Read more at https://www.channelnewsasia.com/news/asia/jho-low-private-jet-malaysia-1mdb-mahathir-mohamad-10610460
(Updated: )
Ricky Lim
It was reported that the Bombardier Global 5000 aircraft linked to Jho Low was part of some US$1 billion in assets allegedly acquired with funds misappropriated from state fund 1Malaysia Development Bhd (1MDB).
According to reports, the private jet was grounded in Singapore more than a year ago.
--
Not sure if it is correctly reported.
If yes, the private jet should be acquired through proper legal means --- to prevent any legal repercussion.
Malaysia have to take note of the legal implications as raised below :-
"Low said: "Mahathir has contended that the US agreed Malaysia can keep the boat. But the US has said the opposite in court filings. Mahathir is not complying with either US or Indonesian court rulings; he is ignoring the law solely for political purposes.
"Mahathir’s illegal taking of the yacht makes it impossible to sell it for fair value because of the still-open legal questions and the legal repercussions for any new owner."
Low added that prime minister Mahathir's government has "not explained that, while the US has stated in court filings it had no knowledge of the seizure of the Equanimity, the Malaysian Attorney General has said it was done after 'sensitive and delicate negotiations with the United States.'"
He alleged that "it is clear that the Malaysian government is lying and putting words into the US’s mouth."
There is a need to go through proper due legal process to acquire the private jet to prevent any legal implications --- by following the proper rule of law.
According to reports, the private jet was grounded in Singapore more than a year ago.
--
Not sure if it is correctly reported.
If yes, the private jet should be acquired through proper legal means --- to prevent any legal repercussion.
Malaysia have to take note of the legal implications as raised below :-
"Low said: "Mahathir has contended that the US agreed Malaysia can keep the boat. But the US has said the opposite in court filings. Mahathir is not complying with either US or Indonesian court rulings; he is ignoring the law solely for political purposes.
"Mahathir’s illegal taking of the yacht makes it impossible to sell it for fair value because of the still-open legal questions and the legal repercussions for any new owner."
Low added that prime minister Mahathir's government has "not explained that, while the US has stated in court filings it had no knowledge of the seizure of the Equanimity, the Malaysian Attorney General has said it was done after 'sensitive and delicate negotiations with the United States.'"
He alleged that "it is clear that the Malaysian government is lying and putting words into the US’s mouth."
There is a need to go through proper due legal process to acquire the private jet to prevent any legal implications --- by following the proper rule of law.
Like · Reply · 1m
Patrick Page
A fugitive "businessman" and alleged grand larcenist giving the lawfully-elected government of a country legal advice about the legal ramifications of confiscating goods obtained with stolen funds. The "businessman" should get a second job as a comedian.
Ricky Lim
Patrick Page - Don't under-estimate the legal implication.
Now you wait and see whether any international buyers can buy or will buy the yacht or not.
And also see whether the Malaysia government has the right legal ownership to the yacht or not - without going through the due legal process.
The yacht must have been registered somewhere and must have proper documentation to prove ownership. Just by confiscating the yacht is not good enough - as you must go through the legal process to trace the registration, go through legal process to acquire the documentation and go through the court to acquire the ownership.
Similarly, the private jet should also go through the same due process.
Else now Malaysia physically acquire the yacht but have no proof of ownership - then how you sell to other buyers?
Suka suka anyhow do things and get yourself bungle into the mess of law?
Now you wait and see whether any international buyers can buy or will buy the yacht or not.
And also see whether the Malaysia government has the right legal ownership to the yacht or not - without going through the due legal process.
The yacht must have been registered somewhere and must have proper documentation to prove ownership. Just by confiscating the yacht is not good enough - as you must go through the legal process to trace the registration, go through legal process to acquire the documentation and go through the court to acquire the ownership.
Similarly, the private jet should also go through the same due process.
Else now Malaysia physically acquire the yacht but have no proof of ownership - then how you sell to other buyers?
Suka suka anyhow do things and get yourself bungle into the mess of law?
Like · Reply · 1m
Ricky Lim
Eg. to prove you own your house - the property document is the "Property Deed". Without the Property Deed - how do you prove to the buyers that the house belong to you - and you have the legal right to sell the house?
Similarly, to prove you own your car - you must possess the Vehicle Registration Card that is registered under your name.
If you did not legally get the car transfer to you --- can you sell the car not in your name - to a new buyer?
Legally no right?
This is a simple "Rule of Law" --- you mean you are not able to understand?
Suka suka do what you like --- without going through the due legal process?
Now Malaysia can have the yacht --- but forever cannot sell already without the due legal process --- now wait until the yacht rot - happy?
