Anwar Vs Anifah: Liar lying left, right & centre

The transcript of the legal case for Opposition Leader and former abuse-of-power-convict Anwar Ibrahim against Foreign Minister Dato’ Sri Anifah Hj Aman for the former being called “A liar”

DALAM MAHKAMAH TINGGI MALAYA DI KUALA LUMPUR
DI DALAM WILAYAH PERSEKUTUAN, MALAYSIA
SIVIL SUIT NO: S-21-146-2009

ANTARA

DATO’ SERI ANWAR IBRAHIM​​​​​ …PLAINTIF

DAN

1.​DATUK ANIFAH BIN HAJI AMAN @ HANIFF AMAN​​
2. MENTERI LUAR NEGERI, MALAYSIA
3. KERAJAAN MALAYSIA …DEFENDA

 
Notes Of Proceeding of trial held on 25.8.2014
Plaintiff’s Witness: Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim
Yang Arif, yang pertamanya Yang Arif saya ingin memohon maaf sebab terlambat pagi ini. Saya telahpun tulis surat kepada Federal Court untuk membayangkan bahawa kes itu tidak akan berjalan. Tapi malangnya sungguhpun surat itu telah dihantar, kes saya hanya dipanggil pada pukul 11.30.
I have been instructed Yang Arif to put on record my application for an adjournment Yang Arif whether Yang Arif allows it or disallow it I put on record to put on record Yang Arif
Q:​Datuk seri, could you be kind enough to look at the amended statement of claim. In the ikatan pliding terpinda, datuk seri will see this from page 5, the official bahasa Malaysia version and seems dato seri is giving evidence in English, datuk seri would also refer to page 30 the English version re emended statement of claim. Page 30 is your re emended statement of claim. You have read the re emended statement of claim?
A:​Yes
Q:​now I take dato seri to some parts of the claim, if dato seri were to look at paragraph 5 at page 31 where there is a massive amount of amendment that was undertaken, page 31,32,33 all has been removed and replace with another publication. If dato seri look at page 41, you will have to look at page 34 as this is a continuous of the publication material. If dato seri look at page 41, that amended publication, the pleading called as the said state department release. The Plaintiff has taken to label that particular publication as the said state department release.
Look at paragraph 6, would dato seri agree that paragraph 6, the question is that what is stated in paragraph 5 in the publication as describe in the statement of claim.
Paragraph 6 at page 41 is dato seri agree is a quotation or statement taken from the Star Newspaper that on 16 may 2009. This is not a publication that has been cited in paragraph 5, this is concentrating only the Star newspaper. Based on paragraph 6 in your own pleading at page 43, Dato has called those quoted para contain in the star as the impugned statement.
If dato seri refer to page 44, paragraph 7, dato seri used the word the said impugned statement. Therefore dato seri would agree that paragraph 7 the complain of dato seri is the publication in the Star Newspaper. And then at page 44, there is also another description, where you have described, you used the impugned words all in reference to the star newspaper.
Then paragraph 8, where you said the Plaintiff pleads the impugned words…is in direct or indirect in referring to the Star Article.
A: ​Yes it is right that the impugned words refers to the article in the Star Newspaper.
Q:​Similarly in reference to paragraph 7, 8 and 9 refers to impugned meaning. Collectively, Dato seri will see at page 11 onwards, are all refers to the immediate reference to the Star Newspaper.
Now Dato seri agree that the Defendant, he only made one statement v​erbal in the press release in Washington.
A:​to my knowledge, as far as I was aware the reference made to that particular statement in Washingston
Q: ​what dato seri can do here, to limit the claim to what emanates to the press statement made by anifah aman in Washington DC. Datok seri agrees that conduct of Datuk anifah aman in Washington dc in tortuous wrong would be a slander as he says it verbally
A: ​yes, agree
Q;​Dato seri action in this case is for libel because even though he said it slander, but he caused the publication in the Star Newspaper.
A:​Yes
Q:​Datuk seri made reference to the release from the State Department release at page 41, where dato seri made reference to it as dato seri states that there is a nexus to the release in the Star newspaper.
A:​Yang Arif I can only say that there is the connection but the star has a specific connection with the star release as the Star reporters may be there during the press release
Q:​when Datuk seri wants to make a statement when dato does not intend to be published by newspaper, isn’t it common for dato seri to say that I want to make it off the record, isn’t that a common practice among politician?
A:​yes Yang Arif but not during the general media conference
Q:​Are you saying that during a general media conference, you cannot say anything off the record?
A;​Clearly Yang Arif it is unwise for the political leader to say that in the presence of the full media recording throughout the world. There is a possibility in a private press conference. This is not certainly the practice
Q:​Isn’t it possible for him to say that this is off the record?
A:​Yes I don’t think this is something we can assume it can happen especially for a foreign minister.
Q:​Dato seri can you look at page 42, do you accept this is the statement that the defendant made just for the information to the audience here. Do you accept this as the statement made by FM at the press release?
A:​Yes this is certainly the statement made by the foreign minister
Q:​Do you agree with me he meant by that phrase this information given by him is not for the public?
A:​I cannot agree with that
Q:​We go on to paragraph 7, having quoted the statement from the star at page 41 onwards. You have zeroed in on 3 matters under particulars of libel p44. Roman numero 1, Dato seri said that FM revealed that Dato Seri has offered FM the post of deputy prime minister as bait to switch side after the general election last year. Would you agree with me that verbatim this is not what appears in paragraph 5, the full verbatim words here. Do you agree with me the words as ‘bait’ all does not appear? That is not what he said. If we are to believe that the state department statement or rather recording is accurate. We have to assume that it is accurate. It is not identical.
A:​Yes, it is not a verbatim report I took in the context what was said based in the newspaper.
Q:​In this particular paragraph, whether it is said like that or accurately or otherwise doesn’t matter but we assume for the moment we are dealing with that paragraph, is there any statement there where if this taken to be true where dato anifah aman is saying that you are bribing him in order for him to switch side?
A:​It is not 7(1) it is on 7(3)
Q:​Now, so we now agree that 7(1) there is no suggestion that he is accusing you of bribery?
A:​Yes
Q:​Now lets go to 7(2), he says I was personally, this is obviously from datuk seri anifah aman, I was personally offered a very lucrative position which is the deputy prime minister ship this facts are not known to the world at large. Basically, he was saying in order for dato seri to make him hop across the floor of parliament, dato seri has offered him a lucrative position. This is what dato seri is complaining about.
A:​Yes
Q:​But dato seri agree that he is not suggesting that dato seri is bribing him.
A:​Not bribing in terms of money
Counsel for the Plaintiff:​My lady im sorry to object, in order to know there is a bribery or not, it is on the point of law. It is for the court to decide.
Q:​Yang Arif, the short answer is this Yang Arif, this is a statement that a layman will read it, whether this statement in fact can be interpretative of a bribe being offered by dato seri to dato seri anifah aman. Just that particular one, and dato seri says that this one it doesn’t. although this question that invited his answer, lastly Yang Arif will decide his answer. Whether this is a bribe or this is not a bribe.
A:​I didn’t say that it did not involve money
Q:​Ok, shall we say that it does not involve money, but whether it is bribery or not but Dato seri does not in position to comment
A:​It does not involve money, but lucrative position means higher salary as the deputy prime minister
Q:​Now we go to the 3rd one which is the interesting one, and he has started trying to buy other legislative members. I think he has not accepted the result of the last election. Now, here Dato Seri I supposed you have got your own interpretation of trying to buy other legislative members. Could you state on record to the Court what do you understand by this?
A:​It is very clear Yang Arif that he has started or taken a move or action to try and bribe people to jump
Q:​So datuk seri is equating trying to buy other legislative members as buying with money.
A:​Yes, Yang Arif
Q:​Buying with money or money’s worth
A:​Yes
Q:​Now, datuk seri just as number 2, isn’t it possible that one can interpret that to mean, as dtuk seri is about to form the next government 16 September 2008 issue. Now in the context of Datuk Seri genuinely thinking to form the next government, is it an offence or is it unlawful for Datuk Seri to offer to the member of the government then (BN) and say if you cross I give you a ministership or I even can give you a deputy prime ministership. Is it an offence?
A:​It is not related to 3
