dalam mahkamah tinggi malaya di kuala lumpur1 2 … · 1/17/2018 · 1 dalam mahkamah tinggi...

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

14

2. SILVERLAKE SYSTEM SDN BHD 15

(No Syarikat : 182899-W) …DEFENDAN-DEFENDAN 16

17

TARIKH : 29.12.2014 18

MASA : 09:16 AM 19

20

NOTA KETERANGAN 21

Koram 22

Hakim

Yang Arif Siti Khadijah Bt S. Hassan

Badjenid

YA

Peguam Plaintif

S S Tieh

SST

Peguam Defendan

Pertama

Abdul Rashid Ismail

Wan Norizan

ABR

WNZ

Peguam Defendan

Ke-2

H L Choon

Elaine Siaw

HLC

ELS

23

www.scribe.com.my 2

Saksi – Saksi 1

SP-1

Singanallur Venkataraman Narayanan

SINGA

SP-2

Udhaya Kumar A/L Naranam

UDHAYA

SD-1

Razak Bin Mohd Mazlan

RAZAK

SD-2

Abdul Rahim Bin Abdul Razak

RAHIM

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

www.scribe.com.my 3

MULA 1

2

JRB Dengan izin, Yang Arif. Kes untuk sambung bicara 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 for the First Defendant and my learned 8

friends Mr HL Choon together with Ms Elaine Siaw for the Second 9

Defendant. 10

11

ABR Yang Arif, I ask permission for my pupil to sit in the bar table. Thank 12

you. 13

14

SST My Lady, today is for continued cross examination of the Second 15

Defendant’s witness. 16

17

YA Encik Razak, saya ingin cadangkan kalau Encik Razak memberi 18

keterangan dalam Bahasa Inggeris, selepas itu. 19

20

SD1 21

Nama : Razak Bin Mohd Mazlan 22

Bersumpah dan memberi keterangan dalam Bahasa Inggeris 23

Masa : 9:17 AM 24

25

Pemeriksaan Balas (Cross Examination) 26

Masa: 9:18 AM 27

28

SST Dengan izin, Yang Arif. Good morning Encik Razak. Just a reminder, 29

when you answer your questions, you want to give your answers, 30

please speak into the mic as loud as possible. Now, I hope that you 31

will just try to answer the questions and leave the explanations in re- 32

examination. Let your counsel decide whether or not you need to 33

explain further on your answers. That will save us a lot of time. We will 34

try to finish by the end of today, alright? Let’s continue. May I refer you 35

to Bundle B3, page 838 to 869? Now during your cross examination 36

on the 19th of December, you have confirmed receipt of this email. 37

www.scribe.com.my 4

RAZAK Yes. 1

2

SST From Udhaya to you, this is for Kazakhstan. Now, do you agree that 3

during this time, the focus was on the Bank Rakyat Project? This 4

email is dated 18.02.2007. So, you received this email from Udhaya to 5

you regarding Kazakhstan. Now, the question is do you agree that 6

during this time, the focus was on the Bank Rakyat Project? 7

8

RAZAK You refer to my Question and Answer Number 36. It’s not at all for the 9

Bank Rakyat Project. 10

11

SST You are not answering the question, Encik Razak. I am saying you 12

look at this email 18.02.2007 from Udhaya to you. 13

14

RAZAK Yes. 15

16

SST He sent you an email on Kazakhstan? 17

18

RAZAK Yes. 19

20

SST So my question is, do you agree that during this time, 18.02.2007, the 21

focus was on the Bank Rakyat Project? 22

23

RAZAK No, this is not related to the Bank Rakyat Project. 24

25

SST I am not saying it’s. 26

27

YA You answer the question. If you need to give any explanation, you can 28

do that in re-examination when your counsel asks you. 29

30

RAZAK Ok, you come back the question. 31

32

SST Do you agree that during this time, 18.02.2007, the focus was on the 33

Bank Rakyat Project? 34

35

RAZAK You are referring to this email or you are referring to the timeframe? 36

37

www.scribe.com.my 5

SST The timeframe. 1

2

RAZAK Ok. This is not related to the Bank Rakyat. 3

4

SST I didn’t say whether it’s related or not. 5

6

HLC I think the problem is that he is referring the witness to an email then 7

now he say it’s not related. So, how do you expect? That’s why the 8

witness actually ask him, are you referring to the timeframe or. 9

10

YA Well, you can clarify. 11

12

HLC No. I think the problem is that because he is insisting the witness to 13

answer certain questions when he is misleading the witness. 14

15

YA But witness already got the clarification. 16

17

HLC Yes. So, that’s why he wanted to answer. 18

19

YA So, I am saying, so the answer is yes or no. 20

21

HLC Correct. When the witness want to answer, I hope that my learned 22

friend will just allow him to answer without chopping him off because 23

he is the one who actually refers to the email, not the witness. 24

25

SST Yang Arif, I just need a yes or no answer, it’s only on the timeframe 26

that is all. So I asked him whether as at this point in time, the focus 27

was on the Bank Rakyat Project, it’s either yes or no. It’s up to him 28

actually. 29

30

RAZAK No, you are looking at the timeframe, Ok, during this time. 31

32

SST Encik Razak, you can give your explanation in your re-xamination, if 33

necessary. For now, if you can just cooperate with us, we can move 34

on very fast. 35

36

YA The question is whether you agree or (00:09:01 inaudible). 37

www.scribe.com.my 6

RAZAK No. That’s agree and disagree because if timeframe, yes, during this 1

period to this period, yes it’s related to Bank Rakyat, during this Bank 2

Rakyat Project but this is email is not related to Bank Rakyat Project. 3

4

SST He is trying to explain, Yang Arif. 5

6

RAZAK There’s agreement and disagreement. 7

8

YA Can you continue? 9

10

SST Sure. Do you agree that during this time, we are talking about 11

18.02.2007, the focus was on the Bank Rakyat Project? 12

13

RAZAK As I said, there’s agreement and disagreement. I agree that ok during 14

this time yes, we are on the Bank Rakyat Project but this email is not 15

related to the Bank Rakyat Project. 16

17

YA I think that’s ok. 18

19

ABR Yes, that’s ok. 20

21

SST Ok. So, yes during this time, the focus was on the Bank Rakyat 22

Project? 23

24

RAZAK But this email is not related to Bank Rakyat Project. 25

26

SST Now, since you have said that the focus was on the Bank Rakyat 27

Project, did you email Mr Udhaya questioning him as to why he sent 28

you this email? 29

30

RAZAK Come again the question? 31

32

SST Since the focus was on the Bank Rakyat Project, did you email Mr 33

Udhaya questioning him as to why he sent to you this email? 34

35

RAZAK As I can recall, there’s no email sending to him. 36

37

www.scribe.com.my 7

SST Now may I refer you to Bundle B5? Please look at page 1709. B5, 1

page 1709. Now, are you there? 2

3

YA Can you ask the question? 4

5

SST Encik Razak, this is your email dated 06.09.2007 to Udhaya. Now, 6

there is a word there “KH”. Do you see the word “KH”, the alphabets 7

“KH” in your email? 8

9

RAZAK Yes. 10

11

SST Can you confirm that “KH” refers to Khairil Hamzah? 12

13

RAZAK Yes. 14

15

SST He is with Bank Rakyat? 16

17

RAZAK Yes. 18

19

SST Thank you. Now then there is the other alphabets “ARAS”, do you see 20

that? 21

22

RAZAK Yes. 23

24

SST Right. Can you confirm that “ARAS” refers to Abdul Rahim Bin Abdul 25

Razak? 26

27

RAZAK Yes. 28

29

SST Now same bundle, may I refer you to pages 1927 to 1929? Bundle B5, 30

pages 1927 to 1929. 1927 until 1929. Are you there? Now, this is an 31

email from Koon Yin from the Second Defendant, the Project Manager 32

for the Bank Rakyat Project to a few people, here you see: Adrianne 33

Tan, yourself, Tham Weng Kwong, Teoh, Mr Udhaya, Dr Narayanan, 34

Cheah, Michael, Wong and it was also cc-ed to Mr Chee Chin Leong. 35

36

[00:15:00] 37

www.scribe.com.my 8

YA Are you referring to 1929? 1

2

SST 1927. 3

4

RAZAK Is this the question that you highlighted in the last session? 5

6

7

SST Yes but moving on that, this is what Koon Yin wrote, it says, hi all, 8

please find draft agenda for Bank Rakyat kick off. Draft has been sent 9

to customer for their feedback. Please feel free to comment. Udhaya, 10

as spoken, please prepare for session two on the overview for Credit 11

Card operations. Now, did you receive this email? 12

13

RAZAK Yes, I am in the list there. 14

15

SST Can you tell us who is Adrianne Tan and what is her designation in 16

Silverlake? 17

18

RAZAK Adrianne Tan is Product Expert on the Card System. 19

20

SST Sorry? 21

22

RAZAK The Product Expert on the Card System. 23

24

SST Product Expert on the Card System. Now, let’s move on to the same 25

Bundle B5, pages 1932 until 1935. 1932 to 1935, are you there? 26

27

RAZAK Yes. 28

29

SST No, this is an email from Adrianne Tan to again quite a number of 30

people, to Koon Yin, yourself, Tham, Teoh, Mr Udhaya, Dr 31

Narayanan, Cheah, Michael, Wong and it was also cc-ed to Mr Chee 32

Chin Leong. So, here Adrianne is attaching what she called an 33

application “SOW”. Now, would I be correct to say that “SOW” stands 34

for Scope of Works? 35

36

37

www.scribe.com.my 9

RAZAK Yes. It’s Scope of Work but it’s pre-operate, Ok, pre-operation. 1

2

SST Did you receive this email? 3

4

HLC Can you say louder, I can’t hear just now. 5

6

RAZAK This is Scope of Work for the pre-operation. 7

8

SST Now, did you receive this email? 9

10

RAZAK Yes, I am in the list. 11

12

SST Now same bundle, may I refer you to page 1955? B5 1955, are you 13

there? 14

15

RAZAK Yes. 16

17

SST Alright. Now, this is an email from Koon Yin to Mr Udhaya dated 18

17.11.2007, it was also cc-ed to a few people there including yourself, 19

Mr Chee Chin Leong and Adrianne Tan. Now, did you receive this 20

email? 21

22

RAZAK Yes, again this is talking about the pre-operation. 23

24

SST Fine. Did you receive this email? 25

26

RAZAK Yes, I am in the list. I am a copy list. 27

28

SST Now, this is what Koon Yin wrote, Udhaya, as spoken our immediate 29

plans after the kick-off are for Card Operations Teams (COT) to 30

commence starting 28th to 30th November followed by Application 31

Development Team (ADT) the following week 3rd to 5th December then 32

she went on to say the third paragraph, mainly the integration 33

requirements are in Appendix 4, you can read. 34

35

YA Actually, what is the question? 36

37

www.scribe.com.my 10

SST It will come, in a short while. 1

2

YA No, I want to hear whether you will ask. 3

4

SST Sure, before that, may I ask a few more questions? 5

6

YA No. The question on this page? 7

8

SST Yes, Yang Arif. I just want to confirm something with the witness. Now 9

under paragraph 5 it says, “Please take note and help make sure that 10

COT is able to cover this so that when ADT meet the IT, we are 11

hopeful to clear uncertainties that we currently have”. Do you see the 12

paragraph? 13

14

RAZAK Yes. 15

16

SST Now, COT refers to Card Operations Teams, right? 17

18

RAZAK Yes. I need to put note here, Ok. 19

20

YA You may do that when necessary if questioned by your lawyer but 21

maybe you can just note there on the relevant part. 22

23

SST Ok because that’s the reason why that Koon Yin kick off the project 24

earlier. 25

26

YA Encik Razak, this is the procedure (00:22:49 inaudible). 27

28

RAZAK Ok, thanks. 29

30

YA You just note down then refer to your lawyer (00:22:54 inaudible). 31

32

RAZAK Ok, thanks. 33

34

SST Thank you, Yang Arif. Now may I refer you to the same bundle, page 35

1960 to 1963? Now, this is an email from Udhaya to a few people, it 36

was also cc-ed to you, this email is dated 19.11.2007. 37


YA What is the question? 1

2

SST Yes. Number one, Encik Razak, did you receive this email? 3

4

RAZAK I am in the copy list. 5

6

SST In other words, you received this email? 7

8

RAZAK Yes, I am in the copy list, yes. 9

10

SST Now Udhaya wrote here, “Hi Koon Yin, Dr Narayanan and myself will 11

be representing IICS Operations. Dr would have to leave after lunch 12

on Monday while I will see through until the end of the day, Tuesday”. 13

Now, IICS Operations was supposed to be the company which was 14

going to run the Card Operations, is that correct? 15

16

RAZAK It’s an option to appoint them to run the post-operation, yes. And this 17

is pre-operation again. 18

19

SST I am moving on to other things. Now, with regards to the Bank Rakyat 20

Project team structure, were you the Project Director? 21

22

RAZAK We have the structure in the project, Ok, we have the structure in the 23

project. 24

25

YA Encik Razak, yes or no? 26

27

RAZAK I can’t recall because once implementation my activities. 28

29

SST Ok, you can’t recall? 30

31

RAZAK Yes. 32

33

SST Now again with regards to the Bank Rakyat Project team structure, 34

Koon Yin was the Project Executive? 35

36

37


RAZAK It’s overall Project Manager. 1

2

SST Is it the same thing? 3

4

RAZAK Yes. 5

6

SST Project Executive, same? 7

8

RAZAK Yes. 9

10

SST Now again on the Bank Rakyat Project team structure, Mr Chee Chin 11

Leong was one of its Project Advisors? 12

13

RAZAK He is one of the Marketing Support. 14

15

SST So he is not a Project Advisor? 16

17

RAZAK No. 18

19

SST Now again on the Bank Rakyat Project team structure, the Application 20

Team are? Can you confirm whether the actually consisted of this guy 21

called Michael and Lionel? 22

23

RAZAK Lionel and Adrianne. 24

25

SST Lionel and Adrianne. 26

27

RAZAK And both of them reporting to Yoke Kun (00:27:59). The subsequent 28

email is Wong Yoke Kun. 29

30

SST Sorry? Lionel and who, sorry? 31

32

RAZAK Lionel and Adrianne and both of them report, Lionel, Adrianne and 33

Michael report to this Yoke Kun. 34

35

36


SST Then what about the Data Centre Team under the Bank Rakyat 1

Project team structure, would I be correct to say that they comprised 2

of this Tham then his initial I think “WK” and Cheah KH”, Cheah Kok 3

Hoon (00:28:37,) I think. 4

5

RAZAK I can confirm only Tham and Cheah. 6

7

SST Tham and Cheah? 8

9

RAZAK Tham is Data Centre Head. 10

11

SST And again on the Bank Rakyat Project team structure, the Card 12

Operations Team consisted of Dr Narayanan and Mr Udhaya? 13

14

RAZAK And Michael also involved in the Operation. 15

16

SST That’s means Dr Narayanan, Udhaya and Michael? 17

18

RAZAK Yes. And this is on the pre-operation again. 19

20

SST Now, let’s move on to the same bundle, page 1964. B5 1964 until 21

1969. Now this is an email from Silverlake to Udhaya dated 22

21.11.2007. Now, can you confirm that Silverlake is your email? 23

24

[00:30:00] 25

26

RAZAK It’s my personal email which I can’t use, during that time I can’t use my 27

office email, I am using my personal email. 28

29

SST And here you have attached Silverlake’s proposed revised charges 30

and payment schedule to IICSO. Now, can you look at page 1966? 31

1966 under item 3.0, the fifth column, the last column on the right. Do 32

you see that? 33

34

RAZAK Yes. 35

36


SST Right. I will just read this, “Silverlake will provide the Operations 1

Centre for IICS thus these charges soft loan is no longer applicable. 2

IICS will occupy 75% of the floor spaces and Silverlake will take up 3

the balance of 25% of the floor offices”. Now, can you confirm that 4

Operations Centre refers to the premises at Wisma Bandar where the 5

Bank Rakyat Card Centre will be based? If you look at under item 3. 6

7

RAZAK No, are you referring to Silverlake Operations Centre or Bank Rakyat 8

Card Centre? 9

10

SST Ok, you look at the fifth column under item 3.0, this is what you wrote, 11

Silverlake will provide the Operations Centre. 12

13

RAZAK It’s Silverlake Operations Centre, yes. 14

15

SST This is at Wisma Bandar? 16

17

RAZAK First Floor Wisma Bandar. 18

19

SST First Floor. Can you remember the exact address of this Wisma 20

Bandar Operations Centre? 21

22

RAZAK If I am not mistaken, it’s First Floor No. 18 Jalan Tuanku Abdul 23

Rahman. 24

25

SST I see. Now, I am going to refer you to three emails, we have gone 26

through this, I will just ask one question for all these three emails. It’s 27

in Bundle B5. The first email is one we have gone through earlier, 28

1849 to 1850. Now, the second email which we have referred to is 29

page 1851 to 1853, alright? And the third one is 1927 to 1929, I have 30

referred all these emails to you. 31

32

RAZAK Ok. It’s four emails is it? 33

34

SST Three emails. 1849, 1851, 1927. I have referred that to you earlier, 35

right? 36

37


RAZAK Ok. 1

2

SST Now, these were all emails from the Second Defendant’s Project 3

Manager to Project Management Team including Dr Narayanan and 4

Mr Udhaya. Now, as at these dates, now if you notice these dates are, 5

the dates of these email are in November of 2007. 6

7

RAZAK Which email you are referring? 8

9

SST All three emails. I am asking one question for all three emails. Alright. 10

Now for all these three emails, these were all dated around November 11

2007? 12

13

RAZAK To be specific, from 9 to 16 November. 14

15

SST Now 1849. This is dated 09.11.2007. 16

17

RAZAK Yes. 18

19

SST The second email is 1851, this is also 09.11.2007. 20

21

RAZAK Yes. 22

23

SST And the third email 1927, this is 16.11.2007. 24

25

RAZAK Yes. 26

27

SST Now, as at these dates in November 2007. 28

29

RAZAK You have two dates, 9 and 16 November, correct? 30

31

SST Sure, 9 November and 16 November. 32

33


35

36


SST I’m asking actually. Now as at these dates, 09.11.2007 and 1

16.11.2007, do you agree that there was no formal contract between 2

the Second Defendant and IICSO or the Plaintiff with regards to the 3

running of the Bank Rakyat Card Centre? 4

5

RAZAK During that stage, we are negotiating the contract. 6

7

SST No. At that stage? 8

9

RAZAK There’s a contract but we negotiate, both part negotiating the contract. 10