Malaysia can now make the yacht the museum - and let Malaysians visit and admire the yacht --- as Malaysia now cannot sell the yacht. This must have made Malaysian very happy - no money never mind - admire the beauty of the yacht can already.
Malaysia boleh!
Similarly, to prove you own your car - you must possess the Vehicle Registration Card that is registered under your name.
If you did not legally get the car transfer to you --- can you sell the car not in your name - to a new buyer?
Legally no right?
This is a simple "Rule of Law" --- you mean you are not able to understand?
Suka suka do what you like --- without going through the due legal process?
Now Malaysia can have the yacht --- but forever cannot sell already without the due legal process --- now wait until the yacht rot - happy?
Malaysia can now make the yacht the museum - and let Malaysians visit and admire the yacht --- as Malaysia now cannot sell the yacht. This must have made Malaysian very happy - no money never mind - admire the beauty of the yacht can already.
Malaysia boleh!
Like · Reply · 1m · Edited
Ricky Lim
Ricky Lim
Assume Malaysia bull-dozed the sale of the yacht to an international buyer without the proper document of ownership - and the buyer bought it out of ignorant (which i doubt anyone of such wealth will succumb into).
The original buyer appear with the ownership document and claim an injunction on the yacht in an international court - the buyer will have no choice but to handover the yacht because the purchase from the Malaysia government is a void contract - because the legal owner of the yacht is not in the Malaysia government name - and thus not entitle to the ownership of the yacht and cannot transfer the ownership to the buyer.
So do you think rich international buyers will fall into this trap of risking their void purchase by buying the yacht from the Malaysia government?
The original buyer appear with the ownership document and claim an injunction on the yacht in an international court - the buyer will have no choice but to handover the yacht because the purchase from the Malaysia government is a void contract - because the legal owner of the yacht is not in the Malaysia government name - and thus not entitle to the ownership of the yacht and cannot transfer the ownership to the buyer.
So do you think rich international buyers will fall into this trap of risking their void purchase by buying the yacht from the Malaysia government?
Like · Reply · 1m
Lokeman Tasref
Ricky Lim Relax la bro...you another comedian and talked more than Tun M. Not your problem..comment abit and let it go. Why ? want to prove your asal bole facts.? You from opposition? Go file a complain la..even the Indo and US dont speak like you...
Ricky Lim
Lokeman Tasref - If Dr M and you want to do anything without following the law in Malaysia --- no body cares.
Whether you accuse or prosecute others without trial.
Whether you anyhow confiscate others assets without trial and claim as yours.
Whether you accuse and charge others about sodomy and then later say sorry it is a mistake and then get a pardon.
It is your business - and no one from here will care - how you carry out your justice. Your people got to answer for your "own law" and your personality above law.
But once you come here to claim a private jet from us --- you better go through the legal process and don't try any jungle law.
Else you suka suka raise water prices, suka suka cut water.
Suka suka cancel a project and not comply with signed agreement.
One thing lead to another.
Whether you accuse or prosecute others without trial.
Whether you anyhow confiscate others assets without trial and claim as yours.
Whether you accuse and charge others about sodomy and then later say sorry it is a mistake and then get a pardon.
It is your business - and no one from here will care - how you carry out your justice. Your people got to answer for your "own law" and your personality above law.
But once you come here to claim a private jet from us --- you better go through the legal process and don't try any jungle law.
Else you suka suka raise water prices, suka suka cut water.
Suka suka cancel a project and not comply with signed agreement.
One thing lead to another.
Like · Reply · 1m · Edited
Ricky Lim
Lokeman Tasref - If you don't believe and not careful - Dr M will say "Look Indonesia President - kawan kawan release the yacht - when I just ask him to".
But if Dr M use the same trick on us - do we kawan kawan release the jet without going through the legal process or not?
The implication is extremely big :-
(1) I have illustrate in detail above that Singapore must follow legal process - and cannot do kawan kawan --- because the legal implication on Singapore and Malaysia is very huge. Singapore thrive on following legal process and cannot work based on kawan kawan.
The above elaborate illustration - demonstrate the consequences that if things are not given due legal process --- it will come back to haunt not only Malaysia but also Singapore.
The legal owner can come back to sue Singapore for not following legal procedures - but release the jet without legal process and demand compensation from Singapore.
Singapore will be legally liable - never mind Malaysia who don't follow law.
Singapore reputation as a regional legal centre will be damaged.
(2) Also one thing lead to another - which will have implication on Malaysia claim on our water and HSR.
Dr M will say, since jet can be kawan kawan settle, water and HSR can also be kawan kawan settle at Singapore's expenses.
