dalam mahkamah tinggi malaya di kuala lumpur … · 03.03.2017 · 3 1 mula 2 3 jrb dengan izin,...

www.scribe.com.my 1

DALAM MAHKAMAH TINGGI MALAYA DI KUALA LUMPUR 1

DALAM WILAYAH PERSEKUTUAN, MALAYSIA 2

GUAMAN SIVIL NO : S-22-94-2010 3

4

ANTARA 5

6

LOGICAL OPERATIONS CONSORTIUM SDN BHD 7

(No Syarikat : 394720-X) …PLAINTIF 8

9

DAN 10

11

1. ABDUL RAHIM BIN ABDUL RAZAK 12

(No K/P : 600915-07-5393) 13

2. SILVERLAKE SYSTEM SDN BHD 14

(No Syarikat : 182899-W) …DEFENDAN-DEFENDAN 15

16

TARIKH : 20.11.2013 17

MASA : 1:53 PM 18

19

NOTA KETERANGAN 20

Koram 21

Hakim

Yang Arif Siti Khadijah Bt S. Hassan

Badjenid

YA

Peguam Plaintif

S S Tieh

SST

Peguam Defendan

Pertama

Abdul Rashid

Shahfrin

ABR

SHF

Peguam Defendan

Ke-2

H L Choon

Elaine Siaw

HLC

ELS

22

23

24

www.scribe.com.my 2

Saksi – Saksi 1

SP-1

Singanallur Venkataraman Narayanan

SINGA

2

Jurubahasa - JRB Penterjemah - PTJ 3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

32

33

34

35

www.scribe.com.my 3

MULA 1

2

JRB Dengan izin, Yang Arif. Kes untuk bicara penuh, S-22-94-2010. 3

Logical Operations Consortium Sdn Bhd lawan Abdul Rahim Bin 4

Abdul Razak dan satu lagi. 5

6

SST Dengan izin, Yang Arif. SS Tieh for the Plaintiff. My learned friends, 7

Encik Abdul Rashid Ismail and I believe, his junior, Encik Shahfrin for 8

the First Defendant. He’ll be coming later. 9

10

ABR He’s at somewhere, Yang Arif. (00:00:25 inaudible). 11

12

YA Yes. 13

14

SST And my learned friends, Mr H L Choon together with Ms Elaine Siaw 15

for the Second Defendant. 16

17

YA Yes. 18

19

SST Yang Arif, today is fixed for continued trial. PW-1 will be Cross 20

Examined by my learned friend for the Second Defendant. Yang Arif, 21

there’s just one preliminary point. At the last continued trial date, there 22

was an objection raised by my learned friend for the First Defendant 23

with regards to ID-276 and ID-277. An objection under Section 73A of 24

the Evidence Act. I have, to save time, I’ve prepared a written 25

submissions together with the Bundle of Authorities. I’ve just passed 26

them on to my learned friends right now. So, just wondering whether, 27

you know? 28

29

ABR My Lady, can we, let me have a look at this submission, which was 30

handed over to us early today. Can we actually deal with it on the next 31

date? Then I can appropriately reply to his submissions. 32

33

YA Yes, ok. 34

35

ABR Much obliged, My Lady. 36

37

www.scribe.com.my 4

SST Much obliged, My Lady. 1

2

HLC Dengan izin, Yang Arif. 3

4

SINGA Good afternoon. 5

6

HLC In respect of the objection raised by my learned friend for the First 7

Defendant, under Section 73A, the Second Defendant would also like 8

to reply to the submission which has also just been served on the 9

Second Defendant and because, I believe that this similar objection 10

will also be applicable to some of the evidence that will be led through 11

this Cross Examination. And I would, it could similarly reserve my 12

rights to make further Cross Examination should this issue have not 13

been decided at the end of my Cross Examination. My Lady, before 14

we commence, can I seek leave of this court to allow a chambering 15

pupil to sit in the open court for recording purposes? 16

17

YA Yes. 18

19

SP1 20

Nama : Singanallur Venkataraman Narayanan 21

Umur : -- 22

Alamat: -- 23

Pekerjaan: -- 24

Bersumpah dan memberi keterangan dalam Bahasa Inggeris 25

Masa: 1:55 PM 26

27

Pemeriksaan Balas (Cross Examination) 28

Masa: 1:56 PM 29

30

HLC May I commence, My Lady? Ok. Dr Narayanan? 31

32

SINGA Yes? 33

34

HLC Can you speak louder? 35

36

SINGA I will try, I will certainly try. 37

www.scribe.com.my 5

1

HLC Ok. So, the Plaintiff here is a company called Logical Operations 2

Consortium Sdn Bhd. 3

4

SINGA Yes. 5

6

HLC And you have previously testified that you are the Managing Director 7

and the shareholder of Logical Operations Consortium Sdn Bhd, the 8

Plaintiff, is that correct? 9

10

SINGA I am one of the two shareholders, yes. 11

12

HLC Yes. So, the other shareholders is actually your wife, is that correct? 13

14

SINGA Yes. 15

16

HLC How about the company for IICS Operations Sdn Bhd? Are you a 17

shareholder of that company? 18

19

SINGA Not now, I’m not. 20

21

HLC You’re not? 22

23

SINGA No. 24

25

HLC Are you a Director or any or an Officer of that company? 26

27

SINGA Not now, I’m not. 28

29

HLC So, do you have any capacity to represent IICS Operations Sdn Bhd? 30

31

SINGA Yes, I do because at the material time, I was the Director and 32

shareholder of IICS, so. 33

34

HLC When you say the material time, when was that? 35

36

www.scribe.com.my 6

SINGA Between 21.9.2006 and the date we were told that the post operations 1

would not be awarded to us, that is in the middle of 2008. 2

3

HLC When was IICS Operations Sdn Bhd incorporated? 4

5

SINGA I have to look it up here. I’m not sure. 6

7

HLC Sure, take your time, look it up. 8

9

SINGA IICS Operations Sdn Bhd was set up on 22.8.2007. 10

11

HLC And why did you tell us that since 21.9.2006 you were a Director and 12

a shareholder of IICSO? It has not even been set up. 13

14

SINGA I did not say that. I said during the material time of this case. 15

16

HLC I asked you, when you answer at the material time, you were the 17

Director and shareholder of IICSO. So, I asked you specifically when 18

you say material time, when was that? That means, when were you a 19

Director and a shareholder of IICS Operations? 20

21

SINGA And my response was during the material time of this case. 22

23

HLC Don’t tell me material time, tell me exactly. 24

25

YA Counsel, you don’t have to raise your voice. 26

27

HLC I, because my voice is going this side, the mic is this side, so. 28

29

YA Please don’t. 30

31

HLC Sure, ok. So, can you tell us what were the time when you were, don’t 32

tell me material time, give us a specific date, when were you a 33

shareholder and a Director if IICS Operations Sdn Bhd? 34

35

SINGA From the day it was set up on 22.8.2007 till we transferred the shares 36

to the new buyers, sometime in October of 2008. 37

www.scribe.com.my 7

1

HLC Who is the new buyer? 2

3

SINGA There were a couple of names. I have a Form 32C or 32A, I’m not 4

sure about that. But one of them was a guy called Rajendran. Another 5

one was Udhaya Kumar. 6

7

HLC The Udhaya Kumar is the other principals that you have been referring 8

to, am I right? 9

10

SINGA Other principal of which company? 11

12

HLC LOC, the Plaintiff. 13

14

SINGA LOC, again, during the material time of this case, yes. 15

16

HLC Please look at Bundle-B12, at page 6. 17

18

SST Page? Sorry. 19

20

HLC 6. 21

22

SST 6, ok. 23

24

HLC Ok? This is a search done on IICS Operations Sdn Bhd in March 25

2013. 26

27

SINGA Correct. 28

29

HLC The second name showing the shareholder, is that your name? 30

31

SINGA Yes, it is. 32

33

HLC And the transfer, which you mentioned, are you referring to Bundle-34

B13, page 7 and 8? 35

36

www.scribe.com.my 8

SINGA The transfer from the particular pages you are referring to, 7 and 8, 1

are the transfer of shares from Liyana and Hidzir to the new Director, 2

my wife, Umasingaram. 3

4

HLC Yes. So, where is the transfer from you to Udhaya Kumar? 5

6

SINGA That’s not included in this. 7

8

HLC It’s not included? 9

10

SINGA But I have it here. 11

12

HLC What was the nature of IICS Operations Sdn Bhd’s business? 13

14

SINGA It has, the, in the charter of, I’m not sure what it’s called in Malaysia 15

but the article of registration or whatever, it talks about several things 16

including operations. 17

18

HLC Do you agree with me that IICS Operation Sdn Bhd was incorporated 19

for the sole purpose of undertaking the Bank Rakyat credit card 20

outsourcing project? 21

22

SINGA It was set up purely for that intent, yes. But the charter doesn’t restrict 23

it to that. 24

25

HLC So, when you say that it became certain that IICS Operations was not 26

going to be awarded the outsourcing project, why did you transfer the 27

share to the other principal of the Plaintiff? 28

29

SINGA Other principal of the Plaintiff is just a person who said he might want 30

to do something with it. I wanted to close the company. 31

32

HLC So, you wanted to close the company? 33

34

SINGA Yes. It was set up only for this and would have been a liability if I’d not 35

closed it. 36

37

www.scribe.com.my 9

HLC So, therefore, do you agree with me that after 2008, June 2008, you 1

have no role to play in respect of IICS Operations Sdn Bhd? 2

3

SINGA It’s not June. 4

5

HLC That’s the date you give us. 6

7

SINGA I said June, the transfer of shares from Liyana and Hidzir took place to 8

my wife. The eventual transfer of my shares and my wife’s shares to 9

the new buyers, took place in October for which we don’t have the 10

32A. 11

12

HLC So, you don’t remember when was that? 13

14

SINGA The exact date I don’t know but I can get the 32A during the next one, 15

the original and you can check it out but it was in October, I think. 16

17

HLC Ok. Coming back to the Plaintiff. Do you agree that Udhaya Kumar 18

was neither a Director or a shareholder of the Plaintiff? 19

20

SINGA Yes, I do. 21

22

HLC So, therefore, the Plaintiff only engaged Uday, on a project basis, is 23

that correct? 24

25

SINGA Mostly yes. 26

27

HLC Can you tell us what were the terms of engagement? 28

29

SINGA The terms of engagement were predominantly sharing of project 30

revenues. 31

32

HLC Were there any written letter of engagement between the Plaintiff and 33

Udhaya Kumar? 34

35

SINGA In certain cases, contracts were written, yes. 36

37

www.scribe.com.my 10

HLC Specifically for this Bank Rakyat project? 1

2

SINGA No. 3

4

HLC Am I right to say that Udhaya Kumar had no authority to act on behalf 5

of the Plaintiff without seeking your authorisation? 6

7

SINGA Well, that’s correct. But then, in a lot of cases, I delegated it to him. 8

9

HLC Sorry, you dedicated to him? 10

11

SINGA Delegated. 12

13

HLC When you delegated to him, that is authorising him to act, am I right? 14

15

SINGA Yes. 16

17

HLC So, after all, he will still need your authorisation, is that correct? 18

19

SINGA Yes. He could not speak on behalf of Logical Operations Consortium 20

unless he knows that I agree with it. 21

22

HLC Ok. Before your purported sale of IICS Operations Sdn Bhd to Udhaya 23

Kumar, did Udhaya Kumar have the authority to act on behalf of IICS 24

Operations Sdn Bhd? 25

26

SINGA Yes. 27

28

HLC In what capacity? 29

30

SINGA In conducting the whole pre operations, business procurement and 31

doing the pre operations, establishing the contract with Silverlake and 32

also in terms of the post operation, in terms of running the operations. 33

He would have been more involved than I would have been. 34

35

HLC No, I’m not saying whether he was involved. Whether he’s authorised 36

to act on behalf of IICS Operations Sdn Bhd? 37


1

SINGA Yes, he was. 2

3

HLC He was? 4

5

SINGA He was certainly. 6

7

HLC In, ok, so, what was his position or designation in IICS Operations at 8

that time? 9

10

SINGA He would have been also initially. 11

12

HLC Not would have been. 13

14

SINGA Yes. 15

16

HLC What actually was his position? 17

18

SINGA At that time of setting up of the company, I assumed all that role. So, I 19

