Blast from the Past
This is a statement I issued on 12th June 2001 calling for a Royal Commission of Inquiry into Judicial Independence which would also investigate into Justice Muhammad’s shocking expose of telephone directive from a judicial superior to strike out the Likas election petitions without a hearing as well as similar directives to other election judges in Sabah and Sarawak:
(Petaling Jaya, 12.6.2001 Tuesday): Justice Datuk Muhammad Kamil Awang deserves the gratitude of the nation which is seeking to restore national and international confidence in the judiciary for exposing the telephone directive from a judicial superior in September 1999 to strike out the Likas election petitions without a hearing.
Yesterday, Muhammad Kamil said that the Likas election petitions were brought to his court in mid-1999, following the Sabah state general elections on 13th March 1999.
He said that after many preliminary objections were raised by the lawyers, he announced on September 24, 1999 that he was setting aside technical objections in favour of justice.
Muhammad Kamil said: “That started it. That’s when the phone call came.”
He said he told the caller, who had identified himself, to “drop me a note for that” but it never came. The hearing of the petitions then began on Sept 27, 1999.
Muhammad Kamil said he had disclosed the identity of the person to Chief Justice Tan Sri Mohamed Dzaiddin Abdullah and related the incident to several other judges in Sabah and Sarawak at that time, as they had confided in him that they had also received similar directives from the same person on election petitions before them. There were three other election judges in the two States.
He said: “They asked for my view. I told them to ask their conscience. My allegiance is not to human beings but to God.”
Muhammad Kamil has made it very clear that the person responsible for the telephone directive was his judicial superior, narrowing the circle of possibility as he had only three judicial superiors at the time – the Chief Justice Tun Mohamad Eusoff Chin, President of the Court of Appeal Tan Sri Lamin Yunus and the Chief Judge of Sabah and Sarawak Tan Sri Chong Siew Fai.
When asked by reporters yesterday if the person was Eusoff “as widely speculated”, he said: “I can’t confirm it”, adding “Most of the lawyers make a guess and everybody seems to be guessing well.”
Lamin has denied that he had ever issued any directive to Muhammad Kamil, stating that High Court matters were not under his jurisdiction.
As both the Prime Minister, Datuk Seri Dr. Mahathir Mohamad and the Deputy Prime Minister, Datuk Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi have both publicly denied being the person who issued the telephone directive, and as Muhammad Kamil has pinpointed the person as one of his superiors in the judicial hierarchy at the time, the time has come for Eusoff Chin to immediately clear himself or admit to having made the telephone directive to Muhammad Kamil, which constituted a blatant obstruction with the administration of justice.
The Cabinet tomorrow should set up a Royal Commission of Inquiry into Judicial Independence which would also investigate into Justice Muhammad’s shocking expose of telephone directive from a judicial superior to strike out the Likas election petitions without a hearing as well as similar directives to other election judges in Sabah and Sarawak.
Such a Royal Commission of Inquiry should investigate into all cases and causes for the undermining of the independence, impartiality and integrity of the judiciary in the past decade.
I would urge the Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department, Datuk Dr. Rais Yatim to formally propose such a Royal Commission of Inquiry at the Cabinet tomorrow to demonstrate the government’s seriousness and commitment to support the new Chief Justice in his mission to restore public confidence in the judiciary.
#1 by boh-liao on Wednesday, 11 June 2008 - 7:25 pm
Where are all our budding creative movie directors and producers? We have wonderful stories of corrupted judges, corrupted Tuns, and evil politicians, who perverted justice to punish excessively innocent people (who are politically nonaligned with the evil politicians), to be made into Bollywood-style blockbusters.
C’mon Comedy Court, it’s time to use your creative talents to put up another show in http://www.comedycourt.com.my.
Now, people, what’s your opinion of individuals with the title of ‘Tun’?
#2 by boh-liao on Wednesday, 11 June 2008 - 7:27 pm
Sorry, please visit:
http://www.comedycourt.com.my/index_00.html
#3 by negarawan on Wednesday, 11 June 2008 - 8:03 pm
That’s a hilarious site! Thanks!!