11

SST There is a contract but both parties were negotiating? 12

13

RAZAK The contract not yet signed and the contract yet to finalise. There’s a 14

contract, we are negotiate with them. 15

16

SST Ok. I will take your answer. There is a contract but we are negotiating. 17

Not finalised yet. 18

19

RAZAK Because. 20

21

SST Not finalised yet, right? 22

23

RAZAK Not because we are considering them as one of the option. 24

25

SST Now, since you knew that as at 09.11.2007 and 16.11.2007 there was 26

no formal contract between the Plaintiff or IICSO with the Second 27

Defendant, upon receipt of these emails from Koon Yin, did you email 28

Koon Yin asking her to remove Mr Udhaya and Dr Narayanan as part 29

of your Project Management Team? 30

31

RAZAK As my statement is very clear, Ok, unless I recap by my statement. 32

33

SST Yes or no, Encik Razak? 34

35

RAZAK During implementation my activities and Project Implementation. 36

37


SST Did you send her an email? 1

2

YA (00:39:40 inaudible). 3

4

SST Now as at these dates, 9 November and 16 November 2007, upon 5

receipt of this email, and you knowing that there was no formal 6

contract between the Plaintiff or IICSO with the Second Defendant, did 7

you email Koon Yin asking her to remove Mr Udhaya and Dr 8

Narayanan as part of the Project Management Team, yes or no? 9

10

RAZAK There’s no email. 11

12

SST Now, we have moved on to Bundle B6, page 2190. Now this is an 13

email from Koon Yin to a few people. It was also cc-ed to you and Mr 14

Chee Chin Leong, in fact Koon Yin actually sent this Udhaya as well. 15

This is, we are now at 31.12.2007. You see the date of the email. 16

Now, did you receive this email? 17

18

RAZAK Yes, I am in the copy list. 19

20

SST Now, just to confirm, Goh is the owner of the Silverlake Group of 21

Companies? 22

23

RAZAK He is also the decision making. 24

25

SST Also a decision maker and he is also a Director of the Second 26

Defendant, right? 27

28

RAZAK He is a Director of Second Defendant. He cannot hold Executive 29

Chairman because he is Executive Chairman for a listed company. 30

31

SST And there’s one term there “BRICC” in the first paragraph, you have 32

clarified that this is a temporary name for the Bank Rakyat Islamic 33

Card Centre, right? 34

35

RAZAK Yes as what we discussed on the last session, correct? 36

37


SST Yes. Now as at this date 31.12.2007, now do you agree that there was 1

no formal contract between the Plaintiff or IICSO with the Second 2

Defendant with regards to the running of the Bank Rakyat Card 3

Centre? 4

5

RAZAK As I explained earlier, we are negotiating contract with them, there’s 6

no formal contract. And this is related to pre-operation again. 7

8

SST Now, if you have noticed from this email, Koon Yin under, you can 9

see, under item 4. “Udhaya all task”, do you see that? 10

11

RAZAK Yes. 12

13

SST Now, since you knew that as at 31.12.2007, now there was no formal 14

contract between the Plaintiff or IICSO and the Second Defendant to 15

run the Card Centre, did you email Koon Yin questioning her as to 16

why Udhaya was assigned as the person responsible for all tasks for 17

the Card Centre? 18

[00:45:00] 19

20

RAZAK To note, I don’t understand what is “all tasks”, Ok? And then to note 21

here again, Koon Yin is aware that we are negotiating the contract 22

with the Plaintiff. 23

24

YA Encik Razak, please answer the question. 25

26

RAZAK Ok. 27

28


30

RAZAK Yes, Ok, sorry. Come again the question? 31

32

YA Question is? 33

34

35

36


SST Let me ask the question. I’ll just read out the question. Since you knew 1

that as at 31.12.2007 that there was no formal contract between the 2

Plaintiff or IICSO and the Second Defendant for the running of the 3

Bank Rakyat Card Centre, upon receipt of this email from Koon Yin, 4

did you email Koon Yin questioning her as to why Udhaya was 5

assigned as the person responsible for all tasks for the Bank Rakyat 6

Card Centre, yes or no? 7

8

RAZAK If I can. 9

10

SST Yes. Got email or no email? 11

12

RAZAK If I can recall, I don’t send any email to her. 13

14

SST Now, I will move on to the next issue, another issue. Yang Arif, I am 15

trying to focus my questioning on issues as what the Defendant has 16

suggested in the last occasion. Now Bundle B6, page 2223. Now, this 17

is an email from Mr Chee Chin Leong to Andy Ng, it was also cc-ed to 18

Mr Udhaya, yourself and Mr Goh. This is dated 01.01.2008. 19

20

YA Page? 21

22

SST 2223, Bundle B6, Yang Arif. 23

24

RAZAK 2223 until? 25

26

SST No, just 2223. Now, do you agree that this email is basically with 27

regards to the Silverlake or Second Defendant IICSO subcontract? 28

29

RAZAK Yes. 30

31

YA Encik Razak, (00:48:57 inaudible) you have to speak louder. 32

33

RAZAK Ok. Can you repeat back? Yes, Ok. 34

35

SST So, yes. Can I confirm that, to save time, you have read this email? 36

37


RAZAK I am in the copy list. 1

2

SST But to save time you have actually read this email? 3

4


6

7

SST I can move on. Alright. Now, let’s turn to the next page, Bundle B6, 8

page 2224. Are you there? 9

10

RAZAK Yes. 11

12

SST This is an email from Mr Goh Peng Ooi forwarding the 01.01.2008 13

email to Mr Chee Chin Leong, Mr Andy Ng and it was also cc-ed to 14

you and Mr Udhaya. Now again this is also with regards to the Second 15

Defendant IICSO subcontract, right? 16

17

RAZAK You are referring to the email from Mr Goh? 18

19

SST Yes, 2224. 20

21

RAZAK Because since he is going to make the decision that’s why he is 22

asking input form Andy. 23

24

YA So, what is your question? 25

26

SST Whether this email is with regards to the Second Defendant IICSO 27

subcontract, that’s all. 28

29

RAZAK Because Mr Goh is responding email from IICS for the IICS contract. 30

31

SST So, the answer is yes it’s actually in relation to the IICS. 32

33

RAZAK I am not sure what is mentioned Andy any comment because if you 34

read the subsequent one. 35

36

37


YA The answer is “I’m not sure”. Is that your answer? 1

2

RAZAK Because I am not sure why he mentioned “Andy, any comment?” but if 3

you look the second email, it’s related to IICS contract. 4

5

SST But can you confirm that you did receive this email? 6

7

RAZAK Because I am in the copy list. 8

9

SST Now, let’s turn to page 2225, Bundle B6. Now this is an email dated 10

02.01.2008 from Andy Ng to Goh Peng Ooi and Chee Chin Leong, it 11

was also cc-ed to you and Udhaya. Did you receive this email? 12

13


15

SST Now, I take it that you have read this email? 16

17

YA What is your question? 18

19

SST I ask him whether he has actually read this email. 20

21

RAZAK Read meaning that reading now or upon I receiving the email? 22

23

SST Whatever, either one. 24

25

RAZAK No, you must be specific. Because if you ask me reading, I am 26

reading it now. 27

28

YA That is why I said what is your question. 29

30

SST Have you gone through the email then? 31

32

RAZAK Yes, because I am in the copy list. 33

34

SST Now do you agree that as at this date 02.01.2008 as far as the 35

Second Defendant is concerned, they have already accepted the 36

revised terms of the IICSO’s D2 subcontract? 37


RAZAK We only accepted one of the contracts signed but at this stage we are 1

still negotiating the contract with IICSO. 2

3

SST In other words, do you agree or disagree? 4

5

ABR My Lady, the witness just answered that, I think that should be the 6

answer, I mean, sometimes they don’t come out as disagree or agree. 7

I find it difficult to follow my learned friend’s question actually 8

sometimes. If the answer implies as disagree, it should be taken as 9

disagree. There’s no need for witness to say I disagree or I agree, 10

Yang Arif. It’s very difficult in that question. 11

12

YA Can I have your question again? 13

14

SST Sure. Now, do you agree that as at this date you are aware that the 15

Second Defendant had accepted the revised terms of the IICSO D2 16

subcontract, as at this date? 17

18

RAZAK I disagree. 19

20

SST Now, let’s move on, same bundle, page 2234 to 2235. Are you there? 21

22

RAZAK This again related to the previous email, correct? 23

24

SST Now this is an email from Udhaya to Andy Ng, Goh Peng Ooi, Chee 25

Chin Leong, it was also cc-ed to you. Now Udhaya highlighted here, 26

“Hi Andy, we thank you for acceptance of the terms of the commercial 27

issues” then he went on to say other things. Now, did you receive this 28

email? 29

30


32

SST Now, do you recall of any email from Andy Ng or Goh Peng Ooi or 33

Chee Chin Leong or even yourself to Udhaya disputing what he wrote 34

here “We thank you for acceptance of the terms of the commercial 35

issues”? Was there any such email? 36

37


RAZAK I believe that he referring to the proposal made by the IICSO, correct? 1

It’s a plenty of email. 2

3

SST Udhaya wrote here, “Hi Andy, we thank you for acceptance of the 4

terms of the commercial issues”. My question is, do you recall of any 5

email from Andy Ng, Goh Peng Ooi or Chee Chin Leong or yourself to 6

Udhaya disputing this? 7

8

RAZAK That’s what there’s a lot of email involved or talking about the 9

acceptance or the term and commercial. And because each time we 10

receive the term and condition keep changing. 11

12

YA We are talking about this page, 2234. 13

14

RAZAK But you refer to this page, not anything specific which email this email 15

refer to except only the next. 16

17

YA That can be explained through your lawyer. 18

19

RAZAK No, I agree Yang Arif but if the email only related to the subsequent 20

email only. 21

22

SST Yang Arif, I cannot understand why the witness is actually is 23

answering like this. It’s a very. 24

25

RAZAK He’s referring to the question which related to this email, what I can 26

see only these two email related to this email. 27

28

YA That can be explained for your lawyer to question. Now we are talking 29

about this page, “we thank you for acceptance of the terms of the 30

commercial issues”. So the question is whether (00:58:26 inaudible). 31

32

SST Whether there was any email from Andy Ng? 33

34

YA Why don’t you ask that to the witness? 35

36

SST Yes. Do you recall of any email from Andy? 37


YA Whether the witness replied, not the others. 1

2

SST I am asking that he might have seen, if there is an email maybe it has 3

been cc-ed to him. 4

5

YA Why don’t you ask one by one? 6

7

SST Alright, sure. Do you recall of any email from Mr Andy Ng to Udhaya 8

disputing what Udhaya wrote here, we thank you for acceptance of the 9

terms of the commercial issues? 10

11

RAZAK For me to recall all the email, I have to look up all the document back 12

because it’s not only. 13

14

SST You can’t recall, is it? 15

16

RAZAK No, I can recall some of them but you have to refer back to each 17

specific. 18

19

YA That’s why I say better ask the witness only with regard to the witness. 20

(00:59:21 inaudible). 21

22

RAZAK But some of the email I am aware but I can’t recall which email that 23

referring to. 24

25

SST If you cannot recall, it’s fine. 26

27

YA Counsel, just reduced this. 28

29

RAZAK Because it’s very difficult for me to say I can’t recall because some of 30

the email I am aware, Ok. But if can recall, I can’t recall I mean I know 31

nothing about that. 32

33

SST Encik Razak, you are here to answer questions posed by me as at this 34

stage, If you need to clarify, your counsel will ask you to clarify. 35

36

[01:00:00] 37


RAZAK But. 1

2

SST Now, for questions which I have asked, if you cannot recall, you say I 3

cannot recall. If there is answer is no, you just say no. If you agree, 4

you say yes, I agree. If you are going to keep on answering like this, 5

it’s going to take us a long time to finish this and I am really trying to 6

finish this by today. 7

8

RAZAK But again I am defending my company. 9

10

SST Now, if you can just cooperate with us, we can move on very fast. 11

12

YA Can I have the question again? 13

14

SST Do you recall of any email from Andy Ng, Goh Peng Ooi, Chee Chin 15

Leong or you to Udhaya disputing what he wrote here? 16

17

YA The question is whether you can recall, whether you can recall now. 18

19

RAZAK Now I can’t recall because there’s a lot of email. 20

21

YA Now, you can’t recall? 22

23

RAZAK Yes, there’s a lot of email. 24

25

SST I will accept that, I will accept that’s the answer, I can’t recall. Let’s 26

move on to Bundle B7. Please look at pages 2528 to 2529. Are you 27

there, Encik Razak? 28

29

RAZAK Yes. 30

31

SST 2528 to 2529. Now this is an email from Udhaya to Andy Ng, Chee 32

Chin Leong, it was also cc-ed to you and a few others. We are now 33

08.04.2008. Now first question, did you receive this email? 34

35

RAZAK I am in the copy list, yes. 36

37


SST Now, if you look at the first paragraph of this email, I will just highlight 1