Q:​Im not referring to 3, im just saying is it an offence for Datuk Seri to say “ why don’t you cross over, I need somebody in Sabah, if you do cross over I will give you this position. Because I need someone in my cabinet. Is it an offence?
A:​There is a presumption, but it is not an offence in this scenario
Q:​Can paragraph 3, when someone offers like Datuk Seri says by assuming that Datuk Seri were to say” alright 2 of you, if you cross over I will give you this position. Would not that be something that we can describe as buying over some of the legislative members?
A:​Yang Arif, that presumption is not acceptable. Because the negotiation must undertake the issue of policies. Not to the matter of position.
Q:​As far as Datuk seri is concern, the word buying other legislative member will only mean buying with money worth and cannot be open to other interpretation.
A:​Money worth means position also right?
Q:​It could be but it has got to be computed. Or datuk Seri wants to be more direct and say it is in reference to money?
A:​My understanding Yang Arif, different between 2 and 3. Number 2 made reference to lucrative position, number 3 made reference to money
Q:​At least we stick to it, that number 3; trying to buy is in reference to money.
Q:​Now, one other general question Datuk Seri is of course because we have established a few cases now, that party hopping in this country is not illegal.
A:​Yes
Q:​Now, we go to page 45, you know Dato Seri you have said that the impugned words were and are defamatory or libelous of the Plaintiff and in their natural and ordinary meaning and or by implication or imputation were understood to mean that, i) those statement means that the Plaintiff is a dishonest person both in his private and his official capacity. Now, why do you choose that to be the meaning that can be attributed to the 3 statements at paragraph 7. Why Do you say that that means im dishonest person in private and official capacity?
A:​Yang Arif, we talk about good governance and the whole clever to reform against corrupt practices. And here he is trying to allege that we are buying lucrative position and although some are seem to be under qualified for that particular position for deputy prime ministership for example. It is not consistence to my profess view on issue of good governant and anti corruption drive.
Q:​Now therefore Datuk Seri is making reference in relation to 9(1) more of 7(3) and (2). Is that correct?
A:​And also 7(2),(3)and(1), you cannot be expected to be consistence on your views on governant and integrity when you choose to offer someone deem under qualified with poor track record to the post of a deputy prime minister
Q:​So Datuk seri is therefore saying that because Datuk Seri Anifah Aman is so under qualified for Datuk Seri to offer him the Deputy Prime Minister’s post is unthinkable?
A:​Yes Yang Arif, my apologies because I want to avoid any personal references to my college my foreign minister, but clearly I want to avoid having that personal reference.
Q:​Now, number 9(2), you have given a meaning that the Plaintiff is a liar, where do you get this meaning from Datuk Seri? How do you come out with the meaning that you are a liar?
A:​Yang Arif when we talk about the possibility of a change of Government, we talk about or to observe the principle of good governant. If by imputing that I bribe people to join, then clearly im lying to the members of the public.
Q:​I don’t understand Dato seri
A:​Why I professed publicly, the new government based on the reform agenda, the transparent taking people with integrity. And suddenly he is suggesting that im making move buying people who is under qualified. Of course people will say that im lying to the public
Q:​So it is connected to this fact Dato Seri, namely that because you were advocating, the governants of the highest tier, offering to an under qualified person would put you in a position of lying to the public. If is that what you were saying?
A:​Yang Arif again I apologies, I wish the learned counsel to craft it in the context which it covers the issue of offering position which did not happened, the issue on bribing people and not to personalize the issue on one person.
Q:​Now, dato seri, to cut the matter short, If you look at paragraph 9(1) write up to (8) all this meaning which you have provided, would I be correct to say that it is only attributable to 7(1)(2)and (3) if 7(1)(2)and(3) can be interpreted to be exchange of money or some kind of bribery.
A:​Yes, both in terms of money as quoted here number 2, offering lucrative position.
Q:​My question is, (1) until (8) becomes only sensible if the interpretation would give to 7 is in that line.
A:​Okay
Q:​Now, if you were to take paragraph 10 now, paragraph 10 no doubt it is by innuendo it is identical to your claim in paragraph 9. So we don’t have to go through it. Then we go on to page 48, paragraph 17, let me read that quickly “by reason of the utterances and the publication of the impute words…” Now 17, may I ask you is it not correct that you have crystallized your claim that although he said it by words in Washington DC but your claim here is the re publication. Is it only the Star?
A:​Well we could adduce the evidence from the Star but there could be other publication.
Q:​Now we go to page 49, paragraph 19 no doubt that you disagree with my suggestion that this is only for the audience here and it is not enough and it doesn’t happen in such a setting. In 19(b) under particulars, that the Defendant caused the impuned words to be written and to be published and re published despite the Plaintiff had vehemently denied similar allegation and innuendos at all material time. You are accusing Datuk Seri Anifah Aman of causing the re publication in the Star Newspaper
A:​Yes it is only to be expected that the Government party control media
Q:​That is your accusation that Datuk Anifah Aman has caused the re publication.
Q:​Now Dato Seri we have finished with your statement of claim, now we look at the Defence has raised at page 71 the same bundle. Now just have it handy, not that I want to refer to anything extensive there but let me say this first of all, if we assume of course you deny it Datuk Seri, assuming that Dato Seri has actually made that offer to Datuk Anifah Aman, isn’t that of public interest especially in Malaysia.
A:​It is certainly not a public interest.
Q:​Asssuming Datuk Seri offered him Deputy Prime ministership, isn’t that of public interest especially in Malaysia?
A:​Specific reference, if it is assume not in the public interest. For that proposition to be made, for the public
Q:​What im saying is, if Datuk Seri has made that kind of offer, isn’t that an issue of public interest?
A:​That means at all, the scenario where the proposal has been made, of course the public should know.
Q:​Now, in that situation of course with a big presumption, I want to be fair about this because you have been denying it, in that circumstances someone like Datuk Seri Anifah Aman, when he mention that doesn’t he comes under fair comment and as well as qualified privilege to say that?Because there is a public interest
A:​If it is the truth, not when you create the story or fabricate the story.
Q:​So if it is the truth, you agree that he can make a fair comment when he disclose it to the press?
A:​I mean not even a qualified privilege, if it is the truth then everyone has the right to tell the story.
Q:​You are basically saying Datuk Seri that not everyone has the privilege to tell lies.
A:​Yes
Q:​Now Datuk Seri, you are aware that the Defence has put up various kind of defences, I just run through a few of them; one datuk Seri is that, afull justification to say that they could justify fully the meaning that you have provided. You aware of that?
A:​Yes
Q:​But they also gone, they have said there is a lesser meaning defamation is still defemation but not as defamatory as you have suggested. Dato Seri is aware that they have provided a lesser meaning?
A:​Yes, ive read and aware of that
Q:​Now let me take datuk Seri quickly over that page 76, in the alternative the 1st Defendant would content the word uttered by him bear a different or lesser meaning; 1)the plaintiff has offered a political inducement in a way of similar standing to the post of the Deputy Prime Minister and to convince other members of the parliament to party hop…. 2) that his conduct in this context was unprincipled 3) that his conduct in this context is undemocratic .. Do you agree with me datuk Seri that all the 3 numero roman in paragraph 7 in fact is capable of being interpreted as you have offered political inducement in a way of similar standing in order to support him in the parliament.
A:​Not in this context, I disagree
Q;​Now, do you agree with me that taken all 3 roman that It can come in the lesser meaning in the context assuming you are unprincipled. Number 3 the similar conduct as your conduct will be undemocratic in luring people to crossover is also undemocratic is also a lesser meaning?
A:​Yes, it is lesser meaning
Q:​Lastly, the lesser meaning that is provided in terms of National and international image what u did that will reflect poorly in the International image as what they were alleging in the lesser meaning
A:​I only agree on the lesser.
Q:​Now, Datuk Seri perhaps I should ask you some question now in relation to substantive issue.
(however the court stand down)