was a sole. 20

21

HLC I was asking you, Dr. 22

23

SINGA Yes. 24

25

HLC What was Udhaya Kumar’s designation, ok? At that time, between the 26

time when IICS Operations was set up until you transfer your shares 27

to him? 28

29

SINGA He had no official designation. 30

31

HLC So, someone who does not have any official designation with IICS 32

Operations and you allow him the full authority to act and bind IICS 33

Operations Sdn Bhd, is that correct? 34

35

SINGA Correct, just as I do with him for Logical Operations Consortium too. 36

37


HLC But you just answered that for Logical Consortium, he does not have 1

the authority to bind LOC unless he get your authorisation. Why did 2

you say that just like the same? 3

4

[00:15:00] 5

6

SINGA Same way he had the authority to represent IICSO. All I was doing 7

was representing his portion. 8

9

HLC Sorry? Last sentence, I couldn’t hear it. 10

11

SINGA I was representing his interest also in the IICS Operations. 12

13

HLC You were representing his interest in IICSO? 14

15

SINGA Yes. 16

17

HLC What interest did he have in IICSO at that time? 18

19

SINGA Once it was set up and it was off and running, he would have had, 20

become a Director, he would have become a shareholder also. 21

22

HLC So, therefore, if the, sorry. You were saying that if the project was 23

awarded, then he would become a Director and shareholder. But what 24

actually happened is that the project was not awarded and he, 25

subsequently in your words, became the Director and shareholder of 26

IICSO. So, what happened there? What was your arrangement 27

between you and Mr Udhaya Kumar in respect of IICSO? 28

29

SINGA In respect of IICSO, there was arrangement only if IICSO was going to 30

be operational in the post operations in Bank Rakyat. Once it wasn’t, I 31

wanted to close it. He said he’ll take over. 32

33

HLC When did you intend to close it? 34

35

SINGA I wanted to close it as soon as I transferred, actually, just before 36

transfer of shares to the new owners. I was not in the country at that 37


time. I came back and I decided I was not going to have this liability 1

anymore. 2

3

HLC Which year was that? 4

5

SINGA 2008. 6

7

HLC At that time, did IICSO make any demand against the First Defendant 8

or the Second Defendant? 9

10

SINGA I had started the legal procedure, yes. 11

12

HLC Can you show us where the proof is? In year 2008, please. 13

14

SINGA It takes, it took me about. 15

16

HLC Show us the proof where it is where you say that you have started 17

legal proceedings. 18

19

SINGA Not in any of these documents. 20

21

HLC So, you do have proof but it’s just that it’s not in these documents, 22

right? So, therefore, I would like you to bring along the proof at the 23

next hearing date. 24

25

SINGA My proof is sitting next to me, My Lady. The initial discussions with 26

the. 27

28

HLC You say you started legal proceedings, so? 29

30

SINGA In my opinion and I’m not a legal person, legal proceedings is when 31

you start talking about the case viability and so forth. I prepared a 32

brief, that’s what we call in the United States and. 33

34

HLC So, therefore. 35

36

SINGA Yes. 37


1

HLC That means you have given instruction to your solicitors as early as 2

2008, is that what you are saying? 3

4

SINGA I’m not sure about the exact date, yes. But it’s. 5

6

HLC I’m just taking general 2008. That was the answer you gave us, you 7

know. 8

9

SST Just, can I, should I, may I interrupt, Yang Arif? I was approached by 10

the Plaintiff in 2009. 11

12

ABR I’m so sorry, My Lady. 13

14

SST I know, I, this is, because it’s, it seems to relate to my (00:18:03 15

inaudible). 16

17

ABR This is most inappropriate. He is, serves as counsel and he’s giving 18

evidence. My Lady, I’m just, you know. 19

20

SST I know. I know what you, I understand what you mean. But because 21

the, it seems to relate to my. 22

23

ABR It’s piercing the privilege, My Lady. 24

25

SST My position as counsel. So, I’m not sure whether he, the witness 26

understands what it means by legal proceedings. Because he is from 27

the US, I think it’s not disputed. So, he may not understand the 28

proceedings here or the terminologies here. Anyway, I. 29

30

HLC I don’t think it is for the counsel to try to help the witness to explain. 31

32

SST I’m not trying to help him because you, you raised my position 33

actually. 34

35

SINGA Ok. 36

37


HLC He said the answer is just right next to him. And the only person next 1

to him now is the Plaintiff solicitors. And he said it’s in 2008 that he 2

taken legal proceedings. So, and now, our learned friend tell this court 3

that he was only approached in 2009. So, Dr Narayanan. 4

5

SINGA Yes? 6

7

HLC I put it to you that in 2008, when you intended to close down IICS 8

Operations Sdn Bhd, you did not anticipate any legal action to be 9

taken against the First Defendant and the Second Defendant. Am I 10

correct? 11

12

SINGA We transfer the shares in October. 13

14

HLC Am I correct? If I’m wrong, just say I’m wrong. 15

16

SINGA Hold on, I have, you’ve mentioned two dates here. When it was closed 17

or when I handed it over, which one do you mean? 18

19

HLC Now, Dr Narayanan, just now you said you wanted to close it down. I 20

asked you when was that. You said it was in 2008. 21

22

SINGA Yes. 23

24

HLC That was the answer you have given. 25

26

SINGA Yes. 27

28

HLC Then I asked you, at that time, have you make, made any demand 29

against the First Defendant and the Second Defendant? Your answer 30

is yes, you have taken legal proceedings, that. 31

32

SINGA Excuse me. I didn’t say I did anything against the First Defendant and 33

the Second Defendant. You asked me if I wanted to start the legal 34

proceedings in 2008. 35

36


HLC No. I asked you specifically, did you make any claim against the First 1

Defendant and the Second Defendant. So, if you want, you can re 2

answer this question. Did you, at that time, 2008, when you wanted to 3

close down the company, did you make any demand against the First 4

Defendant and the Second Defendant? 5

6

SINGA Do you mean if I asked the First Defendant and the Second 7

Defendant? 8

9

HLC Well, I, my question is very simple. Did you make any demand? 10

11

SINGA Of whom? 12

13

HLC Sorry, what, of what? 14

15

SINGA You make a demand of somebody, that means you ask somebody. 16

17

HLC Yes, of First and Second Defendant. Against the Second Defendant, 18

First and Second Defendant. 19

20

SINGA No, I did not. I didn’t speak to them. 21

22

HLC No? Ok. 23

24

SINGA Yes. 25

26

HLC So, therefore, I say that at that time, you were prepared to close down 27

IICS Operations Sdn Bhd, without making any claims against the First 28

and Second Defendant, am I correct? 29

30

SINGA Against the what, First? 31

32

HLC First and Second Defendant. 33

34

SINGA Correct. 35

36


HLC I put it to you that the reason why that happened was because you 1

knew that there was simply no cause of action against the First and 2

the Second Defendant. Do you agree? 3

4

SINGA I totally disagree. 5

6

HLC Dr Narayanan, can you please look at Bundle-B12? Alright? 7

8

SINGA Page? 9

10

HLC Please look at pages 21, 40 and 59. Do you agree with me that the 11

Plaintiff has zero revenue for three years running, up to 31.8.2012? 12

13

SINGA Yes, it can also include one more year. 14

15

HLC Sorry? 16

17

SINGA It can also include one more year after that. 18

19

HLC Ok. So, you will agree that there’s no revenue for four years running 20

up to 31.8.2013? 21

22

SINGA Correct. 23

24

HLC In your evidence, you say that you and your, the other principal, Mr 25

Udhaya Kumar, possessed substantial expertise and experience but 26

for four years running, you did not even secure a single cent of 27

revenue. Why is that so? 28

29

SINGA I think this was answered when the First Defendant’s counsel was 30

asking me this, which is, once I decided there was going to be a law 31

suit, I didn’t want to have any other commitment to any other project. I 32

cannot handle both of them together. So, I was willing to undergo 33

putting a freeze on LOC, Logical Operations Consortium. So, I was 34

basically supporting it from my personal funds. And I will continue to 35

do that till this case is resolved. 36

37


HLC Why was there a need to do that? 1

2

SINGA I also mentioned it during the last session. There is, there’s something 3

very wrong about what happened between 21.9.2006 and the middle 4

of 2008, when we were told that we will not be awarded the post 5

operations. So, I think it is very important to me to establish the justice 6

behind this mess. 7

8

HLC The fact that LOC or the Plaintiff is pursuing a case in the court, does 9

not affect its ability to get any jobs. Am I right? 10

11

SINGA You’re totally wrong there, counsellor. I am the main consultant and in 12

my profession, BPR, if I commit something to my client, I cannot really 13

say no in the middle. And I cannot take off time unless it is personally 14

very strong. 15

16

HLC So, that means, if you are saying that if the Plaintiff is involved in a 17

litigation, then the Plaintiff does not have resources to meet other 18

projects. Is that what you’re saying? 19

20

SINGA Most of the projects that the Plaintiff undertakes involves me as a lead 21

consultant also, in addition to being the Managing Director of the 22

company. And I cannot afford to have, in my opinion, the quality of the 23

output suffer if I’m not going to be there. If I had done that for 24

Maybank when I first started coming to this country, they won’t still be 25

using the system that they had developed based on my design, yes. 26

27

HLC How many employees does the Plaintiff have? 28

29

SINGA I think this was also answered in the last session or the session before 30

that. I’m the only paid employee. 31

32

HLC Ok. So, I put it to you that the reason why the Plaintiff tries, tried to 33

hive off all the business activity away from the Plaintiff, is because the 34

Plaintiff realise that there may be financial exposure in, resulting from 35

this litigation to the Plaintiff and that’s why the Plaintiff do not want any 36

revenue to be stuck in the company. Do you agree? 37


1

SINGA I totally disagree. I’m a lean and mean machine company. I do not 2

have overheads like most companies do. All I need is about 3

RM100,000.00 a year to run the company. 4

5

HLC Yes, but you don’t even have that for four years running, am I correct? 6

7

SINGA I’m pumping in my personal money, I just told you that. 8

9

HLC Yes, but what I’m saying is that you just need RM100,000.00 for the 10

company but I’m saying that for the four, past four years running, you 11

don’t even have that, am I correct? 12

13

SINGA If you see the accounts, it also talks about the loss carry over and 14

Director’s loan. On the one hand, the Director’s loan goes up by 15

providing the loan into the company. And the loss also accumulates. 16

17

HLC So, in other words, I also put it to you that for the past four years, 18

there was no business activity in the Plaintiff. 19

20

SINGA That’s very true. That’s very intentional too. 21

22

HLC Let’s talk about expertise. 23

24

SINGA Sure. 25

26

HLC Which I think you have mentioned several times in your Witness 27

Statement. When you say the Plaintiff’s expertise, you are actually 28

referring to the individual expertise of you yourself and Udhaya 29

Kumar, am I correct? 30

31

SINGA Yes, only those two. 32

33

HLC At paragraph 22 of your Witness Statement, that is where you told this 34

court of your expertise, am I right? 35

36

SINGA Correct. 37


1

HLC I’m looking at the second part where it talks about your own expertise. 2

3

SINGA Correct. 4

5

HLC Ok? Starting from I have an MBA onwards, ok? 6

7

SINGA Yes. 8

9

HLC Apart from the Bank Islam project, do you have any other experience 10

in terms of credit card operation? 11

12

SINGA No, credit card operations were started only from my point of view, 13

only in Bank Islam and that is why I got involved in it, because it’s a 14

new area for me. 15

16

HLC So, therefore, prior to your involvement in Bank Islam credit card 17

project, you have no experience in credit card project, correct? 18

19

SINGA Correct. 20

21

HLC Yes. So, in your Bank Islam credit card project, what was the Plaintiff’s 22

scope of work? 23

24

SINGA Repeat that question, please. 25

26

HLC In the Bank Islam project, what was the Plaintiff’s scope of work? 27

28

SINGA Plaintiff’s scope of work? 29

30

HLC Yes. 31

32

SINGA Back in 2001, when Bank Islam card centre was being established, I 33

think I was also talking about this earlier, Encik Rahim was appointed 34

the Assistant General Manager and he started off on a skeletal basis 35

with about five to 10 employees. They were basically department 36

heads for various different functions. We were brought it by Encik 37


Rahim because he heard about Uday and about my background about 1

what. 2

3

HLC Dr, I think my question very specific. What was your role and your 4

scope of work. I’m not talking about how you got involved and all 5

these things. Specifically, what did you do for Bank Islam? That’s all. 6

7

SINGA Scope of work? 8

9

HLC Yes. 10

11

SINGA Ok, scope of work was defining all the operational flows and 12

developing operations manual for all aspects of credit card operations. 13

Yes. 14

15

HLC So, you are documenting the process flow, am I right? 16

17

[00:30:00] 18

19

SINGA I’m designing the process flows and documenting them, yes. 20

21

HLC Yes. So, it does not involve the actual operation of the credit card 22

operation, am I correct? 23

24

SINGA True. 25

26

HLC So, therefore, I put it to you that you do not have any experience or 27

expertise in running a credit card operation. Am I correct? 28

29

SINGA Personally, I do not, yes. 30

31

HLC Therefore, for all those experience that you have mentioned, actually, 32

it’s all not related and does not have any relevancy to the present, so 33

the subject matter of the Bank Rakyat project. Am I correct? 34

35

SINGA Totally wrong. 36

37


HLC Do you have any expertise in terms of financial matters? 1

2

SINGA Yes, I do. 3

4

HLC For example? 5

6

SINGA I got to think about whether it’s proprietary or not. Back in AT&T Bell 7

Labs. 8

9

HLC Louder, please. 10

11

SINGA Back in AT&T Bell Laboratories, which is where I’m originally from, I’ve 12

done a lot of financial analysis for various different projects. 13

14

HLC Financial analysis for what? 15

16

SINGA We have multitude of projects and we have to do a lot of financial 17

analysis, economic analysis for viability and technical feasibility and so 18

forth. So, AT&T, you say, right? That’s where you did it? 19

20

SINGA AT&T’s a larger company. Bell Labs is a think tank within that, that 21

gave us a lot of things beyond that, yes. 22

23

HLC To do, would you agree with me that if I say that all those financial 24

analysis that you were talking about just now, has nothing to do with 25

the banking industry? 26

27

SINGA I wouldn’t. 28

29

HLC Is AT&T a bank? 30

31

SINGA No, AT&T is not a bank but Mellon Bank is a bank. Union Bank also 32

it’s run as a bank. Crocker & National Bank is a bank. 33

34

HLC Yes. So, I’m saying, when you do the financial analysis, who did you 35

do it for? 36

37


SINGA All the work I did for the other three banks. 1

2

HLC Yes? 3

4

SINGA Were on process design and process improvement, right? 5

6

HLC Yes, but it did not involve financial analysis in all those three banks, 7

am I correct? 8

9

SINGA The, financial analysis is a generic topic. Finance is a generic topic. 10

So, whether you use it for one industry or another one, it is a financial 11

analysis. 12

13

HLC So, did you do the financial projection for these banks? 14

15

SINGA No, not for any of those three, no. 16

17

HLC So, therefore, I put it to you that you do not have any expertise in 18

terms of financial projections and budgeting for a credit card 19

operation. Am I correct? Just answer me first before you proceed with 20

your explanation. 21

22

SINGA Yes, but I want you to repeat that question because I want to be very 23

clear about what specifically you are asking. 24

25

HLC I said, you do not have any expertise in terms of financial projections 26

and budgeting for credit card project. Am I correct? 27

28

SINGA That’s correct. 29

30

HLC So, Dr Narayanan, you do not have expertise in project financing, 31

budgeting for credit card project and you do not have expertise in the 32

operation of credit card project. And yet, for both, you are charging 33

professional services amounting to RM2 million. Is that correct? 34

35


37


HLC Therefore, I put it to you that except for pre operation services, that 1

involve preparation of, among other things, operation manual, for the 2

rest of the work that you purportedly carry out, you do not possess the 3

necessary expertise. Am I correct? 4

5

SINGA You’re totally wrong. 6

7

HLC Do you have any expertise in marketing? 8

9

SINGA No. But there was no marketing done. 10

11

HLC In all your experience, with all that you mentioned for 30 years of 12

consulting experience, can you tell me which specific experience that 13

you listed out, which one of these relate to helping your client to 14

procure business from another entity? 15

16

SINGA I can go through all the things one by one. First is evaluation of 17

feasibility of the project, whether a fixed rate and variable rate over the 18

five year period is viable. That is not financial projections, that’s 19

financial analysis. Second, once that viability was established. 20

21

HLC No, which particular company that you are talking about now? 22

23

SINGA When I said I did a lot of financial analysis within AT&T, that’s what we 24

