dalam wilayah persekutuan, malaysia2 guaman sivil … · 2017/3/15 · 3 1 mula 2 3 jrb dengan...

www.scribe.com.my 1

DALAM MAHKAMAH TINGGI MALfAYA 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 : 8.12.2014 18

MASA : 9:30 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

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 friend for 7

the First Defendant, I was told that he’s at the parking looking for a car 8

park. Ok, he’s. And my. 9

10

ELS My Lady, if I may address the court, the counsel is not feeling very 11

well today. If he may be excused from the court, My Lady? 12

13

SST I’m sorry, Ms Elaine Siaw for the Second Defendant. 14

15

ELS Benar, Yang Arif. 16

17

SST My Lady, today is for continued re-examination of PW-2. 18

19

YA I think you may proceed because she’s here. 20

21

SST Alright. 22

23

SP2 24

Nama : Udhaya Kumar A/L Naranam 25

Umur : 26

Alamat: 27

Pekerjaan: 28

Bersumpah dan memberi keterangan dalam Bahasa Inggeris 29

Masa : 9:31 AM 30

31

Pemeriksaan Semula (Re-Examination) (Continued) 32

Masa: 9:32AM 33

34

SST Mr Udhaya, may I refer you to you answer to question 75.3 at page 35

34. Answer to question 73.3, page 34, the 4th paragraph. 36

37

www.scribe.com.my 4

UDHAYA From the top? 1

2

SST From the top, the 4th paragraph. 3

4

UDHAYA Yes, I got that. 5

6

SST Alright. Now, you’re referring to a long briefing session with lawyers for 7

the Second Defendant, RDL. Now, it was put to you that this meeting 8

was to discuss the proposed amendments by the Plaintiff to the 9

master SLA, the Service Level Agreement, because at that time the 10

Second Defendant had yet to agree to the proposed amendments, 11

you disagreed, why? 12

13

UDHAYA Morning, Yang Arif. The gist of that agreement was between the 14

Silverlake and Bank Rakyat and some the amendments and all that if 15

you read it, if you look at the amendments that we propose are 16

specific to Silverlake and Bank Rakyat. If I can go to that? It’s in B-1, 17

is it? I think it’s in B-1, if I’m not mistaken, the principle agreement? 18

Sorry, it’s not there. Let me check the index. 19

20

SST Are your referring to the SLA with your thread comments? 21

22

UDHAYA Yes. 23

24

SST Ok, that would be in B-4, 1308 – 1349. I think it is the 3rd para from the 25