R :​Dengan izin Yang Arif, nama saya Razlan Hadri bin Zulkifli, bersama saya Cik Lela dan Cik Latheya Koya, kedua-duanya mewakili pihak Plaintif. Maaf, kami bertiga mewakili Plaintiff. Manakala yang mewakili pihak Defendan ialah Tan Sri Muhammad Shafee Abdullah dan Encik Jeffrey John, Cik Sarah Abisegam, Encik Syed Ismat Syed Muhammad dan pelatih dalam kamar, Cik Noor Farhah. Tan Sri Shafee masih belum hadir tapi kita semua ada. For the Plaintif, we have only one witness which is the Plaintiff himself.

JJ : ​Yang Arif, Tan Sri Shafee is engaged in the Federal Court on a matter. I understand that it has just started about 15 minutes ago and he has requested for the matter to be stood down to at least 11.45 to enable him to attend before Yang Arif for the purposes of the trial. He requested for the matter to be stood down.

J:​​…for the Plaintiff to give statement first so that….can proceed..

JJ : ​​Very well Yang Arif.

R :​​May I call the first witness

A : ​Bahawasanya saya Anwar Ibrahim dengan sesungguhnya dan suci hati mengaku dan berikrar bahawa segala keterangan yang akan saya berikan dalam perbicaraan ini adalah benar tidak ada apa-apa yang tidak benar melainkan yang benar-benar belaka.

R:​​May I proceed Yang Arif.

Judge:​Saya akan dapatkan butir-butir yang saya mahukan sendiri.
I: ​​Your full name, age and address.

A ​Anwar Ibrahim, age 67 years. Address according to this ( refer to IC) is Pinggir Pelangi Pagi, Country Heights, Kajang, Selangor. Tapi saya duduk di Segambut.
I : ​Alamat di Segambut?

R:​Its in the witness statement, Yang Arif.
Datuk Seri, can you just sit down because I have few questions for you. My lady, we have prepared a witness statement and I just got one additional question before I marked this and I asked my Lady’s leave to ask this question. Ah sorry Yang Arif, could we just marked the document. Datuk Seri, may I bring you to question 5, question and answer 5.
Judge: ​Saya rasa masukkan dulu.

R: ​Sorry Yang Arif, Datuk Seri, have you read this witness statement and do you agree with the content of the witness statement?
A : ​Yes, Yang Arif.
R: ​May I ask the leave of Court for Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim to sign the witness statement

​( A signed the witness statement)

I:​The witness statement is marked as “SEPW1”

Judge: ​Statement of Evidence of Plaintiff Witness 1

EXAMINATION IN CHIEF

R : ​May I proceed Yang Arif. Datuk Seri, in front of you there’s a bundle of document. May I take you just to the thin bundle, the common bundle. Ikatan dokumen bersama. Do you have that with you?

A : ​Yes.

R : ​May I proceed, My lady. Datuk Seri, question and answer 5, the answer refers to a copy of the reports from the United States, Department of States website. May I take you to the page 1 to 3 of the Bundle? Would you confirm that this is the document that you refer to in your witness statement?
A : ​Yes, Yang Arif.

R:​Pohon ditanda Yang Arif, ini ikatan dokumen bersama sebagai ekshibit. “P1”
Yang Arif, next question 6. Datuk Seri, at question 6, the answer to question 6 refer to article in Star newspaper, and that article can been seen at page 4 of the same Bundle. May I confirm that is the article that you refer to in question 6?

A:​​Yes.

R: ​P2. And Yang Arif, jika saya boleh bawa saksi ke soalan dan jawapan 13. Datuk Seri, at question and answer 13, you referred to letter of demand of your solicitors, your then solicitors. That letter is at page 5 to 10 of the Common Bundle. Can I confirm that indeed is the letter that you instructed your solicitors to write to the Defendants?

A: ​Yes Yang Arif.

R: ​P3. Saya memohon satu lagi soalan Yang Arif, soalan berkaitan Q & A 10 Yang Arif. Datuk Seri, refer to question and answer 10, the question read as follows,

​Is there any direct discussion with the Defendant regarding the forming of a new government?
​
Your answer was, there was no meeting with the Defendant but there was one occasion when the Defendant telephoned me while I was overseas.

My supplementary question is this, could you please tell the Court, the circumstances of this telephone call?

A : ​Yang Arif, I was in Hong Kong to attend the Credit Suisse and Foreign Relations Conference, a friend, Mr Tony Woon informed me that Mr Anifah Aman wished to speak to me and I said its okay, please proceed. So probably next hour or so, he came back with a phone and I spoke to Anifah Aman. From Tony Woon’s phone. I don’t have Anifah Aman’s number, phone number.

R: ​Could I confirm this Datuk Seri, Do you know for a fact who called who? did Tony Woon called the defendant, or the defendant called Tony Woon. Do you have any knowledge on this?

A :​I’m not sure. The only thing i knew happened is that
Tony Woon surrendered the phone to me saying that Anifah is on the phone waiting for my response. Thats all.

R: ​​That’s all Yang Arif, I don’t have any further questions.

