINGAM A NUMBER OF TIMES USING HIS CAR A BMW 988 A MERC 320 WED 5 A HONDA CAR BELONGING TO DATIN GHANAJOTHY, A VOLVO CAF 45, A OLD WHITE MERZ (8101) ANOTHER BMW (WDN) A PROTON WIRA BDV 1862 BELONGING TO V. PANJARATNAM. THE FORMER DRIVER MR CHANDRAN HAVE ALSO SENT DATO V. KANALINGAM TO EUSOFF CHIN'S HOUSE. WHENEVER I SENT MY BROTHER DATO V. KANAGALINGAM TO EUSOFF CHIN'S HOUSE, HE DATO V. K WILL BE CARRING A VERY BIG BUNDLE OF FILES AND WHEN I GO BACK TO PICK HIM UP HE WILL BE CARRYING BACK A SINGLE FILE. I USUALLY SENT MY BROTHER DATO V. KANAGALINGAM AT ABOUT 11.30 PM AND PICK HIM UP AT ABOUT 12.30 PM TO 1.00 AM.

7) IN 1996 CASH WAS GIVEN TO ME BY MY BROTHER DATO V. KANAGALINGAM TO PURCHASE HANDPHONE FROM MUTIARA TELECOMMUNICATIONS SDN BHD LOT 1 LEVEL 1 SHAHZAN PRUDENTIAL TOWER AT NO 30 JALAN SULTAN SIMAIL KL. FOR TUN EUSOFF CHIN. THIS PHONE WAS DELIVERED TO TUN EUSOFF CHON'S HOUSE BY A FAMILY FRIEND MR FRANCIS KOK CHEE KHOON.

8) I HAVE ALSO IN 1996 GIVEN A CASH CEHQUE BY MY OTHER BROTHER DATO V. SIVAPRANJOTHI A LAWYER TO PURCHASE A HANDPHONE FOR FORMER JUDGE K.L REKRAJ. I DELIEVERED THIS HANDPHONE IN PERSON TO DATO K.L REKRAJ AT HIS HOUSE. HE DATO K.L REKRAJ ASKED ME FOR EXTRA BATTERIES. THIS PHONE WAS REGISTERED UNDER DATO K.L REKRAJ WIFE.

9) A FAMILY FRIEND MR FRANCIS KOK CHEE KHOON HAVE ALSO TAKE MY BROTHERS DATO V. KANAGALINGAM AND DATO V. SIVAPRANJOTHO TO TUN EUSOFF CHIN'S HOUSE.

10) IN 1996 I WAS TOLD BY MY BROTHER DATO V. KANAGALINGAM TO SENT A OLD HEAVY BRIEFCASE (A DARK BROWN) TO THE PRESENT COURT OF APPEAL JUDGE DATO LOW HOP BING. HE DATO V. KANAGALINGAM TOLD ME TAHT DATO LOW HOP BING ACCIDENTALLY LEFT THE BRIEFCASE IN THE CAR BEARING NUMBER PLATE CAF 45 A VOLVO. MR FRANCIS KOK CHEE KHOON WAS PRESENT WHEN I COLLECTED THE BRIEFCASE IN FRONT OF DATO V. KANAGALINGAM'S HOUSE.

11) IN 1996 I AND MR FRANCIS KOK CHEE KHOON WAS TOLD BY MY BROTHER DATO V. KANAGALINGAM TO DELIVER 2 NOS HANDPHONE TO THE PRESENT COURT OF APPEAL JUDGE DATO MOHTAR SIDIN AT JALAN GURNEY KUALA LUMPUR. I AND MR FRANCIS KOK CHEE KHOON WENT THERE IN A VOLVO CAF 45. I HAVE ALSO GONE TO DATO MOHTHAR SIDIN'S HOUSE WITH MY BROTHER DATO V. KANAGALINGAM. I HAVE ALSO GONE TO DATO MOHTAR SIDIN'S HOUSE IN JALAN GURNEY USING MY MOTORBIKE BEARING NO PLATE WAX 6191 A YAMAHA TO SENT DOCUMENTS AND ALSO DELIVER A HANDPHONE.