top, on page 34 of the Witness Statement. 26

27

YA Bundle? 28

29

SST B-4. If I’m not mistaken. 30

31

UDHAYA Yes, correct, yes. 32

33

SST Page? 34

35

36

www.scribe.com.my 5

UDHAYA 1308 onwards, 1308 is the email, 1309 onwards is the actual 1

agreement and on the right column you can see the comments made, 2

this one, U1, comment in brackets (U1) means came from me, and 3

these are some of the comments all over the entire document. Now, I 4

can give you one example, the contract is between Bank Rakyat and 5

Silverlake System and referred to as the company. The client bank is 6

desirous in purchasing an Islamic credit card application. That’s, in 7

whereas Clause C and my comment is, to the lawyer, which is RDL, ‘a 8

better description like BOT, Build, Operate and Transfer, is more 9

appropriate’. If you look at page 1312, under the heading ‘Line of 10

Financing Limit’, “Company helps client bank in the process and the 11

various tasks that is required to notify the card member and it’s in the 12

duties and obligations and in Appendix 1, the Scope of Supply.” So, 13

these are some of my comments. I’ll give some other comments. On 14

page 1316, my comment was, under the Clause 4, ‘Terms’, my 15

comment is, “The agreement comes into force at the time of signing as 16

the company, company means Silverlake’s obligation, starts 17

immediately to commence pre-operations activities that require 18

allocation of resources. Only some part of the agreement will come 19

into effect at the commencement date. This has to be reflected as 20

such detailing the clauses.” What we’re trying to say is that in that 21

agreement although you sign the contract, the operations of the cards 22

will not take place for another 6 months. But they’re obligations that 23

the company, which is Silverlake has that they need to build up and 24

deliver the systems, the operations, the staffing and whatever not. 25

Those are milestones that have to be achieved. So, we are actually 26

advising that these are some things that we need to put in place. 27

Comment No. (U6), just bottom of that, “This is open for views and 28

should have specific performance referring to SLA, and any breach or 29

shortfall in exception by the client bank should be, should provided for 30

company for remedy.” It cannot have a unilateral type of, what you call 31

a decision on the client bank specific. So, this is what we are 32

providing. There’s nothing on our part yet. There’s one more on page 33

1320, you can look at it that, the original Item or Clause 9.5 states, 34

“The parties hereby agree that client bank and previously it was 35

company, will bear all losses suffered on or incurred as a result of 36

fraudulent act as provided under this agreement.” What we’re saying 37

www.scribe.com.my 6

is, fraud has many different elements to it. There may be fraud where, 1

customer’s application is fraudulently done. And that comes under the 2

ambit of the bank itself, not Silverlake or if we were in contract with 3

Silverlake under the Plaintiff’s this one. So, what we said, “it’s a weak 4

loss, we’ll get clarification from the bank, ground understanding, all 5

fraud due to line of financing to be absorbed by the client bank as in 6

Clause 9.6.” So, if somebody fraudulently submits an application and 7

they get credit, that’s bank’s responsibility. Now, if they issued a card 8

to some genuine customer and some syndicate cloned the card or 9

counterfeited the card then it is supposed to be under the company. 10

So, these are important elements that we actually help to define in 11

these agreements and all that. Another one is 1328. 1323, sorry. Here 12

the agreement that Bank Rakyat proposed was, if the parties 13

terminating their agreement that means between Silverlake and the 14

bank, they asked Silverlake to inform the card members that they are 15

not party to the arrangement anymore. But in the first place, Silverlake 16

is behind the scene, there’s no connection between them and the 17

customers. So, what we said was, “Not required, as the company is 18

not known to the customer, only the client bank is known.” So, if at all 19

there is an impact on customers it is the bank that needs to contact 20

their customers. There’s no relationship between the customers of 21

Bank Rakyat, there’s no relationship between the Bank Rakyat’s 22

customer and Silverlake or if we came in at the sub-contractor level to 23

ISCSO or Logical Operations. So, these are information that we 24

actually provide not in the interest of the Plaintiff but in the first and 25

foremost in the interest of Silverlake. That’s all. 26

27

SST May I refer you to Bundle-B4, the same bundle? 28

29

UDHAYA Yes. 30

31

SST Pages 1355 – 1408. 32

33

UDHAYA Yes, I have them. 34

35

36

www.scribe.com.my 7

SST Alright. Now, it was put to you that the reason there were further 1

amendments to this draft and why not all of the Plaintiff’s changes was 2

entered because the Second Defendant did not agree fully with the 3

Plaintiff, alright, you totally disagreed. Why? 4

5

UDHAYA Yang Arif, this is a work in progress type of discussion. This is not a 6

proposal from Plaintiff to Silverlake and they accept it. It is for 7

Silverlake to propose to Bank Rakyat and we are actually providing 8

thought leadership to Silverlake. Silverlake at that time and, did not 9

have that expertise to define all these business processes that is 10

critical to outsource operations. So, what we are saying is when we 11

come in to the discussion we have RDL at one side, we have 12

Silverlake and we have our side, we are saying these are the things 13

that we need to put in place. And, Encik Razak from Silverlake who 14

actually is dealing directly with Bank Rakyat would tell us the sense 15

whether what we are proposing can get through Bank Rakyat, whether 16

Bank Rakyat would be agreeable or they would object that, because 17

that’s the relationship he has established with Bank Rakyat. So, we 18

cannot be assuming that everything that we put in is going to be taken 19

lock, stock and barrel. That’s not the purpose of these comments. 20

These comments is to identify what are the things, so there may be 21

one area that we suggest that, we think Bank Rakyat will accept, and 22

there may be a give and take in some other areas as well. So, this is 23

part of the negotiation. This is why I think I’ve stated earlier, that we 24

were involved right through in all the discussions in the background. 25

So, if someone is to ask to me whether I had the first hand experience 26

in discussions with Bank Rakyat, this is it. We were not present in the 27

actual discussions with Bank Rakyat but every detail is actually run 28

through with us and we actually provide value, what would work and 29

what would not be working. So, this and few other iterations of this 30

agreement, was done. That’s all. 31

32

[00:15:00] 33

34

35

36

www.scribe.com.my 8

SST Now, on the issue of why IICSO decided not to sign the final contract 1

of document between Silverlake, the Second Defendant and IICSO, 2

now you wanted to explain why IICSO did not sign, you can explain 3

now. 4

5

UDHAYA It’s not we did not want to sign. Our lawyer then, advised that if we 6

need to comply to the principle agreement and that is to be 7

incorporated into the sub-contractor or back to back agreement, then 8

we need to make reference of that document in our main document 9

