Most Read
Most Commented
Read more like this
From Our Readers

I don't know where M Kayveas read law, but I am not at all impressed by his repeated public display of his poor understanding of the laws and the Federal Constitution.

It was reported in malaysiakini where he said:

  1. "I'm not sure if they (meaning Ctos and its lawyers) understand what is defamation. I'm talking about a company, not a person."

Clearly, he thinks that only a 'person' can be defamed but not a 'company'.

I refer to Gatley (a leading legal reference source on defamation) para 8.16 pages 207-209 on "libel and slander" (10th Edition). If the deputy minister finds it helpful, I would gladly instruct my solicitors to send him a photocopy of these pages.

Perhaps upon review of these pages, the deputy minister may begin to understand that the law of defamation recognises that even companies have reputations that could be ruined by reckless statements. The law affords equal protection to all, including corporate citizens, against all libelous utterances, whether by ministers or otherwise.

  • "I consider it as a joke. Under Section 186 of the Penal Code, we consider this (letter) as a threat and an obstruction of a government officer in performing his duty. We have lodged a police report on the matter yesterday. "
  • While there is indeed a Section 186, Kayveas should know that the same section does not include the liberty to defame another, particularly when he has not checked out and verified his 'facts'.

    Our laws are clear, no one shall defame another. If statements are false, the law provides recourse for the aggrieved party to sue in defamation. Ctos welcomes bona fide performance by any public servant in the exercise of their duty. We will want to emphasise that by the very title, public servants are to serve the public. Powers accorded to them to perform those duties should not be abused and used for purposes of intimidation or harassment of citizens of the country. Section 186 ought not to be abused as a shield for any such like improper conduct.

  • Speaking to malaysiakini , Kayveas said he was unaware that his party and his Taiping service centre were using the services of Ctos and suggested that they may had done so on their own accord.
  • Let us make this clear that neither PPP nor the deputy minister's service centre in Taiping has an account with Ctos. If in fact PPP and the service centre were making searches, it was through the firm of Blanche and Kayveas because they don't have an account with us.

    We have a copy of the cheque signed by the president of the People's Progressive Party made payable to Ctos Sdn Bhd as recent as December 2006. A cursory examination of the cheque shows that Kayveas was a co-signatory of the cheque. The cheques were made towards settlement of our invoices to the firm of Blanche and Kayveas maintained with Ctos.

  • "We used the service back then in good faith. It was for the purpose of our office to conduct checks while preparing legal documents. Today it's a different situation. Today they turned into a centre destroying people's life and career," he said.
  • I don't understand what Kayveas is saying because we have not changed our nature of business from inception (since 1990).

    Even as of today, his wife's firm has not terminated our services. We had even billed the firm for use of the services in April and May 2007. I trust that we shall not have to make these documents public in order to refute any denials.

    I learnt from friends who know Datin Blanche Kayveas that she is a nice and wonderful person. If she wishes to retain Ctos's services, I shall be most delighted to serve her, but if she chooses to show solidarity with her husband, I have no problems with that too. I can fully understand that.

    It is not a problem for us as we serve a great number of legal firms in the country who obviously find us an invaluable service.

  • Kayveas said "one complainant had detailed how a city council in Selangor had threatened to include the complainant's name into Ctos 'blacklist' should he fail to settle a summons."
  • I have already clarified earlier to the press that Majlis Bandaraya Shah Alam (MBSA) is not and never was our client. Ctos cannot control what others choose to write in their letters.

    But I was told that, MBSA did manage to collect a lot of money. Perhaps, they can now better serve their community with the funds collected.

  • Citing another email, Kayveas said "even the Ah Long (loan sharks) were using Ctos services to size up credit-worthiness of their clients."
  • This is yet another defamatory statement by Kayveas about Ctos. We don't deal with Ah Longs. We only have licenced money lenders as our clients.

    If the government can licence them, surely we can transact with them. They use it in their evaluation process, just as any credit grantor would. I don't see anything wrong with that. We have instructed our solicitors to include this in the writ that is about to be filed.

  • "We want to know where they got the authority to sell 'people's problems'. Where did you get that right from? Who gives you that right? Under what law are you operating?" asked Kayveas.
  • Ctos does not sell "people's problems". We provide lead information.

    We are a nation which goes by the rule of law. We have the Federal Constitution and we have laws passed by our Parliament.

    Ctos has abided by both the Federal Constitution and the laws. Just because Kayveas thinks Ctos needs a licence doesn't make it law. Just because he thinks we are illegal does not make it so. Just because he doesn't know the Constitution and our laws, doesn't mean others don't.

    Instead of asking all his questions which really are irrelevant, Kayveas should just plainly tell Ctos what law or laws we have violated.

    The writer is chief executive officer of Ctos Sdn Bhd.