12) IN 1996 CASH WAS GIVEN TO ME BY MY BROTHER DATO V. KANAGALINGAM TO SETTLE A HANDPHONE BILL IN THE NAME OF FORMER IGP TAN SRI RAHIM NOOR. SOMETIMES THE HANDPHONE BILLS OF FORMER IGP TAN SRI RAHIM NOOR IS SETTLE BY MY SISTER CHINMAYA DEVI WHO IS EMPLOYED WITH V.K LINGAM & CO AND SOMETIMES BY MR FRANCIS KOK CHEE KHOON AND ALSO BY A FORMER COLONEL.

13) IN 1996 MAY I WAS AT MY BROTHERS OFFICE AT SHAHZAN TOWER WITH MY BROTHER DATO V. KANAGALINGAM AND MY SISTER CHINMAYA DEVI. ALL A SUDDEN MY UNCLE MR. PERINCURAMASAMY CAME RUSHING TO INFORM MY BOTHER DATO V. KANAGALINGAM THAT THE ACA IS COMING TO MY BROTHER'S OFFICE TO INVESTIGATE CORRUPTION ON PERWAJA STEEL.
BEFORE THE ACA CAN COME TO MY BROTHER OFFICE DATO V. KANAGALINGAM TOLD ME, CHINMAYA DEVI (MY SISTER) AND FRANCIS CHEE KOON TO WITHDRAW LARGE SUM OF MONEY FROM ORIENTAL BANK JALAN SULTAN ISMAIL UNDER THE ACCOUNT OF DATO V. KANAGALINGAM. DATO V. KANAGALINGAM OLSO TOLD ME TO TAKE 5 NOS BANK DRAFT EACH AMOUNTING 60,000.00 POUNDS. I ALSO WAS TOLD BY MY BROTHER DATO V. KANAGALINGAM TO OPEN A ACCOUNT UNDER MY NAME IN PUBLIC BANK AND BANK IN RM 275,000.00 WHICH I DI. MR FRANCIS KOK CHEE KHOON ALSO WITHDRAW A LARGESUM OF MONEYWHICH HE PUT IN THE BLACK BIG BAG AND LATER BANK IN INTO HIS ACCOUNT. MY SISTER CHINMAYA DEVI ALSO WITHDRAW A LARGE SUM OF MONEY AND FOLLOWED MR FRANCIS KOK CHEE KHOON. I DID NOT KNOW WHAT MY SISTER CHINMAYADEVI DID WITH THE MONEY.
LATER THE FIVE BANK DRAFTS OF 60,000.00 POUNDS EACH WAS BANK IN TO THE ACCOUNT OF THE FOLLOWING PERSON IN LONDON. THIS PEOPLE FOLLOWED DATO V. KANAGALINGAM TO LONDON BEFORE GOING TO USA MAYO CLINIC IN ROCHESTER MINNESOTA.
1) MR K SUPPIAH 60,000.00 POUNDS WAS BANK INTO HIS ACCOUNT IN LONDON
2) DATIN GHANAJOTHI 60,000.00 POUNDS WERE BANK INTO HER ACCOUNT IN LONDON
3) MR RAJENDRA VELLUPILLAI 60,000.00 POUNDS WAS BANK INTO HIS ACCOUNT IN LONDON
4) THIRUNAMA KARASU VELLUPILLAI 60,000.00 WAS PUT INTO MY ACCOUNT IN LONDON
5) DATO V. KANAGALINGAM 60,000.00 POUNDS WAS PUT INTO HIS ACCOUNT IN LONDON
6) V. KANAKALASHIMI RM 100,000.00 GIVEN CASH AT NO 28 SECTION 21/1 SEA PARK PJ AT HER HOUSE.