and that must be an addendum to it. Otherwise, we cannot be saying 10

that we will comply to the principle agreement not knowing what is the 11

full content. When I say not knowing, although we have been working 12

on the contract, but we need for good order, a signed copy of that 13

agreement. Signed means, signed between Bank Rakyat and 14

Silverlake. Now, if Silverlake don’t want to provide that document 15

because of confidentiality or whatever not, then they can always 16

extract whatever is the responsibility and add it on to the sub-17

contractor agreement. Not doing both, and saying you need to comply 18

to something that is so open and not knowing what we’re getting into, 19

so, we actually requested for the copy of the document. So, today 20

there’s no contract between IICSO and Silverlake is simply because 21

they’ve asked us to be compliant to the principle agreement but not 22

giving us the fair copy of it. That’s the reason, not because we didn’t 23

want to sign, we asked for that, they refused to give it. 24

25

SST Now, please refer to Bundle-B5, page 1757. B5, 1757. 26

27

UDHAYA Yes, I have that. 28

29

SST Now, it was put to you that the resources referred to here are actually 30

IICSO’s resources. You said that you cannot agree. Why? 31

32

UDHAYA I cannot agree to why this resources is not IICSO? 33

34

SST Yes, I believe that’s what you meant. 35

36

www.scribe.com.my 9

UDHAYA Yang Arif, when we say resources, there are two elements of the 1

resources, one is IICSO, which is the post operation, where you see in 2

a column we have, if you look at the 2nd row, we have pre, pre, pre, 3

then we have 40K, 80K, 120K, 160K and it goes on year one, two, 4

three and all that. Now, it’s important to know that some of the pre-5

functions is both IICSO and Logical Operations. IICSO functions 6

basically as defined in the document for the payment of RM990,000. 7

The others are basically the continued business procurement 8

including working on the other areas that we do as a project. Now, 9

really the IICSO operations will start from column Y1, that is, that 10

stands for year one, when the projected card is 40K. So, really, if you 11

in summary, it is both for IICSO and the pre-operation period it is also 12

for LOC, the Plaintiff. Question was basically, why did I disagree it is 13

not IICSO only? This is both for Logical Operations doing the, this 14

one, as well as for IICSO. IICSO actually starts with the column, Y1, 15

when the card base is 40K. That’s the 9th column from the left. And if 16

you read further, it is actually a. 17

18

YA This is where IICSO starts? 19

20

UDHAYA That’s where it’s supposed to have started. There are some functions 21

that was done, which is defined in the RM990,000. That is some of the 22

pre-operations as well. But if you look at it, that number of staff that we 23

commit, is actually staff that we recruited for IICSO, but some of the 24

works we still do under Logical Operations as well. So, it is a 25

combination of both Plaintiff, LOC and Plaintiff’s IICSO. 26

27

SST Please look at Bundle-B10, page 644. B10, page 644. 28

29


31

SST Now, under the 1st bullet point, and I’ll read that, “Working with a weak 32

draft of an agreement as the base document to reflect the scope of 33

services, role and responsibilities and risk related issues”. Alright? 34

35


37

www.scribe.com.my 10

SST Now, it was put to you that whatever the Second Defendant and Bank 1

Rakyat would like to agree, it would not satisfy the Plaintiff’s 2

requirements. You disagreed. 3

4

UDHAYA Sorry, again, please. 5

6

SST Now, based on this 1st bullet point, alright, this is what was put to you. 7

It was put to you that whatever the Second Defendant and Bank 8



11

UDHAYA Yes, can I just look on the? 12

13

SST Sure. 14

15

UDHAYA Can I have the question again, please? 16

17

SST Yes. It was put to you that whatever the Second Defendant and Bank 18



21

UDHAYA Yes. Yang Arif, this document, a weak draft of the agreement as a 22

base document to reflect the scope of service roles, responsibility, risk 23

and related issues, is at that time, we are not talking about IICSO. So, 24

if you look at page 3636, which says, “Background information on 25

efforts to secure the Bank Rakyat Outsourcing Project.” So, in that, 26

this is the heading of that document. So, this document is actually 27

prepared by Plaintiff to help Silverlake to understand what are all the 28

issues that is relevant and what is the status of that project that we are 29

trying to help to secure. Now, if you look at page 3636, we actually 30

define in the beginning, “Bank Rakyat sought a proposal from various 31

parties, and they actually had MBf as a strategic partner.” So, if you 32

really look at this document, there is nothing here which actually talks 33

about Plaintiff’s function, between Plaintiff and Silverlake. It is between 34

Silverlake and Bank Rakyat. So, when we say “work with a weak draft 35

of agreement as a base document”, what we are saying is, the draft 36

that came about from Bank Rakyat was very weak. We need a lot of 37


work to put in to make it a much more effective agreement. That’s why 1

I said, this has got nothing to do with IICSO or Plaintiff for that matter. 2

3

[00:30:00] 4

5

SST That is all? 6

7

UDHAYA Yes, that is all. 8

9

SST Now, please refer to Bundle-B1, page 239. B1, page 239. 10

11


13

SST Now, under the heading, ‘Silverlake Data Centre Services’, do you see 14

that? 15

16

UDHAYA Yes, I see that. 17

18

SST Now, it was put to you that Silverlake had submitted a previous 19

proposal to Bank Rakyat on 01.09.2006 which was 3 weeks before the 20

first meeting with the Second Defendant. Now, you disagreed. Why? 21

22

YA Can you please repeat? 23

24

SST Alright. Now, under this Silverlake Data Centre Services, it was put to 25

you the witness that Silverlake, the Second Defendant, had submitted 26

a previous proposal to Bank Rakyat on 01.09.2006, which was 3 27

weeks before the 1st meeting date with the Second Defendant. The 28

first meeting date was the, 21.09.2006 date. 29

30

UDHAYA 21st September. 31

32

SST So, you disagreed. Why? 33

34

35

36


UDHAYA We have no knowledge of the proposal submitted, at what date. So, I 1

cannot confirm that there was such a, this one. What we know was, 2

previously it was submitted, but I don’t know the dates. Based on the 3

past submission, if you look, somewhere later in the page, you can 4

see, I know the figure was RM700,000, that their proposal. And the 5

proposal was only to sell their systems to Bank Rakyat. That much, it 6

is there, somewhere in this document. But I don’t know the date, and 7

they asked me to say, to confirm the date, I cannot. 8

9

SST May I refer you to Bundle-B10 again? B10 at page 3648. The last 10

bullet point. If I may read? “Drawing up to the agreement between 11

Bank Rakyat and Silverlake.” Do you see that? 12

13

UDHAYA Yes, I got 3648, drawing up the. 14

15

SST The last bullet point. 16

17

UDHAYA Yes. 18

19

SST Now, it was put to you that drawing up the agreement between Bank 20

Rakyat and Silverlake was never the Plaintiff’s scope of work. You 21

disagreed. Why? 22

23

UDHAYA Yang Arif, when I mentioned that, drawing up the agreement between 24

Bank Rakyat and Silverlake, it is not our legal expertise that we are 25