do in every project. 25

26

HLC So, you’re talking about AT&T again? 27

28

SINGA Yes. 29

30

HLC Ok, continue. 31

32

SINGA Maybe I should make it clear, from 1981 to 1996, I was an employee 33

of AT&T. And within that, Bell Labs is a R&D organisation. And Bell 34

Labs developed a lot of new methodologies. So, all these other banks 35

asked us to provide consulting. Including Maybank in Malaysia, which 36

was our first attempt in Asia. 37


1

HLC So, please look at page 3118 of Bundle-B8. 2

3

SST Sorry, page? 4

5

HLC 3118. Ok? 6

7

SINGA Yes, I’m there. 8

9

HLC Did you prepare this write up? 10

11

SINGA This is my regular CV. Yes, it’s a shortened version of it. 12

13

HLC Ok. So, that’s what you prepared, right? 14

15

SINGA I’m sorry? 16

17

HLC Is that what you prepared? 18

19

SINGA This is part of my regular curriculum vitae, yes. 20

21

HLC So, if you look at the middle paragraph, AT&T Bell Laboratories. Is 22

that what you meant by the AT&T that you have been talking about? 23

24

SINGA Yes. 25

26

HLC So, you talk about having helped this business to develop 27

methodologies for market needs evaluation, you know, facilitated 28

teams of managers in communications system to improve their 29

business processes and all these. So, all these, you considered as 30

business procurement service, is that correct? 31

32

SINGA No. 33

34

HLC Which one of these is business procurement service that you 35

mentioned in the middle paragraph of 3118? 36

37


SINGA Give me the line, please. 1

2

HLC No, which one? 3118, the middle paragraph. Prior to starting his own 3

consulting operation. 4

5

SINGA Yes. 6

7

HLC See that paragraph? 8

9

SINGA Yes. 10

11

HLC Ok? Can you tell me which part of this paragraph, does it relate to 12

business procurement service? 13

14

SINGA Yes. 15

16

HLC Be specific. Just highlight which part, don’t need to tell us the story. 17

Tell me which sentence or which words. 18

19

SINGA When you say business procurement, we were not in the business of 20

going and asking others to do business with us. When you design and 21

develop a lot of products, you have to do financial analysis, (00:38:08 22

inaudible) analysis. 23

24

HLC Dr Narayanan, I think my question is clear. 25

26

SINGA Yes. 27

28

HLC This term business procurement service, came out from you. From the 29

Plaintiff, ok? 30

31

SINGA Yes. 32

33

HLC We didn’t create this word. In fact, we heard it for the first time in this 34

action. 35

36

SINGA Yes. 37


1

HLC So, I’m asking you, which one does this relate to business 2

procurement service? 3

4

SINGA Almost all the things here have used financial analysis, which are the 5

same things that we use in getting the business procurement for. 6

7

HLC So, you are saying all of these are business procurement service? 8

9

SINGA Almost all, if you asked me to go through this one, I can tell you 10

whether any particular one was heavy on that or so. 11

12

HLC No. So, now, is your answer all of these are actually business 13

procurement service? 14

15

SINGA I can, no. Business procurement requires a lot of skills, such as 16

financial analysis. Such as facilitating negotiations and so forth, right? 17

How much of that is used in any one of these projects will vary, time 18

from time. 19

20

HLC Ok. So, in your view, business procurement service means just now, 21

you say, doing financial analysis, facilitating negotiations. What else? 22

Give us an exhaustive list, ok? This is your case. 23

24


26

HLC Give us an exhaustive list of things that you consider as business 27

procurement services. 28

29

SINGA Yes. Viability analysis, right? That’s the first one. And then, pricing. 30

And then negotiations in terms of pricing, with respect to the 31

willingness to pay by the potential client and then, trying to develop 32

contracts and then, trying to refine the terms and conditions on the 33

contract and finally, signing. 34

35

HLC Ok. So, these are the business procurement services that you are 36

talking about. Be clear, yes? 37


1

SINGA Yes. But in addition to that, we ended up doing a lot of things for the 2

Second Defendant too. 3

4

HLC Sorry. Your last sentence? 5

6

SINGA In addition to those, we were asked to do a lot of other things, we 7

complied. 8

9

HLC Are those business procurement services that you are claiming for 10

now? 11

12

SINGA No, it was a generic name because most of the activities in that 13

duration was towards the procurement. 14

15

HLC Is it part of the claim that you’re putting in now? If it’s not, we are not 16

