Laughing 哥告诉我有两DAP候选人存有道德污点。朋党 + 利益输送。以下是Laughing 哥写的公开信，信不信由你 （有新闻报导 http://thestar.com.my/metro/story.asp?file=/2012/6/28/central/11560508&sec=central）。
致所有民主行动党的领袖、媒体、候选人和大众： 我要与你们分享一份密件。这密件证明八打灵市议员兼莲花苑候选人张菲倩律师批准给行动党党员律师林立迎（前泗加末国会议员和候选人）的法律服务合约。两人兼是民主行动党的党员。这密件证明张菲倩自作主张把比市政局规定的法律费用还要高的合约，擅自更换了原本合理费用的律师公司，批给林立迎的律师公司。由于所批准的款项比原定的费用来的高，两人又是同党兼有官制，所以这交易已经是证据确凿的朋党交易。 张菲倩利用她的职权把一项RM55，000 的公款批准于林立迎的律师公司。这案件牵涉到一项共计RM128，000 的债务催收。根据八打灵市政局的特别审计报告，这案件的最高法律费用是RM40，000，也就是RM128，000 的 31%。 在2010年6月3日，张菲倩与另外两位市议员决定把这案件授予一间律师公司。该律师公司的收费为RM15，000。后来在2010年6月16日，张菲倩私自把合约转授于批给林立迎的律师公司，并把法律费用增加到RM55，000。后来张菲倩表示这决定是得到另外两位曾经出席第一次会议（2010年6月3日）的两位市议员的同意。可是其中一位市议员表示他没有出席第二次的会议（2010年6月16日）；另一位市议则表示他和张菲倩完全没有在第二次会议提及更换律师公司和提高法律费用的课题。后来在八打灵市政局的特别审计报告出炉后，八打灵市政局表示张菲倩批准的款项比合理的法律费用过于高，必须把款项降回第一间律师公司的价格。所以张菲倩便把授予林立迎的律师公司的合约降回RM15，000。虽然如此，这合约还是授予林立迎的律师公司却不是第一间律师公司。 这件案子是经过详细的调茶和审核，并附有完整的报告和文件。相反的，对于李映霞的案件，民主行动党的的纪律委员会却未审先判。同时，所作出的“判词”也没有完整与合理的证据来支持所谓的判词。换言之，判词没有标明到底李映霞犯的是哪一条法律或党规（如果有的话）。所以，我强烈谴责民主行动党的纪律委员会主席陈国伟以双重票准来判决李映霞。这也意味着陈国伟滥权。张菲倩与林立迎的朋党交易早已被刊登在报纸上，为何陈国伟却视而不见，听而不闻呢？为何在没有具体的证据下下判决？ 根据陈国伟早前所对李映霞定下的道德标准，林立迎与张菲倩的朋党交易证据确凿，而又涉及高达RM55，000的款项，林立迎与张菲倩的党籍也应该早就被冻结。他们的候选人身份也应该立即被取消。虽然后来涉及的法律费用降低到RM15，000。但是根据陈国伟的“自动避嫌论”，这合约应该被授予前一间法律公司，而不是党员兼国会议员的林立迎。这也是同等于朋党交易。再者，两人都是律师，应该比其他人更加清楚这是违背公众利益的行为。
我写这封信的目的是要提醒你们有关民主行动党内严重的滥权现象。身为一名选民，我坚决要求民主行动党的的纪律委员会同样在24小时内开审，对林立迎与张菲倩作出判决，还选民们一个真相。因为我们要选清廉的人做我们的人民代议士。
陈国伟身位纪律委员会主席，不断地利用职权打击非主流派，在最后一分钟没有充分的理由下把原有的意愿更换，并以自己钟爱的党员来取代，使得直辖区和雪兰莪州的选情混乱。在“改朝换代”的趋势下，他不但不以大局为重，反而沉迷在权力游戏中。他本身才是一个滥权者。
现在陈国伟必须应用同样高的道德标准来审判林立迎与张菲倩，因为滥权的证据已经确凿。
Toall DAP leaders, media, candidates & public, I would like to share the attached document with you. Thisdocument shows the approval of panel lawyer contract to Lim Lip Eng (the formalMember of Parliament and candidate for Segambut) by the local councilor cumcandidate for Teratai, Tiew Way Keng, both are DAP members. Tiew Way Keng abused her power by approving RM55,000 ofpublic fund as the legal fee to Lim Lip Eng’s legal firm. The case is a debtcollection case involving RM128,000 in total. According to the special auditreport by MBPJ, the maximum legal fee set for this case was RM40,000, whichtranslates into 31% of RM128,000. On 3/6/2010, a meeting was held between TiewWay Keng and another two councilors. All three councilors agreed to approve thefund of RM15,000 to a legal firm. However, Tiew Way Keng reverted the decisionand approved RM55,000 of fund to Lim Lip Eng’s legal firm solely based on herown decision on 16/6/2010. Even though there appeared to be a meeting takingplace on 16/6/2010, among the three councilors attended as per the recordincluded Tiew Way Keng, the second councilor claimed that he was not present atthe meeting on 16/6/2010 and the remaining councilor claimed that even thoughhe attended the meeting, the changes of legal firm and legal fee were notdiscussed in that meeting. After the release of the audit report, the legal feefor this case was reduced to RM15,000, which was the first quote by the otherlegal firm. Even so, this case was still given to Lim Lip Eng’s legal firm. This case was audited and the approval is an obviouscronyism because public fund was approved by Tiew Way Keng, MBPJ local councilorcum Teratai candidate to then-Member of Parliament cum Segambut candidate LimLip Eng, despite the awarding price was unreasonably high by MPBJ’s ownguideline.