talking about. We are actually referring from the business expertise to 26

help RDL, then the lawyer to help to draft this agreement and put in all 27

the different functions of the scope of the services. Earlier, just a few 28

minutes ago, I mentioned, what are the changes that we proposed in 29

that agreement. So, probably in this document, 3648, maybe the word, 30

“helping drawing up the agreement”, would have been more 31

appropriate but we were not really looking at so petty descriptions. 32

33

SST That is all? 34

35

UDHAYA That is all. 36

37


SST Now Bundle-B10 again, Yang Arif. 1

2

UDHAYA Yes. 3

4

SST B10, pages 3650 and 3651. 5

6


8

SST Alright. Now, it was put to you that this was an effort to persuade the 9

Second Defendant to enter into the proposed IICS and Silverlake 10

contract. You disagreed, and why? I’ll repeat the question. 11

12

UDHAYA Yes. 13

14

SST Ok. 15

16

UDHAYA Let me just read the thing, then. 17

18

SST Sure, go ahead. 19

20

UDHAYA Ok, you question please. 21

22

SST Alright. It was put to you that this was an effort to persuade the 23

Second Defendant to enter into the proposed IICS and Silverlake 24

contract. You disagreed, and why? 25

26

UDHAYA Yang Arif, this is an observation that we do, taking the principle 27

agreement and where would the risk in this place, or the obligations of 28

the different parties. Now, if you look at the last paragraph in page 29

3651, the main principle agreement says, “The client bank will bear all 30

losses suffered or incurred under the line of financing due to false and 31

fraudulent information.” So, my observation or our observation here is 32

that, client bank will bear all losses suffered, incurred under the line of 33

financing due to false and fraudulent information. There’s nothing here 34

which actually talks about IICSO or LOC. This is actually an 35

observation that we provide as thought leadership to Silverlake, that 36

because we managed to put this Clause 9.6 in the principle 37


agreement, this risk is now transferred to client bank, which is Bank 1

Rakyat. Some of the earlier paragraphs is basically to say who takes 2

what. So, in 9.3 we are specifically saying, in page 3650, 9.3 is, “IICS 3

will be responsible for inquiries, investigation and fraud and 4

administrative functions such as reporting of fraud cases to 5

MasterCard Visa and the client bank or the company shall provide 6

such assistance to ICCS in respect of the same where required by 7

IICS.” So here, we are actually defining not just relationship between 8

IICS and Silverlake but also Bank Rakyat. So, it is a three party 9

observation here. But contractually, the agreement is between Bank 10

Rakyat and Silverlake, then, we are supposed to have a back-to-back 11

agreement. That’s all. 12

13

SST Please refer to your answer to question 97 at page 49 of your Witness 14

Statement. 15

16


18

SST Now, I will read the question first then you can refer to the documents. 19

20

UDHAYA Sure. 21

22

SST It was put to you that all the documents starting with the document at 23

pages 2154 – 2161 of Bundle-B6, this is at the 3rd paragraph of your 24

answer, right until the end of your answer, that these documents show 25

that parties were still negotiating the commercial terms. You 26

disagreed. So, basically what counsel is saying is that, starting with 27

the documents at page 2154, which is at the 3rd paragraph of your 28

answer, right to the end of your answer at page 50, all these 29

documents show that parties were still negotiating the commercial 30

terms and you disagreed. So, if you need to look through. 31

32

[00:45:00] 33

34

UDHAYA Yes, can I just? 35

36

37


SST You can look at the document now. 1

2

UDHAYA Every document from. 3

4

SST From 2154, from the 3rd paragraph. 5

6

UDHAYA So, restricted to that paragraph only? 7

8

SST Yes. Basically, from the page. 9

10

UDHAYA Ok. 11

12

SST From the documents at pages 2154. 13

14

UDHAYA Yes. 15

16

SST Then later on you have 2162, you have 2166 and so on right until the 17

end, 2168, 2170, 2175, 2181, 2183. All these documents. In other 18

words, all these documents were referred to you in your answer. 19

20

UDHAYA Sure. 21

22

SST Beginning with 2154. You get it? 23

24

UDHAYA Yes, I need to go through them. 25

26

YA Can I have the question again? 27

28

UDHAYA Sorry? 29

30

YA Can I have the question again? 31

32

SST Yes, sure. Question was, starting with the document at pages 2154 – 33

2161 of B6, right to the end of his answer in answer to question 97, it 34

was put to the witness that all these documents show that the parties 35

were still negotiating the commercial terms and he disagreed. 36

37


UDHAYA May I have the question again, please? 1

2

SST Now, it was put to you that starting with the document at pages 2154 – 3

2161 of B6, right to the end of your answer in answer to question 97, 4

all these documents will show that parties were still negotiating the 5

commercial terms. You disagreed. Why? Do you understand the 6

question? 7

8

UDHAYA Yes, why I disagreed that. 9

10

SST All those documents subsequent to 2154 in your answer will show that 11

parties were still negotiating the commercial terms. 12

13

YA So witness is saying that all the documents, do not show he is 14

negotiating commercial terms at all. 15

16

SST He doesn’t agree that all these documents do not show that parties 17

were negotiating. 18

19

YA Yes. That means the documents do not show that parties were 20

negotiating the commercial terms? 21

22

SST Yes, I believe that’s what he is trying to say. Yes, and he disagreed. 23

24

UDHAYA Yang Arif, the reason I say I disagree is, one, the issues are being 25

discussed but at the same time we also need advise Silverlake how 26

best to proceed, and one of the things that, if you see, we actually did, 27

was to break up the contract into two, so that the pre-operation portion 28

of it can move on, failing which the whole entire project comes to a 29

standstill and Silverlake would be in default of their performance to 30

Bank Rakyat. So, if I show you page 2166, you can see that this 31

portion of it is what totals up to RM990,000 in page 2167. Now, what 32

we did was, the best way forward was to split that portion. Now, we 33

cannot consider this as a negotiation but it’s basically a consultancy, 34

how best to keep Silverlake in compliance to Bank Rakyat’s deadlines 35

or whatever not. Now, that was one of the things. Previously, this 36

RM990,000 was not there. So, when we look at a project and there is 37


a risk of delays because of the agreements, yes, but what is the 1

alternative? How do we move on with it? So, that’s where the 2

discussion was done, how to salvage the problem. So, that’s not really 3

negotiation. That is actually solving the problem for both Silverlake 4

and Bank Rakyat in their, meeting their deadlines and all that. It is not 5

so simple as just the terms and whatever not. That’s all. 6

7

[01:00:00] 8

9

SST Now this next question, it might sound like a repeat of an earlier 10

question but just hear me out on this. It was put to you that the 11

requirement of asking the Second Defendant to produce master SLA 12

(Service Level Agreement) was just an excuse put up by the Plaintiff. 13

You disagreed, why? I mean would your answer still be the same as? 14

15

UDHAYA I think it’s important to note that Silverlake said that they want the sub-16