14) IN 1998 MY BROTHER DATO V. KANAGALINGAM CAME TO MY HOUSE AND TOOK ME IN HIS VOLVO (940) TO CHINESE RESTAURANT IN SEA PARK SECTION 21/1. MY SISTER V. KANAKALASHMI ALSO CAME TO THE RESTAURANT. IN THIS RESTAURANT MY BROTHER DATO K. KANAGALINGAM THREATENED ME NOT TO TELL THE ACA ABOUT HIS DEALING WITH THE JUDGES, THE FORMER IGP TAN SRI RAHIM NOOR AND ALSO THOSE INVOLVED. HE TOLD ME THAT I MAKE SURE SOMETHING WILL HAPPEN TO ME AND THAT I HAVE MENTIONED THE JUDGES AND FORMER IGP. THE POLICE WILL ARREST ME AND MY CHILDREN WILL BE KIDNAPPED BY THE JUDGES. HE THREATENED BECAUSE I HAVE GIVEN A FULL STATEMENT TO A LAWYER NOW KNOWN AS DATO SAFEE ABDULLAH OF SAFEE & CO IN 1997 AT HIS HOUSE TOGETHER WITH MR SULAIMAN ABDULLAH A LAWYER PRESENT. FURTHER MORE IN 1997 DECEMBER I WAS FORCED TO SIGN A STATUTORY DECLARATION WHICH WAS PREPARED BY MY BROTHER DATO V. SIVAPRANJOTHI AND DATO V. KANAGALINGAM AT A HOTEL VALUE INN KELANG SELANGOR. OTHERS WHO FORCED ME SIGH THE STATUTORY DECLARATION WERE MR SATCI, SISTER V. KANAGALASHMI, SISTER CHINMAYADEVI AND BROTHERV. PANJARATNAM.
IN 1998 MARCH MY BROTHER SENT 3 LAWYERS MR C. VIJAYAKUMAR, DATO SITHAMBARAM, DATO KUMARENDRAN WHO FORCED ME INTO MAKING A FALSE STATEMENT AND MADE ME SIGN THE STATEMENT ON 81 PAGES. THEY THEN TOLD ME TO GET ADMITTED FOR TWO YEARS IN HOSPITAL BAHAGIA IPOH. I REFUSED. THEY THEN TOLD ME TO PUT UP A ACT THAT I AM VERY DEPRESSED AND MENTALLY UNSTABLE AND GET ADMITTED TO UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL. THEY PUT FEAR INTO ME DURING THE 1998 ACA INVESTIGATION. I TOLD THEM THAT IN 1998 THE FIRST STATEMENT AND THE THIRD STATEMENT WHICH I GAVE TO THE ACA IN 1998 IS TRUE AND THE SECOND STATEMENT IS FALSE.

Rakyat Malaysia Semakin Gila
Oleh Keris Silau - Laman M@RHAEN

Tiga juta rakyat Malaysia gila
Menteri Kesihatan dipetik berkata
Perlukan ramai pakar sakit jiwa
Macam-macam jenis gila
Gila talak gila babi dan syok gila
Yang suka tengok EPL tu gila bola
Macam mana boleh jadi gila
Ada satu skru longgar di kepala
Atau wayar terputus jadi dua
Syiok giler bermain dimulut sentiasa
Majalah yang paling laku pun Gila-Gila

Linggam pun kata adik dia gila
7 jam BPR siasat VK Thirunama
7 jam BPR cakap dengan orang gila
Mungkin BPR pun juga gila
Tapi kalau Thirunama tu gila
Hari ni BPR nak guna penyaksian dia
Linggam bagi rasuah kat hakim takguna

Di parlimen pun ramai yang gila
Selain dari yang suruh pejam satu mata
Kebanyakkannya gila kuasa
Gila pangkat dan gila takhta
Ada yang berperangai macam orang gila
Sampai nak ajak lawan MP wanita
Ingat tak sembelih lembu punya cerita
Bukan ka tu kerja gila

Begitu juga di Pusat Dagangan Dunia Putera
Badarudin sebagai Pengerusi sementara
Kata hidung Hisham boleh kopek kelapa
Dan nampak terowong pramugari Air Asia
Heran orang macam ni pun Pak Lah suka
Sharizat pun diam tak kata apa
Kalau Tok Guru yang kata
Tentu melompat sakan di media

Gila yang paling bahaya
Pendapat aku ialah gila kuasa
Sanggup lakukan apa saja
Sanggup khawin walau tak bercinta
Sanggup buat-buat langgar kereta
Kononnya macam Hollywood punya cerita
Tergamak panggil orang kera
Kononnya nak tunjuk terra
Kat sapa lagi kalau bukan Pak mertua
Semua kerana nak capai cita-cita
Nak jadi Perdana Menteri paling muda

Keris Silau
23 November 2007

PKR bantah pinda Perlembangaan untuk sambung khidmat Rashid

Azamin Amin Sat | Nov 24, 07 | 12:48:37 pm MYT

KUALA LUMPUR, 24 Nov (Hrkh) - Parti Keadilan Rakyat (KeADILan) membantah tindakan kerajaan membentangkan Rang Undang-undang ( RUU ) bagi meminda umur persaraan pegawai Suruhanjaya Pilihanraya (SPR) dari 65 tahun kepada 66 tahun di bawah Artikel 114(3) Perlembagaan Persekutuan bagi menyambung perkhidmatan Pengerusi SPR sekarang Tan Sri Abdul Rashid.