#4 by lopez on Wednesday, 11 June 2008 - 8:37 pm
the very wrong lies in the pursuit of apparent security and morals of the elite.
the next wrong is the believe we put inot ourselves that these people who spoke and made promises and then you are impressed and gave them the mandate to kick your own ass awhile he reap every other way he could within his tenure.
you have open the flood gates.
while we are at it , lets have a ball…..did you bring your swimming trunk, the water is not going to subside for anytime soon…..hang on…..till come sept morning
#5 by sheriff singh on Wednesday, 11 June 2008 - 9:48 pm
It’s really very clear that the Executive was ruling and dictating the Judiciary. Just as what they did with the Royals then. And the Legislature as everyone knows.
So Salleh Abas was right to complain to His Majesty but then everybody was under the control of “the Man who can do no wrong”. And he calls it “democracy”.
#6 by limkamput on Wednesday, 11 June 2008 - 10:16 pm
I think it is pointless speculating the role of Anwar in the boot camp. It is better if Justice Chin could be more explicit when disclosing the role of Anwar. If there is a need to explain and clarify, it is better for Anwar to come forward and settle this quickly.
#7 by HJ Angus on Thursday, 12 June 2008 - 7:09 am
humanly wrote:
“Justice Ian Chin made a very “funny” ruling on the London casino vs Osu Sukam case. In his judgment, he said the casino had no right to claim debts from Osu cos the latter a Muslim was not supposed to gamble and the former bore responsibility to allow him to enter the casino.”
Isn’t that a remarkable argument?
Now anyone who buys a gun and shoots someone can also get off as all religions teach it is wrong to kill and the gun seller should be blamed.
#8 by Jeffrey on Thursday, 12 June 2008 - 7:33 am
HJ Angus, in reference to Justice Ian Chin’s ruling on the Ritz casino vs Osu Sukam case, it was a judgment obtained by Casino in UK sought to be registered here locally for enforcement. (Between Common Wealth countries, they have between themselves these reciprocal enforcement legislations that allow the judgment obtained in one common wealth country to be registered in the second common wealth country for enforcement against the debtor whose assets in that second country and vice versa… It is not automatically enforceable in sense that it is allowed so only if the enforcement is not contrary to public policy of the second commonwealth country. The issue – and controversy – is whether Justice Ian Chin was correct to rule that enforcing a debt based on wager (gambling debt) is ‘no no’ in Malaysia for being contrary to public policy. Ritz Casino in London like Genting is licensed and gambling, and incurring of gambling debt is lawful by virtue of that – at least by secular law that Justice Ian Chin should be concerned with. It was not the judge’s concern about Sharia and what it prescribed and I doubt that that was even mentioned. The judge’s ruling could imply that Osu Sukam and the likes of anyone else (who is not even a muslim) could gamble on credit in a licensed casino like Genting and afterwards renege the debt by saying that the licensed casino’s enforcement of the gambling/wager debt (even if incurred in a licensed casino) is contrary to the public policy of Malaysia. The big question is – is it? Where gambling is licensed and lawful, how could the incurring of debts from such an licensed establishment be contrary to public policy when public policy tolerates the licensing in the first place???
#9 by HJ Angus on Thursday, 12 June 2008 - 9:47 am
Jeffrey
thanks for the legal arguments.
But if Genting were not allowed in Malaysia, the judgement would have a better basis?
Maybe he was under “duress” at the time? The Bar Council didn’t take issue with this imposition of Syariah rules in a secular court?
#10 by Godfather on Thursday, 12 June 2008 - 9:59 am
I have been suspicious of this specific ruling of Justice Chin’s for a long time. I am not a lawyer, but I can’t think of another case in a commonwealth country that does not recognise reciprocal enforcement of judgments on the ground of “public policy”.
What is equally puzzling is why the plaintiffs did not appeal Justice Chin’s decision to a higher court.
#11 by taiking on Thursday, 12 June 2008 - 10:22 am
Now both Idid and N.H. Chan have reasons to smile.
We know that you are smiling.
‘Cos we are.
