Mr . Nadayson Murugiah
c/o Messrs MV Kumar
No. 50-2 Jalan Telawi
Bangsar Baru
59100 Kuala Lumpur
Tel : 03-22842848
Fax: 03-22845895
7th June, 2010
Tuan Muhammad Ammir Bin Haron
Pegawai Khas to
The Honourable Dato’ Sri Mohd Najib bin Tun Abdul Razak
Prime Minister of Malaysia
Office of the Prime Minister of Malaysia
Main Block, Perdana Putra Building
Federal Government Administrative Centre
62502 PUTRAJAYA
My Dearest Prime Minister,
Re : Rayuan Berhubung Kes Kecemasan Di Hospital Swasta bagi Encik Nadayson Murugiah (No. KP : 250627-10-5167) pesara Perkhidmatan Awam Persekutuan – Pampasan Sejumlah RM225,463.80
1. We are very disheartened that even with our Prime Minister’s blessings, this simple issue of compensation has dragged an 85 year old pensioner and an ex Government servant of 33 years standing to wait patiently over 3 years but to no avail on his application for compensation for medical expenses, a large majority of which was paid from his savings and the shortfall still pending to Pantai Medical Hospital.
2. Mr.Murugiah worked in the Prime Minister’s Department and ex employee of the Public Service Department in charge of this compensation issue. Isn’t this ironic? For those parties who are involved in Public Service Department, who cannot give him face on the bona fides of his applications for compensation, this certainly must be a dismal day for us Malaysians on the whole.
3. Now, Judgment has been taken against him for the unpaid shortfall in his medical expenses, copy enclosed for your verification.
We thank all those who have given us assistance and we forgive those who haven’t and since our hands are tied, all we can rely on are public sentiments.
Yours respectfully,
…………………….
Nadayson Murugiah
Cc.
1. YBhg Tan Sri Ismail bin Adam
Ketua Pengarah
Perkhidmatan Awam Malaysia
Jabatan Perkhidmatan Awam
Blok C1 & C2, Kompleks C
Pusat Pentadbiran Kerajaan Persekutuan
62520 Putrajaya
2. Tuan Muhammad Ammir Bin Haron
Pegawai Khas kepada YAB Perdana Menteri
Office of the Prime Minister of Malaysia
Main Block, Perdana Putra Building
Federal Government Administrative Centre
62502 Putrajaya
3. Datuk Dr Noor Hisham bin Abdullah
Timbalan Ketua Pengarah Kesihatan (Perubatan)
Aras 7, Blok E1, Parcel E,
Pusat pentadbiran Kerajaan Persekutuan
62510 Putrajaya
4. Dato’ Dr Azmi Bin Shapie
Kementerian Kesihatan Malaysia
Pejabat Timbalan Ketua Pengarah (Perubatan)
Aras 7, Blok E1, Parcel E
Pusat Pentadbiran Kerajaan Persekutuan
62590 Putrajaya
5. Y.M.Tengku Norshamshida Binti Tengku Ahmad Basri
Jabatan Perkhidmatan Awam
Bahagian Pasca (Perubatan)
Aras 2, Blok C2, Parcel C,
Pusat pentadbiran Kerajaan Persekutuan
62510 Putrajaya
6. Dato’ Dr. Jeyaindran Tan Sri Dr. Sinnadurai
Ketua Jabatan, Jabatan Perubatan
Hospital Kuala Lumpur
7. Datuk Dr Arumugam
Consultant Cardiologist & Physician
Pantai Medical Centre
8, Jalan Bukit Pantai
59100 Kuala Lumpur
__________________________________________________________________
Mr . Nadayson Murugiah
c/o Messrs MV Kumar
No. 50-2 Jalan Telawi
Bangsar Baru
59100 Kuala Lumpur
Tel : 03-22842848
Fax: 03-22845895
9th March, 2010
The Honourable Dato’ Sri Mohd Najib bin Tun Abdul Razak
Prime Minister of Malaysia
Office of the Prime Minister of Malaysia
Main Block, Perdana Putra Building
Federal Government Administrative Centre
62502 PUTRAJAYA
My Dearest Prime Minister,
Re : Rayuan Berhubung Kes Kecemasan Di Hospital Swasta bagi Encik Nadayson Murugiah (No. KP : 250627-10-5167) pesara Perkhidmatan Awam Persekutuan – Pampasan Sejumlah RM225,463.80