going to ask you question. If it is, then tell us. Don’t keep it general. 17

18

SINGA Can you repeat again? 19

20

HLC You said apart from what have you, you have just told us. 21

22

SINGA Yes. 23

24

HLC You also said that there also other things that we did for the Second 25

Defendant. 26

27

SINGA Yes. 28

29

HLC So, my question is, these so called other things, does it form part of 30

your business procurement services that you are claiming money from 31

now? 32

33

SINGA Yes. 34

35

HLC Then, what are those? 36

37


SINGA Helping business development for the Second Defendant. Elsewhere, 1

Kazakhstan. 2

3

HLC What is the business development for the Second? 4

5

SINGA Kazakhstan and. 6

7

HLC Sorry? 8

9

SINGA Kazakhstan and Indonesia. 10

11

HLC Kazakhstan and Indonesia? Ok. Anything else? 12

13

SINGA In that period, we also happened to be spending a lot of time in the 14

implementation of the project, which never really came to us anyway. 15

16

HLC I put it to you that the implementation that you are talking about is 17

actually the pre operation works which the Plaintiff has been fully, 18

which ICSO has been fully paid for. Do you agree? 19

20

SINGA I totally disagree and will prove it with the contract. 21

22

HLC Then what are those implementation work that you are talking about? 23

24

SINGA Thank you for asking. A project management team was established in 25

the middle of 2006 once. 26

27

HLC 2006? 28

29

SINGA Sorry, 2007, once Silverlake was awarded the project in principle. 30

From that time till end of 2007 when the signing of the ceremony, 31

signing ceremony took place in Awana Genting, it was all helping the 32

project management team to start the project. 33

34

HLC All those work were carried out by IICSO, am I right? 35

36

SINGA By Udhaya and me, yes. 37


1

HLC On behalf of IICSO? 2

3

SINGA On behalf of the Plaintiff who was going to set up IICSO, yes. 4

5

HLC So, once IICSO has been set up, then all those works were actually 6

done for IICSO, am I right? 7

8

SINGA I don’t know the legal term but we were asked to set up a new 9

company because it wanted to be Islamic and so forth. So, we set up 10

an IICSO and then put it under that umbrella. 11

12

HLC Please look at pages 3402 – 3441 of Bundle-B9. 13

14

SINGA 3, could you repeat the pages, please? 15

16

HLC 3402, B9, yes? Will you confirm that this is a proposal prepared by the 17

Plaintiff in May 2007? 18

19

SINGA Correct. 20

21

HLC Do you also agree with me that at that time, IICSO had not been 22

incorporated? 23

24

SINGA Correct. 25

26

HLC Please look at page 3405. The first paragraph. This proposal had 27

been prepared and documented by the Plaintiff, on behalf of New Co, 28

a company yet to be formed? 29

30

SINGA Yes. 31

32

HLC This New Co is referring to the subsequently incorporated IICS 33

Operations Sdn Bhd, am I correct? 34

35

SINGA Correct. 36

37


HLC So, therefore, this proposal was done for and on behalf of IICS 1

Operations Sdn Bhd, am I right? 2

3

SINGA Once again, I don’t know the legal term but this proposal was 4

prepared by LOC but since we were asked to set up a new company, 5

which was going to be eventually under that umbrella, so we said it’s 6

being prepared for that company. 7

8

[00:45:00] 9

10

HLC So, ultimately, who carried out the pre ops services? Was it LOC, the 11

Plaintiff, or IICS Operations Sdn Bhd? 12

13

SINGA There are, there seems to be a confusion about your definition of pre 14

op. Could you please define at least the period on that? 15

16

HLC The RM990,000.00. 17

18

SINGA It started in 21st, on 21st of. 19

20

HLC Who performed the work? 21

22

SINGA The performance was purely by Udhaya and me who were principals 23

of both LOC and IICSO. 24

25

HLC Please look at page 3859 of Bundle-B10, to 3874. 26

27

SINGA What’s the starting page? 28

29

HLC 3859. 30

31

SINGA Yes. 32

33

HLC Ok? So, at page 3860, this proposal had been prepared and 34

documented by IICS Operations Sdn Bhd. 35

36

SINGA Correct. 37


1

HLC And eventually, it was signed by IICS Operations Sdn Bhd. That is at 2

page 3874. Correct? 3

4

SINGA Correct. 5

6

HLC So, do you now agree with me that all the pre ops works were carried 7

out by IICS Operations Sdn Bhd? 8

9

SINGA No. Totally not, because this company was set up only in the middle of 10

2007 and the pre operations that you are talk, did you say 11

RM990.000.00? 12

13

HLC Yes. 14

15

SINGA I’m so sorry, I’m very sorry, My Lady. I thought he was talking about 16

the RM2 million. RM990,000.00, yes. That was done purely by IICS 17

Operations. I’m very sorry about that. 18

19

HLC Do you agree with me that if the Bank Rakyat project, the operation of 20

the Bank Rakyat project is awarded to a company controlled by the 21

Plaintiff, sorry, controlled by you and Udhaya Kumar, it will be the first 22

time you are doing such business? Operation, I’m talking about 23

operation. 24

25

SINGA If Udhaya is also involved, that statement is totally wrong. 26

27

HLC That’s why I say you. That if you, is correct, am I right? 28

29

SINGA No, but you said Udhaya, you and Uday. 30

31

HLC No, I say set up by you and Udhaya but it will be the first time you are 32

doing the business, this type of business? 33

34

SINGA Operations, yes. But I would have been involved throughout, at a 35

working level, anyway. 36

37


HLC Yes. So, operation, yes, correct? 1

2


4

HLC Ok. If this project is awarded to IICS Operation Sdn Bhd, how would 5

you and Udhaya split the revenue? 6

7

SINGA I cannot answer that question because it’s both private as well as it 8

was not finalised, you know. 9

10

HLC Not finalised? 11

12

SINGA No. 13

14

HLC So, but at that time, Udhaya Kumar is not a shareholder nor a Director 15

or IICS, correct? 16

17

SINGA Since it was not finalised and there was a kink thrown in because the 18

First Defendant brought in two new names as Directors and share, we 19

said let’s not discuss that one right now, about, between us. Let’s just 20

take care of this main problem here. 21

22

HLC At this stage, why didn’t you give half, some of your shares to Udhaya 23

Kumar? 24

25

SINGA What’s the point in establishing that when I wasn’t even sure what the 26

role of the new two, two new Directors that were being thrown at us 27

were? 28

29

HLC No, what I meant is that even before this deal turn sour or this deal 30

became. 31

32

SINGA I’m sorry, can you repeat that from the beginning again? 33

34

HLC I said, before this deal turn sour or the negotiation did not progress 35

well, ok? Right at the beginning, when IICS was incorporated, why did 36

you not allow Udhaya Kumar to be one of the shareholders? 37


1

SINGA No, I would strongly protest against the word allow because it was an 2

allowed, we have a partnership going, we have a lot of trust going. 3

Second, it was supposed to have been set up at, Uday and me as the 4

shareholders. And we even agreed to having Encik Rahim as one of 5

the Directors and some shareholding. Then, just before the thing was 6

supposed to be set up, we were given two names and told to allocate 7

60 per cent of the shares. When you take away 60 per cent of the 8

shares, remaining 40, we were not interested in figuring out how we 9

were going to split that. We were going to address this 60 per cent 10

problem first. So, we just set it up. 11

12

HLC So, at Question 22 of your Witness Statement. 13

14

SINGA Repeat the number again, please. 15

16

HLC 22, at page 7. 17

18

SINGA Ok. 19

20

HLC The first sentence. The two principals have strong background in 21

credit card operations in Malaysia. I put it to you that that is not correct 22

because you do not have strong background in credit card operations 23

in Malaysia and in fact, you do not have any actual experience in 24

credit card operation in Malaysia. Do you agree? 25

26

SINGA All the experience in operations, let me present it. 27

28

HLC You. 29

30

SINGA From my point of view because I think we have a different meaning 31

here. I designed all your. 32

33

HLC Can you please answer my question? I say, ok, it is not true. Do you 34

agree or not? 35

36

SINGA Repeat the question again. 37


1

HLC I say, the first sentence when you say the two principals have a strong 2

background in credit card operation in Malaysia, I say that is not true 3

because you do not have a strong background in credit card 4

operations in Malaysia and in fact, you do not have any actual 5

experience in the actual operation, credit card operation in Malaysia. 6

7

SINGA Yes, I think you’re. 8

9

HLC Just let me know whether am I right or wrong. Then you can. 10

11

SINGA I’m going to have to define it because we have a different meaning of 12

the word operations and also experience. If I have designed and 13

managed the use of the design by employees that are using it, that I 14

call experience. 15

16

HLC So, therefore, your experience is only in designing the process flow. 17

That is what you meant, am I right? 18

19

SINGA Designing and facilitating the users of my design. 20

21

HLC Ok. 22

23

SINGA Is actually managing the operations. If they don’t use it properly the 24

way I’m designing it, I got to tell them to do it a different way. That, by 25

the way, is no different for, from what Encik Rahim’s experience is. 26

27

HLC So, do you agree with me that the contract between IICS Operation 28

Sdn Bhd and the Second Defendant, in terms, and the Second 29

Defendant, in terms of pre operation services at the document we 30

referred to just now at B10, 3859 to 3874, is indeed utilising your 31

experience in the pre operation by designing the process, am I right? 32

33

SINGA It’s a long sentence. Can you repeat that slowly and also mention the 34

page first? 35

36


HLC Yes. 3859 to 3874. That is the pre ops contract we referred to just 1

now. 2

3

SINGA Ok. Now I’m there. 4

5

HLC Ok? 6

7

SINGA And what is the question? 8

9

HLC So, just now, when I asked you the earlier question, credit card 10

operations. Then, you say, well, when you say credit card operations 11

for, to you, is that you design the process flow, those are called 12

operation. Ok? So, I’m saying, that part of your experience, is where it 13

comes in, in this 3859 to 3874. That’s where your experience is and 14

that’s where IICS Operation, to which you are a shareholder and 15

Director, has been remunerated. Do you agree? 16

17

SINGA You are saying that part of my operation, my experience? 18

19

HLC Yes. 20

21

SINGA Part of my experience? 22

23

HLC That part, that, because that’s all you mentioned. 24

25

SINGA The design part? 26

27

HLC Yes. What other credit card operations experience you have? 28

29

SINGA No, when you say that part of my experience in credit card, designing 30

is one and then managing the actual operations of the individual users 31

of the design, is another experience. That’s like managing. 32

33

HLC Have you managed a credit card operation before? 34

35

SINGA As a consultant, yes. In Bank Islam. 36

37


HLC That’s all? 1

2

SINGA But not directly. I’m, I don’t have a title. I have to make sure that they 3

are doing it the way it was designed. 4

5

HLC So, you do not have an official title for the Bank Islam project for 6

things that you just said, am I correct? 7

8

SINGA No. But I, in designing, I wanted to make sure that they are doing it the 9

right way and they would come back and ask me a lot of questions 10

about changing some things because they’re having problems with 11

that. That is managing the operations. 12

13

HLC Ok. So, it’s on a consultancy basis. Am I right? 14

15

SINGA No, yes. I cannot have any title in this country other than Managing 16

Director of Logical Operations or another company I own the stock of, 17

yes. 18

19

HLC Yes. Remember, Dr Narayanan, that is why much earlier on, I already 20

asked you, what was the Plaintiff’s scope for work in the Bank Islam 21

project. That is where we are going back to. 22

23

SINGA Yes. 24

25

HLC Never mind, your answer has been recorded. Ok? So, basically, I’m 26

saying, your only, you can disagree with me, that’s fine. Your only 27

experience is in relation to documenting the process flow, which is for 28

pre operation services, which have been fully remunerated in 3859 to 29

3874 of Bundle-B10. Do you agree? 30

31

SINGA For the work done between January 2008 and August of 2008, yes. 32

33

HLC Do you have any Syariah credentials? 34

35

SINGA Any what? 36

37


HLC Syariah credentials. 1

2

SINGA No, I’m very knowledgeable about it. 3

4

HLC Sorry? Your first answer, your answer? 5

6

SINGA I’m very knowledgeable about it, yes. 7

8

HLC You are very knowledgeable? Ok. 9

10

SINGA I’m quite aware of Bai Inah as well as Tawarruq, yes. 11

12

HLC Ok. So, I think the First Defendant asked this question but I will just 13

ask again. Are you a Muslim? 14

15

SINGA No, I’m not. 16

17

HLC Do you know whether Udhaya Kumar is a Muslim? 18

19

SINGA I don’t talk to him about religion but I presume he is not. 20

21

HLC I do not need you to answer on behalf of Udhaya Kumar, that question 22

will be left to him, ok? 23

24

SINGA Sure. 25

26

HLC But I am putting it to you that you yourself do not have the two main 27

criterias require for the operation, which is the Syariah credentials and 28

actual experience in the running of credit card operation. Do you 29

agree? 30

31

SINGA First one, I’ll go with you because I’m not qualified as a Syariah 32

expert, so I’ll go with you. Second one, I still have a problem in your 33

way of understanding operational experience. Manager, the president 34

of AT&T Telephones, right? Is considered operational experience. 35

36

HLC Sure. 37


1

SINGA I’m not there. 2

3

HLC So, when you say operation in a context of Bank Rakyat project, ok? 4

The contract that IICS Operation Sdn Bhd was eyeing for, does it 5

involve just managing the operation or actual operation itself? 6

7

SINGA I would have only managed. 8

9

HLC Sorry? 10

11

SINGA My role would have been only management. 12

13

HLC IICS role, I’m not talking about your role. 14

15

SINGA Exactly, IICSO. 16

17

HLC So, IICS role is only to manage the operation? 18

19

SINGA No, my role. You asked me about my role. 20

21

HLC IISC role. I’m asking what is IICS? 22

23

SINGA IICSO role is complete operations. 24

25

HLC After IICSO has been incorporated, how many employees does IICSO 26

have? Until the time when you decide that you want to sell off the 27

company? 28

29

SINGA One. We hired an administrative assistant. And that was also on a 30

contract basis, just in case you’re wondering. 31

32

HLC Are there any documents in this, in the Bundles, which shows what 33

were your role or what were your scope, sorry, what were the 34

Plaintiff’s role and scope in the Bank Islam project? I could only found 35

two, ok? To save time, I will refer you to it. At page 3879 – 3888 and 36

then 3889 to 3898. Is there any other thing? 37


1

SINGA Those were the last two projects we did for. 2

3

[01:00:00] 4

5

SST Sorry, what? Sorry, I missed out the pages. 6

7

HLC 3879. 8

9

SST 3879. 10

11

HLC To 3888, Bundle-10. 12

13

SST 3888 and? 14

15

HLC Then 3889. 16

17

SST Yes. 18

19

HLC To 3898. 20

21

SST 3898, thank you, yes. 22

23

HLC So. 24

25

SINGA Those were the last two projects we did for Bank Islam. 26

27

HLC Are there any further documents to define your role in Bank Islam? 28

29

SINGA Not in these Bundles, no. Just like I didn’t put anything about Bell Labs 30

either. 31

32

HLC Please look at 3879 and 3889. 33

34

SINGA Yes. 35

36


HLC Do you agree with me that both of these contracts were in relation to 1

provision of services in relation to user acceptance testing? 2

3

SINGA Not at all. 4

5

HLC Sorry? 6

7

SINGA Not at all. 8

9

HLC Not at all? 10

11

SINGA Not at all. 12

13

HLC Can you look at fourth paragraph, at page 3879? 14

15

SINGA Yes. 16

17

HLC Ok? LOC, this is the Plaintiff, right? Is keen to provide support 18

services for the system related testing like the user acceptance 19

testing, to ensure that commercial and Tawarruq requirements are 20

fully met. Is that correct? 21

22

SINGA Correct. 23

24

HLC If you look at the next page, at 3880 until 3883, do you agree with me 25

that this is the detailed scope of services? Do you agree? 26

27

SINGA I haven’t even finished reading the. 28

29

HLC Sorry. 30

31

SINGA What you are talking about now. From 3879, you went to 3880? 32

33

HLC 3880 to 3883. 34

35

SINGA Yes. 36

37


HLC Ok? These are the detailed scope of service? 1

2

SINGA Yes. 3

4

HLC Do you agree with me that user acceptance test, UAT, is a process 5

where once passed, then the system would be ready to be launched 6

for commercial use? 7

8

SINGA The system is ready for implementation on the customer system, yes. 9

10

HLC Ok. If you look at the project schedule for both contracts at 3885 and 11

3895, together with the project deliverables at 3886 to 3896, do you 12

agree with me that the Plaintiff’s role ends at the time the UAT is 13

passed? 14

15

SINGA Is probably, is, can you repeat that last part? 16

17

HLC The Plaintiff’s roles in both of these contracts, would end upon 18

passing of the UAT? Ok? You look at the project schedule, 3885. You 19

look at the deliverables, 3886. For the next project, same thing. You 20

look at the project schedule, 3895. You look at the deliverables at 21

3896. For both of these, everything stop once the UAT passed. Do 22

you agree? 23

24

SINGA Delivery of UAT report for sign off, yes. That’s the end of the project, 25

yes. 26

27

HLC Answer is yes? Your answer? 28

29

SINGA That’s the end of the project. 30

31

HLC For, the end of LOC’s involvement? 32

33

SINGA Yes. 34

35

HLC Yes. Please look at page 3865 and 3863 of Bundle-B10 as well. Same 36

Bundle, 3863 and 3865. 37


1

SINGA Yes? 2

3

HLC This is the contract between IICS Operation and the Second 4

Defendant. Do you agree with me that similarly, IICS Operations’ role 5

or work ended upon signing off of UAT? 6

7

SINGA The pre operations consultancy of IICS Operations with Silverlake 8

ended as of this period, yes. 9

10

HLC Sorry, your last sentence, ended? 11

12

SINGA Ended as of this schedule. 13

14

HLC Yes. Sign off of UAT, correct? 15

16

SINGA The pre operations, yes. 17

18

HLC Because, ok, I put it to you, yes? You can agree or disagree, ok? 19

Because the Plaintiff’s only experience was in the Bank Islam project, 20

which the documents I refer to you just now show, is all for pre 21

operation that ended upon signing of UAT, that’s why the Second 22

Defendant only engaged IICS to do exactly the same thing and 23

nothing else, do you agree? 24

25

SINGA There are so many things wrong with that statement, I totally disagree. 26

27

HLC Alright. Yang Arif, can we take a five minutes’ break? 28

29

YA Ok. 30

31

JRB Court, bangun. 32

33

AKHIR 34

35

MASA : 3:00PM 36

37


TARIKH : 20.11.2013 1

MASA : 03:10 PM 2

MULA 3

4

JRB Court bangun. 5

6

HLC May it please you My Lady. I’d like to continue the cross examination. 7

8

Pemeriksaan Balas (Cross Examination) 9

Masa: 03:11 PM 10

11

HLC So Dr Narayanan, can you refer to Question 21 of your Witness 12

Statement at page 6. Ok? 13

14

SINGA Page. 15

16

HLC Question 21. 17

18

SINGA Question 21. Ok. 19

20

HLC Page 6. The last paragraph “in addition.” See that? Ok. In addition 21

since the Plaintiff had designed all aspects of Bank Islam card 22

operations as well as documented all their operational processes, this 23

opportunity appear to be a very good match with the Plaintiff’s areas 24

of expertise and skill. I put it to you that when you say very good 25

match with the Plaintiff’s areas of expertise and skills, you are referring 26

to the work to design aspects of the card operations and to document 27

the operational processes. Do you agree? 28

29

SINGA This was just mentioned there’s one example. There are a lot of other 30

things like UAT, card marketing and various operational skills that 31

Uday brings. All of that is not mentioned there. I mean I wasn’t writing 32

a CV in this particular paragraph. 33

34

HLC Ok so those experience are what Uday bring right? That’s what you 35

say? 36


1

SINGA Repeat that again please? 2

3

HLC Just now you mentioned that the experience that Uday bring, Udhaya 4

bring. 5

6

SINGA Yes. 7

8

HLC Ok. We’ll leave that for Uday ok. 9

10

SINGA Sure. 11

12

HLC In the first paragraph of the same answer, ok Question 21 you said 13

that if the Plaintiff was appointed blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, the 14

possible financial rewards to the Plaintiff were appealing to the 15

Plaintiff. So as MD of the Plaintiff, I agree with the First Defendant’s 16

suggestion. Do you agree with me that in order for the Plaintiff to get 17

the causable financial rewards, first and foremost the Plaintiff must 18

first secure the project? 19

20

SINGA The Plaintiff securing the project? 21

22

HLC Yes. 23

24

SINGA At this stage, the Plaintiff was proposing Plaintiff’s proposal. The 25

Second Defendant was proposing the system’s proposal and we were 26

told that they were jointly being presented to Bank Rakyat. 27

28

HLC Ok. So you will not get a contract directly from Bank Rakyat. Am I 29

right? 30

31

SINGA If you go as partners, I don’t know how it would have been but 32

eventually it turn out to be a single proposal based on. 33

34

HLC No, not eventually. At this stage. Because I think this is just after the 35

first meeting ok. So then you make this observation. You are 36


appointed as a partner for the project for Bank Rakyat ok. So maybe 1

you can explain what do you mean by as the partner? 2

3

SINGA If we were doing the card operations service, which was the main 4

thing and what they wanted because MBF was supposedly giving both 5

system and card operations. Then for whatever we are entering in, for 6

namely the partnership for card operations, yes. 7

8

HLC So you need to first get the contract signed, am I right? 9

10

SINGA The whole idea was we were gonna jointly work on getting the Bank 11

Rakyat project. 12

13

HLC So when you work jointly, that intention is to enable to, the Plaintiff to 14