Then we will condemn ourselves as sucker all the time --- in case you don't know the consequences.
You are dealing with a 90 years old craftsman who have been anatagonising us for the past 50 years.
And who have brought down 3 Prime Ministers of Malaysia.
We cannot afford to let our guards down against this old craftsman.
But if Dr M use the same trick on us - do we kawan kawan release the jet without going through the legal process or not?
The implication is extremely big :-
(1) I have illustrate in detail above that Singapore must follow legal process - and cannot do kawan kawan --- because the legal implication on Singapore and Malaysia is very huge. Singapore thrive on following legal process and cannot work based on kawan kawan.
The above elaborate illustration - demonstrate the consequences that if things are not given due legal process --- it will come back to haunt not only Malaysia but also Singapore.
The legal owner can come back to sue Singapore for not following legal procedures - but release the jet without legal process and demand compensation from Singapore.
Singapore will be legally liable - never mind Malaysia who don't follow law.
Singapore reputation as a regional legal centre will be damaged.
(2) Also one thing lead to another - which will have implication on Malaysia claim on our water and HSR.
Dr M will say, since jet can be kawan kawan settle, water and HSR can also be kawan kawan settle at Singapore's expenses.
Then we will condemn ourselves as sucker all the time --- in case you don't know the consequences.
You are dealing with a 90 years old craftsman who have been anatagonising us for the past 50 years.
And who have brought down 3 Prime Ministers of Malaysia.
We cannot afford to let our guards down against this old craftsman.
Patrick Chua
Singapore can trade off with Malaysia for the release of the Bombardier Global 5000 aircraft to them, ask Malaysia first to pay off he 500 million dollars compensation for the cancellation of the HSR project.
John Low
Maybe someone should tell Tun M that even Donald Trump is not above the law. If you take things belonging to someone without his permission, you are a thief. Even if someone steals from you, it is not right in the eye of law to steal it back. Malaysia is not going by the rule of law which the new government beat their chest and declared that they will do things law by law, they are just smoking the world. Of course playing to the gallery of an angry Raykat can be quite rewarding for this old man. The truth is that they have not changed and they still play by the old book.
If Tun finally makes a mistake, he will blame Donald for giving him permission. Art of a slippery snake.
If Tun finally makes a mistake, he will blame Donald for giving him permission. Art of a slippery snake.
Yonghua Lin
Making a big fuss when all he needed to do is to prove he paid for the beautiful yacht and jet himself.
Like · Reply · 1 · 2h · Edited
Michael Loh
Gentlemen, this is a simple "Nemo dat" case (he who has nothing and can give nothing). Ask any third year law student and he can tell you JLow don't own the plane as he is incapable under the rule to assume the title.
The Rule of Law is not relevant here. The Rule of Law is used in the context with whom those in authority should exercise the law fairly and equitably. This will inevitably be used when Najib's case is to be mentioned shortly by his lawyer, I have not doubt.
The Rule of Law is not relevant here. The Rule of Law is used in the context with whom those in authority should exercise the law fairly and equitably. This will inevitably be used when Najib's case is to be mentioned shortly by his lawyer, I have not doubt.
Michael Loh
John Low -Agreed! However, the Rule of law is not law per se; its the process towards law and order and the equitability towards peace and harmony. In other words, the Rule of law stands for the moral fibre of the ruler. Its "An unqualified human good" EP Thompson.
Like · Reply · 1 · 3h
Ricky Lim
Tham Serene - Mahathir don't have to go down his knees to beg.
Mahathir can get what he want - through due diligence and go through the legal means to get what he want.
Singapore can ensure that we will not get into a legal tussle and discharged our responsibilities legally and properly.
This is the message I want to deliver.
Mahathir can get what he want - through due diligence and go through the legal means to get what he want.
Singapore can ensure that we will not get into a legal tussle and discharged our responsibilities legally and properly.
This is the message I want to deliver.
Ricky Lim
Michael Loh -
Nemo dat quod non habet, literally meaning "no one gives what he doesn't have" is a legal rule, sometimes called the nemo dat rule, that states that the purchase of a possession from someone who has no ownership right to it also denies the purchaser any ownership title. It is equivalent to the civil (continental) "Nemo plus iuris ad alium transferre potest quam ipse habet" rule, which means "one cannot transfer more rights than he has". The rule usually stays valid even if the purchaser does not know that the seller has no right to claim ownership of the object of the transaction (a bona fide purchaser); however, in many cases, more than one innocent party is involved, making judgment difficult for courts and leading to numerous exceptions to the general rule that aim to give a degree of protection to bona fide purchasers and original owners. The possession of the good of title will be with the original owner.