(Matter stood down until 3m to enable Tan Sri to cross examine A)

Cross- Examination

Q: ​Datuk Seri, I’m going to another topic, but just before I go,
Can you confirm by looking at the press statement either from the
department, or even the shorter version in the Star newspaper,
that the Defendant here, was on an occasion where he was performing his duty as the Minister of Foreign Affairs, the occasion where he was present at the press release?
A : ​Yang Arif, as Foreign Minister though the statement is personal in nature.

Q : ​His presence there was as the Minister of Foreign Affairs?

A:​Yes.

Q:​You agree with me, there was a joint press release
that was also made prior to the Q&A?

A: ​​Yes.

Q :​Next question, would you agree with me the question from the press, forget the answer Datuk Seri, the questions from the press to the defendant was in relation to his capacity as a minister of foreign affairs?

A: ​​Yes.

Q: ​We move to the next subject Datuk Seri, would you agree with me
As a general principle, both sabah and sarawak were both important states for the purpose of securing the support in parliament? Sorry, the numbers in Parliament?

A: ​​Yes.

Q : ​Would you agree, that you concentrated on sabah and sarawak quite strongly during your election campaign? For the 2008?

A : ​​I covered the whole country, Yang Arif.

Q : ​​At this, you covered both Sabah and Sarawak equally well?

A:​​Extensively but certainly more time in Semenanjung.

Q: ​Would you agree that to an extent that you covered Sabah and Sarawak extensively, but more in Semenanjung.

A: ​​Yes.

Q: ​Now Datuk Seri, the election for the purposes of the record, in 2008, if you remember what the exact date was?

R:​8th March.

Q: ​​8th March.

R: ​​We’re not disputing that Yang Arif.

Q: ​You agree with me that either PKR or pakatan rakyat, as far as Sabah and Sarawak was concerned; there was a manifesto for Sabah?

A: ​​Yes, Pakatan Rakyat manifesto for Sabah.

Q: ​​Would you have a copy of the manifesto?

A: ​​Any notice but I think..dont know whether we have it here or not..

Q: ​Let me leave my question. Do you remember the manifesto, one of the manifesto in sabah was the promise that Sabahan would have their first DPM?

A:​Sabah or Sarawak
Q:​So sabah or sarawak will have their DPM?
A:​Yes
Q:​I can ask you now, direct question as the election is over, between Sabah and Sarawak, at that time, where would you think the DPM was going to go if you had taken over the government? Sabahan or Sarawakian?
A:​We had to negotiate with the Sabah and Sarawak MPs in the event we take over and the option is still open but certainly, for the question of more qualified candidates.
Q:​At the minimum Datuk Seri, a sabahan could be a possible candidate for DPM?
A:​Sabah or Sarawak.
Q:​Who among the Sabahan could you have in mind that you might possibly have as a candidate? You must have somebody.
A:​I don’t know that you will insist on me answering, it will not only compromising but difficult for the certain candidates concerned because they are in Barisan Nasional. My reference to them will just embarrass or compromise the position of certain BN MPs. But if the question is specifically in relation to position of Datuk Anifah, then I can answer.
Q:​You have said that Datuk Anifah is less than qualified, so I want to find out, who do you have in mind possibly qualified for the position in Sabah to be DPM?
A: ​Yang Arif, clearly there has to be a person more qualified, able to influence more support in the state. But this issue must be reached through consensus among Pakatan leaders. I’m not at liberty to name.
Q: ​You’re not at liberty to name; my question is not for you to name your selection. My question is since Datuk Anifah is not qualified, he’s probably Grade C, there must Grade A and B and we want to know, I want to judge your judgment, we want to know the name of who you think is qualified?
A : ​There are some possible candidates that we’re considering, but that is not for me to decide. We work as a consensus. I’m not in a position to decide.
Q: ​We’re not asking to name anyone as a candidate Datuk Seri. But see, since you said yourself that Datuk Anifah is not qualified; sure you have someone in mind that you think is qualified?
A:​Yang Arif, I’m not at liberty because it’s not personal view. It’s a collective view of Pakatan Rakyat leaders.
Q:​But you did express your personal view about Datuk Anifah Aman, the defendant as not qualified, so why can’t you say who is qualified?
A:​With due respect to the learned counsel, I’m not arguing but the case is that you asked a specific question, did I offer to Datuk Anifah, and I said no based on the following reasons, but I cannot come here Yang Arif on behalf of party’s leadership to say that I have preferences for so and so.
Q: ​Datuk Seri, we’re not even asking one person. We’re asking who could possibly be in your mind that you could think possibly qualified. I just want to know whether there is one, two or three, or maybe none from Sabah?
A:​I’ve given my answer, Yang Arif.
Q: ​I’m putting it to you, that your answer about Datuk Anifah is not true, and that the defendant is one candidate you favour, and did in fact offer in your quest to take over the government as position of DPM?
A:​No, Yang Arif. I has good reasons to support that.
Q: ​You disagree with my suggestion which is expected. But, you are saying there are people in Sabah at the time who could be qualifed to be DPM?
A:​I’m quite certain.
Q:​When you say certain, so there were?
A: ​There were.
Q:​Was this expressed in the Manifesto, namely the quest to get a DPM from sabah or Sarawak?
A:​I believe so
Q:​Could you produce the manifesto?
A:​I believe we could do it.
Q:​Refer to question 10 of your witness statement. (quotes question and answer). May i inquire from you, when was this call made to you?
A:​I said earlier, it was during a conference in Hong Kong, the Credit Suisse Conference.
Q :​Roughly what date?​
A:​I made a reference to that.
Q:​Not in the witness statement
​
A :​We can ascertain the dates by looking at the dates of the conference
Q:​What do you call the event?​

A: ​Lecture organised by Credit Suisse, on the financial prospects for the region, economic prospects, organized by Credit Suisse and foreign correspondence club.
Q :​You were in hong kong?​
A:​Yes
Q:​He called on your phone?​
A:​No, I said earlier Yang Arif, it was from Tony Woon, from sabah. It was communicated to Tony Woon, and he passed the phone to me.
Q:​It was from Tony Woon phone you spoke to the defendant?
A:​Yes.
Q:​Who is Tony Woon?​
A:​A common friend for both of us.
Q:​Who is he? A businessman? A banker?​
A :​I think he’s a business man from Kota Kinabalu, who is also an acquaintance of the defendant?
Q :​Tony Woon is available?​
A:​I believe so
Q:​Available in KL or Sabah?​
A:​In Sabah.
Q:​He was with you in Hong Kong?​
A :​Yes, he was there in Hong Kong. He suggested that I should speak to Dato Anifah Aman.
Q : ​He was there with Datuk Seri for the Conference.
A:​No, he wasn’t there for the Conference. He was a businessman, he was in Hongking and he was in touch with me. He said that he wanted to convey certain messages from Datuk Anifah Aman.
Q: ​Datuk Seri, this is an important point whether Datuk Anifah called Tony Woon or Tony Woon on your behalf called Datuk Anifah Aman, this is important to show who was trying to get who. Don’t you agree with me?
A:​Yes, I agree.
Q:​He conveyed the message and received the message from the Defendant.
A:​Yes, I don’t know who call who but the phone was passed to me.
Q:​Now, its important. Now Datuk Seri is saying that you’re not sure whether Datuk Anifah called Tony Woon or otherwise? So your earlier statement was that he called Tony Woon?
A:​No I did not say that. I said he was in communication with Datuk Anifah Aman.
Q:​No, it was in fact your statement that he called wanting to speak to you.
A:​Yes, I said he wanted to speak to me but I didn’t know started the call.
Q:​Let settle this, Datuk Seri is not sure who called who?
A:​Yes.
Q:​If Tony Woon were to call the defendant, will that be at your behest?​
A: ​ no, he flew in to represent, or to send to convey a msg from Anifah Aman. I heard he said that the defendant wanted to speak to me. so i said why not.