#12 by Jeffrey on Thursday, 12 June 2008 - 11:32 am
I quote here for your examination Justice Ian Chin’s reasoning & thoughts on what is public policy and why being contrary to it is the reason for Ritz casino having no recourse against Osu Sukam in Malaysia –
[Quote] “A foreign bank lending money to a Malaysian in a foreign country would not face the problem of public policy even though the foreign bank is not licensed in Malaysia. But it is a different proposition if a prostitute who legally practiced her trade (as it is allowed in certain countries) and had obtained a foreign judgment for services to a Malaysian. The prostitute would face the same impediment as that of casino, that is of it being against public policy since it is one of the twin vice and which is against our religious belief even though it is legal in the foreign country. Therefore, it would be accurate to equate a casino business with that of prostitution (both being legal in many foreign countries) but whose activities are against public policy. It was totally inappropriate to liken a casino with a bank to argue that since it has a licence, there should be no objection to the registering of the foreign judgment because banking business is not a vice unlike prostitution and gambling. What is offensive and totally unfair is for the casino to allow someone to gamble on credit in order to make him loose not only his pants but the livelihood of his wife and children as in this case. It may be forgivable that the casino is able to entice someone to enter the casino and lose everything that he has on his body but not otherwise, for the reasons I mentioned earlier. I therefore cannot agree with The Aspinall Curzon Ltd v Khoo Teng Hock [1991] 2 MLJ 484 which allowed the registration of a foreign judgment for a gambling debt as that case never consider the matters I have mentioned. Malaysians are a God-fearing people, at least that is what the Rukun Negara, wants us to be and to allow a foreign judgment which had enticed a person to gamble on credit and to gamble away the welfare of the family and leaving the state to pick up the pieces and thus lead one away from the path God has shown us would surely be against the principle of Belief in God and believing in God means eschewing gambling since it is a form of covetousness, that is to desire to be rich quickly without working. In another word, it is against the Rukun Negara. Anything that seeks to go against the Rukun Negara must surely be regarded as against public policyThe world would be a much nicer place if no country would allow the recovery of a judgment for a gambling debt which debt was the result, invariably, of the debtor being enticed to gamble on credit and beyond his means. In fact, I would suggest that a law should be enacted to allow a gambler to sue a casino for having enticed him to gamble beyond his means if that is not already a common law. Malaysia may soon have casinos at its doorsteps giving easy access to Malaysians. Its populace must be protected from being enticed to gamble on credit and the only way to discourage this entrapment is to prevent such foreign judgment founded on gambling on credit from being registered and from being enforceable in Malaysia”. [Unquote]
#13 by Jeffrey on Thursday, 12 June 2008 - 11:38 am
What constitutes public policy is subjective to person defining it. According to Justice Ian Chin’s reasoning (in a gist),a casino business may be equated with that of prostitution (both being legal in many foreign countries) but whose activities are against public policy here as applicable to “God fearing” Malaysians following the Rukun Negara. Justice Ian Chin in Osu Sukam case did not follow an earlier case of Aspinall Curzon Ltd v Khoo Teng Hock in 1991 which allowed the registration of a foreign judgment for a gambling debt.
#14 by Godfather on Thursday, 12 June 2008 - 12:08 pm
So if Ian Chin were to give a legal opinion in his (future) practice, he would say that it’s OK to pocket the winnings AND it’s also OK to ignore any associated gambling debt as it won’t be enforceable.
No wonder the Ah Longs are having a roaring business as their way of enforcement of a debt is, as they say, not the conventional way.
#15 by Godfather on Thursday, 12 June 2008 - 12:10 pm
And next time you folks visit red light districts, you can refuse to pay and tell the girls “sue me”.
#16 by Jeffrey on Thursday, 12 June 2008 - 12:25 pm
According to the reasoning, can I strike the jack pot in the slot machine in Genting and Genting can renege by stopping me from taking the winnings out??? Or can I ask for refund of coins I put into the slot machine when I did not strike jack pot? The ruling made no distinction between a licensed casino and unlicensed Ah Long. If Rukun Negara eschews gambling then why is it ok for the government to contravene the Rukun Negara by licensing Genting and raking in corporate taxes from its multi million profits per year? By same token if it is accurate, according to Justice Ian Chin, to equate a casino business with that of prostitution, then why is it ok for the government to license and tax Genting but not the prostitution trade??? :)
#17 by taiking on Thursday, 12 June 2008 - 3:15 pm
Prostitution and gambling in foreign land. Can those who suffer economic grievance in respect of them seek legal remedy in malaysia?
Since, the reasons below apply equally well to both prostitution and gambling, I shall only mention gambling.
This is obviously a question of contractual rights, and the remedy sought must be look upon from two perspectives, i,e., that of (1) validity; and (2) enforcement.