John Low is right.
The Judge make the final decision - through a legal process.
Not through kawan kawan.
What happen if the Judge decides otherwise due to evidences produce to the contrary of "Nemo dat" case?
Will Singapore be held responsible without going through a legal process - by just simply releasing the jet because Mahathir say kawan kawan - pse release?
The rule of law is indeed relevant here. You don't need a 3rd year law student to know it.
No one is above the law, this include Dr M - and he need to follow the "rule of law".
Dr M cannot simply say this is a "Nemo dat" case - and the businessman has no title to the jet --- because Dr M is not the Judge.
So how do you come to the conclusion that Dr M don't need to follow the "rule of law"?
Then Dr M can simply demand you to pass him your house claiming "Nemo dat" case - without going through a legal process. Then where is the "rule of law"?
Are you going to surrender your house to Dr M - because Dr M say so claiming "Nemo dat".
You don't even need a law student to tell you this - Dr M has no such legal right.
Nemo dat quod non habet, literally meaning "no one gives what he doesn't have" is a legal rule, sometimes called the nemo dat rule, that states that the purchase of a possession from someone who has no ownership right to it also denies the purchaser any ownership title. It is equivalent to the civil (continental) "Nemo plus iuris ad alium transferre potest quam ipse habet" rule, which means "one cannot transfer more rights than he has". The rule usually stays valid even if the purchaser does not know that the seller has no right to claim ownership of the object of the transaction (a bona fide purchaser); however, in many cases, more than one innocent party is involved, making judgment difficult for courts and leading to numerous exceptions to the general rule that aim to give a degree of protection to bona fide purchasers and original owners. The possession of the good of title will be with the original owner.
John Low is right.
The Judge make the final decision - through a legal process.
Not through kawan kawan.
What happen if the Judge decides otherwise due to evidences produce to the contrary of "Nemo dat" case?
Will Singapore be held responsible without going through a legal process - by just simply releasing the jet because Mahathir say kawan kawan - pse release?
The rule of law is indeed relevant here. You don't need a 3rd year law student to know it.
No one is above the law, this include Dr M - and he need to follow the "rule of law".
Dr M cannot simply say this is a "Nemo dat" case - and the businessman has no title to the jet --- because Dr M is not the Judge.
So how do you come to the conclusion that Dr M don't need to follow the "rule of law"?
Then Dr M can simply demand you to pass him your house claiming "Nemo dat" case - without going through a legal process. Then where is the "rule of law"?
Are you going to surrender your house to Dr M - because Dr M say so claiming "Nemo dat".
You don't even need a law student to tell you this - Dr M has no such legal right.
Like · Reply · 1m
Ricky Lim
Dr M possession of the yacht - fall straight into judgement without trial claiming "Nemo dat" case.
Which judge determine "Nemo dat"?
It is Dr M.
Did he follow the "rule of law"? Did he went through the veracity of the Court to examine evidences?
Dr M is not the Judge nor did he examine evidences or go through a proper legal process.
Do you need a law student to tell you whether Dr M is above the law?
Or Dr M in fact abuse the law?
Which judge determine "Nemo dat"?
It is Dr M.
Did he follow the "rule of law"? Did he went through the veracity of the Court to examine evidences?
Dr M is not the Judge nor did he examine evidences or go through a proper legal process.
Do you need a law student to tell you whether Dr M is above the law?
Or Dr M in fact abuse the law?
Like · Reply · 1m
Tham Serene
Ricky Lim that you no need to worry, whoever have a little bit of vood foresight will do it for him, free.
Lokeman Tasref
Ricky Lim since Mahatir u dislike so much then let Singapore request for the arrest of that Ah Pui Jho Low. Singapore judicial is better right!.. Anyway HK already rejected Spore request. I hope this little punk Spore catch him first.....then handover back to Tun M.
Ricky Lim
Tham Serene - I don't understand what do you mean by "a little bit of vood foresight will do it for him, free."
You are suggesting "under table deals" is it?
Are you a Malaysian? Seems like Malaysians can do all sorts of things above law.
上梁不正下梁歪。
Singapore don't do such things. Please don't promote your crooked culture over here.
You are suggesting "under table deals" is it?
Are you a Malaysian? Seems like Malaysians can do all sorts of things above law.
上梁不正下梁歪。
Singapore don't do such things. Please don't promote your crooked culture over here.
Like · Reply · 1m · Edited
Ricky Lim
Lokeman Tasref - I don't know how you got the impression that i dislike Dr M so much?
