Oct 13 at 4:19 PM
Dear Mr.Edward Lingkapo,
On 9.9.2014 in a submission on the Appeal case between Salcon Engineering Berhad and Luqman Michel, Salcon had said the following and I would like your confirmation on this as it is contradictory to what you and Mr. David U had told me.
Sir, my friends and my children and my grand children are living here in Penampang or will be living here and I want to ensure they get a decent sewerage system. You have been entrusted to ensure you do your work for the good of the State.
The following points in the submission are to be noted:
Paragraph 49 – Further, the 1st Respondent claims that he made several complains to the relevant authorities, in particular MACC. But to-date the Appellant has never received any complaints be it from the general public or the relevant authorities in respect of the serious allegations made by the 1st respondent against the Appellant. This again only goes to show the Defendant’s malicious intention in solely defaming and injuring the Plaintiff’s reputation.
Question: Mr.Edward Lingkapo, you had informed me that complaints have been forwarded to Salcon Engineering Berhad. Only one of either Salcon’s statements in their submission or that of yours can be true. Please confirm.
I have not made any complaints to MACC, at least not as of 13.10.2014. This is the kind of lie that Salcon and Yap Sui Pon have been continuously making.
Paragraph 50a- JKR will only issue the CPC once conditions and criteria have been fulfilled and satisfied. If the Appellant had not complied JKR would not have issued the CPC. If the 1st Respondent has issues or complains with JKR issuing the CPC to the Appellant, then the 1st Respondent should query JKR or go through the proper channels and authorities for an explanation, instead of publishing disparaging, defamatory and offending articles of and concerning the Appellant. The 1st Defendant is obviously barking up the wrong tree.
1. You had informed me that the consultants issued the CPC and JKR only endorses it. Salcon however says you issued the CPC. Please confirm.
2. When JKR, via Alvin Gary, had asked for a quotation from UGMS for the repair works as late as February 2014, how is it possible that conditions and criteria have been satisfied?
3. How can conditions be fulfilled when you had specifically asked for 100% CCTV inspection to be done and 7 pipelines had not been inspected by CCTV?
4. How could CPC be issued in January 2013 when Salcon confirms in their affidavit that works were completed only in April 2013?
Paragraph 50b- It is not a condition or pre-condition to the issuance of the CPC that each and every defect shall be rectified, to its triviality, before the CPC can be issued.
Question: Please confirm if the above statement is true. I have documents delivered by you, Mr.Edward Lingkapo to UGMS instructing UGMS to report if CCTV works was not done on any of the pipe-lines.
Paragraph 50c- to-date the Appellant has not received any complaints or been summoned to explain any defects or failure to rectify on the part of the Appellant, by any member of the public or authorities. This only goes to show that there are no defects complained of or to be rectified.
My Response: Mr.Edward, you had specifically said that you had complained to Salcon and now Salcon says otherwise in court. Please confirm.
Paragraph 50d- the averments of the 1st Respondent therein are mere speculations, suppositions and conjecture without an iota of evidence, and the publications of the 1st Respondent are malicious and vindictive.
My Response: I had written several e-mails to you, Mr.Edward Lingkapo complaining about the shoddy work performed and the promises that Salcon will rectify works not done properly but now Salcon has the audacity to say that what I say is mere speculation and conjecture. What is your comment?
Paragraph 50 e- To-date the Appellant has not received any complaints on defects and mismanagement, or been called up by any one relevant body or authority to provide an explanation on the Appellant’s alleged ‘conducts’.
My Response: Mr.Edward Lingkapo, you had informed me that you had written to Salcon for an explanation. Confirm if this is true.
Paragraph 50g- If there had been any such complaint of defects to be rectified and repaired, the Appellant would be the first to carry out the necessary works.
My Response: Mr.Edward, if you had not done so, this may be the last opportunity to do so as the defect liability will be over in January 2015.
Paragraph 51- The Appellant respectfully submits that the CPC had been validly issued to the Appellant by the authorities (i.e. JKR). As stated above, JKR will only issue the CPC once conditions and criteria have been fulfilled and satisfied. If the Appellant had not complied JKR would not have issued the CPC.
My Response: Is it true that JKR will only issue CPC once criteria and conditions have been fulfilled? Were criteria and conditions fulfilled?
Paragraph 52- If the 1st Respondent has any complaints they should be directed to JKRS and/or the consultants, and not the Appellant. As long as the CPC is valid and effective, (has not been invalidated) and there are no complaints or notifications received from the public or authorities and/or defects for the Appellant to rectify, it is deemed that the sewerage project is managed and completed well by the Appellant. The 1st Respondent should direct his grief/complaints to the right parties who are JKR or the consultants, and not the Appellant.
My Response: I am again complaining to you for the last time before taking this matter up with higher authorities.
Thank you and regards,