An invalid contract will not be enforced by the courts. That goes without saying.
And conversely, a valid contract will be enforced. This apparently simple statement is actually not easy to explain.
Recognising the validity of a contract tantamouts to acknowleding the fact that the contracting parties do have rights. And remedy must follow rights, for there can be no rights without remedy. And remedy is meaningless unless the court enforces the contract.
Hence, if a particular contract is valid, then the parties would have rights which the court must enforce so that the grievance of the suffering party could be addressed and remedied.
Now take a look at gambling contract. It is illegal by our laws and hence it would not be enforceable in our courts for the reliefs sought.
What happens if the gambling contract was concluded in a country (say X) where wagery is lawful?
This situation would give rise to a conflict as to the proper law one ought to refer to in order to determine the lawfulness and hence validity of the gambling contract.
The validity of such contract must be decided by the laws of the country in which it was concluded – rules on conflict of laws. It matters not what our laws say. And it matters not if such contracts go against our public policy (whatever it may mean).
In other words, if the contract is valid by the laws of X, then our court must recognise and uphold it. In which event, enforcement and remedy must follow.
That must be the answer.
A little bit more about the public policy argument. Our laws strike down contracts that oppose public policy by making them illegal. This is a legal principle that decides the legality and hence validity of a contract; and as mentioned before, this principle would have no relevance in a situation of conflict.
Enforcement of a valid foreign contract is another issue altogether. I will not go into it here.
#18 by Tulip Crescent on Thursday, 12 June 2008 - 3:24 pm
Very interesting, very very interesting.
While our attention is deflected to important such as these, other equally important things are happening.
Maybe, we should put Mahadey Kutty and his cronies into jail and then throw away the keys.
#19 by procol on Thursday, 12 June 2008 - 11:05 pm
According to the reasoning, can I strike the jack pot in the slot machine in Genting and Genting can renege by stopping me from taking the winnings out??? Or can I ask for refund of coins I put into the slot machine when I did not strike jack pot? – Jeffrey.
I’m inclined to say no. Osu’s case can be distinguished. In that case, the casino extended credit and “inticed” him into digging a grave big enough to bury him and his family together. Yes, Osu is at fault for incurring such debt, unable to control himself not to gamble to that extent or to gamble at all, going against teachings of his religion and so on. Yes, he should shoulder responsibility. But Justice Ian made it clear that the demarcation is drawn when a casino offers credit and lures an unsuspecting or otherwise, high roller into a false sense of security that the preferrential credit limit would give him a chance to offset his losses by further gambling or in the event that he loses, the interest applicable is low or period for repayment is longer,etc. Then the casino has “crossed the line”. The casino is in no business to care whether the debt will be so great that the livelihood of him and his family would be wiped out in a night or not. They are in the business of getting every single penny left on the gambler.
In the scenario you set out, you may suffer losses but probably not to the extend of burying your entire family. Justice Ian clearly thinks that once a casino offers credit, thus “inticing” one to gamble away his entire savings to the extent of losing his livelihood and that of his family, then it’s against public policy because the casino afforded the said gambler the opportunity to dig a grave on porous soil. If the casino had not done so, probably the gambler would not have been in such an unreversible situation.
Further, I think the reason Justice Ian decided so is because if he disallows casinoes fr recovering enormous debt as a result allowing gambling on credit, it would help to discourage casinoes to offer or extend credit to gamblers. Of course you could question the efficiency of such method to curb dire gambling problems arising from large losses and debt. Notwithstanding, the inconsistency u pointed out regarding the public policy (as the Govt allowed Genting to operate), consider this analogy: The subprime mortgage crisis was caused when banks/financial institutions “inticed” borrowers with spotty credit and dubious resume via numerous solicitations while fully aware of the risk of default by such borrowers. To use the words of Soros, “unsuspecting customers were lured into making commitments that they couldn’t fulfill”. What followed after that need no further elaboration. In that case, it seems that the Merrill Lynch, Morgan Stanley, Bear Stearns,etc were the villian, not so much on Mr. Joe Average who took the loan eventhough he knows that he’s already struggling to pay the bills.
#20 by Jeffrey on Friday, 13 June 2008 - 6:21 am
Thanks for observations, Procol.