1. Let me take this opportunity to first and foremost thank you graciously for showing concern to my plight.
2. Yang Berbahagia, the status of the matter is that we are currently do not have a conclusive report from the Cardiologist of the Hospital that attended to my emergency, Dato’ Dr Arumugam.
3. Enclosed herewith, please find the following documents for your easy reference.
a. My letter to you dated 5/08/2009.
b. Medical Reports dated 24/08/2007 and 12/08/2008 from Dato’ Dr Arumugam and Operation Report from Dato’ Dr Ghandiraj.
c. Earlier letters from Prime Ministers Department dated 28/08/2008 and 5/12/2008.
d. Letter from Tuan Muhammad Amir Bin Haron, Pegawai Khas Y.A.B. Perdana Menteri to Yang Berbahagia Tan Sri Ismail Bin Adam, Ketua Pengarah Perkhidmatan Awam dated 7/09/2009.
e. Letter from Yang Berbahagia Dato’ Dr Azmi bin Shapie bagi pihak Timbalan Ketua Pengarah Kesihatan, Kementerian Kesihatan to Penolong Pegawai Rekod dated 9/09/2009.
f. Follow up letter from Yang Berbahagia Dato’ Dr Jeyaindran, Jabatan Perubatan Hospital Kuala Lumpur dated 6/10/2009 informing the Timbalan Ketua Pengarah Kesihatan that the Medical Record forwarded by Dato’ Dr Arumugam was incomplete.
g. Letter from Timbalan Ketua Pengarah Kesihatan, Yang Berbahagia Datuk Dr Noor Hisham bin Abdullah to the Ketua Pengarah Perkhidmatan Awam, Yang Mulia Tengku Norshamshida Binti Tengku Ahmad Basri dated 22/10/2009.
h. Letter from Dato’ Yeow Chin Kiong, Pengarah Bahagian Perkhidmatan Pasca Pencen bagi pihak Ketua Pengarah Perkhidmatan Awam dated 28/10/2009 to myself
i. My letters to Dato’ Dr Arumugam:-
i. dated 24/07/2008 appending the condition precedent of procuring compensation from the Kementerian Perkhidmatan Awam where private treatment was sought in an emergency.
ii. Follow up letter dated 29/09/2008
iii. Follow up letter to Dato’ Dr Arumugam incorrectly dated 29/09/2008 forwarded on 20/11/2009 (posting receipt).
j. My lawyer’s letter to Pantai Medical Centre’s lawyer dated 25/02/2010 requesting for Dato’ Dr Arumugam’s conclusive report.
Once again, in conclusion My Dearest Prime Minister, I hope your touch would be midas and I extend my deepest gratitude to you.
Yours respectfully,
…………………….
Nadayson Murugiah
Cc.