enjoy the appealing financial rewards. Am I right? 15

16

SINGA The rewards are there only if Bank Rakyat awards the project. 17

18

HLC So therefore I put it to you that everything else that you did, or the 19

Plaintiff did in terms of preparing proposal, preparing final business 20

case, preparing financial projections, facilitating negotiation and all 21

those sorts of things that you mentioned earlier, all those are really 22

just part and parcel of the effort by the Plaintiff in order to procure 23

business for the Plaintiff. Do you agree? 24

25

SINGA If the Plaintiff had gone along, yes. But that wasn’t the case. 26

27

HLC Yes but when you did all those efforts, you were hoping that it will give 28

business to the Plaintiff. Am I right? 29

30

SINGA We had not done anything. 31

32

HLC Am I right? 33

34

SINGA We had. At this stage we had not done anything. 35

36

HLC Yes. Subsequently you have right? 37


1

SINGA Yes. If they had continue with this thing about Plaintiff doing the card 2

operations, yes we would have had to market it. 3

4

HLC No. Of course we don’t go so far. Ok. After this meeting, you told us 5

that you have some meeting, a lot of proposals, business case, 6

financial projection, this and that, and you are charging money for that. 7

What I’m saying is that, when you were doing all those things or when 8

the Plaintiff were doing all those things, or in your words, providing 9

those business procurement services, the Plaintiff did it for the reason 10

to procure business for the Plaintiff. Am I right? 11

12

SINGA Initially yes but that eventually turned out to be for the Plaintiff through 13

the Second Defendant. 14

15

HLC Yes. But ultimately why you, why were you doing it is because you 16

want to get business for the Plaintiff so that the Plaintiff can enjoy the 17

financial rewards. Am I right? 18

19

SINGA In anything if you don’t have a business contract, you don’t have 20

anything. Yes. 21

22

HLC Exactly. You understand that concept, right? So that’s why all the 23

efforts. 24

25

SINGA Yes even a dumb person like me can understand that, yes. 26

27

HLC Yes. So for all the efforts that you were doing, it was not providing 28

services to the Defendant but actually it’s part and parcel of your effort 29

to make money for the Plaintiff. Am I correct? 30

31

SINGA Yes. Obviously. 32

33

HLC Can you tell me at which stage that the Plaintiff decided to charge the 34

Second Defendant and to a lesser extent the First Defendant, for 35

business procurement consulting service? At which stage? 36

37


SINGA As soon as we. As soon as I suspected that they were dragging the 1

contract with the Plaintiff through IICSL. I had a very strong feeling 2

that this was. This was decided right upfront that they just wanted our 3

work to get the project. 4

5

HLC So can you tell us an approximate time? When did you have that 6

suspicion? 7

8

SINGA I have to go back and trace some of the documents. I think they are 9

very self-explanatory in that but I can’t. It was certainly not in 2006 10

believe me. It was in 2007, maybe towards the end but I can’t tell you 11

exactly when or how it (00:07:38 inaudible). 12

13

HLC But in the first half of 2008, parties are still negotiating over the sub-14

contract, right? 15

16

SINGA Can you repeat that question again? 17

18

HLC In the first half of 2008. 19

20

SINGA Yes. 21

22

HLC Parties were still negotiating on the sub-contract. 23

24

SINGA Yes. 25

26

HLC So was it during that time? 27

28

SINGA There was a lot of protracted delays and unnecessary things being 29

thrown in the contract. Yes. But I’m not sure whether it was then or 30

five months earlier, three months earlier. I cannot exactly say. 31

32

HLC Ok. So at that time if you had the intention to charge for this business 33

procurements consulting service, ok, did you communicate that to the 34

Second Defendant? 35

36


SINGA When they are still saying that they are going to sign the contract next 1

week, and next week and so forth, you don’t raise that unless you are 2

threatening them in which case. 3

4

HLC Alright. 5

6

SINGA You shouldn’t be involved in that at all. 7

8

HLC So in mid 2008, finally nothing was signed. 9

10

SINGA As of the meeting with Goh, nothing was signed. Correct. 11

12

HLC Yes. So since then, did you make this claim? 13

14

SINGA If they say we cannot give you the project because according to 15

Rahim, Bank Rakyat may not approve of that, you walk away. You 16

don’t shout. 17

18

HLC Then why did you eventually decide to shout as in to make a claim? 19

20

SINGA I never shouted. I wanted to file a lawsuit. 21

22

HLC Yes that’s why I. No, that’s the whole question I’m asking you. Ok. 23

Initially I asked you did you have any intention to charge for these so 24

called services. You say no. It is only until you have the suspicion that 25

this deal is not going to be concluded then. 26

27

SINGA If. 28

29

HLC Only you have that intention. 30

31

SINGA If they had gone along with the contract and sincerely. 32

33

HLC No, don’t need to ask if. Don’t need to ask if. We are talking about 34

factual matter here, ok. 35

36


SINGA Yes but you are asking me when exactly I suspected. That’s kind of 1

very. 2

3

HLC But that is a fact. When did you have that suspicion or have that 4

intention to claim. Ok. 5

6

SINGA It develops over the period of time. And when you know for sure 7

you’ve been taken for a ride. 8

9

HLC So. 10

11

SINGA And you wasted two years, yes you will decide. 12

13

HLC Do you agree with me that by then, by then, when you have this so 14

called suspicion ok, by then all the so called business procurement 15

consulting service had already been performed? 16

17

SINGA I. Once again you are asking me because I would say, I would put the 18

end of business procurement services as Awana Genting day. That, 19

that was probably in November of 2007. If you are asking me whether 20

it was the day after that or the day before that, I cannot answer that. 21

22

HLC Ok. Please look at Bundle-B10. Page 39. 3912. Ok. I put it to you that 23

this is the first time the Plaintiff made any claim in relation to the 24

business procurement services. Do you agree? 25

26

SINGA In writing? 27

28

HLC Yes. 29

30

SINGA Yes. Let me clarify because it’s a legal document. Is this the Letter of 31

Demand? 32

33

HLC This is Letter of Demand, yes. 34

35

SINGA Ok. 36

37


HLC Written by your lawyer, yes. I put it to you that at the time when this so 1

called business procurement services were being carried out or 2

performed by the Plaintiff, ok, this so called services. We are not 3

acknowledging your services. That’s why I use the words “so called.” 4

5

SINGA Slowly again please. From the beginning. 6

7

HLC During the time when this so called services, business procurement 8

consulting services. During this time when it was being carried out by 9

the Plaintiff ok, I put it to you that there was no intention by the Plaintiff 10

to charge any fee for that. Do you agree? During that time when you 11

were so called doing the work, in your words. If you want to refer to 12

the specific time I think we can take a look at. 13

14

SINGA No. I think I understand but then 29th, 21st of. 15

16

HLC Maybe let me just complete my question so that it’s easier for 17

everybody. 18

19

SINGA 21.09.2006 and November of 2007 right? 20

21

HLC Yes. During that time that you say that you are carrying business 22

procurement services. I put it to you that there was no intention by the 23

Plaintiff to charge any fee for this so called services. Do you agree? 24

25

SINGA I agree because it was supposed to be done for procurement of card 26

operation services for the Plaintiff. 27

28

HLC Do you also agree with me that from September 2006 onwards until 29

November 2007, same period of time ok for your business 30

procurement services, during this time there was no agreement 31

between the Second Defendant and the Plaintiff on the award of a 32

sub-contract for the operation of the credit card, Bank Rakyat credit 33

card project. Do you agree? 34

35

SINGA I totally disagree. I totally, totally disagree on that. I’m talking about 36

Razak here specifically. 37


1

HLC So what has Razak done to create an agreement? 2

3

SINGA Right from the beginning on the 21.09.2006 when he and Rahim came 4

over to meet (00:13:58 inaudible) in MDeC Cyberjaya, they talked 5

about. Not Razak so much in the first meeting because that was the 6

first time we were meeting him. Card operations being done by the 7

Plaintiff Silverlake (00:14:16 inaudible) Systems and there’s a lot of 8

opportunities so why not have this one then. And then all the financials 9

and the proposal from the Plaintiff to Bank Rakyat. Later on you’ll find 10

that all that is merged in Silverlake’s proposal as a single proposal and 11

so forth. And then when they said because MBF is as a sole 12

contender. 13

14

HLC No Dr. Let us don’t go so far ok. My question is simple. What did 15

Razak do to create this agreement because my previous question I 16

asked. I say during this time there was no agreement between the 17

Second Defendant and the Plaintiff to award to the Plaintiff the 18

operation portion of the Bank Rakyat project. You say totally disagree. 19

And you say it’s because of what, especially Razak. So I’m asking you 20

specifically, what did Razak do to create an agreement? 21

22

[00:15:00] 23

24

SINGA Because Razak also wanted us to set up a new company and also 25

provide all these services to procure the business for Silverlake in 26

order for the Plaintiff to do the card operations. 27

28

HLC So was it Razak or Rahim that ask you to set up a new company 29

because well, I didn’t check the notes but it looks like a bit different. 30

31

SINGA The single proposal came from Bank Rakyat through Razak to us. 32

And then in further discussions with both of them, they were talking 33

about setting up a new Islamic card centre. That’s how the word ICC 34

came about. And then there were also a lot of things talked about. 35

How it can spread to other countries within the region and. 36

37


HLC So. 1

2

SINGA It was really pretty business wise that made a tremendous sense. 3

4

HLC Ok so you said that it was at a discussion with both of them that this 5

thing came up? 6

7

SINGA The first meeting, the second meeting, the third meeting and probably 8

the three after that but we couldn’t meet with Rahim in Bank Islam 9

alone in some of those meetings. 10

11

HLC Look. Let’s not be could have. You are talking about something that 12

Razak said. I’m not in concerned about what Rahim said ok. I’m only 13

for the Second Defendant here. I want to know when did Razak say 14

whatever you said that he say to you and what, under what 15

circumstances did that happen? 16

17

SINGA The feedback from Bank Rakyat was that, give us a single proposal 18

because MBF is giving a single proposal. Don’t give us two proposals. 19

Now whether that actually happen or not I don’t know but that was 20

what Razak told us as a feedback. So we agreed to the single 21

proposal if we want to compete against MBF. Or else there was really 22

no chance I think. And then setting up a new company was initiated by 23

Rahim. And Razak was involved in all those discussions. Whether he 24

was proactive or not, again it goes back to the memory here about the 25

first meeting through (00:17:29 inaudible) my points. 26

27

HLC So therefore all Razak say is that Bank Rakyat wanted a joint proposal 28

and that is what you meant by an agreement to appoint the Plaintiff or 29

IICSO as a sub-contractor. Is that what you mean? 30

31

SINGA Well, a lot of other things that he could have said but I didn’t 32

understand so I think you got to wait till Uday can go into that 33

(00:17:52 inaudible) test but let me come back to that. I’m not dodging 34

that question. He was in several meetings with all four of us together 35

between the period of 5th October that was in Ambank cafeteria and 36

the 7th or the 11th. 37


1

HLC 7th November. 2

3

SINGA Sorry? 4

5

HLC 7th November. That’s. 6

7

SINGA 7th November. That’s when we started developing a new proposal 8

under the name ICC I think. There were a lot of discussions and 9

specifically who said what and you know who reiterated, I cannot go 10

into those details. 11

12

HLC Ok let me just be clear again. So you are saying that between 5th 13

October and 7th November, there were a meeting where both Rahim 14

and Razak were there. 15

16

SINGA There were several meetings. 17

18

HLC Ok. So there were meetings when both of them were there, ok. 19

20

SINGA Yes. 21

22

HLC That this was being discussed that they, Razak asked you to do it 23

through IICS operation. 24

25

SINGA No. 26

27

HLC Rahim asked you to do it throughout. 28

29

SINGA No. IICS was not even thought of at that stage. 30

31

HLC So IICS was not even thought of at that stage. That means during 5th 32

of October to 7th November? 33

34

SINGA As a name. 35

36

HLC As a name. Ok as a concept. As a new company. 37


1

SINGA As a concept, yes. There was going to be a new company set up. 2

3

HLC Ok. So it happened during that time. 4

5

SINGA Yes. 6

7

HLC At the meeting or meetings attended by Rahim, Razak and both you 8

and Uday? 9

10

SINGA Yes. Yes. Inclusive of both. Not both dates. I would say inclusive of 11

5.10 but not 7.11 because we already prepared the proposal under 12

the new name. 13

14

HLC Ok. Dr Narayanan please look at Bundle-B10 page 2, 3820. 15

16

SINGA Page number again. 17

18

HLC 3820. 19

20

SINGA Yes. 21

22

HLC Ok? 23

24

SINGA Yes. 25

26

HLC I put it to you that between the period from 05.10.2006 and 27

07.11.2006 there was only one meeting which was at 05.10.2006 28

where both Rahim and Razak were present. Do you agree? 29

30

SINGA I don’t agree. I think this needs quite a bit of clarifications My Lady. 31