I am not familiar with gambling in casinos but I believe it would be customary practice of licensed casinos world over including our Genting to extend, as a matter of courtesy or service, credit to premium customers like Osu Sukam, and Ritz Casino did not, in my view, cross any line deserving to be singled out for denial of redress based on this alone. (Besides when Justice Ian brought in the Rukun Negara as part of his elaboration of public policy, he was not really making a big issue of casinos extending credit but gambling in casinos in general. Like earlier case of Aspinall Curzon Ltd v Khoo Teng Hock, all these cases arose because there was credit extended or else there was no debt incurred to be sued upon).
It is true that when a casino extends credit it may be “enticing” one to gamble away his entire savings to the extent of losing his livelihood and that of his family (though this may not apply to Osu Sukam) but this method of eroding one’s financial discipline should not be construed as against public policy or else similar considerations may be argued to apply to licensed money lenders or even licensed banks that give you credit cards free of charge in the process enticing us to incur burden of irreversible debt until bankruptcy.
“Enticing” in sense of making available easy credit in circumstances where the less disciplined will head to financial ruins may be immoral – in sense above stated – but I think we have generally accepted that secular law, as distinct from Sharia or other religious laws, does not concern itself with enforcing morality especially when it concerns credit extended by casinos or money lenders or even banks or other institutions, domestic or foreign (Merrill Lynch, Morgan Stanley, Bear Stearns) whose economic activities are licensed and lawful.
#21 by taiking on Friday, 13 June 2008 - 12:05 pm
Can gambling dens recover facilities extended to gamblers?
It depends on whether there is a valid contract; and if there is none, then on the type of action mounted for its recovery.
If the facility was extended for a consideration, say a token interest upon repayment, then the facility would become a stand-alone contract which is completely divorced from the use to which the facilities was subsequently applied. In which the casino concerned could simply sue on the facility (in contract).
If no such consideration was requested then, the law could well construct one by saying that the facility was granted in consideration of the gambler placing bets. Such a consideration is void in law, and the contract would be unlawful.
However, the casino can still recover its money. Not in contract of course because here there is none which the law recognises. The casino concerned could mount an action for the return of money had and received. This is an action in restitution and not contract. Illegality of the contract is not a relevant issue in such an action. In lay terms, such actions amount to this: “That’s my money you are holding. You have no lawful reasons to hold it. Give it back to me.”
#22 by Jeffrey on Friday, 13 June 2008 - 12:45 pm
Gambling dens are by definition illegal – and operators prosecutable under Common Gaming Act, definitely the credit by recoverable by legal suit based on contract – they recover them by fist and breaking your legs so there’s no bad debts! Casinos are licensed – and their operations legal and therefore they can contract legally including gambling and giving credit from such activities that are their core business, licensed and lawful.
#23 by Jeffrey on Friday, 13 June 2008 - 12:46 pm
…definitely the credit NOT recoverable by legal suit…
#24 by procol on Friday, 13 June 2008 - 2:05 pm
Taiking, perhaps ur argument would be restricted to gambling dens i.e. illegal gambling centres and not licensed casinos. As pointed out by Jeffrey, extension of credit would be lawful.
“This is an action in restitution and not contract. Illegality of the contract is not a relevant issue in such an action.”
Surely remedies must follow rights. Would u agree if i say a claim in restitution must follow a right of action, e.g. breach of contract.
I’m also of the opinion that a casino seeking to recover debt would proceed on the basis of breach of contract to include interest sum as restitution only seeks to restore the benefits obtained from one another and that would exclude any interest applicable.
Jeff, I fully agree that it’s customary for any casino operators/owners who have biz acumen or rather dragula genes(just joking ok,no intention to offend any casino owners here), to extend credit to high rollers. I think that’s exactly what ticked him off and he feels that casinos which extends credit thus inticing one to gamble away ALL his assets would be against public policy. Also he raised this point well ahead before he raised Rukun Negara (which I think he used it as additional or supplimentary ground/ratio). Further, note again the part where he referrred to Rukun Negara:
“Malaysians are a God-fearing people, at least that is what the Rukun Negara, wants us to be and to allow a foreign judgment which had enticed a person to gamble on credit and to gamble away the welfare of the family and leaving the state to pick up the pieces….” And this is where he mentioned Rukun Negara for the first time which by extension, connects the despicable act of the casino and public policy.