I am only saying --- throughout all my text ---- do things legally and properly - no hanky panky, no kawan kawan.
Why so difficult to understand?
I am only saying --- throughout all my text ---- do things legally and properly - no hanky panky, no kawan kawan.
Why so difficult to understand?
Like · Reply · 1m
Ricky Lim
Read this text --- and you will understand why no under table deals will solve the problem.
Only following through the legal recourse can solve it :-
Ricky Lim
Singapore's foreign policy is :-
"Be friends with all,
Be adversaries with none."
Singapore will try to work out mutual benefits with our neighbors or other Countries to ensure good relationship are forged.
But this must be done in accordance with "rule of law".
Else all international order or domestic order will break apart.
Just see what Trump has done to International order - when he does not observe the rule of law - international order has become chaotic.
Reply · 32m · Edited
Ricky Lim
We are not saying that we are not going to help Malaysia acquire the private jet - but must do so in order not to contravene domestic law and international law.
Else someone will later sue us for not observing law - if we did not do so legally.
Now this Aviation firm seems to have taken possession of the private jet - not Jho Low.
Problem arise now whether the legal owner is Aviation firm or Jho Low.
If Dr M claim based on the ground of "Nemo dat" against Jho Low - and the Court discover that in fact the Aviation firm possess the legal title of the private jet - and we have release the private jet to Malaysia --- who will be legally liable?
Singapore or Malaysia?
We will be in trouble not Malaysia.
It will end up that Singapore will have to compensate the Aviation for the jet price while Malaysia happily take into custody of the plane.
We end up the biggest loser.
Reply · 23m · Edited
Ricky Lim
We must help Malaysia to acquire the private jet legally and properly.
But we must not expose ourselves to legal suit - for not complying with "rule of law".
Else we end up :-
(1) Compensating the Aviation firm for the price of the jet.
(2) Damage our reputation as the regional legal centre - for messing up this case.
We ended up a "big sucker" - when it is suppose to be "none of our business".
Reply · 18m · Edited
Only following through the legal recourse can solve it :-
Ricky Lim
Singapore's foreign policy is :-
"Be friends with all,
Be adversaries with none."
Singapore will try to work out mutual benefits with our neighbors or other Countries to ensure good relationship are forged.
But this must be done in accordance with "rule of law".
Else all international order or domestic order will break apart.
Just see what Trump has done to International order - when he does not observe the rule of law - international order has become chaotic.
Reply · 32m · Edited
Ricky Lim
We are not saying that we are not going to help Malaysia acquire the private jet - but must do so in order not to contravene domestic law and international law.
Else someone will later sue us for not observing law - if we did not do so legally.
Now this Aviation firm seems to have taken possession of the private jet - not Jho Low.
Problem arise now whether the legal owner is Aviation firm or Jho Low.
If Dr M claim based on the ground of "Nemo dat" against Jho Low - and the Court discover that in fact the Aviation firm possess the legal title of the private jet - and we have release the private jet to Malaysia --- who will be legally liable?
Singapore or Malaysia?
We will be in trouble not Malaysia.
It will end up that Singapore will have to compensate the Aviation for the jet price while Malaysia happily take into custody of the plane.
We end up the biggest loser.
Reply · 23m · Edited
Ricky Lim
We must help Malaysia to acquire the private jet legally and properly.
But we must not expose ourselves to legal suit - for not complying with "rule of law".
Else we end up :-
(1) Compensating the Aviation firm for the price of the jet.
(2) Damage our reputation as the regional legal centre - for messing up this case.
We ended up a "big sucker" - when it is suppose to be "none of our business".
Reply · 18m · Edited
Ricky Lim
Why do human need to follow "rule of law"?
Because if human fail to follow rule of law --- Universal Law of Karma will take over.
Just look at Society that fail to follow rule of law --- did they undergo chaos?
(1) no gun rule - people die by gun
(2) no global climate agreement - forest fire, hurricane, heatwave etc
(3) not following rule of law - corruption creeps in, under table deals creep in, injustice creeps in, one day sodomy, next day mistake, third day full pardon.
(4) villages takes law into their own hands - lynching of people without trial
etc etc etc....
Because if human fail to follow rule of law --- Universal Law of Karma will take over.
Just look at Society that fail to follow rule of law --- did they undergo chaos?
(1) no gun rule - people die by gun
(2) no global climate agreement - forest fire, hurricane, heatwave etc
(3) not following rule of law - corruption creeps in, under table deals creep in, injustice creeps in, one day sodomy, next day mistake, third day full pardon.
(4) villages takes law into their own hands - lynching of people without trial
etc etc etc....
No comments:
Post a Comment