Q:​you are sure, physically you were in hong kong, and so was tony woon.?
A:​​Yes

Q: ​​Do you agree, this point can be settled by doing a check of the billing of thetelephone provider?​
A: ​​Yes.

Q: ​ are you sure you were not in Malaysia when the telephone call was made?
A: ​the call took place in Hong Kong.

Q: ​if we get a service provider to search the phone call, it would help to resolve the issue to an extent? yes?​
A:​Yes.
Q: ​You claim that you do not have the telephone number of the defendant? until today?​
A: ​no, i do not have.
Q : ​Datuk Anifah might have your number?
A : ​he may have my number, but he never call me
Q :​He never called you on your personal no?
A:​No.
Q : ​You are using personal mobile at that time?
A:​Yes.
Q:​What is the number?
A:​017..221 at the end. I cant remember my number..
Q: ​you can provide it?
A :​yes
Q: ​would you know tony woon’s number?
A:​yes, i believe so. my staff would have it.
Q:​I will also require tony woon’s number at the time.
A: ​You would have to ask him.
Q: ​if you know him, first you know his number in 2008. is that correct?
A:​yes, its fair to suggest i know his number in 2008.
Q: ​Would you have his present number?​
A : ​i believe so, my staff at the office.
Q: ​you can provide it?
A : ​Yes.
Q: ​Datuk Seri don’t remember the date or the month?
A: ​a few month after the election, the date of the Conference is available at public domain.

Q: ​would it be between may and august 2008?
A: ​its possible.
Q :​it is my instruction from my client. I put to you that the defendant’s version is that the defendant received suddenly a phone call from tony woon, as he was coming out from a particular airport in malaysia, then Tony won called him then told him that you wanted to have a word, and the phone is passed to you. That is the version he wants to pass to you.
A : ​I’ve said that, tony woon was in communication with the defendant. he met me that that defendant wanted to have a conversation with me, and i said yes. But i dont know who called whom.
Q:​Is the scenario could have happened?
A: ​yes, it’s above 5 o’clock he called me.
Q: ​i put to you, according to the defendant, when you came onto the phone; there was quite a long conversation with the defendant, and during that conversation, that you made that offer. that he were to cross over, you would offer him, in the event you took over the government post of something like DPM or akin.
A : ​there was a convo, i accept. there’s a possibility it went for 10 mins or so. But it can be long. We’ve been friend for long, it’s a long time since we have conversation, I ask about his family etc but i did not offer him a position DPM as he claimed.
Q:​but you describe him as a good friend for a long time?
A: ​Yes
Q: ​but being a good friend, you wouldn’t have discomfort talking to him?
A: ​Yes.
Q: ​the reason i ask, because you suggested such offer you wouldn’t make over the phone. i suggest because of your good relationship, and the overall circumstances, and it was urgent, the offer was made?
A:​not in this country. I’m aware of the communication system in this country. I don’t normally make such careless mistakes, serious discussions, or matters of such importance’s over the phone. it’s not feasible to make an offer over ten minutes.
Q: ​you are aware, that the defendant has influence of at least 6-7 other MPs?
A:​I believe. I follow the UMNO and Opposition politics.
Q: ​how many did he have influence?
A:​1 or 2
Q: ​not as many as 6-7
A:​no
Q: ​for purpose of record, who was the Chief Minister?
A: ​Defendant’s brother, Musa Aman.
Q:​Who was still current CM, you know, Datuk Seri Yong Teck Lee?
A:​Yes.
Q: ​He was the former Chief Minister of Sabah. prior to Musa Aman?
A:​Yes, correct.
Q: ​Was there a meeting that the two of you arranged in Hong Kong?
A : ​Yes, Yang Arif.
Q: ​between Yong Teck lee and you?
A: ​Yes
Q: ​This was in 2008?
A : ​Yes
Q:​​and, he spent several days with you?​
A:​​i had one meeting, i’m not sure how many days.
Q: ​could you tell the court the nature of the meeting?​
A:​he came to my suite, and we had discussions on the issue of sabah. and the possibility of change of government.
Q:​Prior to him meeting you, you gave a speech in sabah where he attended. A very signifanct speech, pertaining to giving sabah autonomy? Do you remember?​
A:​No, i can’t recall a specific speech, but certainly in line with the Pakatan manifesto of the autonomy of sabah and sarawak.