contractor or the back to back agreement to be subordinate to the 17

principal agreement. That means, whatever the principal agreement 18

commitment by Silverlake to Bank Rakyat is also in that back to back 19

agreement. So at that time, out lawyers advice was if that’s the case, 20

we need to actually define what is the scope of service and the 21

principal agreement has to be addendum or referenced to the back to 22

back agreement. Now Silverlake refused to provide that, later today in 23

the courts now they say its confidentiality excuse. But really if they 24

want to do that they can reword that and say this is the scope and you 25

comply to that. So they did not do that. They were acting in bad faith 26

to find reasons to dishonour that partnership that we had from 27

21.09.2006. That’s all. 28

29

SST Now this next question also relates to the master agreement between 30

Bank Rakyat and the Second Defendant, you said that you were 31

aware, aware of the confidentiality clause in the master agreement 32

between Bank Rakyat and the Second Defendant. It was put to you 33

that by you or the Plaintiff asking the Second Defendant to produce 34

the master agreement, the Plaintiff was asking the Second Defendant 35

to breach the confidentiality obligation or their confidentiality 36

obligation, you disagreed, why? 37


UDHAYA Yang Arif, that request to comply to the principal agreement came 1

from Silverlake, in specific Mr Andy through Encik Razak. Now if they 2

request that we comply to the principal agreement, we need to know 3

what the principal agreement consists of and to say its confidentiality, 4

its actually not true because we were already involved in the 5

discussions from the beginning so we have access to that information. 6

What we needed was an official document to be put as an addendum 7

to the back to back agreement. Now you cannot say that we don’t 8

know all that because we are also party to the Bank Rakyat operating 9

or the project team. We were already mentioned in there. We attended 10

the kick-off meeting in Awana in Genting Highlands. So how do you 11

have all that information given to us and we do not comply to the 12

confidentiality agreement. Now if they were genuine, like I said earlier, 13

they could actually extract and say this is the definition of roles and 14

responsibility that our back to back agreement should comply to. 15

That’s all. 16

17

SST On the issue of splitting the sub-contract between IICSO and the 18

Second Defendant into two, it was put to you that that came about 19

because of differences between the parties on the operations contract, 20

you disagreed. Why? 21

22

UDHAYA Yang Arif, if you look at my Witness Statement and on page 51, I 23

actually mentioned here that I am referring to document 2225 of 24

CBD6. In there you can see that Mr Andy Ng of Silverlake, copying 25

Chairman Mr Goh, which is GPO at Silverlake, Silverglobe.com and 26

Encik Razak, and Encik Razak superior, Chee. On page 2225 of B6, 27

he says, I’m ok with the revised terms. So in principal all the terms 28

were agreed, it’s just the signing of the contract was not done, simply 29

because the addendum was not provided. So I couldn’t agree to say 30

that operational issues were not finalised, it was finalised as at 31

02.01.2008. 32

33

SST Now it was also put to you that the splitting of the contract into two 34

was the Second Defendant’s effort to ensure that IICSO would be paid 35

for the pre-ops, you totally disagreed. Why? 36

37


UDHAYA Yang Arif that was actually a proposal from Plaintiff to help get the 1

project going. One of the things is earlier there was a discussion about 2

whether we have capitals and all that. One of the funding’s that we 3

actually expect to get is from the pre-operations, the RM 990,000 4

which we will plough it into the requirements for setting up the 5

operations and all that. Now in view of the delays and all that, we 6

thought the best way forward is to split the agreements because that 7

portion of it is something that Silverlake really forced to comply to 8

Bank Rakyat. By splitting and Silverlake agreeing, we actually saved 9

the project from overruns or delays and all that. Now the next portion 10

was to get the operation portion signed and that was in the end, could 11

not sign or did not sign because of the principal agreement was not 12

provided. So it is not Silverlake coming to us and saying let’s split, it 13

was us providing that thought leadership to help them save the 14

project. 15

16

SST Now may I refer you to Bundle B7, pages 2680 to 2733? Now please 17

look specifically at page 2697, Clause 16.4 and the next page 2698, 18

Clauses 17.2 to 17.4. 19

20

UDHAYA Yes, I have them. 21

22

SST Now it was put to you that these deletions mean that the Plaintiff or 23

IICSO only wanted the money but do not want to share the risk with 24

the Second Defendant, you disagree. Now why? You want me to 25

repeat the question? 26

27

UDHAYA Let me just read the clause, then I will ask. Your question please? 28

29

SST It was put to you that these deletions mean that the Plaintiff or IICSO 30

only wanted the money but do not want to share the risk with the 31

Second Defendant, you disagree to it. Why? 32

33

UDHAYA I think the details are actually summarised in page 2680, the email on 34

this documents, if you look at the second paragraph, “We would like to 35

bring your attention to the salient points of the agreement that may 36

require further discussion before formalisation. Bullet point one, the 37


Silverlake’s responsibility for the system has to be defined and 1

updated in the agreement. Please see the attached substantiative 2

points that our lawyers have prepared. The termination clause 3

requires different scenario and we have provided the same in the 4

substantiative point document attached that our lawyers have 5