He’s referring to this time sheet that was developed after, two years 32

after the period that’s been discussed, that is 2006. It’s going back 33

and reconstructing a lot of events and a lot of activities that we had 34

done. So this is something that consultants don’t do. They estimate 35

future times. In this case this is a very unique stuff that we had to do. 36

One of the ways that consultants get around that they say, ok you 37


spend time between 21.09.2006 and some date in November of 2008. 1

I’m sorry 2007. That’s a total of 14 months. Then they use what this 2

call FTE full time equivalent. In this particular case there were two of 3

us. Uday spent a lot, lot more time than I did personally. So he can 4

say 100% for him or 90% for him and about average of about 50 to 60 5

for me and so forth. And you can use the hourly rates and if you. 6

7

HLC Dr Narayanan, I’m not questioning about the hours you know. You can 8

spend 20 hours, you can spend five. 9

10

SINGA No, hold on a second. 11

12

HLC What I’m saying is that based on this document. 13

14

SINGA Yes. 15

16

HLC Very simple. There’s only one meeting that is shown here. 17

18

SINGA There’s only one meeting recorded. As a matter of fact there are a lot 19

of meetings that are not recorded because they didn’t get in. 20

21

HLC Dr Narayanan you have a diary. 22

23

SINGA Get in to my calendar. 24

25

HLC And you have exhibited it or you have shown it in the subsequent 26

pages. 27

28

SINGA Yes. Now. 29

30

HLC So can you tell us whether any page between page 3829 of the same 31

bundle until 3858 that shows. Otherwise. 32

33

SINGA Not everything went in to my calendar. That’s what I was trying to tell 34

My Lady. 35

36


HLC I see. I thought you told this court that you dutifully recorded all your 1

meetings. 2

3

SINGA I never said I fully record. I record. And I said also if the thing is not 4

told to me in advance, it doesn’t go there. And even they tell me if I 5

don’t have my calendar with me it doesn’t go there. 6

7

HLC So can you then show us any proof that you have actually met Rahim 8

and Razak at the same time during this two period? 9

10

SINGA Like I said there were a lot of meetings and they were. 11

12

HLC Can you tell, show us any proof that you have met Rahim and Razak 13

between these two dates? 14

15

SINGA Memory is the only one then. 16

17

HLC Thank you. 18

19

SINGA I don’t trust my memory at all. 20

21

HLC Ok. In view of that, I put it to you that what you said or what the 22

Plaintiff said in paragraph 13 of the Statement of Claim, Bundle-A. If 23

you may want to look at it. 24

25

SINGA Statement of Claims. Which document would that be? 26

27

ABR Statement of Claim. 28

29

HLC Bundle-A page 55. 30

31

SINGA You have to tell me what document name, number is for Statement of 32

Claim. 33

34

HLC Bundle is in, all is in Bundle-A. We have marked it Bundle-A. 35

36

SINGA Bundle-A. And page number? 37


1

HLC 55. 2

3

HLC So that’s. In view of what you have just said, I put it to you that. In 4

view of what I’ve asked you ok, I put it to you that what the Plaintiff 5

said at paragraph 13 of the Statement of Claim, page 55 of Bundle-A, 6

is not true. Do you agree? 7

8


10

HLC I further put it to you that, that alleged meeting or meetings that you 11

have just told the court did not happen. Do you agree? 12

13


15

HLC Please look at page 3833 of Bundle-B10. Ok, there is a diary record. 16

Can you just tell us for the third bullet point BR Proposal. Does it 17

mean Bank Rakyat proposal? 18

19

SINGA 38? 20

21

HLC 33. 22

23

SINGA Third item right? 24

25

HLC Yes. 26

27

SINGA On the 7th of. 28

29

HLC November. 30

31

SINGA Yes. 32

33

HLC Is that BR Proposal means Bank Rakyat proposal? 34

35

SINGA Yes. 36

37


HLC What are the words after that? 1

2

SINGA After that? 3

4

HLC Well after that arrow sign, there’s some scribbling there. 5

6

SINGA Do with Uday. 7

8

HLC Sorry? 9

10

SINGA Do with Uday. 11

12

HLC Do with Uday. So do you agree with me that at, on that day according 13

to your record at 3820, the meeting was with Rahim? 14

15

SINGA Where do you see that? 16

17

HLC 3820. 18

19

SINGA 3820? 20

21

HLC Yes. 22

23

SINGA 7th of October or 7th of November? 24

25

HLC 7th November. 26

27

SINGA Yes. 28

29

HLC Alright? 30

31

SINGA Yes. There was. There was meetings. There were meetings with 32

Rahim and others on BICC related stuff also. BICC is Bank Islam Card 33

Centres. 34

35

HLC And I put it to you that, that was the only time that the Plaintiff met with 36

Rahim after 05.10.2006. Do you agree? 37


1

SINGA I totally disagree because the whole premise that you are using is very 2

long. That’s why I wanted to go through with the, My Lady here. 3

4

HLC The whole what? 5

6

SINGA What goes in my diary you seem to be thinking that I’m a perfect 7

person and I get everything in. I do not. So. 8

9

HLC But you say that there were several meetings in between and now you 10

are trying to tell the court that even for several meetings, you did not 11

record any one of them? Is that correct? 12

13

SINGA There were so many ad hoc meetings throughout this first seven 14

months. So many. Both in Silverlake and in Bank Islam and in places 15

around Bank Islam. 16

17

[00:30:00] 18

19

HLC Please look at Bundle-B1. Page 114 to 131. 20

21

SINGA B-1? 22

23

HLC B-1, yes. 24

25

SINGA Page number please. 26

27

HLC 114 to 131. Was this financial projection prepared based on the 28

assumption that IICS Operations would be the company running the 29

operation? 30

31

SINGA Based on which company again? 32

33

HLC IICS or the new company. Was it on that assumption? 34

35

SINGA Page 112. Is that what you said? 36

37


HLC No. 114. Well, I’m looking at 114. 1

2

SINGA 114 is a subset of. 3

4

HLC Yes, I’m only looking at the financial projections. So is this a financial 5

projections prepared based on the assumption that a separate 6

company or a new company ok would be running the operation? 7

8

SINGA Yes. 9

10

HLC How long does it take for the Plaintiff to prepare this financial 11

projection? 12

13

SINGA It depends on how many factors it change or how many new. I guess 14

you could call them factors such as penalty clause and so forth. 15

16

HLC So the previous projection is at page 94 to 111. Same bundle, page 17

94 to 111. 18

19

SINGA Yes. 20

21

HLC So 94 to 11 was it based. Was it prepared based on the same 22

assumption i.e. a separate company would run the credit card 23

operation? 24

25

SINGA 94? 26

27

HLC Yes, 94 to 111. Just look at the financial projection. You are the expert 28

in this. 29

30

SINGA It doesn’t matter. Financial projections are for any operating company 31

whether it is a new company or a old company doesn’t really matter, 32

does it? 33

34

HLC Then why is it that there is a separate financial call for the ICIC? 35

36


SINGA When we change financial projections and at that time we also know 1

that there’s going to be a new company, we put it under that. 2

3

HLC Correct. 4

SINGA Right. 5

6

HLC So that’s why I say. So at page 94, when you prepared this financial 7

projection, was it also based on the same assumption? That means 8

the new company, like you say. 9

10

SINGA It doesn’t really matter whether it’s a new company or not. 11

12

HLC No, it matters. Dr just answer my question. Do you know or not? If you 13

don’t know just answer don’t know. If this is not prepared by you just 14

say so. It’s ok. 15

16

SINGA It was prepared by me too but doesn’t really matter whether it’s a new 17

company or an old company. (00:33:23 inaudible) 18

19

HLC Whether it matters or not is for us to submit to the court ok. So I’m 20

asking you a question. I think you should just answer because. Ok. 21

22

SINGA I wouldn’t know whether we had perfected how the new company was 23

going to be set up on. 24

25

HLC My question is. 26

27

SINGA The 8th of October. 28

29

HLC At page 94 to 111. 30

31

YA Please repeat the question. 32

33

HLC Yes at page 94 to 111 in this financial projections, was it prepared 34

based on the same assumption i.e. that means a new company which 35

subsequently known as ISESO would be running the operation. That 36


was the basis of the financial projection at page 114. So I’m asking 1

you, was this prepared based on the same basis? 2

3

SINGA Based on the day of October 8, I cannot tell whether we actually did it 4

thinking there’s gonna be a new company or just go ahead and do it 5

anyway, whatever it’s called it doesn’t matter. 6

7

YA Are you saying that you cannot recall? 8

9

SINGA I cannot recall. I just. My Lady I’m trying to make another point here. 10

The financial projections and all those things. 11

12

YA You can do it later not now. 13

14

SINGA Ok. I’m sorry. 15

16

HLC At that time, when the so called representations were made to you by, 17

in your words both Rahim and Razak, that they wanted you to be a 18

partner for this project, ok did you agree immediately on the first date? 19

20

SINGA Let me. Because I’m gonna recollect with you, together with you. 21

When somebody comes and says Silverlake will do this, provide this. 22

23

HLC No, don’t make assumptions. Just talk about facts. Don’t say the usual 24

cause of things. This is what happen. No. 25

26

SINGA Hold on. I’ve got to recollect you know. 27

28

HLC Facts. 29

30

YA The question is whether you can recall. Can you recall? 31

32

HLC Yes, are facts. 33

34

SINGA Ok. Can you repeat that question again please? 35

36


HLC When they first approached you, ok and you say Rahim and Razak 1

gave you the representation or suggestions in your Witness 2

Statement. That’s what you says. Represented a suggestions. Did you 3

agree? Did the Plaintiff agree? 4

5

SINGA We agreed to do the proposal and financial so we probably agreed, 6

yes. 7

8

HLC Ok. So you agree to do the proposal and financials. I put it to you that 9

you agreed to do the proposal and financial in order to ascertain 10

whether it would be profitable and lucrative to the Plaintiff. Do you 11

agree? 12

13

SINGA No. As a matter of fact Rahim specifically asked us can you give me 14

some high level financials, I can take to Bank Rakyat. So it was 15

basically that. 16

17

HLC So Rahim said that? 18

19

SINGA Rahim specifically asked for that. 20

21

HLC Ok. Would the Plaintiff require a financial projections or estimate in 22

order to ascertain the commercial viability of this venture? 23

24

SINGA Not from Uday’s point of view or my point of view because we already 25

knew about the finances associated with Bank Islam Card Centre. 26

27

HLC So answer is no? You, I mean you gave us a very long answer but. 28

29

SINGA Yes. 30

31

HLC My question is whether, does it require. 32

33

SINGA Yes. We knew roughly how Credit Card Centre can lose money or 34

make money. Yes. 35

36


HLC So without doing any financial projection ok, you already knew how 1

much they will make? 2

3

SINGA No. 4

5

HLC Then? 6

7

SINGA I. We knew how to make money and how not to lose money, correct. 8

9

HLC So in your view, how much money would you make ok would be 10

sufficient to persuade the Plaintiff to continue with this project? 11

12

SINGA Absolutely personal question. I don’t know whether. 13

14

HLC No. You represent the Plaintiff. 15

16

SINGA Yes. 17

18

HLC If the financial. 19

20

SINGA That’s what I‘m saying. 21

22

HLC Or ok, maybe I ask you this question Dr. If the financial projection 23

shows that it will make a loss, would the Plaintiff still have done it? 24

25

SINGA Not at all. 26

27

HLC Exactly. So it will have to make money in order for the Plaintiff to be 28

persuaded to do this project. Am I right? 29

30

SINGA Yes. 31

32

HLC So in your view, how much money would it be sufficient in order to 33

persuade the Plaintiff to continue with the project? 34

35


SINGA I refuse to answer that. That in my opinion, at least from my 1

background, it’s very personal. How much money do you want to have 2

in your life before you call yourself rich or poor, whatever? 3

4

HLC Do you. Ok please look at. Please look at B-1 page 317. Ok. It’s an 5

email dated 11.12.2006. Uday say that with only RM2 million in 6

accumulated profit after six years, it is not attractive. Do you share the 7

same view? 8

9

YA You are referring to bundle? 10

11

HLC B-1, page 317. 12

13

SINGA Over six years, RM2 million when. 14

15

HLC No. I. Do you share the same view? You don’t need to explain to me 16

the rest of the things. Do you share the same view? It’s a very specific 17

statement. 18

19

SINGA Yes I do. 20

21

HLC RM2 million over six years not enough. Not good enough. So do you 22

share the same view? 23

24

SINGA Not if you can make RM5 million. Yes. 25

26

HLC Yes. Just now you already said that if the project is not going to make 27

money, the Plaintiff would not be interested. And in fact if it just make 28

RM2 million over six years, it’s not attractive enough for the Plaintiff. 29

Therefore I put it to you all this financial projections prepared by the 30

Plaintiff was actually for the sole purpose of satisfying the Plaintiff that 31

there’s enough money to be made in this project. Do you agree? 32

33

SINGA If there’s no money for the Plaintiff, we wouldn’t have said yes from 34

the very first day. 35

36

HLC No because you with so many subsequent financial projections. 37


1

SINGA Yes. 2

3

HLC That is because the Plaintiff wanted to satisfy itself that there are 4

money to be made in this project. Do you agree? 5

6

SINGA I totally disagree because this page you are referring to use this as an 7

answer. 8

9

HLC No. My question is no longer in this page. I’m referring to those 10

questions that I’ve asked. Remember? That’s why I say. You say if the 11

financial projection shows it’s a loss, you won’t do it. 12

13

SINGA Correct. 14

15

HLC Ok. It has to show that you have to make money. 16

17

SINGA Correct. 18

19

HLC And in fact RM2 million over six years at that time not good enough 20

ok. Or not attractive. 21

22

SINGA No, there. 23

24

HLC Ok. So and you say also that RM2 million of course is not enough 25

when you can make five, right? You said that. 26

27

SINGA Yes, the 5 the first 200% (00:42:06) which was originally that was 28

when Silverlake wanted 60% of that. 29

30

HLC So which is what. So which is what I’m asking you. So therefore the 31

reason why the Plaintiff kept coming out with revised financial 32

projections is in order to calculate how much profit that the Plaintiff 33

would make so that to make it attractive enough for the Plaintiff to 34

continue with this project. Do you agree? 35

36

SINGA Totally disagree because it represented all three entities. 37


1

HLC Sorry last part I couldn’t hear you. 2

3

SINGA Bank Rakyat’s money, profit, Silverlake’s profit and the Plaintiff’s profit. 4