the first sentence it says, Dear Andy and Chee then you go straight to 2

the first sentence, in our meeting I was made to understand that we 3

have agreed to the following items 1, 2 and 3, do you see that? Now 4

the question is this, do you agree that as far as Udhaya’s concerned, 5

there were only three issues remaining between the Second 6

Defendant and IICSO? 7

8

RAZAK In the first and second it related to pre-operation and the third one 9

relating to subcontractor, ok. 10

11

SST The question is, as far as Udhaya is concerned, there were only three 12

issues remaining between the Second Defendant and IICSO. Do you 13

agree? 14

15

RAZAK It is as what as per their email. 16

17

SST It is as what per their email, Ok. It is as what as per his email, his 18

email, right? 19

20

RAZAK Udhaya email. 21

22

SST Yes, Ok, thank you. Do you agree that as at this stage 08.04.2008, the 23

Second Defendant did not furnish or did not provide a signed copy of 24

the contract between the Second Defendant and Bank Rakyat to the 25

Plaintiff or IICSO? 26

27


29

SST Do you agree that as at this stage, 08.04.2008, the Second Defendant 30

did not provide or furnish a signed copy of the contract between the 31

Second Defendant and Bank Rakyat to either the Plaintiff or IICSO? 32

Do you understand the question? 33

34

RAZAK Are you referring to the contract signed between Silverlake and the 35

Bank Rakyat? 36

37


SST Yes, the main contract for the Bank Rakyat. 1

2

RAZAK Ok, the nature of the contract there’s a competitive clause. 3

4

YA The question is whether the Plaintiff, is it? 5

6

SST Plaintiff or IICSO as at this stage. 7

8

RAZAK Because that’s the reason why. 9

10

YA No, the question is whether it was sent. 11

12

RAZAK They have seen the draft copy, it’s almost like the final which is not 13

signed document. 14

15

YA The question if you send the contract. 16

17

RAZAK We have not sent any signed document to them. We have not signed. 18

19

SST Encik Razak, please listen to Yang Arif’s direction, please. 20

21

22

YA No, actually we are referring to the question. I think you should focus 23

on the question, there are a lot that you want to explain but if it is 24

relevant, you can re through your lawyer. He is very sharp, your 25

lawyer. He is marking your answer. If there is anything to be asked, it 26

can be done through your lawyer. 27

28

RAZAK Ok, you come back to the question. 29

30

YA So the question is whether you send a copy of the contract (01:06:43 31

inaudible). 32

33

RAZAK Can repeat back the question? 34

35

YA Can repeat the question? 36

37


SST Sure. Now, do you agree that as at this date the Second Defendant 1

did not provide a signed copy of the contract between the Second 2

Defendant and Bank Rakyat to the Plaintiff or IICSO? 3

4

RAZAK You are referring signed is a physical document? No, I need 5

clarification on this signed document, are you referring to the physical 6

document? 7

8

SST Encik Razak, as at this point in time 08.04.2008, has Silverlake signed 9

a contract with Bank Rakyat with regards to the Bank Rakyat Project? 10

11

RAZAK We signed on 21.11. 12

13

SST That’s what I am asking. So, the question is again, do you agree that 14

as at this stage, the Second Defendant did not provide a signed copy 15

of this contract between the Second Defendant and Bank Rakyat to 16

either the Plaintiff or IICSO? 17

18

YA Did you provide a copy of the contract? 19

20

RAZAK No. 21

22

SST Thank you. Now, let’s move on to the same bundle, pages 2488 to 23

2489. 24

25

RAZAK Come again? 26

27

SST 2488 to 2489. Then can you also look at, to save time, can you also 28

look at page 2502, the same bundle, 2502. Now my question is, do 29

you agree that as far as these two emails are concerned Mr Udhaya 30

was basically asking for the signed contract between the Second 31

Defendant and Bank Rakyat? 32

33

RAZAK Email 2488 referring to the first note, correct, the contractual 34

agreement between IICS Operations and Silverlake? 35

36

37


SST Yes. 1

2

RAZAK Because there’s four item there. 3

4

SST Yes, under item 1 note, our lawyers also want a copy of the signed 5

and page by page initial master contract between Silverlake and Bank 6

Rakyat as multiple references in this contract are made in the contract 7

Silverlake and IICSO. And at page 2502, do you want me to read the 8

first paragraph Encik Razak, we are still waiting. 9

10

RAZAK Ok, what is this? 11

12

SST Right. So, basically do you agree that Udhaya was asking for the 13

signed contract between Silverlake and Bank Rakyat? 14

15

RAZAK As per his email, yes. 16

17

SST Now let’s go to page 2503, same Bundle B7, 2503 until 2504. Now 18

this is your email to Udhaya and Dr Narayanan, you also cc-ed this to 19

Chee Chin Leong and Koon Yin. This is 16.03.2008. Now my question 20

is, do you agree that instead of you providing the signed contract 21

between the Second Defendant and Bank Rakyat, you instead 22

produced a confidentiality clause which was found in the principal 23

contract? 24

25

RAZAK Principal contract between Bank Rakyat and Silverlake? 26

27

SST Yes, correct. Do you want me to repeat the question? 28

29

RAZAK Yes. 30

31

SST Now do you agree that instead of you providing the signed principal 32

contract between Bank Rakyat and the Second Defendant, you 33

instead produced the confidentiality clause which was contained in 34

that? 35

36

37


RAZAK What the first question? 1

2

SST Sorry? 3

4

RAZAK What is the first question? 5

6

SST First question, that’s the only question. 7

8

YA Instead of providing a contract. 9

10

RAZAK It’s not providing the contract. 11

12

YA Instead. 13

14

SST Do you agree that instead? You understand the question? 15

16

RAZAK Yes. 17

18

SST Instead of providing the signed contract between the Second 19

Defendant and Bank Rakyat, you produced this confidentiality clause 20

of that signed contract? 21

22

RAZAK Yes. 23

24

SST Now, let’s move on to page 2505 to 2506. 2505, Bundle B7, 2505 25

Bundle B7 until 2506. Are you there, Encik Razak? 26

27

[01:15:00] 28

29

RAZAK Yes. 30

31

SST Now, this is an email, this is 17.03.2008 from Udhaya to you and also 32

the Dr, it was also cc-ed to Chee Chin Leong and Koon Yin where its 33

wrote there, “Hi Razak, there are issue to work around only rest with 34

you and the only advise I can give is to refer to your lawyers”. Now, 35

can you confirm that you did receive this email? 36

37


RAZAK Yes. 1

2

SST And the question is, did you refer this work around to your lawyers? 3

4

RAZAK Yes. 5

6

SST Now, I am now going to refer you to a series of emails and this again 7

to save time. Bundle B7, the first email pages 2507 to 2509. Do you 8

see that? 9

10

RAZAK 2507? 11

12

SST Until 2509. This is an email 25.03.2008 from Udhaya to Mr Chee Chin 13

Leong and Andy Ng, it was also cc-ed to you, Koon Yin and Dr 14

Narayanan. Udhaya was basically seeking a meeting with the Second 15

Defendant to resolve the issue of the signed Principal Agreement. Do 16

you see that email? 17

18

RAZAK Yes. 19

20

SST Alright, let’s move on to the second email. Bundle B7, pages 2510 to 21

2512. Now this is an email from Chee Chin Leong to Udhaya as well 22

as to Andy Ng, it was cc-ed to you, Koon Yin and Dr Narayanan. And 23

now we are at the 25.03.2008, basically Chee Chin Leong was 24

suggesting a meeting to discuss the Principal Agreement issue. You 25

have seen this email? 26

27

28


30

SST Also B7, pages 2513 to 2515. Are you there, Encik Razak? 31

32

RAZAK Yes. 33

34

35

36


SST This is an email 25.03.2008 from Udhaya to Chee Chin Leong and 1

Andy Ng, also cc-ed to you, Koon Yin and Dr Narayanan. Basically 2

Udhaya was proposing Thursday as the meeting day and again he 3

highlighted the requirement of the signed Principal Agreement. You 4

are aware of this email, right? Are you aware of this email? 5

6


8

SST Yes. Next one, B7 pages 2522 until 2524. Now basically this is an 9

email dated 27.03.2008, this is from Chee Chin Leong to Udhaya and 10

Andy Ng, it was also cc-ed to Razak, Koon Yin and Dr Narayanan. 11

Basically in a gist, Chee Chin Leong basically told Udhaya that the 12

Principal Agreement as far as it relates to IICS will be provided and 13

Chee also told you to take out the confidential task of the agreement 14

between the Second Defendant and Bank Rakyat and to leave the 15

parts which are relevant to IICS as part of an attachment to the IICS 16

agreement. Now, are you aware of this email? 17

18

RAZAK Yes. 19

20

SST Now let’s go to B7, pages 2528 to 2529. Are you there? 21

22

RAZAK Yes. 23

24

SST Now this is an email 08.04.2008, this is form Udhaya to Andy Ng, 25

Chee Chin Leong and it was also cc-ed to you and Koon Yin and a 26

few others. Now, do you agree that here, this is about 12 days after 27

Chee’s email on 27.03, Udhaya was still asking for the Principal 28

Agreement minus the confidentiality clause, are you aware of this? 29

30

RAZAK Yes. 31

32

SST Now, let me refer you to three combined emails, same bundle, page 33

2533 to 2584. This is your email 10.04.2008 to Udhaya, you also cc-34

ed this to Koon Yin. Do you recall this email? 35

36

37


RAZAK Yes. 1

2

SST Next is page 2586 until 2587. This is Udhaya’s email to Andy Ng, 3

Chee Chin Leong, it was also cc-ed to you, Koon Yin and a few 4

others. We are at 14.04.2008, are you aware of this email? 5

6


8

SST So basically Udhaya was telling you that he is waiting for his lawyers 9

to revert to you on the draft, correct or not? 10

11

RAZAK Are you referring to the point number 3? 12

13

SST Yes, item number 3 where it says, we have also received a proposed 14

agreement and so on. Yes. Then finally we go to Bundle B7, page 15

2680. 2680 until 2733. This is Udhaya’s email to Andy, Chee Chin 16

Leong, it was cc-ed to you, Koon Yin and Dr Narayanan. We are at 17

22.04.2008 and Udhaya has attached an amended subcontract 18

between the Second Defendant and IICS. Can you see that, it starts at 19

page 2683? 20

21

RAZAK Ok. 22

23

SST Now the question is, do you agree that the Second Defendant did not 24

accept the contents of this attached agreement, do you agree? 25

26

RAZAK And your question again? 27

28

SST My question is, do you agree that the Second Defendant did not 29

accept the contents of the attached agreement? 30

31

RAZAK Yes. 32

33

SST I am moving on to the next issue. Now for this next issue can you look 34

at your answer Question 105? 35

36

37


RAZAK Page what? 1

2

SST Page 36 - 105, 106, 107, 108, 109. 36 to 38. Sorry, let’s go back to 3

Bundle B7, page 2591 to 2593. Are you there? 4

5

RAZAK Yes. 6

[01:30:00] 7

8

SST Now this is Mr Udhaya’s email to Mr Chee Chin Leong, it was cc-ed to 9

you, Koon Yin, Dr Narayanan and Andy Ng. Now first, are you aware 10

of this email? 11

12


14

SST Now my question is, do you agree that it was Udhaya who suggested 15

the splitting of the subcontract into pre-ops and post-ops so as not to 16

affect the pre-ops work which was ongoing? Do you agree? Do you 17

get the question? 18

19

RAZAK This you are referring to email 2561? 20

21

SST Yes, 2591. You want me to repeat the question for you? 22

23

24

RAZAK I read first. 25

26

SST Ok, sure. Now, do you agree that it was Udhaya who suggested the 27

splitting of the subcontract into pre-ops and post-ops so as not to 28

affect the pre-ops work which was ongoing? 29

30

RAZAK Can I read first this one? 31

32

SST Sure. 33

34

RAZAK Ok, your question? 35

36


SST Do you agree that it was Udhaya or Mr Udhaya who suggested the 1

splitting of the subcontract into pre-ops and post-ops so as not to 2

affect the pre-ops work which was ongoing? Do you agree or not? 3

4

RAZAK Come again? 5

6

SST Do you agree that it was Mr Udhaya who suggested the splitting of the 7

subcontract into pre-ops and post-ops so as not to affect the pre-ops 8

work which was ongoing, do you agree? 9

10

RAZAK Yes, agree. 11

12

SST You agree. Can we now refer to page 2594 to 2597, the same Bundle 13

B7, 2594 to 2597. Are you there, Encik Razak? 14

15

RAZAK Yes. 16

17

SST Now, this is Mr Udhaya’s email to Michael and Hayati, it was also cc-18

ed to Mr Chee Chin Leong, yourself, Koon Yin and Andy. This is 19

18.04.2008. Now do you have that? 20

21

RAZAK Yes. 22

23

SST Do you want to read the email first? 24

25

RAZAK Yes, I have it. 26

27

SST You have read the email? 28

29

RAZAK No, I read first. Ok, your question? 30

31

SST Right. You were definitely aware of this email at that point in time, 32

right? 33

34

RAZAK Yes. There’s a copy to me. 35

36


SST Now, do you agree that as at this point in time 18.04.2008, Udhaya 1

was still chasing for the Second Defendant’s confirmation as to 2

whether they were agreeable to split the subcontract into two or let it 3

remain as one, do you agree? 4

5

RAZAK Based on this email, yes. 6

7

SST Now, let’s turn to pages, same Bundle B7, pages 2651 to 2654. Are 8

you there, Encik Razak? 9

10

RAZAK Yes. 11

12

SST Now, this is an email from Mr Chee Chin Leong to Mr Udhaya, it was 13

cc-ed to you, Koon Yin, Dr Narayanan and Andy Ng. We are at 14

21.04.2008. Are you aware of this email? 15

16


18

SST Now do you agree that by this email the Second Defendant agreed 19

with Mr Udhaya’s suggestion to split the subcontract into two? 20

21

RAZAK Yes. 22

23

SST Same Bundle B7, pages 2655 to 2674. Are you there?. 24

25

RAZAK Yes, I read. These are 2655? 26

27

SST Yes, 2655 to 2674. Now this is an email from Mr Udhaya to Mr Chee 28

Chin Leong, it was cc-ed to you, Koon Yin, Dr Narayanan and Andy 29

Ng. This is also dated 21.04.2008. Are you aware of this email? 30

31


33

SST Are you aware of this email? 34

35


37


SST Can you look at the attachment at pages 2659 to 2674? Now this is a 1

proposal which Udhaya attached to his email. Now my question is this, 2

do you need to read the proposal, Encik Razak? 3

4

RAZAK Yes, I am reading. 5

6

SST Alright. Now, my question is this, do you agree that Mr Udhaya was 7

trying to help the Second Defendant by providing this proposal on the 8

pre-ops for the Second Defendant to sign and thereafter to move on 9

with the Bank Rakyat Project? 10

11

RAZAK This is a proposal, not the agreement that we are asking for. 12

13

SST It’s not what I am saying. 14

15

RAZAK Yes, this is a proposal submitted by Udhaya to Chee. 16

17

SST Encik Razak, my question is this, do you agree that Mr Udhaya was 18

trying to help the Second Defendant by providing this proposal on the 19

pre-ops for the Second Defendant to sign and thereafter to move on 20

with the Bank Rakyat Project? 21

22

RAZAK No, the word “help” because this is what they are recommending. 23

24

SST You disagree, is it? 25

26

RAZAK No, this is what they are recommending they submitted the proposal 27

to split the contract into two, one is a pre-op and second one is a post-28

operation. And this is what referring to the first one. 29

30

YA Encik Razak, the question is. 31

32

RAZAK The word of “help”. 33

34

YA Yes, whether or not. 35

36

37


SST If you disagree, then never mind. 1

2

RAZAK No, it’s the “help” word. 3

4

SST You disagree that Udhaya was trying to help you, is it? 5

6

RAZAK No, I am agreeable that they submitted this as a part of their proposal 7

to spilt into two. 8

9

YA Can you explain that if necessary, later? 10

11

HLC I think he is just trying to say that it’s the problem is the word “help”. 12

13

YA But if this is the way, this is the way it’s going on, when are we going 14

to finish with this case? (01:40:47 inaudible). 15

16

HLC Yes. 17

18

YA And you have a chance to re. 19

20

HLC No, that’s why I say, Yang Arif. 21

22

YA You should tell him though. 23

24

HLC That the witness actually answered and say, yes this what they gave 25

us, so the. 26

27

YA The answer is yes or no. What are you trying to do? 28

29

HLC Ok, so then if you want to say no to the word “help”, you just say no to 30

the word “help”, Ok. 31

32

SST Do you want me to repeat the question? 33

34

RAZAK Yes, please. 35

36


SST Do you agree that Mr Udhaya was trying to help the Second 1

Defendant by providing this proposal on the pre-ops for the Second 2

Defendant to sign and thereafter to move on with the Bank Rakyat 3

Project, agree or disagree? 4

5

RAZAK No, if word “help” is no. 6

7

SST No to the word “help”, is it? 8

9

RAZAK Yes. 10

11

SST Yes, Ok. Now let’s look at same Bundle, 2675 to 2679. Are you there, 12

Encik Razak? 13

14

RAZAK Yes. 15

16

SST This is email from Chee Chin Leong to Mr Udhaya, cc-ed to Andy Ng, 17

yourself and I think that’s Loh Koon Yin? 18

19

RAZAK Yes. 20

21

SST 22.04.2008. Now, do you agree that basically Chee was telling 22

Udhaya that “Look we are checking your proposal to see whether it’s 23

consistent”. You are aware of this? 24

25

RAZAK Yes. 26

27

SST And then let’s go to Bundle B7, 2736 to 2760. Are you there? This is 28

your email? 29

30

RAZAK Yes. 31

32

SST Your email to Mr Udhaya, cc-ed to Mr Chee Chin Leong and Koon 33

Yin, this is 29.04.2008. You have attached what’s called a draft 34

Services Agreement, it’s at page 2737. Is that correct? 35

36


[01:45:00]1

2

RAZAK It’s a Draft Pre-Operation Agreement, yes. 3

4

SST Yes. So basically my question is, instead of checking the proposal 5

which we have referred to earlier, you came up with another draft. Do 6

you agree? 7

8

RAZAK Yes. 9

10

SST Now let’s go to page 2762. Can you also cross refer this to Bundle 11

B10, pages 3859 to 3874? Now my question is this, do you agree that 12

the Draft Services Agreement which we have just referred to just now. 13

Do you remember that? 14

15

RAZAK Ok. 16

17

SST You know which one I am talking about, right? 18

19

RAZAK Which I sent the email to Udhaya? 20

21

SST Yes, your email at page 2736 where you attached the, it’s called a 22

Draft Services Agreement. 23

24

RAZAK Ok. 25

26

SST So now my question is this, do you agree that this Services 27

Agreement for pre-ops as attached to your email at page 2736, 28

Bundle B7 was not signed and instead the pre-ops proposal at page 29

3859 of B10 was signed? 30

31

RAZAK That’s the two questions, correct? The first one is. 32

33

SST I don’t, I am trying to save time. So I have combined. 34

35

RAZAK No, I need to understand the question. 36

37


SST Ok, let me split it. Do you agree that the Draft Services Agreement for 1

pre-ops as attached to your email at Bundle B7, pages 2736 to 2760 2

was not signed? 3

4

RAZAK Yes. 5

6

SST Yes. And do you agree that instead the pre-ops proposal at Bundle 7

B10, pages 3859 to 3874 was signed? 8

9

RAZAK Yes. 10

11

SST We move on to another part. Now, do you agree that based on the 12

numerous emails which we have gone through just now. 13

14

RAZAK Are you referring to which email? 15

16

SST Wait, hang on. As far as the subcontract between IICSO and the 17

Second Defendant for the running of the Bank Rakyat Project is 18

concerned, the parties were merely trying to finalise the terms of the 19

subcontract? 20

21

RAZAK Come back again, now you are talking about the post-operation or 22

pre-operation? Because you are talking about the subcontract, ours 23

from the beginning we mentioned that the pre and post. 24

25

SST Let me repeat again. Do you agree that based on the numerous 26

emails which we have just gone through, as far as the subcontract 27

between IICSO and the Second Defendant for the running of the Bank 28

Rakyat Card Centre is concerned, the parties were merely trying to 29

finalise the terms of the subcontract? 30

31

RAZAK Yes. 32

33

SST Just one more question, Yang Arif and I move on to the next stage, 34

maybe after that, we can have a break. Just one related question, 35

Bundle B7, page 2588 to 2590. Now this is Mr Chee Chin Leong’s 36

email to Mr Udhaya, it was cc-ed to you, Koon Yin and Dr Narayanan 37


as well as Mr Andy Ng. We are at 16.04.2008. Now, are you aware of 1

this email? 2

3


5

SST Now my question is this, do you agree that as far as the Second 6

Defendant is concerned, the Second Defendant was asking IICS to 7

continue with their UAT work so that the project is not impacted even 8

without the finalised IICSO – Silverlake agreement? Do you 9

understand the question? 10

11

RAZAK Come back again? 12

13

SST Do you agree that basically what Chee is trying to say here is that 14

look, Silverlake is asking IICS to continue with their UAT work so that 15

the project is not impacted even without the finalised IICSO – 16

Silverlake Agreement? 17

18

RAZAK Can you repeat back the question? 19

20

SST Ok. Do you agree that by this email Silverlake is asking IICS to 21

continue with their UAT work so that the project is not impacted even 22

without the finalised IICSO – Silverlake agreement? 23

24

RAZAK No, that’s a two question, correct? The first one you are talking about 25

UAT. UAT, yes I agree, will not affected UAT, Ok. The second one 26

that, correct me if I am wrong. 27

28

SST There’s only one question. 29

30

RAZAK No, there’s two there. 31

32

SST Ok, let me read the email. “Dear Udhaya, we are processing the 33

second batch of payments for the work done by IICS. We would like 34

you to continue with the UAT and UAT is User Acceptance Test”, 35

right? 36

37


RAZAK Yes. 1

2

SST Ok. “So that the project is not impacted. It is imperative however as 3

per our previous discussion that we finalise the agreement between 4

IICS and Silverlake ASAP before the payment of future invoices”. 5

6

RAZAK Yes. 7

8

SST So my question again, do you agree that basically Silverlake was 9

asking IICS to continue with their UAT work? 10

11

RAZAK That one yes, I agree. 12

13

SST So that the project is not impacted? 14

15

RAZAK Yes. 16

17

SST And this even without the finalised IICSO – Silverlake Agreement? 18

19

RAZAK Yes. 20

21

Masa: 11:12 AM 22

23

SST Yang Arif, I will move on to the next issue, shall I continue? 24

25

YA We continue 11:30 am. 26

27

SST 11:30 am. 28

29

JRB Court bangun. 30

31

32

33

34

AKHIR 35

36

MASA : 11:12 AM 37


TARIKH : 29.12.2014 1

MASA : 11.35AM 2

3

MULA 4

5

SST En. Razak. 6

7

RAZAK Yes. 8

9

SST I am moving onto a new new issue. May I refer you to Bundle B-10. 10

Pages 3859 – 3874. This is the contract dated 20.5.2008 which you 11

have referred to just now before the break it was signed between 12

ICSO and the Second Defendant. Now, I need you to focus on pages 13

3868 – 3871. 14

15

RAZAK 38? 16

17

SST 3868 – 3871. 18

19

RAZAK Ok. 20

21

SST Now, these four pages basically talks about credentials and 22

experiences of both Dr. Narayanan and Mr. Udhaya. 23

24

RAZAK Are you referring to the proposal signed off by Silverlake? 25

26

SST Yes, this is part of it. 27

28

RAZAK It is not a contract signed with Silverlake and it is a proposal signed by 29

(00:02:30 inaudible) because they are not agreeable to sign off the 30

agreement as our draft agreement. 31

32

SST En. Razak. 33

34

RAZAK Yes. 35

36

37


SST I have referred to you pages 3859 – 3874. 1

2

RAZAK Yes. 3

4

SST This is the signed pre-ops between ICSO and the Second Defendant. 5

6

RAZAK Pre-signed proposal by Silverlake. It is not a contract. Pre, it is signed 7