prepared. At that time of review this email transmission, we have not 6

formalised the splitting of the pre-operation and post-operation 7

sections of the agreement. We have opted for the attached revised 8

agreement, to have them both pre and post operation intact in the 9

single agreement. The removal of the pre-operation related clauses 10

can be quite easily achieved in the next reiteration provided first 11

Silverlake is formally agreeable to the splitting.” Now importantly what 12

we are saying is based on lawyers advise that in page 2861, 13

Silverlake has to actually define the systems in point 1, 2, 3. The next 14

one is in the area of termination, scenario A, scenario B and scenario 15

C. So it’s not a question of we want money and no responsibility but 16

more importantly is to define the responsibility, so that the risk are 17

actually roles and responsibility are defined clearly. That’s all 18

19

[01:15:00] 20

21

SST Now please refer to your answer question 85 at page 39 of your 22

Witness Statement. Maybe you can read of your answer first before I 23

post the question. 24

25

UDHAYA Sure, I'm reading. 26

27

SST Alright now the questions, it was put to you that all these things 28

mentioned here referring to your answer to 85. All these things 29

mentioned here were part of the pre-ops works which have been paid 30

in the form of RM 990,000, you disagreed. Why? 31

32

UDHAYA Do you know the list of, the one for 990 is in which page? 33

34

SST That’s in Bundle B10. 35

36


UDHAYA Don’t have the, do you know the pages? I think I got it, 3862. Let me 1

just check. 2

3

SST Starts with 3859. 4

5

YA What bundle? 6

7

SST Bundle B10, it starts with page 3859. 8

9

UDHAYA Yang Arif, what I am trying to do is, if you look at the document that, 10

1626 and page 1627 which actually details out the major tasks or 11

activity and to say that is comparable or equal to the scope of service 12

as in pre-operation consultancy which is in page 3589 which was 13

signed off by Mr Andy on page 3874. 14

15

YA Just now you mention 16? 16

17

UDHAYA 1626 and 1627, 1626 is the email, 1627 is the attachment which 18

details out the major tasks and activities. There are 15 of them. Now 19

to compare that activity 1627 to those in the document 3859 to 3874. 20

3859 to 3874 is actually the scope of service that totals up to RM 21

990,000. Now, nowhere in there you look we have tasks like approval 22

for setting up of BRICC, signing of the agreement. I am actually 23

referring to 1627. Operations committee, technical committee, system 24

development, although in this one the project plan system 25

development is actually Silverlake. Business plan and if you really look 26

at it, this was prepared for both Silverlake and Bank Rakyat. There is 27

nothing there which actually stipulates Plaintiff or IICSO. So this one is 28

actually more of thought leadership consultancy services that we 29

provide for Silverlake to submit to Bank Rakyat where else 3864 is the 30

operational or pre-operational scope of service that was agreed by 31

Silverlake with us. There is nothing in 3864 and 3865 that is equal to 32

the pages 1627. It’s two separate scope of work. 33

34

YA How about No.3? 35

36

37


UDHAYA Sorry. 1

2

YA 3899? 3

4

UDHAYA In the document 3859 to 3874, on page 3864, we actually define all 5

the scope of the services, for instance on page 3864, the first one is, 6

operations manual first draft. Then we have process flow, collection 7

matrix, then we have credit evaluation matrix. Credit evaluation matrix 8

if you really look at it, it’s exactly for Bank Rakyat not even Silverlake. 9

Chart of accounts for NGL for Bank Rakyat. The next one is Silverlake 10

operations accounting, that is for Silverlake’s internal use, not for Bank 11

Rakyat. Authorisation policies guideline, authorisation fraud 12

perimeters, dispute resolution, service level agreements. UAT, UAT 13

test script, UAT testing, operations manual and UAT sign off. All these 14

is part of the RM 990,000. There is nothing there which is similar to 15

1627. For instance in 1627, item No.9 is drawing up a marketing plan. 16

That’s not mentioned here at all, so it cannot be the same. That’s is 17

all. 18

19

SST Now, it was put to you that the business procurement services was 20

part and parcel of the RM 990,000 pre-ops, you disagreed? 21

22

UDHAYA Yes, coming back to page 3865, you don’t see any business 23

procurement definition in the scope of services that I went through just 24

now, nothing at all. These are all operational type or what we define 25

as pre-operations. These are the things that we need to do although 26

this is again going back to the agreement, although agreement signed, 27

some of it actually are not effective until the operation is set up. But 28

these are the ones classified as pre-operation. The business 29

procurement is another process where it was done to the point where 30

we got the contract signed. Now after the contract signed, like in the 31

sales, there’s after sales services. For instance we needed to help 32

them to set up their approvals and whatever not. Those are the things 33

that we do as part of the business procurement as well. This is very 34

clearly defined as pre-operation, basically what it means is, setting up 35

the operations. Both for Silverlake, Bank Rakyat and for IICSO which 36

is the vehicle that Plaintiff is using, was supposed to use. That’s it. 37


[01:30:00] 1

2

SST Now please refer to your answer question 107, this is at page 60, 61 3

until 62 of your Witness Statement. Now I put the question to you first 4

then you have a look at your answer. It was put to you that all these 5

words mentioned in your answer question 107 were part of the pre-6

ops, you disagreed, why? 7

UDHAYA Let me run through this. Can I take one at a time because it’s all in the 8