1. YBhg Tan Sri Ismail bin Adam
Ketua Pengarah
Perkhidmatan Awam Malaysia
Jabatan Perkhidmatan Awam
Blok C1 & C2, Kompleks C
Pusat Pentadbiran Kerajaan Persekutuan
62520 Putrajaya
2. Tuan Muhammad Ammir Bin Haron
Pegawai Khas kepada YAB Perdana Menteri
Office of the Prime Minister of Malaysia
Main Block, Perdana Putra Building
Federal Government Administrative Centre
62502 Putrajaya
3. Datuk Dr Noor Hisham bin Abdullah
Timbalan Ketua Pengarah Kesihatan (Perubatan)
Aras 7, Blok E1, Parcel E,
Pusat pentadbiran Kerajaan Persekutuan
62510 Putrajaya
4. Dato’ Dr Azmi Bin Shapie
Kementerian Kesihatan Malaysia
Pejabat Timbalan Ketua Pengarah (Perubatan)
Aras 7, Blok E1, Parcel E
Pusat Pentadbiran Kerajaan Persekutuan
62590 Putrajaya
5. Y.M.Tengku Norshamshida Binti Tengku Ahmad Basri
Jabatan Perkhidmatan Awam
Bahagian Pasca (Perubatan)
Aras 2, Blok C2, Parcel C,
Pusat pentadbiran Kerajaan Persekutuan
62510 Putrajaya
6. Dato’ Dr. Jeyaindran Tan Sri Dr. Sinnadurai
Ketua Jabatan, Jabatan Perubatan
Hospital Kuala Lumpur
7. Datuk Dr Arumugam
Consultant Cardiologist & Physician
Pantai Medical centre
8, Jalan Bukit Pantai
59100 Kuala Lumpur
_____________________________________________________________
Mr . Nadayson Murugiah
c/o Messrs MV Kumar
No. 50-2 Jalan Telawi
Bangsar Baru
59100 Kuala Lumpur
Tel : 03-22842848
Fax: 03-22845895
5th August, 2009
The Honourable Dato’ Sri Mohd Najib bin Tun Abdul Razak
Prime Minister of Malaysia
Office of the Prime Minister of Malaysia
Main Block, Perdana Putra Building
Federal Government Administrative Centre
62502 PUTRAJAYA
My Dearest Prime Minister,
Re : Rayuan Berhubung Kes Kecemasan Di Hospital Swasta bagi Encik Nadayson Murugiah (No. KP : 250627-10-5167) pesara Perkhidmatan Awam Persekutuan – Pampasan Sejumlah RM225,463.80
1. I am a pensioner, 84 years old, having been with the Government for over 33 years, my last 2 postings with the Education Ministry and the Prime Minister’s Department respectively, having served under your father, a distinguished Man, as a Higher Executive Officer together with my superiors Y.A.B. Tan Sri Ahmad Nordin and Y.A.B. Tan Sri Abdullah Ayub. I have served under all the Prime Ministers except the last two. I was instrumental in the taking of accounts during the separation of Singapore and Malaysia. I spent many years with the Treasury and even assisted with the presentation with the budget in Parliament together with Y.A.B. Tan Siew Sen.
2. On 7/07/2007, I was admitted on an emergency basis to Pantai Medical Hospital having suffered a heart attack. I live in Bangsar Baru and it was the nearest help. It was an emergency and it was simply no choice for my son and daughter in law (who is a doctor then and now with the government) to take me to IJN. I have been informed by my cardiologist and cardiothoracic surgeon that it was a call which was correct.
3. Subsequently, I had applied for compensation from the Public Service Department with regards to my bill from the hospital which not only totally cleaned out my savings but included borrowing. Pantai Medical Centre is now suing my son and I in suit no. S2-52-20192-2009 at the KL High Court for the balance of approximately RM60,000.00.
My Dearest Prime Minister, it is crystal clear that I was admitted to Pantai Medical Hospital as an emergency which is the criteria for compensation from the Public Service Department, yet the preliminary finding by the relevant bodies concerned was to the contrary. It is ludicrous to suggest that it was not an emergency, particularly when I myself have set with the Public Service department for the investigation of the misuse of funds. The matter is now pending Appeal. Having waited over 2 years, there does not seem light at the end of the tunnel. Please don’t marginalize us. This matter has been protracted for so long.
My dearest Prime Minister, I hope your touch would be midas to see my application favourably and help me at my darkest hour. Having so successfully served with the Government and having carefully planned all of my savings in my golden years, this turn of event has left me and my son as paupers.
Please help.
Yours respectfully,
…………………….
