.

In every major dispute, the public should ask one basic question: Who benefits?

In the long-running Protasco–Tey matter, the elephant in the room is Dato’ Sri Ir Chong Ket Pen, the founder and central figure of Protasco Bhd.

Protasco has pursued Tey Por Yee & Ooi Kock Aun through civil litigation and bankruptcy pressure. Separately, the SC later brought a civil action against Tey and others involving alleged wrongful losses and fund-flow issues.

The public question is whether this is coincidence — or whether one private corporate dispute narrative has travelled through civil litigation, regulatory enforcement, media reporting, judicial assignment, and bankruptcy pressure.

There is also a serious judicial-disclosure question.

Public material indicates that Wong & Partners acted for Protasco in related litigation, and public legal-search material indicates that Mohd Arief Emran Arifin, while at Wong & Partners, appeared in a Protasco matter involving Tey. He was later appointed to the Bench.

If any judge handling a related SC matter had prior exposure to the Protasco–Tey dispute matrix, the question is simple:

Was it disclosed?

If yes, when?

If no, why not?

There is a serious public-interest question arising from the judicial history of the SC matter.

The previous judge, Liza Chan Sow Keng, had also been involved in the Protasco–Tey dispute. The matter was later assigned to another judicial officer whose prior professional exposure to Protasco-related litigation involving Tey should be transparently addressed.

No conclusion of wrongdoing is made. The concern is the appearance of repeated overlap and whether full disclosure was made.

This is not about judges as individuals. It is about protecting public confidence in the administration of justice.

Moreover, the media and authorities must not be used by Chong Ket Pen, Protasco, or any private litigation party. Before repeating allegations against Tey, journalists should examine the full chronology, the prior legal links, the regulator’s source narrative, the alleged victim PLCs’ own position, and the absence or presence of direct evidence of personal benefit.

If the links are innocent, disclosure will protect everyone.

If the links are material, silence will damage justice.

The elephant in the room must be named.