Ramasamy lied when he said that he did not have anything personal against the controversial preacher but that the preacher had touched on the sensitivities of the ethnic Chinese and ethnic Indians.
Zakir’s issue with Ramasamy is that the latter had criminally defamed him via a statement published in Free Malaysia Today and another in an interview with India Today.
When Zakir decided to seek action pursuant to law by issuing two notices of demand, Ramasamy proceeded to lodge a police report after receiving the second notice and threatened to lodge a report against the law firm representing Zakir.
TTF is of the opinion that the law firm should lodge a police report againstRamasamy before sending him yet another letter, this time, by the firm itself, demanding that the latter apologise for publicly defaming the firm.
PETALING JAYA: Deputy Penang Chief Minister Ramasamy, grilled by the police for almost four hours today, stands by what he had said that Dr Zakir, as a permanent resident, has no right to question the loyalty of Malaysians.
According to the Malay Mail Online, Ramasamy was questioned from 9.20am until 1.15pm while Bagan Dalam assemblyman Satees Muniandy was questioned for three hours, starting from 9.40am and allowed to leave at around 12.30pm.
The portal read:
Ramasamy exited his office at 1.15pm, accompanied by a lawyer from his counsel, N. Murali’s office.
“There were two police reports lodged against me, one on my statement published in Free Malaysia Today and another on my interview in India Today,” he said.
He too stressed that he stands by what he had said that Dr Zakir, as a permanent resident, has no right to question the loyalty of Malaysians.
He said he does not have anything personal against the controversial preacher but that the preacher had touched on the sensitivities of the ethnic Chinese and ethnic Indians.
Ramasamy lied.
Zakir’s issue with Ramasamy is that the latter had criminally defamed him via a statement published in Free Malaysia Today and another in an interview with India Today.
When Zakir decided to seek action pursuant to law by issuing two notices of demand, Ramasamy proceeded to lodge a police report after receiving the second notice and threatened to lodge a report against the law firm representing Zakir.
The report against Zakir was fine, as it can be construed as a move by Ramasamy to protect himself and to put his side of the story on official police record.
But to threaten action against the law firm representing Zakir for issuing a notice of demand on behalf of Zakir was indication that Ramasamy had something personal against Zakir and may have been attempting to intimidate him.
On the 27thof August 2019, TTF posted:
For Ramasamy to threaten a law firm representing Zakir just because the firm sent him a legal letter makes no sense whatsoever, both legally and logically.
Someone needs to explain to Ramasamy that a legal letter is generally issued by an advocate for the purpose of making a demand or soliciting an agreement on behalf of his (or her) client.
To accuse an advocate of harbouring a different kind of intent or acting in a way that runs contrary to law or legal ethics is unprofessional, prejudiced, slanderous and tarnishes the reputation of the said advocate.
It could also be construed as a wilful attempt on Ramasamy’s part to shift conversations away from the actions Zakir has initiated against him by using the firm as scapegoat.
That itself is an abuse of the democratic process as Ramasamy is using his status as a public figure to confuse the people who brought him into power through the process.
TTF is of the opinion that the law firm should lodge a police report againstRamasamy before sending him yet another letter, this time, by the firm itself, demanding that the latter apologise for publicly defaming the firm.
THE THIRD FORCE
FOLLOW ME ON TELEGRAM AND TWITTER:
TELEGRAM: Raggie Jessy Rithaudeen (click here)
TWITTER: Raggie Jessy Rithaudeen (click here)