Nadayson Murugiah
Tuesday, February 22, 2011
SAGONG BIN TASI & ORS v KERAJAAN NEGERI SELANGOR & ORS [2002] 2 MLJ 591
NOTES
The land was continuously occupied and maintained by the plaintiffs to the exclusion of others in pursuance of their culture and inherited by them from generation to generation in accordance with their customs
The land had been occupied by the Temuans including the plaintiffs for at least 210 years and the occupation was continuous up to the time of the acquisition. The land were customary and ancestral lands belonging to the Temuans including the plaintiffs and occupied by them for generations
SAGONG BIN TASI & ORS v KERAJAAN NEGERI SELANGOR & ORS [2002] 2 MLJ 591
HIGH COURT (SHAH ALAM) MOHD NOOR AHMAD J CIVIL NO MTI-21-314-1996 12 April 2002
Constitutional Law -- Right to property -- Aboriginal peoples' right over land -- Compulsory acquisition of ancestral land by government -- Whether proprietary interest of aboriginal people in their customary land was an interest in and to the land -- Whether aboriginal peoples' right under common law extinguished by Aboriginal Peoples Act 1954 -- Adequate compensation -- Meaning of 'land occupied under customary right' -- Land Acquisition Act 1960 s 2 -- Federal Constitution art 13(2)
Native Law and Custom -- Land dispute -- Customary rights over land -- Aboriginal peoples' right over land -- Compulsory acquisition of ancestral land by government -- Whether proprietary interest of aboriginal people in their customary land was an interest in and to the land -- Whether aboriginal peoples' right under common law extinguished by Aboriginal Peoples Act 1954 -- Adequate compensation -- Meaning of 'land occupied under customary right' -- Land Acquisition Act 1960 s 2 -- Federal Constitution art 13(2)
The plaintiffs were orang asli of the Temuan tribe. Pursuant to an acquisition of land, on 13 February 1996, the Sepang Land Administrator gave written notices to the plaintiffs to vacate the land they were occupying within 14 days failing which enforcement action would be taken ('the notices'). The plaintiff did not comply for obvious reason that they were not happy with the amount of compensation. The first defendant claimed that the land was state land and the defendants had refused to recognize that the plaintiffs had any proprietary interest in the land or any interest therein at all. Hence, the defendants had refused to compensate the plaintiffs for the value of the land lost except for the loss of their crops and fruit trees and the loss of their homes, ie the building structure only. On 21 March 1996, the plaintiffs were asked by the Sepang police to report at the Dengkil police station to collect their compensation cheques. Only the third and seventh plaintiffs collected the cheques. On 22 and 27 March 1996, the plaintiffs were evicted from the land by a police operation with support from the FRU in the presence of the officials from the Sepang District Office, the officials of the second and third defendants and of the Jabatan Hal Ehwal Orang Asli. The fruit trees and the crops on the land were destroyed, the houses, the Balai Raya and the Balai Adat of the Temuan community thereat were demolished. On 14 June 1996, the plaintiffs received their cheques for the limited compensation under protest and without prejudice to their legal rights.
Held:
(1)
In principle, oral histories of the aboriginal societies relating to their practices, customs and traditions and on their relationship with land should be admitted subject to the confines of the Evidence Act 1950, in particular s 32(d) and (e), that is to say: (i) they must be of public or general nature or of public or general interest; (ii) the statement must be made by a competent person, ie one who 'would have been likely to be aware' of the existence of the right, customs or matter; and (iii) the statement must be made before the controversy as to the right, customs or matter had arisen (see pp 623G-624A).
(2) The land had been occupied by the Temuans including the plaintiffs for at least 210 years and the occupation was continuous up to the time of the acquisition. The land were customary and ancestral lands belonging to the Temuans including the plaintiffs and occupied by them for generations (see p 610D-F).