Q: ​so the issue of Sabah having autonomy was the subject of that speech?
A:​Maybe so, but i think the reference to autonomy was made prior to elections.
Q: ​but the meeting in HK was after elections?​
A: ​yes
Q:​a couple of months after elecion?​
A:​yes, i believe so.
Q:​Would it be during the period you were trying to muster support to form government ?​
A: ​Yes, there was a period where a lot of MPs had expressed dissatisfactions of BN policies. Many chose to meet me, including SAPP President, Datuk Seri Yong Teck lee.
Q: ​would you remember, in that meeting, which lasted quite a while, did you remember talking about party hopping amongst sabah MPs?
A:​There were discussions concern the strong reservations expressed by many MPs with regard to neglect, poverty and also the immigration policy in Sabah. This has of course led to many of them to say they may consider seriously joining or Supporting PR, on condition PR honor the election manifesto, on issue of governance and autonomy.
Q:​You discussed the possibility of DPM from Sabah with YTL.​
A:​There is a possibility. Public were aware, consideration will be given to a Sabah or Sarawak to be considered as DPM. It is not something that is critical to be discussed in private with any sitting member unless it is suggestion to offer YTL which does not arise.
Q: ​On the Sabahan Mps as DPM?
A:​Not the Sabahans in particular according to Pakatan Rakyat manifesto. And again, I’m not at liberty to decide on behalf of Pakatan leaders.
Q: ​Apart from that discussion, and this is another discussion, where you said to him, if SAPP were join PR, there will be at least 1 Minister from SAPP and 2 MPs.​
A: ​At that time, there had only 2 MPs, so I don’t know how can you suggest 1 Minister and 2 MPs.
Q: ​So one of the MPs is the Minister?
A:​That is not in the discussion. I wouldn’t deny, but it must be discussed further to be considered.
Q: ​Did you not tell Yong Teck Lee, “I’m looking more at sabah because i’m not getting anywhere with Taib Mahmud”​
A:​ Not true, I will not share that much informations with YTL of what transpired with other party leaders.
Q: ​how are you’re relationships? Friend or enemy?​
A: ​No, but he choses to oppose us in the last election. Im afraid that I am okay with everyone. That’s not an issue.
Q: ​there is no enmity?​
A:​they certainly have enmity. They have chosen to be rancorous in their exchanges in their personal attack. But i have refrained from doing so. My position is to be as civil as possible.
Q: ​You finally told , you told Yong Teck Lee that after saying that you’re not getting anywhere with Yaib Mahmud. The defendant is a logical choice, and the fact that his brother is CM, it would better.​
A: ​No. I did not.
Q: ​You deny?
A: ​Yes, they must be reasons why he said so after so long being silent.
Q: ​Can you tell the court, about the famous September 16 2008 all about?​
A:​After the elections in 2008, the first time in history opposition did reasonably welll, there was a lot of sentiment of judicial sentiment, media freedom, governance and corruptions not only in Semenanjung and Sabah Sarawak. Sarawak felt under represented, such as September 16. So there was this support that I received. But then we did not succeed for number of reasons. I wrote to the Speaker, the Prime Minister to ask them to convey immediate session of Parliament to pass vote of no confidence. But it was ignored, there was not even a reply from them.
40 MPs who committed to us were suddenly taken by private jet to Taipei, to study culture. And that’s the end of the story. We were not successful. We failed. But nobody explained that 40 MPs were brought to Taiwan to study agriculture development or production there.
Q:​Were the defendant among the 40?​
A:​its a possibility.
Q: ​Is there a possibility he was among the 40?​
A:​ I dont know. i’m not sure.
Q: ​Would you say, they were mostly East Malaysian?​
A: ​Mostly from sabah and sarawak. and some from semanunjung.
Q: ​These were among a majority you had hoped to cross over?​
A: ​Some were on the list, some gave firm commitments. Then they left to Taipei.
Q:​These 40 were interacting with PR?​
A:​ Yes, some chose to contact. Many other Pakatan leaders met them to have separate discussions.
Q: ​among these 40, was Zahrain Muhammad Hashim one of them?​
A: ​He was a sitting MP for Keadilan.. why would he cross over unless to cross over to other side?
Q: ​Simply, he was not?
A: ​Of course he was not. He was member of PR.
Q:​Wasn’t he at one time, a right hand man for you in Penang?​
A: ​No, he was just an MP, joined prior to the election in 2008.

Q: ​Wasn’t he your confidante when you were DPM?​
A: ​the counsel is aware as he attended the meeting for UMNO Tanjung, he was as not claimed to be a right hand man. He was a division leader. Sometimes he won, sometimes he lost.
Q: ​but he became your PKR MP?​
A: ​Yes, in 2008.
Q: ​Which division or constituency?​
A: ​Bayan Baru, he won.
Q: ​Were you in parliament when Zahrain made the statement in parliament that virtually attacks you, he said you went all out to lure BN Mps to form a new government?​
A :​Of course their speech is vulgar and rigorous. Sometimes I attend, sometimes I don’t. Sometimes I …
Q: ​You know he made the speech?​
A: ​I know, im aware of it.
Q: ​He accused you of making false promises. He was then PKR MP​
A : ​He was no longer a PKR MP. After left, he offered became ambassador to Indonesia.
Q: ​That speech was made before he became ambassador. He made that speech where he acussed you not fulfilling your promises, empty promises, isn’t that correct?​
A :​You know what he said, and that’s it.
Q: ​In his speech, one of the person you wanted to take was Kimanis. i’m not surprised. Kimanis refers to Anifah Aman. ​
A : ​Yes. it was after the defendant make the statements to the media.
Q: ​He said, “You secured 32 MP to form a new government” did you make that statement?​
A: ​I didn’t mention numbers.
Q: ​But you said you had the numbers?​
A: ​Yes. That was before Taipei.​
Q: ​Did you not tell him that one of these illustrations was from Kimanis?​
A :​No, its not something you would discuss over coffee.
Q: ​Did you have this meeting?​
A : ​No
Q : ​Do you remember having this meeting with Vee Chew Keong?
A :​Yes
Q: ​Zulkfily Noorden was there, Chu Tian Chan, Datuk Johari Abdul, Datuk Rashid Din. At this meeting, you made the statement, Kimanis would be joining us.​
A : ​No such meeting took place. It is preposterous to suggest that at such informal meeting you could announce such a major thing that affect the states of the nation or our strategy of action.

Q: ​I was wondering if you would entertain stopping here, and start on Wednesday. Adjourned to Wendesday, 9am.​
​

************

 

they were not attending the agriculture course?
no such course took place
you were aware that these two went to taipei?
yes
was that with your blessing?
i was informed

was that with your blessing?
we’re not the form of party that gives blessings like this
did you allow it?
i had no objection
…
not full knowledge
you’re saying as adviser you did not know with full knowledge what they intended to do?
yes
they went to taipei to secure support from the 40 to cross over?
no, that was much after the event

they went there for reasons your not sure?
late september was almost the deadline.
certaintly before 16th september?
yes
…
…
you said there was a letter (for the vote of no-confidence) you submitted to the PM?
yes
did you give it to the PM
yes
You promised me the sabah manifesto?
yes
do you have it with you?
yes
(Raslan) we dont have it. but we’ll give it when we have it.

…
…

I’m not disputing the manifesto. Because there was a state declaration we endorsed, we have to get it from … (PKR Sabah)
now, the reason why i asked for the manisfesto because, whatever is in the press, we need to call a press member. we require the manifesto to put it clear it is a manifesto. I may have asked you this. You have the name of the 40 who went to taipei.. who PKR was trying to seduce to cross over in parliament?
That assumption, i don’t accept… I don’t have the names now.
you had it at some time?
some of my MPs would know
would you be able to make a list?
i would have to get the list from other MPs
would you produce the list?
its on BN record. a BN lawyer like you would know of it.
You cant produce it?
i don’t have it
so you cannot produce it?
if yang arif instruct, i will.
can you produce now or later?
very difficult unless instructed to from yang arif.
…
the learned counsel can get it from the BN office
we want to know to test, the credibility of the witness… he claimed the 40 would cross over,
I never said the 40 would cross over. i said there were members among the 40 that were in the list.
You cannot produce the list of the 40, but you can produce the list of the ppl who were keen to join you
that would be unfair
i’m testing what he claimed. now the event is over… if he says its unfair, then let them say it…
(plaintiff counsel) i understand where my learned friend is coming from, about testing the credibility of my client.. the matter is about whether the plaintiff did offer the defendant a position of DPM if he cross over.. (plaintiff counsel appears to be questioning the relevance of attaining the list of names)
Let me give a quick answer to the reason why i want the list is to test. The defendant was in fact someone influential in sabah. i mentioned the number 6-7 or 8 MPs that would cross over. it has a nexus…

(Yang Arif) It is the right of the counsel to test the credibility. i have to allow.

