Who Paid Legal Fees, If Not Ijok Settlers, See-To Asks Sivarasa

(FMT) – BN strategic communications deputy director Eric See-To said there was no need for Subang MP Sivarasa Rasiah to consider legal action against him over alleged defamation when the questions he asked over the Ijok settlers’ issue remain unanswered.

In a statement, See-To cited a four-page information sheet given by Sivarasa’s firm, Daim and Gamany, to the settlers as part of their settlement process.

“The legal fees for the settlement agreement documents are listed as being paid by ‘akaun tuanpunya tanah yang terdahulu’ (original owners of the land), which refers to the companies which the Selangor government had previously called ‘BN cronies’.

“The fees were not paid by the settlers. Perhaps Sivarasa should now come clean and tell us exactly who appointed him as the settlers’ lawyers, who paid him and how much he was paid for his kind services to the settlers?”

See-To then suggested that Sivarasa had failed to understand the issues raised by him previously in a Facebook post.

“Sivarasa said that there is no conflict of interest since he claims he was appointed by the settlers.

“I do not think Sivarasa understands me. It does not matter if the settlers had appointed him or the Queen of England had appointed him to represent the settlers’ interests.

“What matters is that Sivarasa is a PKR member and an MP in Selangor, whereas the Selangor government, which approved the settlement, is led by a menteri besar who is also the deputy president of Sivarasa’s party, PKR, as well as a fellow MP in the state,” See-To said.

According to See-To, the ties to the counterparties involved in the issue is what he had raised in a Facebook post.

“Sivarasa should know that there is a possible conflict of interest and should have recused himself from representing the settlers.

“Are there no other lawyers in Selangor other than PKR lawyers?” he asked.

In his Facebook post, See-To suggested that there may have been a conflict of interest when Sivarasa’s firm acted on behalf of the settlers.

Sivarasa called See-To’s assertions “false and mischievous”.

“He assumes for his argument of ‘so-called conflict of interest’ that the Selangor government appointed my firm to act for the 980 settlers.

“He has only to read my press statement issued last Friday to know that it was the settlers who appointed my firm to act for them. The appointment has nothing to do with the state government.

“See-To should also meet and ask the settlers whether the state government had directed them to appoint my firm. I am happy to arrange that meeting for him to know the truth direct from them,” Sivarasa said in a statement today, in response to See-To’s FB post.

Meanwhile, See-To also questioned if Sivarasa’s law firm had told the settlers that their land was going to be sold for RM1.18 billion.

“Did the firm also tell the settlers that the two companies that had failed the settlers for 18 years would get RM880 million while the settlers will only get RM300 million?

“Did the law firm inform the settlers that the buyer of the land intends to develop a RM15 billion project on the settlers’ former lands?”

See-To added that such information would have helped the settlers, many of whom are old and less educated, make a more informed decision whether to take up the offer to settle.