off as acceptance of proposal. 8

9

SST Let me rephrase the question. 10

11

RAZAK Ok. 12

13

SST En. Razak, this is the signed pre-ops proposal. Is that correct? 14

15

RAZAK Yes. 16

17

SST Yes. 18

19

RAZAK It is not a contract, ok? 20

21

SST That’s your view. 22

23

RAZAK Ok. This is not a contract. It is a pre-ops proposal. 24

25

SST En. Razak, enough. 26

27

RAZAK Ok. 28

29

SST Now, pages 3868 – 3871. 30

31

RAZAK 38? 32

33

SST 3868 – 3871. Now, this basically talks about the credentials and 34

experiences of Dr. Narayanan and Mr. Udhaya. Now, my question is 35

this. 36

37


RAZAK 3867 – 3869? 1

2

SST 3868 – 3871. 3

4

RAZAK Ok. 5

6

SST Now, this basically talks about Dr. Narayanan and Mr. Udhaya’s 7

credential or even experience. Now, is the Second Defendant 8

disputing Dr. Narayanan’s and Udhaya’s credentials or experience? 9

10

RAZAK To my knowledge, there is nothing mentioned about disputing his 11

credentials. This is what the proposal they submitted to us. 12

13

SST Ok. Enough, En. Razak. I am moving on to another document. Can 14

you look at Bundle-B(6)? Page 2153. 15

16

RAZAK Page? 17

18

SST 2153. Are you there? 19

20

RAZAK Ok. 21

22

SST Now, this is your email to Mr. Udhaya, you cc this to Koon Yin and Mr. 23

Cee Chin Leong. This is at 18.12.2007. You need to read the email 24

first. 25

26

RAZAK Yes. 27

28

SST Why don’t you read it first? 29

30

RAZAK Ok. 31

32

SST Can you confirm that you are the author of this email? 33

34

RAZAK Yes, I sent out today. 35

36


SST Now, you said, please assist us to provide the following tables for us 1

to plan out the renovation of the office at Wisma Bandar. We are 2

targeting to complete the renovation by mid February and by that time 3

your team can move in to the new renovated office. Now, this 4

renovation at Wisma Bandar, this is referring to the operation centre of 5

the Bank Rakyat project. Right? 6

7

RAZAK It is the first floor. Yes. 8

9

SST Yes. First floor, is it? 10

11

RAZAK Yes. 12

13

SST Now, may I refer you to Bundle-A? Can you turn to pages 135 – 167? 14

This is the Second Defendant’s defence in English origin. 15

16

RAZAK What page? 17

18

SST 135 – 167. 19

20

RAZAK 135 to? 21

22

SST 167. Now, the first question. Were you involved in the preparation of 23

this defence? 24

25

RAZAK Which defence? 26

27

SST 135 – 167. This is the Second Defendant’s defence. This is the 28

English version. Were you involved in the preparation of this defence. 29

30

RAZAK Can I have a look first? 31

32

SST Sure. 33

34


36


SST I am going for the representations. So the following questions will be 1

on the representation issues. In that case, En. Razak, can you also 2

look at the Statement of Claims, the English version is at pages 43 – 3

76. 4

5

RAZAK Page what, 43? 6

7

SST 43 – 76. Bundle-A, the Statement of Claims. Now, in the Statement of 8

Claims, there are reference to a few meetings. The first meeting is 9

21.9.2006, this is at Cyber Logde, Cyberjaya involving the First 10

Defendant, you, Mr. Udhaya and Dr. Narayanan. 11

12

RAZAK You are referring to what line? What number is it? 13

14

SST I am trying to compile that. The second meeting which was referred to 15

the Statement of Claims is a 1.10.2006 meeting. This is at Concord 16

Hotel Shah Alam. In attendance were the First Defendant, yourself, 17

Mr. Udhaya and Dr. Narayanan. The next meeting which was referred 18

is a meeting on the 5.10.2006. 19

20


22

SST I am prepared from my notes. 23

24

YA (00:13:46 inaudible) Just now, you are going through Statement of 25

Claims? 26

27

SST Yes. 28

29

YA At page 43. 30

31

SST until 76. 32

33


35

SST I am referring to the English version. 36

37


RAZAK Yes, I have Bundle-A here. 1

2

SST If I may just point out one more set of this, then that’s it. Sorry, the 3

5.10.2006 meeting; this was a meeting at Ambank’s Cafeteria in 4

Cyberjaya involving you, Dr. Narayanan and Mr. Udhaya and later on 5

there was a series of meetings between 5.10.2006 and 7.11.2006. Ok. 6

This is what is in the Statement of Claim. 7

8

RAZAK Ok. 9

10

SST Alright now, back to the question, were you involved in the preparation 11

of the Second Defendant’s defence? If, yes, then you would have 12

known all these things, then I can move on to other questions. 13

14

RAZAK The most, I think, we are discussed with my legal counsel. 15

16

[00:15:00] 17

18

SST Yes, so you are aware of your defence. 19

20

RAZAK Some of the things, yes because there are a few parties involved, 21

preparing this. 22

23

SST Ok. Fine. Now, do you agree that the Second Defendant knew of the 24

Bank Rakyat project at least on or before the 1.9.2006? 25

26

RAZAK Yes. 1.9.2006. 27

28

SST On or before 1.9.2006. 29

30

RAZAK Yes, which we submitted our first proposal. 31

32

ABR What date? September? 33

34

SST On or before 1.9.2006. And would you agree that as at this point in 35

time, September 2006, the Second Defendant knew of Bank Rakyat’s 36

requirement as far as the Bank Rakyat project is concerned? 37


RAZAK Can repeat the question? 1

2

SST Do you agree that as at this point in time, September 2006, the 3

Second Defendant knew of Bank Rakyat’s requirement as far as the 4

Bank Rakyat project is concerned because you have already 5

submitted. 6

7

RAZAK Will agree in brief, yes. 8

9

SST So you should know the other parties? 10

11

RAZAK Yes. Why if we agree in brief? 12

13

SST I will repeat the question. 14

15

RAZAK Ok. 16

17


Second Defendant knew of Bank Rakyat’s requirements as far as the 19

Bank Rakyat project is concerned? 20

21

RAZAK We agree. Ok. 22

23

SST Did you know of Bank Rakyat’s requirements for the projects? 24

25

RAZAK Come back to the question. 26

27


Second Defendant knew of the Bank Rakyat’s requirements as far as 29

the project is concerned? 30

31

RAZAK We agree up to this. We knew that Bank Rakyat looking for the out 32

sourcing partner. 33

34

SST I will rephrase the question. As at September 2006, did the Second 35

Defendant know of Bank Rakyat’s requirements as far as the project? 36

37


RAZAK Yes. 1

2

SST And do you agree that as at this point in time, September 2006, Bank 3

Rakyat was planning to outsource the Bank Rakyat project? 4

5

RAZAK Yes. 6

7

SST Ok. Direct answer, Yang Arif. Thank you. Do you agree that as at 8

September 2006, the Second Defendant had submitted this proposal 9

to Bank Rakyat specifically at least a proposal dated 1.9.2006? 10

11

RAZAK Yes. 12

13

SST Now, do you agree that in September 2006, the Second Defendant’s 14

proposal for the Bank Rakyat project was not accepted by Bank 15

Rakyat? 16

17

RAZAK Disagree. You are referring to the 1.9.2006, the first proposal 18

submitted by Silverlake. Correct? 19

20

SST Yes. Disagree is it? 21

22

RAZAK Yes. 23

24

SST Is there anywhere in the Bundles to show acceptance by Bank Rakyat 25

of the 1.9.2006 proposal? 26

27

RAZAK No. 28

29

SST Do you agree that in fact, the contract for the Bank Rakyat project, I 30

am referring to the contract between the Second Defendant and 31

Bandaraya was only officially awarded to the Second Defendant on 32

the 21.11.2007? 33

34

RAZAK Contract signed on 21.November. Yes. Earlier confirmed. 35

36

37


SST Was signed on the 21.11.2007. 1

2

RAZAK Earlier confirmation, we supposed to signed on 16 November as per 3

email by En. Khairil. 4

5

SST Now, do you agree that around September 2006, the Second 6

Defendant was aware of the proposal from MBF to Bank Rakyat 7

biding for the same Bank Rakyat project? 8

9

RAZAK You are referring to September 2006 the specific date or general 10

date? 11

12

SST Around, general date. 13

14

RAZAK As per our first submission on the. 15

16

SST Yes or no. Agree or disagree. 17

18

RAZAK Can you come back the question again? 19

20

SST Do you agree that around September 2006, the Second Defendant 21

was aware of the proposal from MBF to Bank Rakyat biding for the 22

same Bank Rakyat project? 23

24

RAZAK I can’t recall that. 25

26

SST Sorry. 27

28


30

SST I can’t recall that. Do you agree that around September 2006, the 31

Second Defendant knew that Bank Rakyat had yet to agree to accept 32

MBF’s proposal? 33

34

RAZAK I have no idea. 35

36


SST No idea. By the way, when did the Second Defendant first hear about 1

Bank Rakyat’s intention to outsource its Bank Rakyat project? 2

3

RAZAK Earlier than September 2006. 1.9.2006. 4

5

SST Earlier than 1.9.2006. 6

7

RAZAK Yes. 8

9

SST And from whom did the Second Defendant hear this news from? 10

11

RAZAK That one I can’t recall. 12

13

SST Now, do you agree that prior to September 2006, you knew the First 14

Defendant? 15

16

RAZAK Come again. 17

18

SST Do you agree that prior to September 2006, you knew the First 19

Defendant? 20

21

RAZAK We heard that they are doing for Bank Islam project. We heard. 22

23

ABR What was the question again? 24

25


Defendant? You, I am talking about you. 27

28

RAZAK Me or Silverlake? 29

30

SST You. 31

32

HLC First Defendant is Rahim. 33

34


36



Defendant. Let me repeat that. You know Abdul Rahim bin Abudl 2

Razak? 3

4

RAZAK Yes. 5

6

SST Do you agree that you knew Abdul Rahim bin Abdul Razak when he 7

was with Bank Islam? 8

9

RAZAK You are talking about me and Razak or me and Silverlake. 10

11

SST You. If I want to refer to the Second Defendant, I will say it say 12

Second Defendant. 13

14

RAZAK I knew him since the early days in Bank Negara. 15

16

SST Since the early days in Bank Negara and including when he was in 17

Bank Islam? 18

19

RAZAK Yes. 20

21

SST So, both of you were from Bank Negara? 22

23

RAZAK Yes, so both of us came from Bank Negara. 24

25

SST I see. Ok. And how long you and En. Abdul Rahim bin Abdul Razak 26

were in Bank Negara Malaysia? 27

28

RAZAK He attached to the Audit Department. I am attached to the ID 29

Department and he was my end user. 30

31

SST He was attached to the Bank Negara’s 32

33

RAZAK Audit Department, Bank supervision. 34

35

SST Audit Department and you were? 36

37


RAZAK ID Department. 1

2

SST And you were colleagues for how long in Bank Negara? 3

4

RAZAK During that time, he was my end user that is why I train him to use this 5

application system. From that day, we knew each other. After that he 6

left and I left Bank Negara. I believe he left earlier than me. I left in 7

1987. Sorry 1997. 8

9

SST You left in 1997. He left earlier. 10

11

RAZAK Earlier than that. After that we never met until in Bank Islam, 12

introduced by IT Head of Bank Islam. Not because he is asking me 13

how long because I can’t just. 14

15

YA (00:25:16 inaudible.) 16

17

RAZAK You got to address the specific period which I can’t tell him. 18

19

SST Now, do you agree that when En. Abdul Rahim bin Abdul Razak was 20

with Bank Islam more specifically with the Bank Islam Card Centre, or 21

BICC, the Second Defendant was providing software system for 22

BICC? 23

24

RAZAK Yes. 25

26

SST Now, when answer you have to address Yang Arif. 27

28

RAZAK Yes. Software and services. Correct? Not software services. 29

30

SST Sorry. 31

32

RAZAK Software and services? 33

34

SST Software and services. And do you agree at that point in time, you 35

were the marketing person for the Second Defendant as far as BICC 36

was concerned? 37


RAZAK I disagree because you have a lot of marketing people attached to the 1

Bank Islam project. 2

3

SST Now, just to clarify, what was your role for the Second Defendant in 4

BICC? 5

6

RAZAK Ok. I support towards the last four years, sorry. Early 2000 for Bank 7

Islam and specifically I am supporting only this card because there is 8

on the Card Department. 9

10

SST Sorry. You need to speak on the Mike. 11

12

RAZAK Ok. I am supporting only for the Card Department because in Bank 13

Islam, there is two, one is called Banking and one is a Card. Ok. The 14

Core Banking is taken care by someone else in the marketing gourp 15

and the credit card, I am taking over since 2003 and 2004 only. 16

17

SST Now, do you agree that you did meet up with En. Abdul Rahim bin 18

Abdul Razak, Mr. Udhaya and Dr. Narayanan in Cyber Lodge at 19

Cyberjaya on 21.9.2006. 20

21


23

SST Do you agree that you did meet up with En. Abdul Rahim bin Abdul 24

Razak, Mr. Udhaya and Dr. Narayanan on 21.9.2006 in Cyber Lodge, 25

Cyberjaya? 26

27

RAZAK Yes, introduced by the First Defendant. Personally I never met them 28

before. 29

30

SST Now, may I refer you to your Answer, Question No. 7, page 3? 31

32

RAZAK Question No.? 33

34

SST 7, page 3. 35

36

37


RAZAK Ok. Are you referring to the amended one. 1

2

[00:30:00] 3

SST Yes. 4

5

RAZAK Ok. 6

7

SST Now do you still maintain that this meeting was set up by the First 8

Defendant? 9

10

RAZAK It’s arranged by the. I am sorry. Come again the question. 11

12

SST En. Razak. You said here. Question, do you know Dr. Narayanan and 13

Mr. Udhaya Kumar, then I think the amendments were after the 14

amendments agreed like this, we met for the first time for this Bank 15

Rakyat project which was also attended by the First Defendant. It was 16

the First Defendant who set up this meeting sometime in second half 17

of 2006. 18

19

RAZAK Yes. 20

21

SST Yes. So this meeting was actually was setup by the First Defendant? 22

23

RAZAK Not set up. It is an introductory meeting. 24

25

SST En. Razak, you look at your answer. It was the First Defendant who 26

set up this meeting. 27

28

RAZAK Yes. Ok. 29

30

SST Do you still maintain this? 31

32

RAZAK Yes. 33

34

SST Now, at this meeting, did you give your name card to either Mr. 35

Udhaya or Dr. Narayanan? 36

37


RAZAK I can’t recall it. 1

2

SST I can’t recall it. May I refer you to Bundle-B(10), page 3902? 3

4

RAZAK 39? 5

6

SST 3092. Now, can you confirm that at that time, you were the Senior 7

Vice President, South Asia and Brunei? 8

9

RAZAK Yes. 10

11

SST Now back to you Answer, Question No. 7, are you there? 12

13

RAZAK Yes. 14

15

SST Now, do you still maintain that you met Mr. Udhaya, Dr. Narayanan 16

and En. Abdul Rahim bin Abdul Razak for the Bank Rakyat project? 17

Do you still maintain it? 18

19

RAZAK You are referring to the new one? 20

21

SST Question 7, your answer is, we met for the first time for this Bank 22

Rakyat project. So I am asking you, do you still maintain this that the 23

meeting was for the Bank Rakyat project/ 24

25

RAZAK Is it the latest one which I have made the changes? 26

27

SST Yes, correct. 28

29

RAZAK Ok. Yes. 30

31

SST Now, do you agree that in this first meeting, 21.9.2006, it was 32

proposed that the Plaintiff be the Bank Rakyat partner to manage the 33

outsourcing operations for Bank Rakyat and to use the Second 34

Defendant’s sister? 35

36

37



2

SST Do you agree that in this first meeting, 21.9.2006, it was proposed that 3

the Plaintiff be the Bank Rakyat partner to manage the outsourcing 4

operations for Bank Rakyat and to use the Second Defendant’s sister? 5

6

RAZAK Disagree. 7

8

SST Disagree. Do you agree that in this first meeting of 21.9.2006, the 9

Plaintiff will submit his proposal for the outsourcing operations to Bank 10

Rakyat and the Second Defendant will submit his proposal for 11

systems to Bank Rakyat? 12

13

RAZAK Come back the question. 14

15

SST Do you agree that in this first meeting of 21.9.2006, the Plaintiff will 16

submit his proposal for the outsourcing operations to Bank Rakyat and 17

the Second Defendant will submit his proposal for systems to Bank 18

Rakyat? 19

20

RAZAK These are come from the meeting. Are you referring to that/ 21

22

SST Sorry. 23

24


26

SST Do you agree that in this first meeting of 21.9.2006, the Plaintiff will 27

submit his proposal for the outsourcing operations to Bank Rakyat and 28

the Second Defendant will submit his proposal for systems to Bank 29

Rakyat? 30

31


33

SST Can’t recall. Do you agree that then, there was a second meeting on 34

1.10.2006, between En. Abdul Rahim bin Abdul Razak, you, Mr. 35

Udhaya and Dr. Narayanan at Concorde Hotel, Shah Alam to discuss 36

further the Bank Rakyat project? 37


RAZAK Which one are you referring to? 1

2

SST I am asking question on the representations issues. 3

4

RAZAK On what date? 5

6

SST I am not referring to a specific Answer, Question in your Witness 7

Statement. I am trying not to do that. I am trying to. Ok, Yang Arif’s 8

point on this, just following on the issues. So, if you can just listen to 9

the question again. 10

11

RAZAK Can you slow down. 12

13

SST I will break up the question. Do you agree that there was a second 14

meeting on 1.10.2006 between En. Abdul Rahim bin Abdul Razak, 15

you, Mr. Udhaya and Dr. Narayanan at Concorde Hotel, Shah Alam? 16

17


19

SST Can recall. Never mind. Maybe the next question will jolt your memory. 20

Do you agree that this second meeting was also to discuss the Bank 21

Rakyat project? 22

23

RAZAK I can’t recall. 24

25

SST Can’t recall. Now, do you agree that this venue Concorde Hotel, Shah 26

Alam, was chosen because it was nearer to En. Abdul Rahim bin 27

Abdul Razak’s home? 28

29

RAZAK No idea. 30

31

SST No idea. Do you know that En. Abdul Rahim bin Abdul Razak stays in 32

Shah Alam? 33

34

RAZAK Yes. 35

36


SST Do you agree that during this second meeting, 1.10.2006, one of the 1

items discussed was to change the Plaintiff’s operations proposal from 2

outsourcing to in sourcing because the operations was to post the 3

base in Bank Rakyat’s premises. 4

5

RAZAK Could you slow down a bit the question? 6

7

SST Sure. Do you agree that during this 1.10.2006 meeting, one of the 8

items discussed was to change the Plaintiff’s operations proposal from 9

outsourcing to in sourcing because the operations was going to be 10

based in Bank Rakyat’s premises? 11

12


14

SST Can’t recall. May I refer you to Bundle-B(1), pages 14 – 51? 15

16

RAZAK B(1)? 17

18

SST B(1), pages 14 – 51. Are you there? 19

20

RAZAK Yes. 14 -? 21

22

SST 14 – 51. 23

24

RAZAK Ok. 25

26

SST Now, we have gone through thse emails earlier on. You have already 27

confirmed receiving this email. Now, can you just look at. Sorry. The 28

day of this email is 3.10.2006 which is two days after the 1.10.2006 29

meeting. Now, can you just look at page 15? Turn to the next page. 30

31

RAZAK Ok. 32

33

SST Now, at the top of the page, can you see credit card in sourcing plan? 34

35

RAZAK Yes. It is what is stated here. 36

37


SST Yes, correct. It is stated there. Now, I put it to you that this title credit 1

card in sourcing plan is consistent with the change of the outsourcing 2

of the proposed outsourcing operation to in sourcing as discussed on 3

1.10.2006? You want me to repeat the question? 4

5

RAZAK Yes. 6

7

SST Do you agree that this title, credit card in sourcing plan is consistent 8

with the change of the outsourcing of the proposed outsourcing 9

operation to in sourcing as discussed on 1.10.2006? 10

11

RAZAK You are referring to in sourcing and outsourcing. Correct? 12

13

SST I am just saying. 14

15

RAZAK Why don’t you put it under? 16

17

SST I put it to you that this title, credit card in sourcing plan is consistent 18