All three were under this financial projection. 5

6

HLC Can you tell us how much pay up capital IICS Operation Sdn Bhd 7

has? 8

9

SINGA We started from zero. We put in RM10,000 and then we stopped. 10

11

HLC So for a company that has RM10,000 pay up capital, you think that it 12

is not attractive at all to make RM2 million net profit over six years. Am 13

I correct? 14

15

SINGA If there are opportunities to make more, yes. 16

17

HLC I put it to you that IICS so does not have sufficient capital in order to 18

fully finance the operation of the credit card project. Do you agree? 19

20

SINGA As a matter of fact, the Silverlake offered to take another capital 21

expenses. Yes. 22

23

HLC Please tell me where is that offer. Show it to this court where did the 24

Second Defendant offered to pay for your capital expenditure. 25

26

SINGA Uday will give you the specific detail but I’m gonna tell you where it’s 27

mentioned ok. 28

29

HLC If you have personal knowledge tell us. If you have no personal 30

knowledge, just tell the court you have no personal knowledge. And 31

that would not be part of your evidence. 32

33

SINGA When you say personal it means only me or it means both Uday and 34

me? 35

36


HLC No. Of course as long as you know. It can be known by 200 people 1

but as long as you know, then you should tell us. 2

3

SINGA I knew it because when. 4

5

HLC To. Where is that offer? Never mind, let’s cut a long story short. Just 6

show us where is the offer? 7

8

SINGA Uday will show you. 9

10

HLC So you can’t? 11

12

SINGA I know where it is written, yes. 13

14

HLC Show us. 15

16

SINGA In my Witness Statement. 17

18

HLC Yes, good. 19

20

SINGA Ok. 21

22

[00:45:00] 23

24

HLC Show us where is that. Well, if we are just talking about finding a 25

paragraph in the Witness Statement, I don’t mind if the Plaintiff’s 26

Counsel could help. 27

28

SINGA 60 pages and I am looking for the words called Capex. 29

30

HLC Yes you have, you have prepared all without Capex. A lot of the 31

projections is without Capex. 32

33

SINGA No, in the write up there’s only one Capex mentioned. 34

35

HLC But if the Plaintiff’s Counsel could help, I don’t mind that. 36

37



2

HLC No, if your lawyer can help you to find I don’t mind. 3

4

SST No I leave it to. I leave it to the witness. 5

6

SINGA I didn’t get you. 7

8

SST I leave it to the witness. 9

10

SINGA That’s it. 11

12

HLC Question? 13

14

SINGA Page 49. 15

16

HLC Question? Page 49. Which paragraph? 17

18

SINGA It’s really the second paragraph. 19

20

HLC Yes. 21

22

SINGA The proposed, the Plaintiff’s proposal to the Second Defendant on 23

July, of July 16th 2007 version was revised and documented on 13.11 24

with no capital expenditures. I refer to pages 3729 to 3783 of CBD-10 25

for this document which was prepared by Uday in collaboration with 26

me. There was no capital expenditures because all the capital 27

expenditure was to be borne by the Second Defendant. 28

29

HLC I’m asking you where is the proof that the Second Defendant agreed 30

to bear the capital expenditure. I’m not asking you to show us. 31

32

SINGA You mean you are looking for the. 33

34

HLC Where did you ask the Defendant, Second Defendant. 35

36

SINGA Are you looking for the written confirmation of that? 37


1

HLC Of course. There’s none. 2

3

SINGA None. 4

5

HLC I put it to you that the Second Defendant did not agree to bear the 6

capital expenditure for IICS Corporation Sdn Bhd. Do you agree? 7

8

SINGA Actually it’s very easy for Uday to prove it because when you go into. 9

10

HLC No, I’m asking you Dr. 11

12

SINGA Yes. 13

14

HLC You made a statement here. You want to put this into your Witness 15

Statement then you have to be cross examined on this. 16

17

SINGA Sure thing. 18

19

HLC Unless now today you tell the court you want to expunge this 20

paragraph. I’m fine. 21

22

SINGA No it is in some financials where. 23

24

HLC So are. 25

26

SINGA The capital expenditures are actually borne by the Second Defendant. 27

28

HLC So all those financial projections were prepared by the Plaintiff. Am I 29

right? 30

31

SINGA Yes. 32

33

HLC So it was just a proposal by the Plaintiff. So where did the Defendant, 34

Second Defendant say, “fine, I will bear your capital expenditure”? 35

36


SINGA Uday can answer that but I’m gonna answer on behalf of what I know 1

about it right. 2

3

HLC So. 4

5

SINGA Uday had an agreement with Razak and they said they will take care 6

of the PCs and all those things. I think there are some written 7

documents about it but I think Uday will (00:49:28 inaudible). 8

9

HLC Ok, we will wait for Uday. 10

11

SINGA Sure thing. 12

13

HLC So do you agree with me that without capital expenditure ok, if let’s 14

say Second Defendant did not call in the capital expenditure, this IICS 15

operation would not even take off. 16

17

SINGA It will easily take off if I put in my own money or if I borrow money in 18

Malaysia for IICS. Yes. 19

20

HLC So have you consider your financing cost and all those costs? 21

22

SINGA Yes. 23

24

HLC So where does it show in any of the financial projections? 25

26

SINGA In earlier financials it was showing. 27

28

HLC Where is that? Show it to us. 29

30

SINGA It’s under the category called interest. 31

32

HLC Show it. 33

34

SINGA I’ll give you one of the, you know top of my head, I just pull open the 35

page right. 36

37


HLC Bundle? 1

2

SINGA Bundle-2, 493. 3

4

HLC 493? Ok and then? 5

6

SINGA And I’m not sure what specific parameter I used here but on this 7

particular page, if you go to. 8

9

HLC What do you mean that you don’t know? I thought you prepare these 10

documents. 11

12

SINGA Yes. 13

14

YA Sorry, which bundle? 15

16

HLC Bundle-B2, page 493. 17

18

SINGA I just pick the page at random. I don’t know what the first page looks 19

like but I’ll just show you where the interest expenses are. This 20

happened to be the month 61. Go to the bottom of the page. 21

22

HLC Sorry which page again? 23

24

SINGA Page 493. 25

26

HLC Yes. 27

28

SINGA Go to the first column, sorry, second column on the month 61. 29

30

HLC 493? Couldn’t be right. 493 is. 31

32

SINGA I’m sorry, 499, excuse me. 33

34

HLC Yes. 35

36

SINGA It talks about the interest expense monthly. 37


1

HLC Where? 2

3

SINGA Up there right under earning before interest and depreciation. 4

5

HLC Ok. 6

7

SINGA The first one is capital injection. The second one is bank borrowing 8

and then interest expenses 2188 on the outstanding amount at that 9

time. 10

11

HLC So you are saying that the interest that you projected to pay from the 12

sixth year onwards is RM2,200 per month? Is that correct? 13

14

SINGA At that stage you have probably repayment of some debt also. So if 15

you go back couple of pages for example on 497. 16

17

HLC Yes. 18

19

SINGA The same block has interest expense of. Somebody has to align the 20

line for me. 80. RM16,250 in the. 21

22

HLC Ok. 23

24

SINGA 37 month. 25

26

HLC Ok. And so and so forth for the earlier version right. 27

28

SINGA And so on and so forth right. 29

30

HLC Ok. How much do you think IICSO will require as capital? 31

32

SINGA I think there was, there were various projections about how we can 33

address the capital expenses. So based on that at initial stage we said 34

every money that is needed is put upfront. And it was about RM2 35

million. But then later we said how about changing the pricing so that 36


some of the payment can be made upfront and we can reduce that 1

also. So they had gone down to about four. 2

3

LC When you say payment upfront, what do you mean by payment 4

upfront? You expect Bank Rakyat to pay upfront? 5

6

SINGA No, it’s Silverlake because Silverlake said they are assuming the 7

responsibility for everything. 8

9

HLC So that’s why you are saying you still need the Second Defendant to 10

pump in money to the operation of IICS operation. Is that correct? 11

12

SINGA If they wanted 60% of the money that we are making, yes. 13

14

HLC No, just answer my question. 15

16

SINGA Yes. 17

18

HLC That is the assumption. 19

20

SINGA Exactly. 21

22

HLC That. 23

24

SINGA That wasn’t the assumption. 25

26

HLC The Plaintiff was making. 27

28

SINGA That was discussed. 29

30

HLC Discussed? Right, ok. I put it to you that if that did not happen as in 31

the injection of capital by the Second Defendant, then all those 32

financial projections that the Plaintiff was putting up would not be 33

achievable. Do you agree? 34

35

SINGA Totally wrong. I disagree. Silverlake was only one entity that could 36

provide money. But more importantly if they wanted 60% of the money 37


that the card operations is making, because they are the prime 1

vendor. Just for that role then I think we are, we are justified in asking 2

for those things. 3

4

HLC Well you can always ask. But my question is where was the 5

agreement, ok which you say Udhaya will answer right? 6

7

SINGA Yes. Also the 60-40 was imposed on us. 8

9

HLC No. We are not talking about the 60-40 and all these things ok. 10

11

SINGA That was also. 12

13

HLC So we are just talking about. 14

15

SINGA That was also agreed but nothing in writing. 16

17

HLC Capital expenditure. 18

19

SINGA Yes. 20

21

HLC In your Witness Statement at Question 7. That’s at page 2. Your 22

Witness Statement. 23

24

SINGA Sorry, page number please? 25

26

HLC Page 2 at Question 7. 27

28

SINGA At. 29

30

HLC Ok. 31

32

SINGA Which paragraph? 33

34

HLC Question 7, the whole thing. 35

36

SINGA Yes. 37


1

HLC For clarity sake ok. Can you confirm that all those things that you said 2

were told or were said to you, were by Rahim and not Second 3

Defendant? 4

5

SINGA One second. This goes back to our very first meeting right? 6

7

HLC Well that’s what. Hello, it’s your answer ok. I’m reading the answer. I 8

only see Rahim’s name. I didn’t see Second Defendant’s name. I 9

didn’t see Razak’s name. So I am just seeking a clarification now that 10

whatever were being said to you as you said in the Question 7 is 11

actually said to you by Rahim. 12

13

SINGA Almost all the talking was done by Rahim. 14

15

HLC Not almost all. I’m saying all. 16

17

SINGA No. I said almost all the talking was done by Rahim so I’m assuming 18

that is right. 19

20

HLC My question is very simple. Everything that is referred to here ok was 21

not by Razak. 22

23

SINGA That’s my impression. That’s my opinion. 24

25

HLC Not impression. You are giving evidence Dr. 26

27

SINGA Yes, that’s based on memory. 28

29

YA Do you agree with the Counsel? 30

31


33

YA Do you agree with what the Counsel is saying? 34

35

SINGA Yes I do. 36

37


HLC Yes. Just answer yes, you agree. 1

2

SINGA Yes I do. 3

4

HLC Ok. 5

6

SINGA Can you repeat that question, just because I want to make sure that I 7

understand it right. 8

9

HLC My question is for clarity sake, Question 7 ok. I say all those things 10

that you said were said to you or communicated to you in this 11

paragraph 7, were by Rahim and not Razak. 12

13

SINGA That’s not right because the first paragraph says both Rahim and 14

Razak. 15

16

YA You disagree? You disagree? Do you disagree? 17

18

SINGA I disagree because the first one says both Rahim and Razak. 19

20

ABR Just now he agrees My Lady. Now I’m a bit confused. 21

22

HLC Yes, first that one also. 23

24

YA No but witness asked for clarification again to be sure. 25

26

HLC Sorry, so? 27

28

SINGA He said everything in this, and the first paragraph mentions both 29

Rahim and Razak. 30

31

YA So just whether you agree or not. 32

33

SINGA I disagree because he said everything. 34

35

HLC Ok. So the only exception is the first paragraph. Is that correct? 36

37



2

HLC So that’s the only exception? 3

4

SINGA Yes. 5

6

HLC Ok. In Question 9, the Counsel asked you. You refer to 7

representations and suggestions. Are you making a difference 8

between these two words or are they the same? 9

10

SINGA Legally I don’t know what it means (00:59:46 inaudible). 11

12

HLC No you don’t need to know what it is because the question is being 13

asked to you unless you tell me that you are not clear about the 14

question. 15

16

YA Same or different? Same or different? 17

18

SINGA Sorry. 19

20

YA The question is whether the words are the same or different. 21

22

SINGA Are they same or different? 23

24

YA That is the question. 25

26

SINGA Ok. 27

28

HLC So are they same or different? 29

30

[01:00:00] 31

32

SINGA In my opinion they are different. 33

34

HLC They are different? 35

36

SINGA Yes. 37


1

HLC So in your answer, you said as mentioned earlier, these 2

representations were made, ok. What are these representations? 3

When you say “these” what are “these” referring to? 4

5

SINGA All the items in number 7. 6

HLC All the items in number 7. So since you say there is a difference 7

between representations and suggestions, then which part is 8

representation? Which parts are representations then? 9

10

SINGA Again I’m gonna give you my understanding of the words. 11

12

HLC Sure of course. It’s all based on your understanding. 13

14

SINGA Alright. Suggestion is basically why don’t you do this. 15

16

HLC No, you don’t need to explain to me what is meant by suggestion, 17

representation. I asked you just now. You say it’s all in 7. And then the 18

Counsel asked you suggestions and representations. So my question 19

to you is which part of 7 is representations, which part of 7 is 20

suggestions? Or are they the same? Or all of these are 21

representation? Or all of these are suggestion? You got to tell us. 22

23

SINGA Nicely put as a multiple answer, multiple choice answer. 24

25

HLC No, because you told us they are different. 26

27

SINGA I understand. I’m not saying anything. I’m just trying to understand the 28