Tiew Way Keng’s case was investigated and audited carefully, supported byreports and documents. On the contrary, in Jenice Lee’s case, her execution wascarried out before the announcement of the sentence and complete supportingdocument. I strongly oppose DAP’s disciplinary board’s verdictagainst Jenice Lee. No concrete evidence supports the claim of her wrong-doing.In another words, she has not done anything against the law or any party rules(if any). In additional, she was executed without any sentence and fair trial.I strongly condemn the Chairman of DAP’s disciplinary board, Tan Kok Wai, forholding a double standard in his judgment against Jenice Lee and abusing hispower as the chairman. This matter was reported in the newspaper (seeenclosed), but why Tan Kok Wai turned blind to it and attacked Jenice Lee only? By Tan Kok Wai’s imposition of unreasonably high moralstandard on Jenice, the above DAP candidates must also be dropped from thiselection. By this standard, it is still wrong for Lim Lip Eng to take the casefrom Tiew Way Keng even at RM15,000. This is because that it is still acronyism for DAP councilor to award the appointment to DAP MP. Furthermore bothare lawyers and they should have taken initiative to avoid such conflict. The purpose of my letter is to bring your awareness to theserious power abuse within DAP and I demand the disciplinary board to trialTiew Way Keng and Lim Lip Engs’ power misuse and cronyism within 24 hours, asthe people must know the truth now. The truth must be revealed to the publicbefore the election. This will ensure that the voters know the whole truth andchoose the best candidates. If Tan Kok Wai had not abused his senior positions in DAPby changing candidates in the last minute and replacing his own favourites asDAP candidates, the DAP in Selangor and KL would not have broken down into pieces.He is the real abuser and cronyism creator. He must go for the best of theparty and for himself. Now Tan Kok Wai must apply the same high moral standardagainst the both of the DAP candidates involved as there is undisputed evidenceof abuse of power.
Laughing 哥说为了顾全大局，告别腐败，人人为我，我为人人，正义之上，他提供了以下证据
https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B0mi8tNYXU8tQXpIekxFWWFRcG8/edit?usp=sharing
版主 :
依照证据内容 -
1) LIM律师行开价55千是应该因为原本预料要上高庭（顶限费用75千）。
2）于16/06/13更换律师行是因为原本律师行被委任另一单官司，而不是平白无故更换。
3）之后LIM律师行收费调整回15K由于原本预料要上高庭没必要，只是上地庭而已。
4）同时鉴于要点（2），所以这单官司还是由LIM律师行处理。
以上根据我对证据内容理解的判断，要是有任何错误请指正。
本帖最后由 恨地無環 于 2-5-2013 01:04 PM 编辑
| 
本周最热论坛帖子
发表于 30-4-2013 09:47 PM
变色卡
千斤顶
楼主
.gif)
.gif)
3245 
109