with the change of an outsourcing operations to in sourcing as 19

discussed on 1.10.2006. Do you agree? 20

21

RAZAK Disagree. 22

23

SST Disagree. Now do you agree that subsequently there to, subsequent 24

to the 1.10.2006 meeting, there were further meetings between 25

5.10.2006 and 7.11.2006 involving you, En. Abdul Rahim bin Abdul 26

Razak, Mr. Udhaya and Dr. Narayanan with regards to the Bank 27

Rakyat project? You want me to repeat the question? 28

29

RAZAK Yes. 30

31

SST Do you agree that subsequent to the 1.10.2006 meeting, there were 32

further meetings between 5.10.2006 and 7.10.2006 involving you, En. 33

Abdul Rahim bin Abdul Razak, Mr. Udhaya and Dr. Narayanan with 34

regards to the Bank Rakyat project? 35

36

37



2

SST Can’t recall. Do you agree that between this period 5.10.2006 and 3

7.11.2006, the separate scenario was changed to a single proposal to 4

Bank Rakyat to be submitted by the Second Defendant and that a new 5

company be set up to run the operations? Want me to repeat the 6

question? 7

8

[00:45:00] 9

10

RAZAK Yes. 11

12

SST Do you agree that between this period 5.10.2006 and 7.11.2006, the 13

separate scenario was changed to a single proposal to Bank Rakyat 14

to be submitted by the Second Defendant and that a new company be 15

set up to run the operations? 16

17

RAZAK Disagree. 18

19

SST Disagree. Now, may I refer you to Bundle-B(1) again? Pages 268 – 20

313. Now, we have gone through this email earlier, you have already 21

confirmed receipt of this email. May I ask you to look at page 268, you 22

see there, item 3, power point presentation from ICC to SL, 23

Silverlake? 24

25

RAZAK Yes. 26

27

SST Do you that. 28

29

RAZAK Yes. 30

31

SST You see that. Ok. Now, can you look at the attachment at pages 286 – 32

313? 33

34

RAZAK 286 35

36

37


SST Until 313. 1

2

RAZAK Until 313? 3

4

SST Yes. Now, before that, can you confirm that there was a presentation 5

by Udhaya and Dr. Narayanan to the Senior Management of the 6

Second Defendant on 5.12.2006? 7

8

RAZAK What date is it? 9

10

SST 5.12.2006. Can you confirm that there was this presentation by 11

Udhaya and Dr. Narayanan to the Senior Management of the Second 12

Defendant? 13

14

RAZAK 5 December? 15

16

SST Yes. 17

18


20

SST You can’t recall. Never mind. Let’s look at page 287. 21

22

RAZAK 287? Ok. 23

24

SST Now, look at the first two bullet points. Let me just read. Background 25

information, Silverlake and Logical Operations (00:48:49 inaudible) 26

submitted proposal to Bank Rakyat separately. Based on bank’s 27

feedbank, a joint proposal was submitted with Silverlake as 28

technology service provider while a new Co is to be set up to provide 29

the operations support services. Do you see that? 30

31

RAZAK Ok. 32

33

SST Right. Now, since you did receive this email? 34

35

RAZAK Yes. 36

37


SST From Mr. Udhaya and you have. You know about the attachments to 1

the email, did you write or wrote. Did you email or wrote to Udhaya 2

challenging his version of this background information which I have 3

just read? 4

5

RAZAK No. 6

7

SST No. 8

9

RAZAK Because this is another proposal to Silverlake. 10

11

SST Enough, En. Razak, please. Let’s move on to the next issue. Now, 12

let’s go back to Bundle-A. I am going to refer you to the Second 13

Defendant’s defence, the English version. Please look at page 137, 14

paragraph 7. The pagination is at the top right. 15

16

RAZAK 137? 17

18

SST 137, paragraph 7. 19

20

RAZAK Page 137? 21

22

SST Page 137, the numbering is on the top right hand side. 23

24

RAZAK Top right. 25

26

SST You look at paragraph 7. Have read first then I will take you through 27

the other paragraphs. 28

29

RAZAK Point No. 7 or what? 30

31

SST 7. Do you see the number 7 there? 32

33

RAZAK Yes. 34

35

SST Can you have read. Or you want me to read it to you? 36

37


RAZAK Yes, I will read first. Ok. 1

2

SST Next, page 138, paragraph 10.2. Ok. Have a read as well. 3

4

RAZAK Ok. 5

6

SST Next, same page, paragraph 10.7. 7

8

RAZAK Ok. 9

10

SST Next page 146, paragraph 12.10. Have you read it? 11

12

RAZAK Ok. 13

14

SST Now in the gist, what the Second Defendant is trying to say in all 15

these paragraphs is that the Second Defendant was already tendering 16

or submitting their proposal for their Bank Rakyat project. Is that 17

correct? 18

19

RAZAK Yes. It is 1.9.2006. 20

21

SST Where was this proposal in the Bundles? 22

23

RAZAK The proposal is between Silverlake and the Bank. It is a confidential 24

by nature. 25

26

SST Confidential in nature. 27

28

RAZAK Yes, all our proposal submitted to the company. 29

30

SST Hang on. En. Razak, you are saying is confidential in nature, right? 31

32

RAZAK Yes. 33

34

SST In other words, the 1.9.2006 proposal is not in the Bundles? Is that 35

correct? 36

37


RAZAK Yes. 1

2

SST Yes. Now, I am going to put it to you. I know you have said that you 3

raised the issue on confidentiality. I am going to put it to you that the 4

only reason the Second Defendant is not producing the proposal, the 5

1.9.2006 proposal here in this honourable Court, is because those 6

documents will show that the Second Defendant’s original proposal to 7

Bank Rakyat only offered IT systems. 8

9

RAZAK Come again. Can you slow down a bit the question? 10

11

SST Sure. Do you agree that the only reason the Second Defendant is not 12

producing the 1.9.2006 proposal to Bank Rakyat here to this 13

honourable Court, is because that proposal will show that the Second 14

Defendant’s proposal to Bank Rakyat only offered IT systems. 15

16

RAZAK Disagree. 17

18

SST Disagree. Now do you agree that as at this point in time, the Second 19

Defendant knew that MBF’s proposal to Bank Rakyat had included 20

both IT systems and operations support? 21

22

RAZAK Come back again. 23

24

SST Do you agree that as at this point in time, the Second Defendant knew 25

that MBF’s proposal to Bank Rakyat had both IT systems and 26

operations support? 27

28

RAZAK You are referring the time, which time is it you are referring? 29

30

SST September 2006. 31

32

RAZAK Ok. Can you come back. 33

34

SST Do you agree that as at this point in time, the Second Defendant 35

knew that MBF’s proposal to Bank Rakyat had both IT systems and 36

operations support? 37


RAZAK No idea. 1

2

SST No idea. I put it to you that the Second Defendant was aware that in 3

order to secure the Bank Rakyat project, the Second Defendant had to 4

out bid MBF. 5

6

RAZAK Come back again? 7

8

SST I put it to you that the Second Defendant was aware that in order for it 9

to secure the Bank Rakyat project, the Second Defendant had to out 10

bid MBF. 11

12

RAZAK Disagree. 13

14

SST You disagree? 15

16

RAZAK No. Come back to the question? 17

18

SST Never mind, I accept that as your answer. 19

20

RAZAK No. Come back to the question. 21

22

SST Ok. To be fair to you. I put it to you that the Second Defendant was 23

aware that in order to secure the Bank Rakyat project, the Second 24

Defendant had to out bid MBF. 25

26

RAZAK Meaning that we have to. 27

28

SST You know the meaning of out bid? 29

30

HLC I think Mr. Tieh, can you just slow down. I think you are just pushing 31

and run like a train. I don’t think, that is (00:57:34 inaudible) time. No, 32

that’s why the witness could not understand and then he will just jump 33

and jump. So. 34

35

YA No. His defence Mr. Tieh. Nothing wrong with the question. 36

37


HLC No. The question is nothing wrong. It is fast. The guy cannot follow. 1

That’s all. That’s why I say don’t run like a train. Ok. 2

3

SST I will slow down my speed. 4

5

HLC Yes. That’s all I am asking for. I am not questioning about the 6

question. The question is fine. No problem with that. It is just the 7

speed. I think, that is why he is struggling to follow. 8

9

RAZAK That is why I keep asking, Yang Arif, I keep asking slow down little bit 10

because. 11

12

SST Sure. I will slow down. 13

14

RAZAK You speak very fast. I can’t catch the words. 15

16

SST I will slow down. Let me rephrase. I put it to you that the Second 17

Defendant was aware that in order to secure the Bank Rakyat project, 18

the Second Defendant had to out bid MBF. 19

20

RAZAK Can, if you don’t mind translate in Bahasa? 21

22

SST Saya cadangkan kepada kamu bahawa Defendan Kedua sedar 23

bahawa untuk Defendan Kedua memperolehi project Bank Rakyat 24

tersebut, Defendan Kedua perlu out out bid, out bid, I can’t have the 25

Bahasa word with me MBF. 26

27

RAZAK What is out bid? Any idea? 28

29

SST In other words, you need to have a better proposal than MBF, out bid, 30

you are (00:59:05 inaudible) person. 31

32

RAZAK Yang Arif, I am confusing about the out bid. 33

34


36

SST Melebih, yes or atau lebih baik 37


YA Lebih baik daripada. 1

2

SST Daripada MBF? 3

4

RAZAK But, Yang Arif, I answer that one, I have no idea what is MBF proposal 5

and how for me that Silverlake have to out bit, ok, melebihi MBF? I 6

have no idea because I have no idea. How can I answer that? 7

8

SST I will accept that. He has no idea. 9

10


12

SST He has no idea. Do you agree that in view of this, the Second 13

Defendant had no hesitation in forming a strategic alliance with the 14

Plaintiff in order to secure the Bank Rakyat project? Agree or 15

disagree? 16

17

[01:00:00] 18

19


21

SST Do you agree that in view of this, the Second Defendant had no 22

hesitation in forming a strategic alliance with the Plaintiff in order to 23

secure the Bank Rakyat project? 24

25

RAZAK Can’t get the question, Yang Arif. 26

27

SST Do you agree that in view of this, the Second Defendant had no 28

hesitation in forming a strategic alliance with the Plaintiff in order to 29

secure the Bank Rakyat project? Agree or disagree? 30

31

HLC Sorry, when you say in forming, it is in forming or informing a word? 32

33

YA Forming, 34

35

HLC In forming. 36

37


SST In forming. 1

2

HLC I see.Ok. 3

4

RAZAK Meaning in other words, I have to inform the Plaintiff. Correct? 5

6

SST Ok. Now, I see your point. Now, I see your problem. Ok. I will pose it in 7

Bahasa Melayu. 8

9

RAZAK Ok. I appreaciate. 10

11

SST Adakah anda bersetuju bahawa berdasarkan keadaan ini, Defendan 12

kedua tidak mempunyai hesitation the BM word skip it lah, untuk 13

menjaring suatu strategic alliance, satu pakatan strategic dengan 14

Plaintif untuk memperolehi projek Bank Rakyat? You understand? 15

16

RAZAK You mention that. Tadi you cakap pasal. Can you repeat back the 17

question? Just one a few words that are confusing. 18

19

SST Ok. Adakah anda bersetuju bahawa berdasarkan keadaan in. 20

21

RAZAK No. What is keadaan ini? 22

23

SST Keadaan ini, I am talking about MBF. 24

25

RAZAK Ok. 26

27

SST Defendan kedua tidak mempunyai hesitation untuk menjaling suatu 28

pakatan strategic dengan Plaintif untuk memperolehi projek Bank 29

Rakyat ini? 30

31


33

SST Disagree. Now, may I refer you to Bundle-B(1), pages 345 to 360. Are 34

you there? 35

36

37


RAZAK Yes. 1

2

SST You have already confirmed (01:03:12 inaudible). 3

4

RAZAK Yes. 5

6

SST Just look at pages 350, 351, 352, 354, 355, 356. Now, this basically 7

an evaluation or comparison between MBF and the Second 8

Defendant’s proposal. Now, my question is do you agree that this 9

comparison proposal or evaluation proposal at pages 346 – 358 was 10

prepared by the Plaintiff? 11

12

RAZAK Based on the email, yes what I received. 13

14

SST Did you or the Second Defendant email Udhaya disputing this 15

comparison which he did? 16

17

RAZAK To my knowledge, I did not send any email. 18

19

SST I put it to you that this evaluation or comparison proposal was 20

prepared by the Plaintiff in view of the strategic alliance which was 21

already formed by the Second Defendant and the Plaintiff. 22

23

RAZAK Yang Arif, I mentioned earlier that I am aware what is the proposal by 24

MBF. And how for me to agree or disagree on this? I don’t know. 25

26

SST Why don’t you just say you don’t know. 27

28

RAZAK I don’t know. I have no idea. 29

30

SST Fantastic. I accept that you don’t know. Ok. I am moving on to another 31

issue. Now, may I refer you to Bundle-B(10)? Two documents, the first 32

document at pages 3879 – 3888. 33

34

RAZAK You are referring 3879? 35

36

37


SST 3879 – 3888. And the second document, this is at pages 3889 – 3898. 1

2

RAZAK Come back again. The first one is 3879. 3

4

SST Yes. 5

6

RAZAK until? 7

8

SST 3879 – 3888. 9

10

RAZAK Ok. 11

12

SST The second document 3889 – 3898. 13

14

RAZAK Yes. 15

16

SST Now, do you agree that both are contracts between the Plaintiff and 17

the Second Defendant dated 27.10.2007 and this is with regards to 18

the Bank Islam card centre. 19

20

RAZAK This is sign off proposal. Not contract. 21

22

SST En. Razak. 23

24

RAZAK Contract, there is a legal term and condition. 25

26

SST I am not here to dispute. 27

28

RAZAK Ok. 29

30

SST I am just asking you. 31

32

RAZAK Acceptance of their proposal, yes. 33

34

SST Did the Second Defendant pay for the Plaintiff for these two? 35

36

37


RAZAK Yes. We did. 1

2

SST Yes. Paid. And you signed for the Second Defendant for both? 3

4

RAZAK Yes for both. 5

6

SST And jus to clarify for the first document, since you don’t like the word 7

contract. 8

9

RAZAK It is a proposal. 10

11

SST The payment was RM310,000. 12

13

RAZAK Yes. 14

15

SST and the second document, the payment of RM165,000. 16

17

RAZAK Yes. 18

19

SST What was the duration for the first document? 20

21

RAZAK I have no idea the time line but it is towards the. 22

23

SST Was it three months? 24

25

RAZAK It is somewhere stated there. 26

27

SST Page 3885. Starting September ending December. It is about three 28

months, right? 3885. 29

30

RAZAK Yes. But the timeline is not there. Yes. 31

32

SST Yes, about on three months. 33

34

RAZAK Yes, based on the project schedule. 35

36


SST Yes. And for the second document, the timeline, how long is this? Is it 1

also three months? 2

3

RAZAK It says three months but there is no indicative date. 4

5

SST Indicative date. 6

7

RAZAK It is not. 8

9

SST Ok. If you look at 3895, you have duration at the very top W1 – W12. 10

This will be week 1 to week 12. Right En. Razak? 11

12

RAZAK Which one? 13

14

SST 3895. 15

16

RAZAK 3895. No specific date. 17

18

SST Yes, there is W1 – W7 as you can see in the project schedule. W 19

should be referring to week. Right. You signed this document. 20

21

RAZAK Yes, I assume it is week. Yes. 22

23

SST Week, so 12 weeks should be three months. Right? 24

25

RAZAK Think so because mentioned here on 3896 is end of month three. 26

27

SST Now, I am moving on to a new issue. May I refer you to. 28

29

RAZAK Yang Arif, can we have a break, lunch break? 30

31

YA (01:13:52 inaudible.) 32

33

34

AKHIR 35

36

MASA : 12.49PM 37


TARIKH : 29.12.2014 1

MASA : 2:15 PM 2

3

MULA 4

5

ABR My Lady, I would like to ask for me to leave court earlier at 4:00 today 6

because I’ve got mediation at Bar Council at 5:30. Is it okay, Yang 7

Arif? My pupil will continue to take notes. Thanks. 8

9

SST Dengan izin. We’re moving on to a new issue. 10

11

RAZAK Okay. 12

13

SST Now may I refer you to Bundle-A, please turn to page 152 paragraph 14

17.5. This is part of the 2nd Defendants Defence. Would you like to 15

read first? 16

17

RAZAK Okay. 18

19

SST We’re going on the financials. Have you finished reading? 20

21

RAZAK Wait. Okay. 22

23

SST Next can you turn to page 165, paragraph 48.6? 24

25

RAZAK The same Bundle. 26

27

SST Same Bundle, it’s part of your, it’s part of the 2nd Defendants Defence. 28

29

RAZAK What page is it? 30

31

SST 165 the pagination on the top right hand corner. Paragraph 48.6. 32

33

RAZAK 16? 34

35


SST 165, paragraph 48.6. These two paragraphs are part the 2nd 1

Defendants Defence, the English version. 2

3

RAZAK Okay. 4

5

SST Alright. Now do you agree that as far as the 2nd Defendants position 6

with regards to financials or financials projections prepared by the 7

Plaintiff, the 2nd Defendants position is that these financials or financial 8

positions were unrealistic, unreliable and untrustworthy? 9

10

RAZAK Can you repeat? 11

12

SST Okay. Do you agree that it is the 2nd Defendants position that the 13

Plaintiffs financials or financial projections prepared by the Plaintiff 14

were unrealistic, unreliable and untrustworthy? Is that your, is that the 15

2nd Defendants position? 16

17

RAZAK Yes based on the on our response of 48.6. 18

19


21

RAZAK Yes? 22

23


25

RAZAK No, in our response in 48.6,okay, Defendant believe that projection 26

put up by Plaintiff OICO as they are unrealistic, unreliable and 27

untrustworthy. 28

29

ABR Yes, his answer is yes. 30

31

YA The answer is yes. 32

33

SST Yes, he said yes. That is their position, the 2nd Defendants position. 34

Now may I refer you to your answer question 19, page 7. Are you 35

there? Your answer question 19. 36

37


RAZAK Yes. 1

2

SST Page 7. 3

4

RAZAK Okay what’s the question? 5

6

SST Now you’ve referred to Bundle-B1, pages 93 to 111. Can you turn to 7

Bundle-B1, pages 93 to 111? 8

9

RAZAK 111 is it? 10

11

SST 111. 93 to 111. 12

13

RAZAK Okay. 14

15

SST Now my question is are the financials which you were referring to at 16

pages 94 to 111? 17

18

RAZAK Okay, 94 to. 19

20

SST Are those the financials which you were referring to? 21

22

RAZAK Yes, base on my statement. 23

24

SST Yes. Next can you look at your answer question 20? Your answer 25

question 20. 26

27

RAZAK Okay. 28

29

SST You’ve made reference to Bundle-B1, pages 112 to 131. Now can you 30

confirm that the financials which you were referring to are at pages 31

114 to 131? 32

33

RAZAK Yes. 34

35

36


SST Yes. Now please go to your answer question 22 at page 8. Now 1

you’ve referred to three sets of documents. First one is 134 to 155, the 2

second is 156 to 179 and the third is 180 to 238. Now my question is 3

can you confirm that the financials which you were referring to are at 4

pages, the first set is 136 to 155? 5

6

RAZAK Okay. 7

8

SST Yes or no? 9

10

RAZAK Yes. 11

12

SST Second set is 158 to 179. 13

14

RAZAK Yes. 15

16

SST Yes. And the next one is 185 to 200. 17

18

RAZAK Okay. 19

20

SST Yes, right. 21

22

RAZAK Yes. 23

24

SST Okay next your answer question 24, page 9. 25

26

RAZAK Question 24. 27

28

SST Question 24. You referred to pages, sorry, in B1 pages 268 to 313. 29

You referred to B1, pages 268 to 313. 30

31

RAZAK 268. 32

33

SST To 313, Bundle-B1. That’s what you refer to in your witness statement. 34

Now my question is can you confirm that the financial proposal which 35

you referring to is at pages 269 to 285? 36

37


RAZAK Yes. 1

2

SST Yes. Next on the same answer question 24, you referred to four sets 3

of documents, all in B1. The first one is pages 314 to 316, the second 4

is 317 to 343, the third is 344 and the next one is 345 to 360. 5

6

RAZAK 345 to 360 is it? 7

8

SST Right. This one you’ve referred to in your answer question 24. 9

10

RAZAK Okay. 11

12

SST Now my question again. Can you confirm that the financials which you 13

were referring to are at Bundle-B1? 14

15

RAZAK Yes. 16

17

SST First one pages 315 to 316. 18

19

RAZAK The e-mails are sequence with the financial, correct. 20

21

SST I’m sorry. 22

23

[00:15:00] 24

25

RAZAK The e-mails with the subsequent, as attachment of the e-mail, correct. 26

27

SST Yes, correct. This is what you referred to in your answer question 24. 28

29

RAZAK But if you refer 314 to 316 but the attachment is 315. 30

31

SST 315, 316 yes. 32

33

RAZAK Yes, okay. 34

35

SST Did you refer to this as a financial? 36

37


RAZAK Yes. The first, the front page is e-mail and subsequent is attachment. 1

2

SST Yes, I’m focusing on 315 to 316. 3

4

RAZAK Okay. 5

6

SST I just want to clarify whether you’re referring to this as financials or not. 7