Menurut Presiden PKR, Datin Seri Dr Wan Azizah Wan Ismail, pindaan Perlembangaan tersebut adalah satu perkara yang serius dan perlu dibahas secara keseluruhan.

"Tindakan ini merupakan satu tamparan hebat kepada sistem demokrasi negara kerana BN cuba meminda Perlembagaan khusus untuk kepentingan seseorang individu," kata beliau.

KLpos.com sebelum ini memetik sumber mengatakan perkhidmatan Abdul Rashid tidak akan disambung semula selepas kontraknya tamat 31 Disember ini.

Menurut Wan Azizah, PKR membantah penyambungan perkhidmatan Tan Sri Abdul Rashid yang dijangka bersara wajib pada 31 Disember ini.

"SPR di bawah pimpinan Tan Sri Rashid telah menunjukkan perkhidmatan yang tempang. Perkhidmatan Rashid telah mencemar kewujudan SPR bukan sahaja dari kaca mata parti-parti bukan pemerintah juga kebanyakan badan pemerhati politik dalam dan luar negara," katanya.

Mengulas lanjut, kata beliau, kepincangan sistem pilihan raya negara telah terbukti dalam pilihan raya Dun Likas di Sabah, pilihan raya kecil Dun Lunas di Kedah, dan pilihan raya 2004 di mana bilangan pengundi hantu mencecah ratusan ribu orang.

"Meskipun demikian Rashid masih gagal memperbaiki segala kepincangan yang telah acap kali diketengahkan oleh banyak pihak.

"Lebih memalukan beliau semakin angkuh dan memberi ugutan kepada rakyat dan parti pembangkang bahawa beliau mempunyai kuasa untuk menentukan jangka masa berkempen dan menjanjikan PRU 12 adalah jangka masa yang terpendek dalam sejarah pilihan raya Malaysia," katanya.

Justeru, KeADILan berpendirian bahawa langkah pertama yang kerajaan harus lakukan ialah dengan melantik Pengerusi SPR yang baru kerana Pengerusi hari ini telah merobek kewibawaan pemerintah.

"Hanya dengan reformasi dalam SPR kepercayaan rakyat dapat dipulihkan. Namun tindakan kerajaan meminda Perlembagaan Persekutuan lantas menjangkaui kuasa Yang Di Pertuan Agong jelas membuktikan kerajaan pimpinan Abdullah Badawi begitu lemah hingga perlu memperalatkan SPR bagi mengekalkan kuasa," jelas beliau. - m

Hukum gantung pelajar UPM dibantah, prosiding tatatertib dipertikai

Abdullah A Karim Fri | Nov 23, 07 | 8:14:38 pm MYT

Saya merujuk kepada keputusan Pihak Berkuasa Tatatertib Universiti Putra Malaysia (UPM) pada Khamis 22 November 2007 yang telah menjatuhkan hukuman gantung satu semester ke atas Lee Song Yong, mahasiswa tahun dua setelah beliau didapati bersalah di atas tuduhan menghalang pegawai universiti dari menjalankan tugas, kewajipan dan fungsinya.

Saya tidak bercadang untuk membangkitkan tentang merit pertuduhan tersebut, tetapi apa yang sangat dikesalkan ialah sikap angkuh pentadbir UPM yang berkeras untuk meneruskan perbicaraan tatatertib ke atas pelajar terbabit, meskipun terdapat permintaan daripada daripada Suruhanjaya Hak Asasi Manusia (Suhakam)supaya prosiding ke atas Lee digantung sementara Suhakam menjalankan penyiasatan terhadap dakwaan berlaku perlanggaran hak asasi manusia oleh pihak UPM.

Seolah-olah ada perkara yang ingin disembunyikan oleh pihak UPM hingga tidak mempertimbangkan langsung permintaan UPM. Sekiranya UPM mendakwa mereka mempunyai bukti kukuh berkenaan kesalahan yang didakwa dilakukan oleh Lee, maka apa perlunya perbicaraan tersebut dilakukan secara tergesa-gesa.