same document? 9

10

SST Sure. 11

12

UDHAYA Yang Arif, if I go to the second paragraph of page 60, question 107 13

and it says, I refer to pages 1851-1853 of CBD5 for this e-mail, that’s 14

the last sentence on second paragraph page 60. If you look at that 15

page 1851 in B5, this is an email from Kun Ying who is the project 16

manager from Silverlake and it’s actually saying, “Dear All, we shall 17

include discussing the billing module after the kick-off discussion. This 18

is important module that requires everyone’s input. That is where our 19

revenue is. Adrian please send copy of the billing requirement so that 20

everyone can familiarise before coming in for the discussion.” It is 21

actually a module or a system that Silverlake wants to build and put it 22

in their system. This is to help them to bill Bank Rakyat. Now this has 23

got nothing to do with our scope of services but we actually helped 24

provide some input what are the areas that they need to take care of 25

in this coming meeting. It has nothing to do with the pre-operations 26

functions that we are talking about. Now on the next one, 3784 to 27

3794, now if you look at Bank Rakyat credit card implementation 28

business committee. What we are trying to explain here is, there is a 29

need to setup a committee between Bank Rakyat and Silverlake to 30

iron out the nitty-gritty details of business related issues. While the 31

agreement would have the major areas covered, there may be issues 32

that will be raised as we discuss and go into the project in detail. So 33

What we are actually providing is a thought leadership or consultancy 34

to Silverlake why you need to do that and what are the things that 35

needs to be done is in page 3787, business related issues, business 36

goals. We need to understand how they are going to achieve the 37


40,000 card base and when is that going to happen so that we can tie 1

in to our system, resources and all that to support that activity. So it 2

has nothing to do with pre-operations at all. This is actually 3

consultancy and this is where I said, post-sales support that means 4

although we signed the contract, this is what we actually help 5

Silverlake to get the contract more firmed up. That’s all. 6

7

YA Short break. 8

9

AKHIR 10

11

MASA : 11.08AM 12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

32

33

34

35

36

37


TARIKH : 08.12.2014 1

MASA : 11:30 AM 2

3

MULA 4

5

Pemeriksaan Semula (Re Examination) (Continued) 6

Masa: 11:30 AM 7

8

JRB You are still under oath. 9

10

UDHAYA Yes. You are going to go through the next one? 11

12

SST Sorry? 13

14

UDHAYA The next document? 15

16

SST Sorry page what? 17

18

UDHAYA Page 107 of my Witness Statement. 19

20

SST Yes you have. 21

22

UDHAYA I have covered the first two. 23

24

SST Ok then please continue. 25

26

UDHAYA Can I have the question again? 27

28

SST Sure. For answer Question 107 it was put to you that all these words 29

were part of the pre-operations or the pre-ops. You disagreed. 30

31

UDHAYA Yang Arif the pre-operation consultancy services are defined in page 32

3864 of B-10. It’s part of the document 3859 to 3874. So the definition 33

of the pre-operation consultancy as agreed signed off by Andy of 34

Silverlake in this document is this. I am referring to page 1927 of 35

Bundle-B5 and specifically on second line. “Uday, as spoken please 36


prepare for session 2 on the overview of credit cards operations.” This 1

overview of credit card operations is not defined in this document at 2

all. To elaborate overview of credit card operation is actually 3

something that we present to the Bank Rakyat team. The Bank Rakyat 4

team is actually representing different parties from different 5

departments including audit and risk and all that as to what would be 6

the details of credit card operations. It’s more of a training-cum-7

helping them familiarise with the business itself. So has nothing to do 8

with the pre-operation consultancy as defined in here. 9

10

YA How would you describe 1927? 11

12

UDHAYA Sorry? 192? 13

14

YA How do you describe 1927? 15

16

UDHAYA 1927 is basically it’s like a training of what credit card business is all 17

about so for the audit, we audit department we tell them what are the 18

things to look out for. 19

20

YA Then it stands for operations? 21

22

UDHAYA Not operation only, marketing and whatever not. So it’s nothing as 23

defined in this document. 24

25

YA Nothing that defined in? 26

27

UDHAYA 3864 and 3865. 28

29

YA The three, did you mention about 3 months? 30

31

UDHAYA It’s like a start off the project. And what we do is we explain what is the 32