8

RAZAK Because my statement is 314. 9

10

SST Yes, you started with 314. I referred you to all these documents in 11

(00:15:35 inaudible) focusing on trying to identify the financials which 12

you’re referring to. 13

14

RAZAK Okay. 15

16

SST Alright. So can you just confirm for the e-mail at 314 to 316 the 17

financials are at 315 to 316? 18

19

RAZAK Yes. 20

21

SST Yes. And the next one, the financials for the e-mail at 317 to 343. This 22

will be at 318 to 343. Would that be correct? 23

24

RAZAK Yes. 25

26

SST And for the e-mail at pages 345 to 360 you referred to the financials at 27

359 and 360. 28

29

RAZAK 3? 30

31

SST 59 and 360. 32

33

RAZAK Yes. 34

35

36


SST Then let’s move on to your answer question 29, page 11. Now you 1

referred to e-mails at, sorry you referred to e-mails in Bundle-B2, 2

pages 492 to 513. Can you confirm that the financials are at pages 3

493 to 513? Sorry let me repeat that, 493 to 506, my mistake, to 506. 4

Are the financials at 493 to 506, my apologies? 5

6

RAZAK Okay, yes. 7

8

SST Then the other e-mail which you referred to at pages 515 to 527. Now 9

can you confirm that the financials which you’re referring to are at 10

pages 516 to 527? 11

12

RAZAK Yes. 13

14

SST Yes. Let’s move on to your answer question 30, same page 11. Now 15

you’ve referred to pages 542 to 588. 16

17

RAZAK 588. 554 or 558.588. 18

19

SST This is what you put. The subsequent e-mails at pages 542 to 588. 20

Unless there’s a mistake. 21

22

RAZAK Yes. 23

24

SST Yes. 25

26

RAZAK It’s a final projection. 27

28

SST So let’s confirm. So the financials are at pages 543 to 554. 29

30

RAZAK Yes, financial projection. 31

32

SST And then the next one 557 to 571. 33

34

RAZAK Yes, again financial projection from the Plaintiff. 35

36


SST Next just wondering are you prefix (00:23:48). Can you refer to pages 1

580 to 588? 2

3

RAZAK 588. 4

5

SST 580 to 588. Are you there? Because your e-mail, your reference goes 6

from 542 to 588 so for 580 to 588, are you referring to this as. Are you 7

treating this as financials as well? 8

9

RAZAK Sensitivity analysis is part of financials. 10

11

SST In other words yes you’re treating this as financials. 12

13

RAZAK The sensitivity analysis, yes. 14

15

SST Let’s move on. Answer question 31. You’ve referred to Bundle-B2 16

pages 604 to 630. Now can you confirm that the financials which 17

you’re referring to are at pages 605 to 630? 18

19

RAZAK Yes another financial projection from the Plaintiff. 20

21

SST Next answer question 32. You’ve referred to two e-mails. The first one 22

pages 631 to 657. Now for this e-mail can you confirm that you were 23

referring to 632 to 657 as the financials? 24

25

RAZAK Yes, modification by the Plaintiff on the financial projection. 26

27

SST Then the next e-mail you referred to 658 to 684. Now can you confirm 28

that you were referring to 659 to 684 as the financials? 29

30

RAZAK Yes, again it’s a subsequent modification as I mentioned earlier. 31

32

SST Then let’s move on to your answer question 64. 64 at page 22. Now 33

you referred to Bundle-B5, pages 1715 to 1731. Bundle-B5. Now can 34

you confirm that you were referring to 1716 to 1731 as the financials? 35

36

37


RAZAK 171? 1

2

SST 1716 to 1731 were you treating this as financials? 3

4

RAZAK Question 64, correct. 5

6

SST Question 64, page 22 of your witness statement. 7

8

[00:30:00] 9

10

RAZAK Your question. 11

12

SST Can you confirm that the you were treating 1716 to 1731 as 13

financials? 14

15

RAZAK Yes, this time is ICSO is included (00:30:47 inaudible). 16

17

SST Now can now look at your answer question, you can write this down. 18

Answer question 22, answer question 23, answer question 25, answer 19

question 31 and answer question 64. Can you please have a read 20

before I ask you the question? Encik Razak which question are you 21

at? 22

23

RAZAK 64. 24

25

SST 64. Have you finished? 26

27

RAZAK Yes. 28

29

SST Okay. My question is this. Now after looking at the financials which 30

you’ve referred to and taking into consideration what you’ve, what the 31

2nd Defendant have pleaded in their Defence, those paragraphs which 32

we referred to earlier. 33

34

RAZAK Okay. 35

36


SST Right. Do you agree that what the 2nd Defendant is trying to say about 1

the financial projections is that the 2nd Defendant disagrees, disputes 2

or rejects those financials because they were unrealistic, unreliable 3

and untrustworthy? 4

5

RAZAK Again the question. Slowly. 6

7

SST Now after looking at the financials which you have referred to and 8

based on what the 2nd Defendant have pleaded in their Defence, do 9

you agree that what the 2nd Defendant is trying to say about these 10

financial projections is that the 2nd Defendant disagrees, disputes or 11

rejects these financial, these financials because they were unrealistic, 12

unreliable and untrustworthy? 13

14

RAZAK Agree. 15

16


18

SST He said that is their position. That they’re saying that as far as the 19

financials are concerned they are disagreeing, they are disputing it, 20

they are rejecting it because they are unrealistic, unreliable and 21

untrustworthy. 22

23

RAZAK This is based on our statement. 24

25

SST Now my further question. Since the 2nd Defendant is alleging that the 26

financial projections by the Plaintiff were unrealistic, unreliable and 27

untrustworthy did the 2nd Defendant e-mail or wrote to the Plaintiffs, 28

Udaya and Dr Narayanan disputing those financial projections? 29

30

RAZAK Come back again. 31

32

SST Since the 2nd Defendant is alleging that the financial projections are. 33

34

RAZAK Excuse me, what you mean by alleging? 35

36

37


SST Sorry? 1

2

RAZAK What do you mean by alleging? Alleging what is that? 3

4

SST Alleging mendakwa. 5

6

RAZAK Okay. 7

8

SST Since the 2nd Defendant is alleging that the financial projections by the 9

Plaintiffs were unrealistic, unreliable and untrustworthy, did the 2nd 10

Defendant e-mail or wrote to the Plaintiff or the Plaintiffs, Mr Udaya or 11

Dr Narayanan disputing those financial projections? 12

13

RAZAK No. 14

15

SST No. Now please refer to Bundle-B5, pages 1715 to 1731. 16

17

RAZAK What page is it? 18

19

SST Bundle-B5, pages 1715 to 1731. We’ve just referred to it. Can you 20

also look at your answer question 64 as well? 21

22

RAZAK 1715 is it? 23

24

SST To 1731. You referred to this at your question, answer question 64. 64 25

at page 22. 26

27

RAZAK 64, page 22. 28

29

SST Yes. Now I believe that this is the last financial projection which you 30

referred to in your witness statement. Correct? Now the date of this e-31

mail is 14.10.2007. Can you see that? 32

33

RAZAK Okay. 34

35

36


SST Yes. Now do you agree that even though it is the 2nd Defendants 1

position that the financial projections were unrealistic, unreliable and 2

untrustworthy as at this point in time 14.10.2007 the 2nd Defendant did 3

not inform the Plaintiffs, Udaya or Dr Narayanan via e-mail or via letter 4

that the 2nd Defendant did not want to partner the Plaintiff to run the 5

Bank Rakyat project. Do you agree? Do you want me to repeat the 6

question? 7

8

RAZAK Wait, let I read this one. Okay the question. 9

10

SST Okay. Do you agree that even though it is the 2nd Defendants position 11

that the financial projections were unrealistic, unreliable and 12

untrustworthy as at this point in time the 2nd Defendant did not inform 13

the Plaintiffs, Udaya and Narayanan via e-mail or letter that the 2nd 14

Defendant did not want to partner the Plaintiff to run the Bank Rakyat 15

project. Yes or no? 16

17

RAZAK Yes, I can’t recall there’s no e-mail. 18

19

SST No e-mail. 20

21


23

RAZAK Yes. 24

25


27

SST Now we are still at, sorry please keep open your Bundle-B5. We’re still 28

at the financials at pages 1716 to 1731. Now can you look at page 29

1728? 1728, are you there? 30

31

RAZAK The financial projection. 32

33

SST Yes, page 1728. 34

35

RAZAK Final 14.10.2007. 36

37


SST Yes, correct. Now you’ve already said earlier on that this was 1

produced by the Plaintiff. Now if you look at page 1728 under the 2

column revenue to your left hand side, do you see the bold revenue, 3

the word revenue? 4

5

RAZAK Which line is it? 6

7

SST The first line. 8

9

RAZAK Okay, the top, the header is it? Underline. 10

11

SST Yes, the revenue. Underline, can you see that? 12

13

RAZAK Yes. 14

15

SST The fifth line says total revenue from Bank Rakyat to Silverlake. Do 16

you see that? 17

18

RAZAK Okay. 19

20

SST Yes. Then if you were to go right to the right column under the total. 21

22

RAZAK Okay. 23

24

SST Do you see the figures RM143,880,624.00? 25

26

RAZAK Yes. 27

28

SST Now do you agree that base on these financial projection and to be 29

fair to you which the Plaintiff prepared, the projected revenue from 30

Bank Rakyat to Silverlake is RM143 million plus, plus? 31

32

RAZAK Okay what is your question? 33

34

SST That’s the question. 35

36

37


RAZAK This is what their proposal. 1

2

SST Yes. So that’s why I said to be fair to you based on this financial 3

projection according to the Plaintiff your revenue, sorry, the 2nd 4

Defendant’s revenue from Bank Rakyat at the end of the seven years 5

would be RM143 million. 6

7

RAZAK This is what the Plaintiff claim our revenue. 8

9

SST Yes, fine. I’ll accept that as an answer. This is what the Plaintiff claim 10

as our revenue. Now I’m moving on to another issue. Now may I refer 11

you to Bundle-B9, B9. Now I need you to look at two sets of 12

documents. The first one is at pages 3384 to 3401, 3384 to 3401. 13

14

RAZAK 3384. 15

16

SST Until 3401. 17

18

RAZAK 3384. 19

20

SST To 3401. And the second set of documents also same Bundle, pages 21

3509 to 3511. Now my question is are you aware of this two financial 22

projections? 23

24

[00:45:00] 25

26

RAZAK I can’t verify this document because this is not part to the. 27

28

SST Can’t verify. 29

30

RAZAK Because this is not part of the e-mail. I’m not sure it’s part of the e-mail 31

or not. Because I don’t see any correlation e-mail to this attachment. 32

33

SST Now do you agree that you did have several meetings with Mr Udaya 34

and Dr Narayanan with regards to the Bank Rakyat project? 35

36

37


RAZAK I can’t recall so much about the meeting dates. 1

2

SST I’m not asking you about the meeting dates. I’m just saying do you 3

agree that you did have several meetings with Udaya. 4

5

RAZAK There’s a few meetings. 6

7

SST Few meetings. And do you agree that no official minutes of meeting 8

are kept with regards to this meetings? 9

10


12

SST You can’t recall. Can you just confirm that this, sorry you say you can’t 13

recall. But are there such minutes of the meetings in the Bundles? I’m 14

sure you have gone through the Bundles. 15

16

RAZAK I can’t remember. 17

18

SST They don’t have. They are not there. 19

20

RAZAK I’m not sure. 21

22

YA (00:47:30 inaudible) 23

24

SST (00:47:34 inaudible). 25

26

RAZAK I can’t. 27

28

SST I can’t find them. There’s none. 29

30

HLC There’s none. 31

32

SST I’ll just put it to you that the two documents which I’ve just referred to 33

you. 34

35

RAZAK Which document is it? 36

37


SST B9, 3384 to 3401. B9, 3509 to 3511. 1

2

RAZAK Okay. 3

4

SST I just referred to you. 5

6

RAZAK Yes. 7

8

SST Okay, these two financial projections the Plaintiffs are relying on this 9

to establish their RM60 million loss of profit so I put it to you, I put it to 10

you that these financial projections were given to you in one of these 11

meetings which you had with Udaya and Dr Narayanan. Agree or 12

disagree? 13

14


16

SST Let’s move on to another issue. Now may I refer you to Bundle-B1 17

pages 317 to 343? Can you also look at, just to save time, Bundle-B1 18

itself, page 344. 19

20

RAZAK 344 only one page, correct. 21

22

SST Yes, only one page. 23

24

RAZAK Okay. 25

26

SST Now do you agree that with regards to the 2nd Defendant ISCS sub 27

contract, the 2nd Defendant had wanted 60% of the revenue from card 28

operations leaving 40% to ISCS? 29

30

RAZAK Come again, the question. 31

32

SST Do you agree that with regards to the 2nd Defendant ISCS sub 33

contract. 34

35

RAZAK No, no ICS sub contract, okay. 36

37


SST The 2nd Defendant had wanted 60% of the revenue from the card 1

operations leaving 40% to ISCS. Do you agree? 2

3

RAZAK I disagree. This is what their proposal on the financial. 4

5

SST Disagree. Can you look at, sorry, may I refer you to Bundle-B6 pages 6

2147 and 2148? Are you there? 2147, Encik Razak? 7

8

RAZAK Yes. I read first. 9

10

SST Okay. This is an e-mail from Udaya, Mr Udaya to Mr Andy Ng, Mr 11

Chee Ching Leong. It was also cc to you. Now can you look for a 12

paragraph which starts with to further recall? Towards the end of page 13

2147. Can you see the paragraph? 14

15

RAZAK Yes. 16

17

SST Alright now focus on the third line, yes. The third line. It is also in the 18