Although it is uncomfortable, this is the court of law, the court of truth. we want to know who among the 40 that was ready of thinking of crossing over
we mooted the PM that we have the confidence vote… the motion of no-confidence would not have been done if i did not have the numbers.
among the 40 you say were already ready to cross. can you produce the list of those who were sympathetic to cross over?
the list would have been clear if we had the motion of non-confidence
do you have the list?
of course. but the list was not meant for the court, but for parliament.
If you cant produce, then say so.

can you produce the list among the 40?
it’s unethical for me to.
Can you produce it?
No, i’m not going to produce. its not whether I can or cannot. its whether I have it or i don’t have it. (*PLEASE CHECK NOTES OF PROCEEDINGS HERE)
so you wont produce it?
yes, (he won’t produce it)
are you aware in a publication in Malaysianinsider in 2008, the defendant said he had accused you of the same thing as he did in the US, but you never took him to court and you denied it?
what article is he referring to?
there was an article. the defendant had said it before and accused you of trying to buy him. are you aware of it?
i’m not sure what article you are referring to.
you’re not aware..
i’ll let you reproduce it to me.
you have answered in some way that you did not make the offer to the defendant for DPM or otherwise. Did you at all invite the defendant to cross over?
can i reiterate what i said.. anifah aman sent an emissary to talk to me, that was the position
you never invited Anifah Aman to cross over?
The circumstances werent right. yes or no is very confusing. it is a politically loaded quesiton. i have to explain it in the context..
Did you invite anifah aman at all to cross over? you can explain why it is a no.
I did not
did you in some BN MPs to cross over? maybe you did not invite due to technical definition
There was a public invitation. I did invite all BN MPs.
including Anifah Aman?
yes
If defendant were to cross over, would it be advantageous to PKR or pakatan rakyat?
to the poeple, for good governance…
would you consider the cross over of the defendant into PR as advantageous to PR?
yes
would you consider if the defendant crossed over, he could create a catalyst for others to crossover?
not necessarily.
who is lawyer ansari from KK?
..
who was he to PKR?
2008, a head of division
at the launching of the second manifesto, he was present
yes, but ansari is a member of keadilaan, i recall, in 2008, he was probably one of the division leaders of PKR.
one of the more influential leaders in Sabah?
yea, one of the leaders there
is he still in PKR?
i don’t believe so, he was not fielded as a candidate
he is not in PKR because he was not fielded?
i’m not sure, but he’s certainly not fielded
someone like you would know if he’s still a member of PKR?
we have half a million members
so you’re not sure if he’s stil a member
i’m not sure. i’ve not seen as official statement of resignation.
you mentioned Tony Voon as a person from Sabah. a businessman?
A businessman
Woon?voon?
…
can be voon or vun?
…
would you know if the defendant has your number?
i wouldn’t know if he has my number. he has not called me on my phone. possibility in the UMNO days, but not from 1998 till now.
Had he perhaps had called you in your days in BN?
15 years ago, yes
but you never change your number?
yes, from after i was released from prison 2005.
…
…
the convo that you had with the defendant, when you said there was no invitation. what was it all about?
he mentioned his willingness to support our agenda. and support Parti Keadilaan Rakyat in a vote of no-confidence, if and when we vote in parliament.
the conversation, was pertaining to the subject of crossing over?
yes
did he express interest to cross over?
yes, and there’s also evidence that his earlier statements in the media, that he did make an indication that he’s completely disgusted with UMNO and BN policies then
but he also made statements that he’s never thought of crossing over. you’re aware?
that was after. prior to that, he was quite sympathetics.
could you produce such a report?
.. i will try yang arif.
can we agree that if you can’t produce this document, it doesn’t exist?
no, i will try to produce it.
Do you know Dr. Puad Zarkashi?
yes, former deputy minister defeated in last elections by PKR
so you know?
yes
did anyone from PKR or PR contact him in 2008 for crossing over?
i’m not aware.
Dr.Puad is from Johor. are you aware that PKR or PR attempted to get him to cross over?
no, i’m not.
Are you are that Dr. Puad was one of those who went to Taipei, Taiwan?
i’m not sure
is he on the list of the 40 that was sympathetic to you?
i’m not sure
what is YB Nasution in PKR or PR in Septmber 2008?
he is not secretary general to PKR. at the time, director of strategy. i’m not absolutely certain. but he was a prominent leaders of PKR
what was Tian Chua then?
a prominanent leader. Head of information.
what about the MP for Kuantan, Fauziah?
Head of womens wing. MP for Kuantan
You’re aware all went to taiwan?
i’m not sure about Fauziah
Are you aware that all the three were trying to get Dr. Puad? to contact him to cross over the floor of parliament?
i’m not aware. of what they did in Taipei? no, i’m not aware.
Are you aware that on 19 September 2008, 3 days after 16 September… actually, before that, i need to ask.. who is Dr.Abdul Rahim Gaus?
he is a proiminent leader of keadilaan.
what about Azman Hussein? is he in PKR now or in 2008?
he is one of the supporters
Are you aware that on 19 September, at about 2 or 3am in the morning, Dr. Gaus, and Azman tried to meet Dr. Puad at a bus stand lama at batu pahat to plead with him? because you said he is a key man in Johor.
How would i know. it’s 16 september. 2/3am is ridiculous.
Are you aware at 2 or 3 am in the morning that they were trying to get Dr.Puad to cross over?
I’m not aware.
…
…
you’re not aware?
i’m not aware.
did you have a strategy for people to sign a statutory declration, cause you intended to send it to the Agung to show that you had the majority confidence in Parliament?
no, it was a motion of no-confidence. a letter to the PM.
i don’t want to take you by surprise, that’s why i’ve asked you these questions.So i’m not accused and you’re given a chance.

i’ve been instructed by Dr.Paud that Dr.Rahim Gaus at the Batu Pahat bus stand, that he made a phone call to you, and you spoke to Dr.Paud at that time, at that night?
at 2am?
2-3am
i cant recall, but not likely
Then you said to Dr. Puad, he put it on loudspeaker. You said “Puad, we have enough numbers, we still need a malay MP from Johor like you to be with us”, do you remember?
No. not on the 19th, makes no sense.
Dr. Puad replied, “I’m a johorian, Umno was born in johor…the Agung won’t allow it”, remember Puad saying this to you?
doesn’t make sense. Doesn’t make sense for a sitting MP to do such a thing, just because the Agung won’t allow it.
you then retorted to him, “Puad we have strong support from the 4 sultan. perlis, Terranganu, perak..”
i’m not in conversation with the sultan.
But you may have claimed.
there was no such claim.
the conversation then ended on a simple note, Dr. Puad then told Dr.Gaus that he will have to do a special prayer to get directions. he came back to Dr.Gaus on 19th September, and he said, “i’m prepared to be opposition, but i’m not prepared to cross over…”

