Comparison of the Zara Qairina Mahathir Case and the Vistana Heights Case

 

The call for senior officials, such as those from the Occupational Crime and Corruption Investigation (OCCI) and even the Chief Police (CP), to temporarily go on leave during investigations into serious cases, as suggested in the Zara Qairina Mahathir case, highlights the need for proactive accountability. Daily Express 

The activist’s point, suggests that such an investigation should be automatic when a case involves a minor’s death under questionable circumstances, especially with allegations of bullying and visible injuries like bruises reported by the victim’s mother.

Similarly, in the Vistana Heights case, an automatic investigation should have been initiated upon my initial complaint to the Kota Kinabalu City Hall (DBKK) and the Department of Land and Survey (LJS) regarding the fabricated as-built survey report.

Vistana Heights Case Overview

On 18 August 2025, instead of addressing my concerns, the Director of Land and Survey suggested I pursue legal action. This echoes a prior interaction on 10 March 2023, where Mr. Stanley Chong, Assistant Permanent Secretary of Local Government and Housing, advised against claiming the as-built survey was fabricated, warning of potential lawsuits, and urged me to withdraw my complaint, which I refused. LINK.

My initial request to meet the developer and the Sabah Housing and Town Development Board (LPPB) was rejected by the developer’s lawyer, Ronny Cham & Co., who imposed unreasonable conditions. Australian lawyer Chris Kwan commented that the demand to ensure all recipients of my complaints (professional bodies, government ministries, and newspapers) attend the meeting was unreasonable and indicative of the developer’s unwillingness to engage constructively.

Over 100 emails to DBKK regarding the steep driveway and the developer’s failure to provide the mandated retaining wall (as per the 1998 Development Plan) suggest deliberate oversight rather than systemic issues. The authority, described by LJS may be influencing this inaction.

Following my complaint to the Integrity Department, I was invited to a meeting on 5 May 2025 with the DBKK Director-General, architect, surveyor, and DBKK officers. A second meeting on 11 June 2025, attended by Integrity Department members, provided unsigned minutes with material discrepancies when compared to a later signed version.

Despite multiple emails to the Integrity Department highlighting these issues, I received no response.

A scheduled meeting on 5 August 2025 with the Secretary of local Government and housing, Attorney General, State Secretary, Mayor, architect, and developer was postponed hours before it was set to occur. On 6 August 2025, the Integrity Department summoned me for a meeting on 12 August 2025, where they claimed the matter was settled based on DBKK’s responses. I contested this, pointing out misleading statements, including one of many false claims by the DBKK Director-General that my complaint to the Board of Integrity, Governance, and Nomination Services (BIGoNS) was closed. Puan Siti Fairuz, an Integrity Department officer, confirmed at the meeting that my complaint remains under investigation.

Here is a screenshot taken on 22.7.2025 that states that my complaint is under investigation. Click on the image for a clearer view. 

 

 

I am still unable to access my complaint details despite raising this with the Integrity Department, and I have yet to receive the promised minutes from the 12 August 2025 meeting.

The Vistana Heights case reveals a lack of proactive investigation and accountability, similar to the Zara Qairina Mahathir case. However, unlike systemic oversight issues, the Vistana Heights case suggests deliberate obstruction, possibly influenced by external authorities, undermining trust in the process.