same spirit that the revenue share model with 60/40 for Silverlake and 19

ISCS and he went on to say other things. Now. 20

21

RAZAK I read first this sentence. 22

23

SST My question is, is there any e-mail from the 2nd Defendant to Mr Udaya 24

disputing Udaya’s version of this split of revenue of 60% for the 2nd 25

Defendant and 40% for ISCS? 26

27

RAZAK You’re talking about 60/40 revenue sharing, correct. 28

29

SST Yes. Any e-mail from the 2nd Defendant to Mr Udaya disputing Mr 30

Udaya’s version of this split of revenue 60% for the 2nd Defendant and 31

40% for ISCS? 32

33

RAZAK Yes, from Andy and Chee I’m not sure have they put any e-mail on 34

this or not. But from me I don’t see, if I can recall I’m not sending any 35

e-mail. 36

37


SST Let’s move on to another issue. (00:55:50 inaudible). May I refer you 1

to Bundle-B1 again? Pages 239 to 243. 2

3

RAZAK 239. 4

5

SST To 243. Now this is your e-mail 16.11.2006 to Mr Udaya. Now can you 6

look at the body of the e-mail? You ask Udaya please confirm this one 7

we have gone through. Now there’s one Silverlake data centre 8

services with Silverlake is agreeable to supply the software SCS 9

monitor plus module (00:57:31 inaudible) required by the Plaintiffs per 10

our proposal dated this. Now beginning with this sentence Silverlake 11

data centre services right up to the end of page 243, this contents. 12

Who prepared this contents? 13

14

RAZAK This extracted from our proposal. 15

16

SST Extracted from your proposal. 17

18

RAZAK To the bank dated on the 01.09.2006. 19

20


22

RAZAK Okay this is extracted from the proposal dated on the 01.09.2006 to 23

the bank. 24

25

SST Now where this contents, this contents meant to be sent or provided 26

by the 2nd Defendant to Bank Rakyat for purposes of the discussion of 27

the Bank Rakyat project? 28

29

RAZAK To ensure they know what we are submitted. 30

31

SST In other words, yes. 32

33

RAZAK No, if you have option to appoint them as sub contractor some of this 34

the services. No, I’m referring to. 35

36

37


SST My question is this. We have identified the contents. 1

2

RAZAK Yes. 3

4

SST Right. Now were these contents meant to be sent or to be provided by 5

the 2nd Defendant to Bank Rakyat for discussions with regards to the 6

Bank Rakyat project? 7

8


10

SST Were these contents meant to be sent or the be provided by the 2nd 11

Defendant to Bank Rakyat for discussions with regards to the Bank 12

Rakyat project? 13

14

RAZAK This we submitted to the bank and extracted and sent to Plaintiff for 15

confirmation. 16

17

SST In other words these were sent to Bank Rakyat. 18

19

RAZAK Yes. 20

21

SST Yes. This was sent to Bank Rakyat. 22

23

RAZAK Is our original proposal. 24

25

[01:00:00] 26

27

SST Now with regards to your 1st September. With regards to the 2nd 28

Defendants proposal dated 01.09.2006 you’ve said before our lunch 29

break that these are confidential documents, right. So since these 30

were confidential documents. 31

32

RAZAK The entire proposal is confidential document. 33

34

SST Did you give a set of this proposal 01.09.2006 to the Plaintiff? 35

36

37


RAZAK As I said earlier we have not given any. 1

2

SST Now please refer to Bundle-B1 again page 14 to 51. Same Bundle, 3

pages 14 to 51. 4

5

RAZAK Okay. 6

7

SST Now this Udaya’s e-mail to you dated 03.10.2006 you’ve already 8

confirmed received of this. Now compare this date 03.10.2006 this e-9

mail from Udaya to you. 10

11

RAZAK Okay. 12

13

SST And your e-mail at page 239 the one we’ve just referred to is dated 14

16.11.2006. In other words Udaya’s e-mail 03.10.2006 was sent to 15

you at least or about one and half months before your e-mail dated 16

16.11.2006. Right? 17

18

RAZAK November 16th and October 3rd. 19

20

SST About one month (01:03:35 inaudible), right. 21

22

RAZAK Almost 40 days. 43 days. 23

24

SST Now I need you to keep these two documents open. Page 14, the 25

document at page 14 and the document at page 317. Sorry, 239. Now 26

look at page 240 under Item 4.3.1. 27

28

RAZAK Okay. 29

30

SST Can you see that? 31

32

RAZAK Yes. 33

34

SST Receive card issuing and personalisation. Then there seven bullet 35

points there. 36

37


RAZAK Okay. 1

2

SST Can you a read first? 3

4

RAZAK Okay. Yes. 5

6

SST Now can you compare 4.3.1 with page 32? Page 32. You’ve already 7

mentioned that this is what Udaya had e-mailed to you in early 8

October. Now my question is do you agree that the scope of services 9

as mentioned in 4.3.1 are the same as the one at page 32? What I 10

mean by that is you see under 4.3.1 page 240 obtaining the plastics 11

(01:05:52). 12

13

RAZAK Yes. 14

15

SST Then you look at page 32 under card issuing and personalisation 16

same title, obtaining the plastics and so on until inventory of plastics 17

the same appears at page 32. Do you agree? The same scope of 18

services. 19

20

RAZAK Okay what’s the question? 21

22

SST That’s the question. Do you agree that it’s the same, that they are the 23

same? That the scope of services under 4.3.1 is the same as under 24

page 32. You want me to show you one by one. 25

26

RAZAK No except the word or the note. 27

28

SST I just said the bullet points. I’m not talking about the note. 29

30

RAZAK The note. 31

32

SST Okay, let me be clearer. Do you see the words obtaining the plastics 33

under 4.3.1 at page 240? 34

35

RAZAK Yes. 36

37


SST Do you see the words obtaining the plastics at page 32? 1

2

RAZAK Yes. 3

4

SST Next one do you see producing the reissue register at 240? 5

6

RAZAK Yes. 7

8

SST Do you see the producing the reissue register at 32? 9

10

RAZAK Yes. 11

12

SST Next producing the input used in personalisation 240. 13

14

RAZAK Okay. 15

16

SST Do you see this at page 32, producing the input used in 17

personalisation? 18

19

RAZAK Okay. 20

21

SST Next packing and sending plastic to branches of customers at 240. 22

23

RAZAK Okay. 24

25

SST It also appears at 32, page 32 packing and sending plastic to 26

branches of customers. 27

28

RAZAK Okay. 29

30

SST Even the ‘P’ is also capitalised. 31

32

RAZAK Okay. 33

34

SST Do you see that? Next reviewing and re mailing cards return at page 35

240. 36

37


RAZAK Okay. 1

2

SST You look at page 32 reviewing and re mailing cards return. 3

4

RAZAK Okay. 5

6

SST Okay. Next inventorying of plastic page 240. 7

8

RAZAK Yes. 9

10

SST Appears at 32 inventorying of plastic. 11

12

RAZAK Yes. 13

14

SST And I’ll go on. Item 4.3.2, they are all the same right so far. 15

16

RAZAK Work is same yes. 17

18

SST Page 240, Item 4.3.2. You look at page 240 Item 4.3.2 you have all 19

these things, card holder billing and statements you have five bullet 20

points. Do you see that at page 240? 21

22

RAZAK Yes. There’s five points. 23

24

SST Five bullet points here. Now you compare that with page 33. 25

26

RAZAK Yes. 27

28

SST Page 33 you can see card holder billing and statement five points 29

there. To cut it short you have a look at these two pages. Can you just 30

confirm that the scope of services are also the same? 31

32

RAZAK The wording same, yes. 33

34

SST The wordings are the same. Now let’s look at page 240 again under 35

Item 4.3.3 payment processing. There are eight bullet points under 36

payment processing. Can you see that? Encik Razak? 37


RAZAK Yes. 1

2

SST Do you see that 4.3.3 payment processing there are eight bullet points 3

there? 4

5

RAZAK Okay. 6

7

SST Okay. You compare that with page 34. 8

9

RAZAK Yes. 10

11

SST Can you have a read? Do you agree that the scope of services are 12

also the same? 13

14

RAZAK The wording almost the same. 15

16

SST It’s basically it’s the same. 17

18

RAZAK Yes. 19

20

SST Is the same right? 21

22

RAZAK Yes. 23

24

SST Do you want me to go through one by one again? 25

26

RAZAK Yes. 27

28

SST It’s the same. 29

30

RAZAK Yes. 31

32

SST Next Item 4.3.4 starting with page 240 ending at page 241. 4.3.4. 33

34

RAZAK Okay. 35

36


SST This is card holders servicing and there are nine bullet points. Now 1

can now turn to page 35. Are you at page 35? 2

3

RAZAK Yes. 4

5

SST Also card holders servicing. Can you confirm that the scope of 6

services is also the same? 7

8

RAZAK You’re referring to. 9

10

SST 4.3.4 card holders servicing at page 240. This is your e-mail. 11

12

RAZAK Okay. 13

14

SST Then Udaya’s e-mail to you the same scope of words is at page 35. 15

Card holders servicing. 16

17

RAZAK Okay. 18

19

SST Can you just confirm that the scope of services are also the same? 20

21

RAZAK Yes. 22

23

SST Next page 241 Item 4.3.5. Are you there? 24

25

RAZAK Yes. 26

27

SST Incoming interchange processing. 28

29

RAZAK 4.3.5. 30

31

SST Yes. You have eight bullet points there. Now can you compare this 32

with page 37 of Udaya’s e-mail? Page 37 of Udaya’s e-mail. Now can 33

you confirm again that the scope of services are also the same? 34

35

RAZAK Yes. 36

37


SST Yes. Next page 241 Item 4.3.6, you have card holder fraud 1

investigation. Underneath you have eight bullet points. Compare that 2

with page 36 of Udaya’s e-mail. 3

4

RAZAK Okay. 5

6

SST Now except for the word card holder which appears page 241. Card 7

holder fraud investigation, do you see that? 4.3.6. 8

9

RAZAK Yes. 10

11

SST In Udaya’s e-mail you have card fraud investigation. 12

13

RAZAK Okay. 14

15

SST In other words the difference is only the card and card holder. But my 16

point is do you agree that the scope of services are the same? 17

18

01:15:00] 19

RAZAK Yes. 20

21

SST Yes. Page 241 Item 4.3.7. Do you see there card holder 22

authorisation? 23

24

RAZAK Okay. 25

26

SST Yes and compare this with page 38. 27

28

RAZAK Okay. 29

30

SST In your card holder authorisation again same question. Do you agree 31

that they are the same scope of services? 32

33

RAZAK Yes. 34

35


SST Yes. Next page 241 Item 4.3.8. Issuer centre administration. Do you 1

see that? Can you compare this with page 39 of Udaya’s e-mail? Do 2

you agree that the scope of services are also the same? 3

4

RAZAK Yes. 5

6

SST Last one, page 241 Item 4.3.9. Card business analysis. Can you 7

compare this with page 40 of Udaya’s e-mail? 8

9

RAZAK Yes. 10

11

SST Can you confirm that the scope of services are also the same? 12

13

RAZAK Yes. 14

15

SST Now I’m putting it to you that based on the comparison of the scope of 16

services which we have just gone through that 2nd Defendant did make 17

use and relied on the contents of the Plaintiffs proposal to you. Do you 18

agree? 19

20

RAZAK Come back again a bit slow. 21

22

SST Based on the comparison of the scope of services which we have just 23

gone through I put it to you that the 2nd Defendant did make use and 24

relied on the contents of the Plaintiffs proposal to you. 25

26

RAZAK Disagree. 27

28

SST Disagree. 29

30

YA (01:18:21 inaudible) sure. 31 32 RAZAK Thanks. 33 34 ABR My Lady, I will leave after this. Thank you My Lady. 35 36 JRB Court bangun 37

AKHIR 38

MASA : 3:33 PM 39


TARIKH : 29.12.2014 1

MASA : 3:48 PM 2

3

MULA 4

5

JRB Masih di bawah sumpah, ya? 6

7

RAZAK Ya. Terima kasih. 8

9

SST Dengan izin, Yang Arif. 10

11

Pemeriksaan Balas (Cross Examination) 12

Masa: 3:48 PM 13

14

SST Encik Razak, may I refer you to your answer Question 14 at page 5. 15

The third line, I will just read. “From what I knew, the Plaintiff tried to 16

bid for the Project on his own but was not successful”. Now I put it to 17

you that the Plaintiff never bid for the Bank Rakyat Project. Do you 18

agree? 19

20


22

SST I put it to you that the Plaintiff never tried to bid for the Project on its 23

own. 24

25


27

SST Now do you agree that the Plaintiff’s alleged bid for the Project on its 28

own are not in the bundles here? 29

30


32

SST Do you agree that the Plaintiff’s alleged bidding documents for the 33

Bank Rakyat Project on their own, are not in the bundles here? 34

35

RAZAK I can’t recall it. I have no idea. 36

37


SST You cannot say you have no idea. You have gone through your 1

bundles. 2

3

RAZAK But what I am seeing is in the Bundle 1, I mentioned that I will 4

guarantee proposal to the Bank Rakyat. 5

6

SST You are referring to page 14, is it? 7

8

RAZAK Yes. This is what their proposal submitted to us, and I don’t know why 9

they put there, Credit Card Outsourcing Plan, Bank Rakyat. Prepared 10

for Bank Rakyat and proposed by Logical Operations Consortium. If 11

you look at page 15, and then the subsequent, I believe subsequent e-12

mail, it’s very clear mentioned there Credit Card Outsourcing Plan 13

prepared for Bank Rakyat, proposed by Logical Operations. I have no 14

idea why they put up this. 15

16

SST Now I put it to you that this proposal came about, subsequent to the 17

meeting on 21.09.2006 and the following meetings. Do you agree? 18

19


21

SST Do you agree that this proposal at page 15 came about from the 22

meeting on 21.09.2006 and the subsequent meetings thereafter? 23

24

RAZAK I received the proposal on the 3rd October. 25

26

SST Agree or disagree, Encik Razak? I’ll ask you one final question to 27

finish off this issue. Agree or disagree? 28

29

RAZAK Can you come back the question, please? 30

31

SST Do you agree that these proposals starting at page 15 came about 32

because of the meeting of 21.09.2006 and the subsequent meetings 33

thereafter? We have gone through the meetings earlier on. 34

35

RAZAK Yes. They submitted to us. 36

37


SST Yes? 1

2

HLC No, I think, have to take the whole answer. Yes, they submitted to us. I 3

think. 4

5

SST Fine. 6

7

RAZAK ‘They’ is Plaintiff. 8

9

SST Is there any letter from Bank Rakyat to the Plaintiff in these bundles, 10

rejecting the Plaintiff’s alleged bid for the Bank Rakyat Project? 11

12

RAZAK I have no idea. 13

14

SST Look at the bundles, you have gone through the bundles. Is there 15

such a letter or not? 16

17

RAZAK There’s a lot of. 18

19

SST You have to be fair to the Plaintiff. You have made this kind of 20

allegation in your Witness Statement, and you have gone through the 21

bundles. So now I am asking you, is there a letter from Bank Rakyat to 22

the Plaintiff, rejecting the Plaintiff’s bid for the Project? 23

24

YA Can counsel assist (00:04:59 inaudible). 25

26

HLC There’s none. 27

28

YA None? 29

30

HLC There’s no such letter. 31

32

YA There’s no letter? 33

34

HLC Not that we are aware of. 35

36



RAZAK Yes. 1

2

SST Are we taking that? 3

4

RAZAK To my knowledge, there is no such letter. 5

6

SST Fine. Now let’s move on to another issue. Now may I refer you to 7

Bundle A, the Bundle of Pleadings? Can you look at pages 88 to 97? 8

Now this is actually the Defence from Encik Abdul Rahim Bin Abdul 9

Razak. My question is, to be fair to you, are you familiar with Encik 10

Abdul Rahim Bin Abdul Razak’s Defence? Not familiar? 11

12

RAZAK Not familiar. 13

14

SST Encik Razak, you really need to speak louder, please. Not familiar, is 15

it? 16

17

RAZAK Yes. 18

19

SST Basically what Encik Abdul Rahim Bin Abdul Razak’s Defence in a 20

gist, he is saying that his role, peranan beliau, was only limited to 21

providing Mr Udhaya and Dr Narayanan, or the Second Defendant, 22

with comments sought by them. 23

24

RAZAK You’re referring to what? 25

26

SST Because you are not familiar, so I not referring to you anything. But I 27

am just telling you that this is the First Defendant’s Defence. Let me 28

repeat. So according to the First Defendant, his role, peranan beliau, 29

is only limited to providing Mr Udhaya and Dr Narayanan or the 30

Second Defendant with comments sought by them with regards to 31

Syariah requirements and compliance of Islamic Credit Card business 32

and operation. This is his defence. You are not familiar, never mind, 33

but have you heard of this, prior to today? 34

35

RAZAK No. 36

37


SST No? Ok, never mind. Is there any email, from the Second Defendant 1

to Encik Abdul Rahim Bin Abdul Razak, seeking his advice with 2

regards to Syariah requirements for the Bank Rakyat Project? 3

4


6

SST You can’t recall. You have gone through the documents. Are there any 7

or not? You can’t say you cannot recall. 8

9

HLC No, I think the witness just answered cannot recall, then that’s the 10

answer. 11

12

SST It’s either in the bundles or not in the bundles. 13

14

YA Counsel is referring to the bundles. 15

16

HLC Correct. So if you want him to produce, he cannot produce, that’s fine. 17

But if he say cannot recall, unless now we want to give him time to 18

look through the entire bundle again, unless my learned friend is 19

wanting to do that, otherwise he already said cannot recall. Then what 20

else do you expect him to answer? 21

22

YA Counsel, you have a seat unless you (00:10:02 inaudible). 23

24

HLC Look, there are a lot of emails there, between all the parties, nobody 25

can remember, but my learned friend can remember, exactly what 26

each and every email say. So, about this Syariah issue and all these 27

things, we know that Rahim is in the loop in many of the emails. Some 28

query came from them, some came these, some came from 29

Silverlake. I don’t think it is fair. 30

31

YA The question is whether they have asked the Second Defendant. 32

33

HLC Correct. There are 400 emails here. Whether this issue of Syariah was 34

ever brought up? My answer is, yes. It was brought up, maybe in 35

some of the emails. But whether it was raised by them or raised by 36

who. 37


YA Maybe counsel can rephrase your question, (00:10:45 inaudible) to 1

the witness. 2

3

SST I put it to you that there is no email from the Second Defendant to 4

Encik Abdul Rahim Bin Abdul Razak, in these bundles seeking his 5

advice with regards to Syariah requirements for the Bank Rakyat 6

Project. If you disagree, you have to go through the bundles. 7

8

RAZAK Now how should I answer, agree or disagree? Because I am not sure. 9

10

SST I’ve checked. There’s none. 11

12

RAZAK I am not sure. 13

14

SST There’s none. 15

16

YA There’s none? 17

18

SST There’s none. But I am not testifying, he is testifying. 19

20

YA But to be sure, your questions must be (00:11:21 inaudible). 21

22

SST Yes, it’s not there. I am very sure it’s not there. 23

24

HLC Or perhaps, if my learned friend really need an answer for this, 25

perhaps all I can suggest is that, we reserve the answer for this 26

particular question at the next session. So that in between he will have 27

time to check through all the documents, so that he can be sure 28

whether there is or there is none. Because he already say, he can’t 29

recall. Unless you want the witness to look through all the documents 30

now, otherwise then, that is the only way to. If my learned friend 31

doesn’t accept ‘can’t recall’ as an answer. Then that is. 32

33

YA Anyway, what was your last question? 34

35

SST My question was, whether there was any emails from the Second 36

Defendant. 37


YA So you put it to him. 1

2

SST I will put it to him, then. 3

4

YA Can I have your answer to that? 5

6

RAZAK No, I can’t remember, I can’t recall. 7

8

SST I think that’s an unfair answer. 9

10


12

SST I need the answer. 13

14

HLC You need an answer, I will make sure that the witness go through the 15

documents during the in-between time, and at the next session, you 16

can ask again this question. Then that will be fine. 17

18

YA Only that? 19

20

HLC Only that question, yes. 21

22

SST Let me refer you to Bundle A again. Can you look at page 136? 23

Bundle A, page 136, paragraph 5. Can you have a read of that? This 24

is part of the Second Defendant’s Defence. Now, can you also look at 25

page 161, same bundle, paragraphs 43.1 and 43.2? Can you have a 26

read? 27

28

RAZAK OK. 29

30

SST Now do you agree that since the Second Defendant’s position is that 31

the First Defendant is not under the Second Defendant’s employment, 32

that the First Defendant is not the Second Defendant’s agent, that 33

First Defendant is not authorized to represent Second Defendant or 34

make any representation on behalf of the Second Defendant, the 35

Second Defendant should not involve the First Defendant in this Bank 36

Rakyat Project? 37


[00:15:00] 1

2

RAZAK Your question too complex for me to answer. Can you summarize it, 3

for me to understand? 4

5

SST This is what the Second Defendant has said with regards to the First 6

Defendant in relation to the Bank Rakyat Project. I am summarizing 7

for you now. The Second Defendant is saying, First Defendant is not 8

under Second Defendant’s employment, number one. First Defendant 9

is not the Second Defendant’s agent. 10

11

RAZAK Can I answer one to another? Because summarize, because. 12

13

YA One by one, is it? 14

15

RAZAK Yes, one by one. 16

17

SST Sure. Do you agree that since the Second Defendant’s position is that 18

the First Defendant is not under the Second Defendant’s employment, 19

then the Second Defendant should not involve the First Defendant in 20

the Bank Rakyat Project? Do you agree? 21

22

RAZAK No, can you read back the question? 23

24

SST Do you agree that since it is the Second Defendant’s position that the 25

First Defendant is not under the Second Defendant’s employment, the 26

Second Defendant, should not involve the. 27

28

RAZAK No, the first one is yes. 29

30

SST Sorry? 31

32

RAZAK There’s a lot of question there. 33

34

SST It’s only one question. I am breaking it up. 35

36

YA You finish your question first. 37


SST I am breaking up the question. Do you agree that since it is the 1

Second Defendant’s position that the First Defendant is not under the 2

Second Defendant’s employment, then the Second Defendant should 3

not involve the First Defendant in this Bank Rakyat Project. 4

5

RAZAK I heard it’s Second Defendant and Second Defendant, what you 6

means that? It’s not, if I listen? 7

8

SST Let me read again. Do you agree that since the Second Defendant’s 9

position is that the First Defendant is not under the Second 10

Defendant’s employment? 11

12

RAZAK Can you stop there? 13

14

SST That’s your position, right? 15

16

RAZAK Yes. 17

18

SST Your pleaded case, right? So the Second Defendant should not 19

involve the First Defendant in this Bank Rakyat Project. Do you 20

agree? I hope the question is clear. 21

22

RAZAK You are talking about Number 5? You read back Number 5 or what? 23

Because I am confused, you mention Second Defendant, and Second 24

Defendant. 25

26

SST Mr Choon, are you listening, are you hearing the same thing? 27

28

HLC I think I know where he is confused. It’s just that, because I think the 29

front part of the question is quite heavy. 30

31

SST Let’s do this in an easier way. Let’s look at page 136. 136, paragraph 32

5. This is a part of the Second Defendant’s Defence. The first 33

sentence, “The Second Defendant further states that at all material 34

times, the First Defendant was not under the Second Defendant’s 35

employment”. 36

37


RAZAK Yes, I agree. 1

2

SST So my question is do you agree that since the Second Defendant’s 3

position is that the First Defendant is not under the Second 4

Defendant’s employment, the Second Defendant should not involve 5

the First Defendant in this Bank Rakyat Project? Are you still 6

confused? 7

8

RAZAK Because if answer this one, yes, I understand his statement. But the 9

way that you asking me that, make me confused. 10

11


13

HLC I am also confused, because the question is too general. What do you 14

mean by the Second Defendant should not involve the First 15

Defendant. It’s not. 16

17

SST In this Bank Rakyat Project. 18

19

HLC But it is not our position to involve First Defendant to start with. 20

21

YA But the question is since they are not in the employment of the 22

Second Defendant, they are not involving the First Defendant. 23

24

HLC You see, there is the difference. Yang Arif, what you say is, they are 25

not involving. The question asked is. 26

27

YA Isn’t that the question? 28

29

HLC No. 30

31

SST It’s the same question, Yang Arif. 32

33

HLC No. He asked they should not be involved. 34

35

YA Since they agree that this is the way it should be. (00:19:42 inaudible) 36

37


HLC So it’s not, should not involve. 1

2


4

YA No, the question is they are not involving the First Defendant because 5

First Defendant is not under the employment of the Second 6

Defendant. Is that right? 7

8

SST Correct. In other words, they are saying. 9

10

RAZAK Yes, I agree that. 11

12

SST They are saying, number one, First Defendant not under their 13

employment. So my question is, then in that case, they shouldn’t 14

involve the First Defendant in the Bank Rakyat Project. That’s it, 15

simple, they should not. 16

17

YA That’s what you are saying? 18

19

SST Yes, they shouldn’t. 20

21

YA Since they are not, since First Defendant is not in the employment of 22

the Second Defendant. 23

24

SST Because that’s their position. 25

26

YA Therefore the Second Defendant should not involve the First 27

Defendant. 28

29

SST In the Bank Rakyat Project, yes. Very specific. 30

31

YA That is the question. Do you agree on that? 32

33

RAZAK That’s why, the first and second contradict. The first one, I agree. The 34