You’re familiar with Datuk Seri Ghafur Salleh.?
yes
in 2008 was he a member of PKR?
he’s in umno
so he’s never crossed?
no

are you aware that YB Nasution contacted him to cross over?
i’m not aware, but there is a possibility.
two more persons. YB Nassir Ibrahim Fitri, MP for Kuala Nerus?
yes, terranganu MP.
Are you aware that this MP was also approached to cross over?
no. there’s a possibility, but im not aware
you know YB Richard Riot?
yes
MP from Sabah?
Sarawak
are you aware that an approach was made?
possibly. i’m not prepared to discount the possibility.
are you aware of Dauk Ramie bin Unggi? sabah?
not sure
You’re not sure of who he is?
I’m not sure. was he an MP?
…
…
14 April 2008, you made a ceramah.. Kampung baru?
possibly
in short you said, ramai kawan kawan want to cross over?
yes
22 April 2008, you had an interview with Jim Middleton?
yes
you reiterated a very focused question by him. you said Pakatan will take over the government of the day in malaysia. you said “we already have the numbers”. we have recorded this. are you aware?
yes

…
…
8 June 2008… you again reiterated the same position that you got the numbers?
yes
30 June 2008, you made a statement outside the Turkish embassy. you made an announcement for your position to stand for the bi-eleciotn. you reiterated that you had the numbers to take over.
yes, substance is right. dates not sure
28 August 2008, you gave an interview to Al Jazeera. you again said that you are just waiting to take over of Putrajaya? ya?
Yes
…
…
Then 12 September 2008, YB Tian chua and you said that you had the numbers, and would take over on 16th September?
Yes
15 September 2008, ceramah Anwar di Kelana Jaya, where you say… have submitted a letter to Badawi.. about handing over.. is this correct?
Yes
16 September, you had a persidangan akbar.. there was an interview. you said. “we had a slight majority, of course an excess, more than 31”. the interviewer asked… , you said “… we will announce by the hour. this morning I received a signed note”.. did you say that?
yes, possiblity.
18 September, another presiding akbar.. the interviewer asked you, “if you have the numbers, go. how long do you have to wait?”… you said, “you are too kind…….” is that correct?
Yes
10 October 2008, ceramah di Kota Bharu. you said.. (you had the numbers) did you say that? more or less?
Yes
13 October, sidang parliament bermula. the question was asked, “are you going to move for the vote of no confidence”, you said, “for now, our focus is on the budget”.
yes. … i have also avoided giving dates, except for the motion of non-confidence.
…
…
then the reporters asked, what happened to September 16? you said “don’t ask, …. mungkin sebelum raya”, did you say that?
yes, possibly.
no where do you blame (the failure of 16 September on) the visit to Taipei.
yes, but i have many other statements where i have.
i put to you that, you had devised a mechanism to garner support from the Barisan National MPs so that there will be a massive cross over in parliament, and therefore, PR would be the new government? you had devised a method for you, PKR, PR, to pursue BN MPs to cross over.
not qute coorect.
i put to you, one of the method that you employed to make the method work was to say “i’ve got these numbers already”, but in actual fact you didn’t have it. It was instead to instill fear.
…
One of the mechanisms you employed was to create a scenario of fear and confidence that you’ve got numbers when you don’t have numbers.
not true, we had the numbers.
the other strategy was to make promises, to leading members of BN, that if they cross over, this is the deal. nothing corrupt. the strategy was to make promises about possible positions these BN MPs would hold if they cross over.
no

do you agree that at one time you contemplated if you became PM, and take over the government, there would be more than one DPM. you contemplated?
a possiblity, yes.
you considered a body of states to have one DPM?
yes

i further put it to you, because these strategies were based on facts that did not exist, that is why you kept postponing the date of 16 September several times.
i don’t agree.
Shafee completes cross-examination. Shafee asks for right to recall witness.

Raslan (Plaintiff Counsel)

you have been cross examined at length. i have a few questions. yesterday, you were asked about the state department interview by the defendant, and the statements made by the press conference in Washington. You were also asked about the star newspaper report. you recall?
Yes
you are today suing for defamation. are you suing based on the star or based on the state department report?
both
you were questioned and it was suggested that you had a meeting. Zahrain, Noordin, Wee Chew Keong was there. You mentioned that Kimanis was to be the designated DPM. You disagreed. you called it preposterous. please explain to court.
any such deliberations.. I would not discuss such decisions in such a informal gathering. especially such hyper sensitive issues such as this. secondly, these members were not of importance in the leadership council to be given such information. i cannot accept such statements.
who do you mean are not in the leadership council
Zulkifli Noordin was not, Zahrain was not in the leadership council. He was a state chief and head of division. and so was Wee Chew Keong. Tian Chua was part of the leadership council.
you disagreed that you would not consider the defendant to be a DPM. why?
he was an MP, leader of UMNO division, and clearly would not meet our guidelines, our criteria as a possible candidate of a DPM. i certainly do believe as i look to yesterday, there were more qualified candidates from Sabah and Sarawak.
there were more qualified to your mind?
Yes
you mentioned, you were pressed to reveal names of then BN MPs whom you stated had informed your party that they were willing to cross over. can you explain why you cant divulge those names?
do we have the numbers? we do. otherwise i wouldn’t have asked for a special session from the Prime Minister. Secondly, where members and leaders confide with you… you can then choose to unnecessarily deny. i have strong evidence otherwise. If i had no confidence to take over, i wouldn’t have embarrassed myself or entire PR, to ask the parliament to convene in a special session to vote on a no confidence. i have a letter to that effect.
you were asked about a meeting you had with Yong Teck Lee. You supposedly discussed a Sabahan to be a DPM. you disagreed strongly. Why?
i did discuss with Yong Teng Lee. He represented a small party. He (the party, SAPP) had two MPs. I certainly did not make specific reference to the case of only a Sabahan would be appointed as DPM. I also persistently said from Sabah and Sarawak.
It would be politically unsound to confide with Yong Teck Lee, who represents a small party, on an issue that would jeopardise our interests. It is political suicidal. We would be in a disarray.
you were worried if you told Yong Teck Lee of any plans to appoint the defendant as DPM, that news would leak?
that would be to the expense of PR, as there were more qualified contenders…
when my learned friend asked you, did you invite the defendant to cross over, you wanted to say yes, but finally you said no. could you please explain to the court what your answer would be. did you invite the defendant to crossover?
the suggestion by the learned council… it was TonyVoon who was in communication with the defendant. Tony Woon had alerted me that the defendant wanted to talk… there was a conversation by the defendant, that i would accept.. it’s nice, its time for Sabah and Sarawak to stand up for you rights. and the poverty in sabah and sarawaks is serious….
We (PKR) can compete in terms of policies and dispersement of funds for more effect, that we can compete.
you were taken to several dates by my learned friend. he ended by saying that at no time did you suggest that (the events in) Taipei was the reason for your inability to follow through (with 16 September). do you recall where you made statements with regard to Taipei, as to why you couldn’t form a new government?
At that time, i said this is the way they choose to steal MPs, there is a problem. two reasons i have always used.
1. it was the government, that was not willing to face us in parliament. they were fearful that i could produce the numbers. in parliament. in our case, there was no response to my letter for no-confidence.
2. i did refer to specifically to the taipei visit. (to the public)
END

Next date, 3pm, after prayers, Friday Afternoon