“I think we have generally accepted that secular law, as distinct from Sharia or other religious laws, does not concern itself with enforcing morality” That’s the problem isn’t it? The line between morality and law is very fine, especially when public policy comes into play. A lot of public policy would be based on guarding the local social fabric of society which includes our customs,cultures,etc. Of course as I said earlier, u may question the propriety of a Judge, however much or little, playing the role of moral guardian/police of society as well as the effectiveness of the outcome if they do play such role via dishing out binding judgments. To conclude, I think Justice Ian’s intention is honourable but perhaps he just couldn’t really bring he entire case within the four corners of law to, by precedent or established principles of law, rightfully deny the claim of the casino, without the venturing to use the veil of public policy, if morality is not already the underlying basis. You may even say that it’s a feeble attempt to cloak morality with the armour of law at the risk of appearing being a moral police.
#25 by Jeffrey on Friday, 13 June 2008 - 4:10 pm
Understand what you are saying procol – on problem & fine line of what constitutes public policy – but the fair criticism here against the rationale of Justice Ian’s decision is that we have our own licensed casino here (Genting) and whether his decision would adversely affect Genting’s giving credit to (say) a British high roller, running away to UK and reneging on his debt. Before we can get a local judgment here for “reciprocal” enforcement in UK, the British High Roller will argue at first instance in Malaysian Courts that Genting’s claim cannot be entertained as Malaysian courts should not entertain and help enforce a credit debt arising from gambling in Genting casino, albeit licensed, as it is contrary to Malaysian public policy! People are people. When they look at tortuous or as you said “feeble attempt to cloak morality with the armour of law” they may not just attribute it to mere differences of approach on how to resolve a problem but impute or speculate other motives, not so proper for me to fo further here.
#26 by Jeffrey on Friday, 13 June 2008 - 4:12 pm
….not so proper for me to GO further here….
#27 by taiking on Friday, 13 June 2008 - 6:04 pm
Restitutional remedy has nothing to do with contractual rights. Lord Goff is an expert in the field. He has written a book on it. It is a very interesting area of the law.
#28 by Jeffrey on Friday, 13 June 2008 - 7:48 pm
Taiking, sure as Lord Goff said (1) Restitutional remedy is independent and has nothing to do with (2) contractual rights – but to pursue either (1) or (2), you would need assistance of and apply to the courts for recourse, which they are not prepared to assist if by providing such assistance implies giving effect to something contrary to public policy. :)
#29 by Kasim Amat on Friday, 13 June 2008 - 10:44 pm
Jeffrey, taiking and procol, please stop all the nonsense as this blog is not designed for you to debate on trivial issues. I hope someone from the higher authority can quickly bring Ian Chin to task as his comments had seriously tarnished the image of our former Prime Minister Tun Mahatir. He made such comment because he was unhappy with the fact that he was not promoted. In Singapore, Ian Chin would have gone to jail for making such unjustified remarks against the former Prime Minister. Without Tun’s decisiveness and dogmatic approach, judges would have been fighting all over just for the top post and forget about serving people, which is their foremost duty.
#30 by Jeffrey on Friday, 13 June 2008 - 11:02 pm
kasim Amat,
What we’re discussing pertains and is adjunct to the Justice Ian Chin’s reasoning in the case of Ritz Casino vs Osu Sukam which in turn is related to the credibility of his allegations raised against your idol Tun Dr Mahathir. Whilst you are entitled to your opinion that issues discussed are trivial nonsense, you are in no position to ask anyone to stop discussion on anything here as you are neither the blog owner or moderator. You are liberty to of course skip the postings – and don’t read – that which you think are nonsense, and it will be polite if you keep your judgment that it is nonsense to yourself.
#31 by procol on Saturday, 14 June 2008 - 2:02 am
Thanks for d heads up Taiking.
Dear Kasim Amat,
Just be cool….What u perceive as nonsense may not be so for another person. It’s just a few posts being replied that’s it. Besides, if it’s really that trivial, then don’t get all worked up. Surely Tun will speak for himself right? So don’t get all grouchy. Have a nice day.
#32 by Neobanchuan on Monday, 16 June 2008 - 12:05 am
Seems like some one is scrutinising the blog for the BN government. Can the moderator ban Kaism Amat from posting on this blog? Sorry, Kasim Amat, we do not need your contribution here.