legal verses, my time. 29

30

HLC Never mind, just answer my question. Go to 7, tell us which one are 31

representations, which one are suggestions. 32

33

SINGA I would translate the first paragraph in 7 as really a suggestion. 34

35

HLC This is suggestions? 36

37


SINGA Yes. 1

2

HLC Ok. And then? 3

4

SINGA When he suggests why don’t you do a proposal and we can jointly go, 5

that is really a suggestion. 6

7

HLC Suggestions? 8

9

SINGA Yes. 10

11

HLC Ok. 12

13

SINGA I would consider representing, say Rahim saying you know, I’m an 14

independent consultant because Bank Islam ask him (01:02:03 15

inaudible) so forth, that’s representation. Again non-legal terms right. 16

17

HLC It’s ok. So your answer is the first paragraph is suggestions. The rests 18

are representations? 19

20

SINGA I didn’t say that. I said the second one. I’m going through each one 21

now. 22

23

HLC Ok. 24

25

SINGA Because you asked me to go through that right. 26

27

HLC Sorry. Continue. Yes please. 28

29

SINGA The third one which says also propose. I would in my opinion consider 30

that as a suggestion. And again this is pure English Semantics so it 31

may not have anything to do with legal but by implying that, that 32

means the Plaintiff will do the card operations and Silverlake will 33

provide. 34

35


HLC No Dr. Actually my question is very simple. You just tell us which one 1

is which. You don’t need to explain because I’m sure that your 2

Counsel will ask further question if necessary. 3

4

SINGA Ok. 5

6

HLC Just tell us which one is suggestion, which one is representations. 7

8

SINGA I would say in third paragraph in my opinion, that’s both suggestion 9

and representation. 10

11

HLC Ok. 12

13

SINGA Alright. And then asking us to do the high level business case, 14

proposal, that is specifically by Rahim. Razak then does that so it’s 15

basically request. 16

17

HLC Let’s look at paragraphs 10.2 to 10.4 of your Witness Statement. Ok. 18

You said that Razak say he could not get help in the Second 19

Defendant. Do you believe him? Answer my question. Did you believe 20

him? 21

22

SINGA No I can’t answer that directly because as an American(01:04:05) I’m 23

not supposed to get involved in all these things right? 24

25

HLC No. I don’t care where you are coming from. You just let us know, did 26

you believe him? He says something, he. 27

28

SINGA He cannot get cooperation? 29

30

HLC Sorry? 31

32

SINGA The, about he cannot get cooperation? 33

34

HLC Yes. He could not. 35

36

SINGA That I believe. 37


1

HLC He could not get cooperation and help, from his. From Second 2

Defendant. 3

4

SINGA That I believe. 5

6

HLC You believe him? 7

8

SINGA Believe him. 9

10

HLC So therefore you believe representations made by someone who 11

could not even get his staff to help him. Is that correct? 12

13

SINGA Repeat that question again. 14

15

HLC So. Just now we talked about a lot of representations as well, right? 16

So I say that therefore you actually believe so called representations 17

made by. 18

19

SINGA Believe what? Said called representation? Is that what you said? 20

21

HLC Representations. 22

23

SINGA Ok. 24

25

HLC Ok. You actually believe representations made by someone, in this 26

case Razak, who could not even get his staff to help him. 27

28

SINGA Not his staff. No. It’s colleague I think. In my opinion, alright. 29

30

HLC To even. Ok cannot get his colleagues to help him. So you believe 31

that someone in that type of capacity who could not even get his 32

colleagues to help him which you believe, just now you answer, and 33

you believe the rest of the representations that he made? 34

35

SINGA Yes because it’s a very common practice in office. Offices. 36

37


HLC Have you been to the Second Defendant before? 1

2

SINGA No. 3

4

HLC Thank you. 5

6

SINGA But it’s very common across a lot of companies that (01:05:38 7

inaudible). 8

9

HLC What make you think that the Second Defendant had the capacity to 10

make any representation on behalf of the Second Defendant when he 11

could not even get help from his colleagues? 12

13

SINGA I think you mean Razak because you said. 14

15

HLC Yes of course. 16

17

SINGA Second Defendant could not make. 18

19

HLC Yes. 20

21

SINGA Ok. Now repeat the question with Razak’s name instead of Second 22

Defendant in both places please. 23

24

HLC No. What make you ok believe that Razak has the capacity to 25

represent the Second Defendant to make any representation when 26

Razak could not even get the assistance from his colleagues? 27

28

SINGA It’s very common and you know he’s a Senior Vice President of the 29

region including Brunei and South Asia or whatever. And I assume he 30

was reporting directly to Goh. At that time I didn’t know whether. Even 31

now I don’t know for sure who is his boss and so forth. I had no 32

reason to doubt that you know. 33

34

HLC So therefore you knew that he had to report to someone? 35

36

SINGA Yes. I knew he was not the person in charge of Silverlake. 37


1

HLC So therefore I put it to you that you also knew at that time that he was 2

not the decision maker. Do you agree? 3

4

SINGA No. Decision is delegated so I cannot say that. Uday says a lot of 5

things about. 6

7

HLC So, you just need to answer me. Do you agree or disagree? 8

9

SINGA I disagree totally. 10

11

HLC You disagree? 12

13

SINGA Yes. 14

15

HLC At Question 20 of your Witness Statement. Again you talk about 16

representations. Are you referring the representations at Question 7? 17

18

SINGA Which question again are you asking me to look at? 19

20

HLC Question 20. 21

22

SINGA 20, 2,0, ok. 23

24

HLC Ok you, it talks about these representations were made to both Uday 25

and me of the Plaintiff. So can I confirm that when you say these 26

representations, it is actually referring to the representations that you 27

talk about at paragraph 7? 28

29

SINGA Yes. I got to make sure that. I’m reading previous places to figure out 30

which page this one refers to ok. 31

32

HLC Sure no problem, just check and tell us the answer. 33

34

SINGA Yes. The (01:08:52 inaudible) time only. 35

36

HLC It’s the same one? 37


1

SINGA Yes. 2

3

HLC Ok. Please look at Question 48 point 2. 4

5

SINGA 48? 6

7

HLC Point 2. Ok? 8

9

SINGA Yes. 10

11

HLC Look at the answer. No, as mentioned earlier the Plaintiff was told by 12

Razak and Rahim that they would own and run the company 13

operations for the Bank Rakyat project. Were you told by Rahim or 14

Razak? I don’t think that they can talk together at the same time. So 15

were you told by Rahim or Razak? 16

17

SINGA That’s a very good question because it is, it’s really from memory. 18

Once again how much did Razak say, how much did Rahim say. It 19

goes back to that and. 20

21

HLC I’m asking you Dr, were you told by Rahim or Razak? If you don’t 22

know, just say don’t know. 23

24

SINGA At this stage I would have to say I’m not sure. 25

26

HLC You are not sure? 27

28

SINGA Yes. I know Rahim said that. The question is whether Razak explicitly 29

said that or not. 30

31

HLC So you are not sure? 32

33

SINGA Not sure. 34

35

HLC Ok. Then the next sentence. So they asked the Plaintiff to do all that 36

was necessary against this day. Are you referring to Rahim or Razak? 37


1

SINGA This one I know that. 2

3

HLC Are you referring to Rahim or Razak? Dr I mean, it’s a simple 4

question. It’s almost like a multiple choice question. 5

6

SINGA This particular thing I would say both because Razak specifically said 7

since he cannot get any support, there’s no way that he can negotiate 8

with the bank. 9

10

HLC It can’t be both. Specifically what did Rahim say, what did Razak say 11

then? They don’t say. They are not a choir you know. They don’t talk 12

at the same time. 13

14

ABR Yes. 15

16

HLC So what did Rahim say and what did Razak say? 17

18

SINGA But they can talk in sequence right. 19

20

HLC You have to understand. 21

22

SINGA But they can talk in sequence. 23

24

HLC Rahim and Razak they are in a very different capacity. If both Rahim 25

and Razak representing the Second Defendant, then fine. It makes no 26

difference. But you already said you knew from the outset Rahim does 27

not represent the Second Defendant, ok. 28

29

SINGA The actual conversation might have gone like this right. I again am 30

talking about what I understood then. 31

32

HLC So my question to you is, when you say they, who do you refer to? 33

34

SINGA I know Rahim said that and Razak might have reiterated by saying, 35

yes I know it will help me in my negotiations and so forth. 36

37


HLC Basically you are not sure? 1

2

SINGA Like I said. 3

4

HLC If you are not sure, just say so. 5

6

SINGA If a lot of things are mixed in Malay and all that. 7

8

HLC No, are you sure or not? Let me ask you. Are you sure or not? 9

10

SINGA I personally can’t recollect or reconstruct the sentence. 11

12

HLC Ok you cannot recollect. Then just say so. 13

14

SINGA No, reconstruct the sentences. 15

16

HLC At that time do you agree with me that the Plaintiff was not in a 17

position to bid individually for the Bank Rakyat project? 18

19

SINGA It was not and was not interested in. 20

21

HLC Sorry? 22

23

SINGA It was not in a position to bid individually nor was it interested in 24

bidding individually. 25

26

HLC So therefore the only chance for the Plaintiff to be involved in this 27

project was to join with the Second Defendant in whatever capacity. 28

We will talk about the capacity later. You know your strategic alliance 29

partnership and all those things. Never mind I just term it generally. 30

But basically in order for the Plaintiff to participate in this project, they 31

need to join with the Second Defendant. 32

33

SINGA No. There are a lot of others they could have joined with. 34

35

HLC For example? 36

37


SINGA MBF. 1

2

HLC Ok, good. MBF right? 3

4

SINGA There are so many others that, that will provide. 5

6

HLC So that’s why I say who are the others. So you said MBF. 7

8

SINGA Yes but we were proactively going and seeking for Bank Rakyat, you 9

know, it came to us. 10

11

HLC Never mind. You told us MBF right? That is your answer right? 12

13

SINGA I don’t know. I mean the MBF is one and possibly other card issuers or 14

other system providers. 15

16

HLC Ok. Therefore I put it to you that without convincing the Second 17

Defendant of accepting the Plaintiff as a partner, for this project, the 18

partner, so, the Plaintiff will not have a chance to participate in this 19

project or to earn any profit out of it. Do you agree? 20

21

SINGA I totally disagree because we weren’t even interested in it. We didn’t 22

even know. 23

24

HLC Sorry again. Louder, louder, clearer. 25

26

SINGA I didn’t even know about this opportunity. 27

28

HLC Sorry? 29

30

SINGA I didn’t even know about this opportunity. 31

32

HLC So that’s why after knowing about this opportunity, it was the Plaintiff’s 33

objective to convince the Second Defendant to take the Plaintiff as a 34

partner of this project. Do you agree? 35

36


SINGA That’s totally wrong because that’s not my modus of operandi. I don’t 1

go sell my services at all anywhere in Malaysia. I don’t have a market 2

anymore. 3

4

HLC Do you agree with me that if you don’t sell your services, then you 5

won’t get the business for this Bank Rakyat project? 6

7

SINGA If somebody else had come with that opportunity and said can you do 8

the card operations, I would have gone. Anybody else depending on 9

my evaluation of them. 10

11

HLC My Lady, can I propose to stop here because the next one would be 12

quite long? The next round, next section of the question. I estimate 13

that I would probably need about I think one full day for this witness. 14

And then. I’ll try to finish it within the next one full day of trial or two 15

half days. I’ll probably try. 16

17

[01:15:00] 18

19

YA Tomorrow in the afternoon I have to go, I have an appointment at the 20

hospital in the afternoon. 21

22

HLC Tomorrow. 23

24

YA Afternoon. But in the morning I’ll be here. 25

26

ABR I’m sorry My Lady. 27

28

YA Yes. 29

30

ABR Tomorrow I have a Board Meeting, My Lady. 31

32

YA I thought this is scheduled for tomorrow afternoon. No? 33

34

ABR No. 35

36

YA So we have to have a. I have to fix a few more days with you? 37


1

ABR Sure My Lady. 2

3

YA Ok. And for today, that’s about all. 4

5

SINGA I’m sorry My Lady, I cannot hear. I. 6

7

YA That’s about all for today. 8

9

SST That’s about all for today. 10

11

YA That’s about all for today. You may step down. 12

13

SINGA Ok. Do you want me to leave? 14

15

YA Yes. I think I’ll step down. Can you suggest me a few days? 16

17

HLC Perhaps. What are those dates? 18

19

YA Actually how many more days? How many more? How many more 20

days do you need? For all the witnesses. 21

22

ABR I mean based on. I mean if we have had about two days so far. Two 23

and a half days. So be three and a half days. That’s for this witness. 24

So if, and they have the re-examination. About four days. Therefore 25

you know if assuming that they have half a day to deal with that, so 26

four days. 27

28

SST But I probably need half a day. Four days (01:17:06 inaudible). 29

30

ABR Yes but for the second witness My Lady, because same kind of 31

evidence so. 32

33

YA Yes we anticipate that he’s also going to take long. 34

35

ABR Yes. So I would imagine that at least another four, five days. 36

37


HLC Yes. 1

2

ABR I mean to finish the second witness My Lady, including. 3

4

YA Actually all my dates are taken up. 5

6

ABR Sure My Lady. 7

8

YA So that is the problem that I’m having. Maybe we can work out 9

something. 10

11

ABR Sure My Lady. Sure. 12

13

YA I think I’ll have this matter stood down for a while. 14

15

ABR Sure My Lady. We’ll discuss with the interpreter My Lady for the 16

common dates. 17

18

YA Yes. 19

20

JRB Court bangun. 21

22

23

AKHIR 24

25

MASA : 04:28PM 26

27

28

29

dalam mahkamah tinggi malaya di kuala lumpur … · 03.03.2017 · 3 1 mula 2 3 jrb dengan izin,...

Documents