(3) The proprietary interest of the orang asli in their customary and ancestral lands was an interest in and to the land. However, this conclusion was limited only to the area that formed their settlement but not to the jungles at large where they used to roam to forage for their livelihood in accordance with their tradition. As to the area of the settlement and its size, it was a question of fact in each case. In this case as the land was clearly within their settlement, the plaintiffs' proprietary interest in it was an interest in and to the land (see p 615F-G).
(4) In order to determine the extent of the aboriginal peoples' full rights under the law, their rights under the common law and the statute had to be looked at conjunctively, for both the rights were complementary, and the Aboriginal Peoples Act 1954 ('the Act') did not extinguish the rights enjoyed by the aboriginal people under the common law (see p 615H-I); Adong bin Kuwau & Ors v Kerajaan Negeri Johor & Anor [1997] 1 MLJ 418 followed.
(5) The defendants purported to compensate the plaintiffs only for what had been provided for under the Act. Such compensation was not adequate within the meaning of arts 13(2) of the Federal Constitution, although the Act was a special Act relating to the aboriginal people. The deprivation of the plaintiffs' proprietary rights was unlawful (see p 617H-I).
(6) As the land was continuously occupied and maintained by the plaintiffs to the exclusion of others in pursuance of their culture and inherited by them from generation to generation in accordance with their customs, it fell within the ambit of 'land occupied under customary right' within the meaning of the definition of s 2 of the Land Acquisition Act 1960 ('the LAA'). Therefore, the plaintiffs must be compensated in accordance with the LAA (see p 618A-B, H).
(7) The first and fourth defendants owed fiduciary duties towards the plaintiffs, which had been breached and therefore, the plaintiffs would be entitled to be compensated for the loss suffered which was the value of the land. However no order was made for the breach of fiduciary duties since it was not specifically prayed for
[2002] 2 MLJ 591 at 593
and to avoid duplicity in view of the award of compensation made in accordance with the LAA (see p621B, E-F).
(8) The eviction of the plaintiffs from the land was unlawful because the 14 day notice given was unreasonable and insufficient (see p 620D).
(9) Trespass had been committed against the possession of the land by the plaintiffs. The second and third
defendants were liable for it (see p 621C)
The land was continuously occupied and maintained by the plaintiffs to the exclusion of others in pursuance of their culture and inherited by them from generation to generation in accordance with their customs
The land had been occupied by the Temuans including the plaintiffs for at least 210 years and the occupation was continuous up to the time of the acquisition. The land were customary and ancestral lands belonging to the Temuans including the plaintiffs and occupied by them for generations
SAGONG BIN TASI & ORS v KERAJAAN NEGERI SELANGOR & ORS [2002] 2 MLJ 591
HIGH COURT (SHAH ALAM) MOHD NOOR AHMAD J CIVIL NO MTI-21-314-1996 12 April 2002
Constitutional Law -- Right to property -- Aboriginal peoples' right over land -- Compulsory acquisition of ancestral land by government -- Whether proprietary interest of aboriginal people in their customary land was an interest in and to the land -- Whether aboriginal peoples' right under common law extinguished by Aboriginal Peoples Act 1954 -- Adequate compensation -- Meaning of 'land occupied under customary right' -- Land Acquisition Act 1960 s 2 -- Federal Constitution art 13(2)
Native Law and Custom -- Land dispute -- Customary rights over land -- Aboriginal peoples' right over land -- Compulsory acquisition of ancestral land by government -- Whether proprietary interest of aboriginal people in their customary land was an interest in and to the land -- Whether aboriginal peoples' right under common law extinguished by Aboriginal Peoples Act 1954 -- Adequate compensation -- Meaning of 'land occupied under customary right' -- Land Acquisition Act 1960 s 2 -- Federal Constitution art 13(2)
The plaintiffs were orang asli of the Temuan tribe. Pursuant to an acquisition of land, on 13 February 1996, the Sepang Land Administrator gave written notices to the plaintiffs to vacate the land they were occupying within 14 days failing which enforcement action would be taken ('the notices'). The plaintiff did not comply for obvious reason that they were not happy with the amount of compensation. The first defendant claimed that the land was state land and the defendants had refused to recognize that the plaintiffs had any proprietary interest in the land or any interest therein at all. Hence, the defendants had refused to compensate the plaintiffs for the value of the land lost except for the loss of their crops and fruit trees and the loss of their homes, ie the building structure only. On 21 March 1996, the plaintiffs were asked by the Sepang police to report at the Dengkil police station to collect their compensation cheques. Only the third and seventh plaintiffs collected the cheques. On 22 and 27 March 1996, the plaintiffs were evicted from the land by a police operation with support from the FRU in the presence of the officials from the Sepang District Office, the officials of the second and third defendants and of the Jabatan Hal Ehwal Orang Asli. The fruit trees and the crops on the land were destroyed, the houses, the Balai Raya and the Balai Adat of the Temuan community thereat were demolished. On 14 June 1996, the plaintiffs received their cheques for the limited compensation under protest and without prejudice to their legal rights.