Saya percaya ada tekanan politik tertentu dalam kes ini memandangkan pertuduhan ke atas Lee berkait rapat dengan insiden kekecohan menjelang pilihanraya kampus UPM beberapa bulan yang lalu. Tambahan pula Lee merupakan seorang pelajar yang aktif dengan kumpulan yang menentang kumpulan Aspirasi yang propemerintah.

Prosedur perbicaraan ini juga jelas menampakkan perlanggaran hak asasi ke atas pelajar terbabit. Bukan sahaja Lee diserahkan notis yang singkat menjelang perbicaraannya hingga menyukarkan beliau membuat persiapan, bahkan Lee turut dinafikan hak untuk diwakili oleh peguam pilihannya yang mana ini adalah satu perlanggaran terhadap right to counsel yang diperuntukkan oleh Perkara 5 (3) Perlembagaan Persekutuan.

Sesiapa pun, termasuk pihak berkuasa tatatertib UPM tidak mempunyai hak langsung untuk menafikan mana-mana pelajar yang dituduh di hadapannya dari menggunakan khidmat peguam yang sememangnya dijamin oleh Perlembagaan Persekutuan.

Saya juga ingin mempertikaikan tentang komposisi pihak berkuasa tatatertib UPM yang membicarakan Lee. Dewan Pemuda PAS sejak dari dahulu lagi telah membangkitkan berkenaan dengan bidangkuasa pihak berkuasa tatatertib di semua IPTA, termasuklah di UPM.

Ini adalah kerana berdasarkan kepada Akta Universiti dan Kolej Universiti 1971 (Auku) dan juga Kaedah Tatatertib Pelajar-Pelajar, kuasa jawatankuasa tatatertib adalah amat luas dengan meliputi kuasa untuk:

1. menyiasat;
2. menjalankan pendakwaan;
3. mendengar kes tatatertib dan menghakimi kes tersebut, dan
4. membuat keputusan serta menjatuhkan hukuman sekiranya pelajar yang dituduh itu didapati bersalah.

Perkara ini amatlah bertentangan dengan kaedah rules against bias yang menjadi tonggak utama kepada prinsip keadilan semulajadi (rules of natural justice) yang mesti dipatuhi oleh mana-mana adjudicatory body termasuklah mahkamah atau pun mana-mana tribunal dan lembaga tatatertib.

Tidak ada jaminan pelajar yang dipertuduh oleh Jawatankuasa Tatatertib akan mendapat perbicaraan yang adil oleh kerana komposisi Jawatankuasa Tataterttib tersebut adalah terdiri daripada orang yang sama yang menjalankan segala kuasa yang diperuntukkan di bawah Auku dan Kaedah Tatatertib.

Oleh itu, Dewan Pemuda PAS telah lama mencadangkan agar peruntukan di dalam Kaedah Tatatertib ini diteliti oleh Kementerian Pengajian Tinggi dan dipinda supaya kuasa-kuasa yang disebutkan di atas dijalankan oleh pihak yang berbeza bagi menjamin keadilan ke atas pelajar yang dituduh.

Dalam konteks kes di UPM ini, hal ini saya percaya tidak terkecuali dari berlaku. Lee Song Yong dibicarakan oleh jawatankuasa tatatertib yang merupakan pihak yang sama yang akan memberikan keputusan dan menjatuhkan hukuman.

Justeru, Dewan Pemuda PAS Negeri Pahang mendesak supaya UPM membatalkan hukuman ke atas Lee serta segala prosiding berkenaan di antung sehingga segala kecacatan dari segi prosedur diperbetulkan.

Kami juga mendesak Kementerian Pengajian Tinggi supaya segera menjalankan semakan terhadap AUKU dan juga Kaedah Tatatertib Pelajar supaya segala peruntukan yang bertentangan dengan Perlembagaan Persekutuan dan juga hak asasi manusia dimasukhkan sama sekali.

Kami juga menasihatkan kepada Lee dan juga para pelajar lain yang terlibat supaya segera membawa perkara ini ke mahkamah melalui prosedur Semakan Kehakiman (Judicial Review) atau lain-lain cara yang difikirkan sesuai selepas segala remedi yang terdapat dalam Auku dan Kaedah Tatatertib di puaskan terlebih dahulu.

Hanya ini sahaja cara untuk mengajar pentadbir universiti yang angkuh, sombong dan buta undang-undang.

* Abdullah ialah Ketua Penerangan Pemuda PAS Pahang merangkap Exco Dewan Pemuda PAS Pusat.