First Defendant is not employed by Second Defendant, I agree. 35

36


YA Should not involve, or had not involved? Should not means, should 1

not. I mean, that happened, that is hypothetical. Did not, is it? They 2

did not involve the First Defendant, because First Defendant in the 3

employment. Is that the question? 4

5

SST No, because. 6

7

YA Should not? 8

9

SST Should not, they should not. Because eventually it’s drawn from the. 10

11

YA So you are putting it to them? You are putting it to them. 12

13

SST I am putting it to them. 14

15

YA That they would not involve the First Defendant. 16

17

SST They shouldn’t. 18

19

YA Because. 20

21

SST Yes. Because he was never in their, he is saying, the Second 22

Defendant is saying that. 23

24

YA I think you need to change shouldn’t. Would not, is it, would it be 25

better, ‘would not’? 26

27

HLC I think the problem is that, this question is making on the assumption 28

that the Second Defendant involved the First Defendant in the first 29

place. And that is where he got stuck. That’s why he said he’s not 30

under employment. That part is clear, he answered that. 31

32

YA Maybe you can rephrase, Mr Tieh. Maybe you can rephrase? 33

34

SST Let me try again. 35

36


YA Would not have, is it? Would not have. Should not means they do not, 1

it’s your opinion. 2

3

SST I should have complete (00:21:47) that, would not have. 4

5

YA Please put the question. 6

7

SST Do you agree that since the Second Defendant’s position is that the 8

First Defendant is not under the Second Defendant’s employment, the 9

Second Defendant would not have involved the First Defendant in this 10


12

RAZAK The first one I agree, it’s not under employment. I am a bit confused, 13

puzzled the second one. 14

15

YA The question is whether they involved the First Defendant or not? 16

17

SST Yes. 18

19

YA Did they involve the First Defendant? 20

21

SST Yes, basically because our position will be that “Look, despite 22

whatever they are saying that, he’s not under their employment, he’s 23

not their agent, whatsoever”, as can be shown from the emails. 24

25

YA So they could not have been involved. 26

27

SST He shouldn’t, in other words, yes. 28

29

YA They could not have involved the First Defendant? Since the First 30

Defendant was not (00:22:51 inaudible) under their employment. 31

32

SST In other words, that’s why I used the word, shouldn’t have. 33

34


36

SST Because their pleaded case is that. 37


HLC I think, maybe, to ease the situation, I think break the question into two 1

part. I think the first part just ask him the factual question, did the 2

Second Defendant involved the First Defendant? 3

4

YA Yes, that would be better. 5

6

HLC That is a factual question, first. Then after that, whether you want to, 7

would have, would not, should not, that one is up to you. But factual 8

question come first. 9

10

YA Yes, I agree with you. 11

12

SST I am guided, Yang Arif. Then in that case, let me repeat the question. 13

You confirm that the First Defendant is not under the Second 14

Defendant’s employment? 15

16

RAZAK Yes. 17

18

SST Then the next question is, as suggested by your counsel, did the 19

Second Defendant involve the First Defendant in the Bank Rakyat 20

Project? 21

22

RAZAK No. He do voluntary. 23

24

SST Enough, Encik Razak. So Second Defendant did not involve D1 in the 25

Bank Rakyat Project. The next portion, just now I am breaking up, I 26

am still breaking up the question. Do you agree that it is the Second 27

Defendant’s position that the First Defendant is not the Second 28

Defendant’s agent? 29

30


32

SST Do you agree that it is the Second Defendant’s position that the First 33

Defendant is not the Second Defendant’s agent? 34

35

YA So maybe you can ask whether the First Defendant was the agent or 36

not. 37


RAZAK Because the question is. 1

2

SST No, I don’t want to ask that question. Because I am just going by their 3

pleaded case. Then I’ll go through the emails just to prove that it’s not 4

quite, appears to be. 5

6


8

RAZAK But Yang Arif, I prefer that it’s straightforward for me to understand the 9

question. If the way that. 10

11

YA (00:25:12 inaudible) He is not putting, (00:25:13 inaudible) what not. 12

13

SST What I’ll do is, I will go back to page 136, Bundle A. Paragraph 5, do 14

you see that? 15

16

RAZAK Yes. 17

18

SST The First Defendant was also not an agent of the Second Defendant. 19

20


22

SST And was not authorized to represent the Second Defendant or to 23

make any representation on behalf of the Second Defendant. 24

25


27

SST This is the Second Defendant’s position, right? 28

29

RAZAK Yes. 30

31

SST Now the same question as suggested by your learned counsel, did the 32

Second Defendant involve the First Defendant in the Bank Rakyat 33

Project, in view of what you just said? 34

35

HLC Isn’t it the same question? 36

37


SST That’s why I am trying to break it. 1

2

YA It’s alright, it’s ok, because (00:26:38 inaudible). 3

4

SST That’s why just now I wanted ask only one (00:26:43 inaudible), I 5

didn’t want to break it up, I don’t want to waste time. Encik Razak? 6

7

RAZAK No, I can’t figure out the kind of question. 8

9

SST No, the same question, again, did the Second Defendant. 10

11

YA His answer (00:26:53 inaudible). 12

13

HLC I will, ok. 14

15

SST Because I was trying to cut short, actually. Did the Second Defendant 16

involve the First Defendant in the Bank Rakyat Project, in view of what 17

the Second Defendant’s position that he is not an agent of the First 18

Defendant? 19

20

RAZAK Come again the question? Make it slow, ok. 21

22

SST Did the Second Defendant involve the First Defendant in the Bank 23

Rakyat Project, since it is the Second Defendant’s position that the 24

First Defendant was not their agent? 25

26

RAZAK No. I can’t get your question. I can’t get the question. 27

28

YA To me, it’s clear. You don’t repeat what you have asked (00:27:41 29

inaudible). So you just ask what you have already asked, just rewind. 30

Just rewind what you’ve asked. 31

32

SST In view of your answer, immediate answer before this, did the Second 33

Defendant involve the First Defendant in the Bank Rakyat Project? 34

35

RAZAK I am getting confused now. 36

37


YA Can you please repeat your question before this? (00:28:09 1

inaudible). 2

3

RAZAK Go down back Number 5? 4

5

SST Page 136, paragraph 5, Second Defendant’s Defence. This is the 6

Second Defendant’s position, he says the First Defendant was also 7

not an agent of the Second Defendant and was not authorized to 8

represent the Second Defendant or to make any representation on 9

behalf of the Second Defendant. So in view of this position, taken by 10

the Second Defendant, did the Second Defendant involve the First 11

Defendant in the Bank Rakyat Project? 12

13

RAZAK You are talking about the date, during the date or what? 14

15

YA When? 16

17

SST Your Defence didn’t say anything. Paragraph 5, did you mention a 18

date here? 19

20

RAZAK Because you. 21

22

SST This is your Defence. This is the Second Defendant’s Defence. 23

24

HLC Mr Tieh, the Defence is not drafted by the witness. It doesn’t represent 25

the witness’s evidence. So I don’t think it’s fair to use this, in that 26

sense. You can ask question, that I have no problem, but I don’t think 27

you can say “This is your Defence, you must know”. I don’t think that’s 28

a fair question. This is drafted by me, the lawyer. This is a pleading, 29

this is not a witness statement. So, I think you got to be a bit fairer to 30

the witness. You have no problem asking questions, that one I have 31

no problem. It’s not about that. 32

33

SST Yang Arif, this is their pleaded case. I am just asking based on this 34

only. Then I am going through the emails. 35

36

[00:30:00] 37


YA Are you worried about answering? 1

2

RAZAK No, because, I need to know the specific time. 3

4

SST Yang Arif, why not like this. 5

6

YA Can you put, can you give (00:30:15 inaudible). 7

8

SST Yang Arif, why not like this, I just pose the question, he can either 9

agree or disagree, later he wants to explain why, the let him, I have no 10

problem. So I put it to you, that since it is the Second Defendant’s 11

position that the First Defendant is not an agent of the Second 12

Defendant, the First Defendant should not be involved in the Bank 13

Rakyat Project. Agree or disagree. Just say agree or disagree, then 14

we move on. 15

16

RAZAK No, First Defendant not involved in the Bank Rakyat Project. Is it your 17

question? Is it your question, can I ask that, is it the question that First 18

Defendant not involved in Bank Rakyat Project? 19

20

YA Are you putting that to the witness? 21

22

SST I am putting it to him. 23

24

YA Yes, that’s what the lawyer is saying. You agree? 25

26

RAZAK No, is it the question that, is it the First Defendant not involved in the 27


29

YA That is what the lawyer is saying. 30

31

SST Because you are saying. 32

33

RAZAK I agree. 34

35

SST Sorry? 36

37


RAZAK Based on the First Defendant not. 1

2

SST An agent? 3

4

RAZAK Yes. 5

6

SST So you agree? 7

8

RAZAK Possibly, for the Bank Rakyat, yes I agree with that. 9

10

SST That he should not be involved in the Bank Rakyat Project? 11

12

RAZAK Yes. 13

14

SST Ok, fine. May I refer you to Bundle B3, page 1064. We have gone 15

through this email previously. You have also confirmed issuing this 16

email. There is one sentence here, you said, “Udhaya I guess you 17

already got the attached document from Encik Rahim. The attached 18

document is the Master SLA Bank Rakyat document”. Alright? 19

20

RAZAK Yes. 21

22

SST Do you agree that you knew, you knew Mr Udhaya was given a copy 23

of the draft Master SLA between the Second Defendant and Bank 24

Rakyat, because you were in communication with the First Defendant, 25

with regards to the Bank Rakyat Project? Do you agree? 26

27


29

SST Disagree. May I refer you to Bundle B4, page 1211? 1211, Bundle B4. 30

Are you there? 31

32

RAZAK Yes. 33

34

SST This is your email to Udhaya. Now my question is do you agree that 35

you also cc-ed this email to Encik Abdul Rahim Bin Abdul Razak? The 36

email is ararshy. 37


RAZAK I think I replied this to you before. 1

2

SST I want to highlight this in the question. So did you cc this email to him? 3

4

RAZAK Wait. 5

6

YA I thought witness has already answered. 7

8

RAZAK Yes, because I reply to all the email. 9

10

YA This is, your answer was this is in reply. Email in reply and I sent for 11

clarification. 12

13

RAZAK I replied all. 14

15

SST In other words, you did cc to him? 16

17

RAZAK I replied all, yes. 18

19

SST You did cc, fantastic. 20

21

RAZAK Whatever name is there, that is appear. Because that’s why I am 22

looking for the original email. 23

24

SST Same Bundle B4. I need you to look at four documents. The first email 25

is at page 1224 to 1264. 26

27

YA I think you’re repeating all this. 28

29

SST Just to ask one additional question which I didn’t ask him. 30

31

YA (00:37:01 inaudible) because there was a question put to the witness. 32

33

SST Yes, there is one additional question. There are four emails, may I 34

refer it to him first? Then I’ll just ask one shot question. The second 35

email is at page 1265 to 1307. The next one is at page 1308 to 1349. 36


One more is from page 1531 to 1532. Now my question is this - You 1

have already confirmed receiving all these emails earlier. 2

3

RAZAK Yes. 4

5

SST In these emails Udhaya also send this email to the First Defendant? 6

7

RAZAK Yes. 8

9

SST And this email relates to the Master SLA between the Second 10

Defendant and the Bank Rakyat. 11

12

RAZAK Yes. 13

14

SST My question is this. Did you email Mr Udhaya, questioning him why 15

these emails were being cc to the First Defendant? 16

17

RAZAK Can you ask me back the question? 18

19

SST In all these four emails, these were emails from Udhaya to you and 20

also cc to the First Defendant. All these emails from Udhaya relates to 21

the Master SLA Agreement which is between Bank Rakyat and the 22

Second Defendant. So my question is this - did you email Udhaya, 23

questioning him as to why these emails were being sent to the First 24

Defendant? 25

26

RAZAK No email to him, because I reply, I reply to all, and whatever name 27

there, will get the email. 28

29

SST Let’s take another two sets of documents together. The first one is 30

page 1535. 31

32

RAZAK Same bundle? 33

34

SST Same bundle, Bundle B4. And the second document is at 1536. I am 35

going to just put one question to you for all these emails. The next one 36

is Bundle B5, page 1708. 37


RAZAK Yes. 1

2

SST And the next document is in Bundle B6, page 2371. B6, 2371. And 3

one last one at page 2092, Bundle B6. You have all those emails? 4

5

RAZAK Yes. 6

7

SST One question for all these emails. Now these were all emails from Mr 8

Udhaya to you, they were also cc-ed to the First Defendant. These 9

emails from Udhaya relates to, I’ll just put everything together, the 10

Second Defendant, Bank Rakyat Sensitivity Analysis, Bank Rakyat 11

Project Timeline, the back-to-back subcontract between the Second 12

Defendant and IICS, as well as generally on the Bank Rakyat Project. 13

My question is, did you email Udhaya questioning him why these 14

emails were being cc-ed to the First Defendant? 15

16

RAZAK I am not email to him. Because for me, whoever reception. 17

18


20


22


24

RAZAK No, I am not send any email to they, because whatever email inside 25

there, for me that, he already filter the email. 26

27

SST Let’s move on. Bundle B6 at page 2246. 28

29

[00:45:00] 30

31

RAZAK Page what? 32

33

SST 2246 to 2304. Are you there? 34

35

RAZAK Yes. 36

37


SST This is your email, 27.01.2008 to Udhaya, you cc this to the First 1

Defendant and this email was on the back-to-back contract between 2

the Second Defendant and IICS. My question is this. Do you agree 3

that you cc-ed these email to the First Defendant because you wanted 4

to update him on the revised subcontractor agreement between the 5

Second Defendant and IICS? 6

7

YA Which page? 8

9

SST Pages 2246 until 2304. You want me to repeat the question? 10

11

RAZAK I’ll try to relate another email there. Why the First Defendant name 12

appear there. Ok, your question again? 13

14

SST I am reaching to the last few questions in cross examination, if you 15

can just answer, then I am done with this. Do you agree that you cc’d 16

this email to the First Defendant because you wanted to update him 17

on the revised subcontractor agreement between the Second 18

Defendant and IICSO? Agree or disagree? 19

20

RAZAK His name is there on the copy list. 21

22

SST Encik Razak, agree or disagree? The last two questions only. We are 23

finishing already. If you want to explain, later Mr Choon will ask you in 24

your re-examination. 25

26

YA So the question is this is to update the First Defendant on the contract 27

between the Second Defendant and IICSO? 28

29

SST Yes. That’s all, whether he agrees or disagrees, that’s all. 30

31

YA Do you agree with that, Encik Razak? 32

33

RAZAK I want to see the consistency of these, because I can’t recall. Normally 34

that email ID is. 35

36

SST You can’t recall, is it? 37


RAZAK Yes. 1

2

SST I will take that as an answer. 3

4

RAZAK OK. 5

6

SST Next document, this the last document. Bundle B6, page 2313. 2313, 7

B6, right until 2370. Are you there? 8

9

RAZAK Yes. 10

11

SST Now this is your email, 28.01.2008 to Mr Udhaya cc to the First 12

Defendant, and you have attached the final, sorry. Can you look at 13

page 2322? 14

15

RAZAK Ok. 16

17

SST Now you have attached this document, Credit Card Outsourcing 18

Master Agreement between Bank Rakyat at the Second Defendant 19

and at the very top there, there is these words, ‘final for printing and 20

signing’. Do you see that? 21

22

RAZAK Yes. 23

24

SST Do you agree that you cc this email to the First Defendant because 25

you wanted to update him on this particular issue? Do you agree? 26

27

RAZAK I can’t recall this. I am not sure why I cc. Why I cc, I can’t recall. 28

Because I replied the email. 29

30

SST Ok, thank you very much. I’m done. Yang Arif, except for that one 31

particular question, I have no further questions for this witness. 32

33

Masa: 4:40 PM 34

35

YA So, (00:51:55 inaudible). 36

37


HLC Yes, I believe that he has some questions, but I was told that it’s just 1

very few. 2

3

WNZ Yes. 4

5

YA Ada soalan? 6

7

WNZ Yes, I think so. 8

9

YA So when is this case (00:52:20 inaudible)? 10

11

SST February. 12

13

YA February? No, I think that’s too long. So Encik Razak, that’s all for 14

today. 15

16

RAZAK Ok, thank you. 17

18

YA But you have to come again. 19

20

RAZAK Because if possible, January I have to travel to Accra, I have a long 21

overdue. 22

23

YA Is it for the whole month? 24

25

RAZAK No, just a few days or a week only. 26

27

YA When? 28

29

RAZAK I’m going to be there on the first week, on the second week and the 30

final week of January. 31

32

HLC I expect my re-examination will take about an hour, an hour and a half. 33

34

YA Can’t you take 6th, 8th? 35

36

HLC Of January? 37


WNZ Mr Rashid, he has a trial. 1

2

YA When? 3

4

WNZ January, two weeks early January. First week and second week. 5

6

YA We need maybe one or two hours. We can maybe take one or two 7

hours from any of the dates? 8

9

HLC But if Rashid is having a trial and he told me that he has a few 10

questions to ask the witness. 11

12

YA 20th, 21st? 13

14

WNZ He also has a case. 15

16

HLC But that whole week, I can’t. 17

18

YA No, just now I was talking about the first week. Now is the third week. 19

Encik Razak, that’s all. Please step down, thank you. 20

21

RAZAK Thank you. 22

23

YA Mr Choong, you have many questions? 24

25

HLC I have about, like I said I think I will take about one hour, one and half 26

hour maximum. 27

28

YA Alright, so we need about two hours. So just suggest a date? 29

30

HLC I think we tried to match it the last time but. 31

32

YA What about 22nd? 33

34

SST 22nd, I have a contempt hearing in Shah Alam. 35

36

YA A contempt hearing doesn’t take the whole day. 37


SST I don’t dare to because it’s actually the first. 1

2

YA I just need a date in January. 3

4

HLC I mean, what are the days that we are looking at? 5

6

YA I just need a date in January. 7

8

SST 19th, 20th, 21st, I’m ok, Yang Arif. Then 27th to 30th, I’m ok. 9

10

YA Because I remember Mr Choong was asking him about first week of 11

January. So I can sacrifice one day, on the 26th. 12

13

SST 27th to 30th, I’m ok. From Tuesday onwards until Friday. 14

15

YA I’m just trying to accommodate. 16

17

HLC Yes, I understand. I am ok. 18

19

WNZ I don’t dare to fix any dates for Mr Rashid because I don’t have his 20

calendar right now. 21

22

YA Can three of you please suggest a date? 23

24

HLC But if she doesn’t have Rashid’ diary. 25

26

YA Now. 27

28

HLC If let’s say now, tentatively we are looking at the last week of January, 29

then maybe we’ll try to ask him whether any of those dates are 30

available. 31

32

YA I’m trying to accommodate, actually I have a case, most of the dates 33

are fixed. 34

35

HLC Razak, last week of January, are you ok? Let’s say 27th to 30th. 36

37


YA You have to cooperate you know? 1

2

HLC Can? If we take just one day? Half day only actually. 3

4

RAZAK Yes. 5

6

YA 27th? 7

8

HLC I mean between 27th to 30th. 9

10

YA We have to be sure. Encik Rashid? Just name a few dates. Give us 11

the last week of January. 12

13

HLC Correct, so that’s why now I think both of us, we are ok with 27th to 14

30th any day. 15

16

YA I’m worried if it doesn’t suit the other lawyer. Then, we’ll have a 17

problem. That’s why I’m asking. 18

19

HLC Never mind, we’ll just communicate via e-mail. Then, we’ll quickly 20

come up with a common date and we’ll come back either tomorrow or 21

the latest on Wednesday morning to lock in the date? 22

23

YA Actually, why not tomorrow? We have originally fixed for tomorrow. 24

25

HLC No. The witness is not available, it’s not originally fixed. 26

27

YA Who? 28

29

HLC The witness supposed to have travelling plans for either of these days. 30

So that’s why we picked today. 31

32

YA Travelling where? 33

34

HLC Brunei. He has a project in Brunei. 35

36

YA But you should give priority to this matter. 37


HLC Yang Arif, actually even today, he’s supposed to travel and because of 1

the swapping with the First Defendant, that’s why he already have to 2

sacrifice one of his days which is not originally scheduled. I mean if we 3

are really looking at couple of hours of time. 4

5

YA What’s more urgent? Why don’t you get him before, you know, 6

January first week? 7

8

HLC Yang Arif, these project all have impacts and costs and time impact. 9

You know these are the really. 10

11

YA So Encik Razak, you really cannot make it tomorrow? Can I hear from 12

you? 13

14

RAZAK No, I have a contract nego tomorrow. 15

16

HLC So that’s why initially in the last tranche, we actually specifically said. 17

18

YA Can you come tomorrow, all of you so that we can fix dates for the 19

next hearing? 20

21

HLC If we can do it via e-mail privately and then one of us come, would that 22

be ok? 23

24

YA Because actually, I have fixed tomorrow. I’m not trying to make it 25

difficult, you know? 26

27

HLC I understand. 28

29

YA But we have been dragging and we need to do something. 30

31

HLC Yang Arif, what I’m trying to say that give us some time, just this 32

afternoon or even tomorrow morning, the three of us will come up with 33

dates. Then tomorrow immediately, we’ll lock in the dates. 34

35

YA So why don’t you come tomorrow early? 36

37


HLC Well, my lawyer will come. I have something on so if that is 1

acceptable? I mean, she will have my diary. 2

3

YA So now for the moment, we are looking at 27th of January, is it? 4

5

HLC Tentatively because it’s depending on. 6

7

[01:00:00] 8

9

YA Only on Encik Rashid? 10

11

HLC Yes. 12

13

YA Actually, Encik Rashid needs to come for a while. After that, Mr 14

Choong will be questioning. 15

16

SST May we just stand down for a short while? Unless I heard Encik 17

Rashid wrongly, I think his mediation is only starting at 5:30 pm. 18

Maybe Cik can get in touch with Encik Rashid now? 19

20

YA Can you please, all of you, if possible, try to get early dates in 21

January, rather than third week. 22

23

SST Much obliged. 24

25

JRB Court bangun. 26

27

28

AKHIR 29

30

MASA : 4:49 PM 31

32

33

dalam mahkamah tinggi malaya di kuala lumpur1 2 … · 1/17/2018 · 1 dalam mahkamah tinggi...

Documents