Held:
(1)
In principle, oral histories of the aboriginal societies relating to their practices, customs and traditions and on their relationship with land should be admitted subject to the confines of the Evidence Act 1950, in particular s 32(d) and (e), that is to say: (i) they must be of public or general nature or of public or general interest; (ii) the statement must be made by a competent person, ie one who 'would have been likely to be aware' of the existence of the right, customs or matter; and (iii) the statement must be made before the controversy as to the right, customs or matter had arisen (see pp 623G-624A).
(2) The land had been occupied by the Temuans including the plaintiffs for at least 210 years and the occupation was continuous up to the time of the acquisition. The land were customary and ancestral lands belonging to the Temuans including the plaintiffs and occupied by them for generations (see p 610D-F).
(3) The proprietary interest of the orang asli in their customary and ancestral lands was an interest in and to the land. However, this conclusion was limited only to the area that formed their settlement but not to the jungles at large where they used to roam to forage for their livelihood in accordance with their tradition. As to the area of the settlement and its size, it was a question of fact in each case. In this case as the land was clearly within their settlement, the plaintiffs' proprietary interest in it was an interest in and to the land (see p 615F-G).
(4) In order to determine the extent of the aboriginal peoples' full rights under the law, their rights under the common law and the statute had to be looked at conjunctively, for both the rights were complementary, and the Aboriginal Peoples Act 1954 ('the Act') did not extinguish the rights enjoyed by the aboriginal people under the common law (see p 615H-I); Adong bin Kuwau & Ors v Kerajaan Negeri Johor & Anor [1997] 1 MLJ 418 followed.
(5) The defendants purported to compensate the plaintiffs only for what had been provided for under the Act. Such compensation was not adequate within the meaning of arts 13(2) of the Federal Constitution, although the Act was a special Act relating to the aboriginal people. The deprivation of the plaintiffs' proprietary rights was unlawful (see p 617H-I).
(6) As the land was continuously occupied and maintained by the plaintiffs to the exclusion of others in pursuance of their culture and inherited by them from generation to generation in accordance with their customs, it fell within the ambit of 'land occupied under customary right' within the meaning of the definition of s 2 of the Land Acquisition Act 1960 ('the LAA'). Therefore, the plaintiffs must be compensated in accordance with the LAA (see p 618A-B, H).
(7) The first and fourth defendants owed fiduciary duties towards the plaintiffs, which had been breached and therefore, the plaintiffs would be entitled to be compensated for the loss suffered which was the value of the land. However no order was made for the breach of fiduciary duties since it was not specifically prayed for
[2002] 2 MLJ 591 at 593
and to avoid duplicity in view of the award of compensation made in accordance with the LAA (see p621B, E-F).
(8) The eviction of the plaintiffs from the land was unlawful because the 14 day notice given was unreasonable and insufficient (see p 620D).
(9) Trespass had been committed against the possession of the land by the plaintiffs. The second and third
defendants were liable for it (see p 621C)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)