credit card all about. What is the marketing and what is the audit, what 33

is the risk and all those kinds of thing. It’s something that they then 34

can go back and take and say what are the things they have to start 35

preparing at their end. It’s not just the card operations team in Bank 36

Rakyat but also other supporting like. They were represented by audit, 37


by their central accounting group and branch operations and whatever 1

not, so ICT and all that were there. 2

3

SST Mr Udhaya, please continue. 4

5

UDHAYA Yes I am now looking at 1930 which is the next document in CBD-5. If 6

you look at page 1930 of B-5 Yang Arif this is actually a project 7

management type of assistance that we are providing. Based on our 8

past experience in order to move a project the management of Bank 9

Rakyat needs to form two separate committees at the highest level for 10

decision making. And that is called one, we called Business 11

Committee and if I believe right it was headed by the Group’s GM 12

then. And the other one is Technical Committee, Technical Committee 13

is headed by the, I believe is the ICT head of Bank Rakyat. Now what 14

happens is as we work in the project there may be issues that needs 15

to be addressed. And decision needs to be made. Either it’s an 16

investment of additional sum to get things going or mitigating some 17

risk that the management needs to make a decision. It’s beyond the 18

project team within Bank Rakyat so what this document is, is actually 19

telling them what are the areas that would be entailed into Business 20

Committee and Technical Committee. This has got nothing to do with 21

the scope of service as defined in 3864. Now looking at 1932 to 1935. 22

Yang Arif 1932 is actually an email from Ms Adriane to project 23

manager Ms Koon Yin and attached is the applications of S.O.W’s 24

scope of work. Sorry for the delay. Now this is actually going to the 25

original question or request from Koon Yin to everyone and Adriane is 26

actually responding to the overview of the credit card application. That 27

is actually if you go down further in the preceding email that actually 28

she is responding to in the third paragraph, “Michael as agreed please 29

prepare for session 3 on the overview of credit card application.” So 30

Adriane reports to Michael and she’s responding to that. Now what it 31

means is when they actually provide the card application on our side, 32

we need to review and see whatever they are providing is actually in 33

line with what we have worked with in the agreements and all that. So 34

it has got nothing to do with the pre-operations as defined in 3864. 35

36

37


YA Where are we now? 1

2

SST Currently we should be in 1955. 3

4

UDHAYA I am on page 1955. I am just going through that. 5

6

SST Same bundle. 7

8

UDHAYA Yes. If I bring your attention to 1955. Here it’s a request from the 9

Project Manager to me, “Immediate plans after the kick-off are the 10

card operation team to commence starting 28th. I have spoken to 11

Lionel.” Lionel is one of the senior systems person from Silverlake the 12

higher priorities. Now mainly the integration requirement are in 13

Appendix 4 and if you look at it. This document is actually talking 14

about how the ATM and the proposed cash advance that Bank Rakyat 15

customers would actually be able to withdraw money at Bank Rakyat’s 16

ATMs. That is not part of the scope of service in 3864. Next one is 17

BDS. BDS stands for Branch Delivery System via Bank Rakyat whole 18

system and how card payment. That means how can customers go to 19

the branch and make payment and the payment is actually transferred 20

to the Silverlake system overnight. 21

22

[00:15:00] 23

24

So that’s how to do that. The third one is actually Internet banking via 25

Bank Rakyat’s system. Similar to ATM and BDS you can also transfer 26

money from your savings account with Bank Rakyat to the credit card 27

account. The next No. 4 is actually Data Feed to bank’s data 28

warehouse. Whatever information, customer’s information, 29

transactions and all that is required to be transferred to Bank Rakyat 30

to keep that as their warehouse of electronic data. So that’s what we 31

are talking about. No. 5 is statement printing. This is again also not 32

part of the scope as in 3864 nowhere there is that but what we do is 33

it’s a function that Silverlake has to provide to Bank Rakyat which we 34

provide some help and taught leadership. Card Perso is a third party 35

vendor. When customers actually registers themselves and is 36

approved we need to produce a card personalised with their name 37


and account number and whatever not. That is actually done by a third 1

party vendor who specialises in this. Now in order to do that we need 2

to comply to certain rules and security functions from Visa and 3

Mastercard and all that. We cannot have that information breached by 4

any other party who take that information and they cloned the card or 5

counterfeit the card. So we need to put in place a proper secure way 6

of doing that. That is not part of 3864. General Ledger that is 7

something which we talk about in our 3864 but for this the General 8

Ledger is basically the files that is electronically transferred. Not the 9

one that is mentioned here at 3864. Here it’s more of an accountant 10

type of function where we provide what are the accounting entries that 11

they need to do to comply to the regulatory functions of Bank Rakyat. 12

So in 3864 chart of accounts and GL developed the Bank Rakyat GL 13

and accounting treatment of Bank Rakyat credit card programme is 14

specifically when a customer make purchases. What are the type of 15

accounts is actually triggered? Whereas in General Ledger here we 16

talk about what is the file format that Silverlake system will extract and 17

comply to then I think Bank Rakyat uses a very popular system called 18

SAP. So these two got nothing to do with each Yang Arif. I’m looking 19

at 1957. Ok this original email is from myself to Koon Yin who is the 20

Project Manager for Silverlake and copied to Dr Narayan. And this is 21

basically card operations scope of work and the next one actually 22

Encik Rahim actually responds to me on November 18th and said all 23

these activities as per the agreement between Bank Rakyat and 24

Silverlake as well as Silverlake and IICS confirmed thanks. So my 25

reply is yes they are extracted from the agreement. Basically what we 26

are saying then is it is in compliance to the principal agreement 27

between Bank Rakyat and Silverlake as well as the Silverlake and 28

IICS back to back agreement. So here Encik Rahim actually is 29

confirming that Silverlake and IICS agreement is pretty much intact 30

here. So this one again is got nothing to do with the pre-operation 31

consultancy. It’s about the agreement and extracting the scope of 32

services from that agreement so it’s nowhere in this document 3864 33

and 3865 where we actually say this is part of the scope of the work. 34

I’m looking at 1958. 1958 is basically the original document or original 35

email was on 16th November from myself to Encik Rahim, Encik Khairil 36

and Dr. Then resending and third one is also resending. This has got 37


nothing to do with the document here. In 3864 and 3865. This is a 1

power point of IICS operation performance and fraud related issue. 2

This if I recall right the authorisation and fraud related issue here was 3

actually provided for Bank Rakyat. Nothing to do with the IICSO. Page 4

1959 is specifically to Encik Rahim. Attached is the performance 5

template for IICS. Again performance template or performance of IICS 6

is nowhere in this scope of service that was agreed between 7

Silverlake and IICSO page 3864 and 3865. There is one service level 8

agreement that was prepared for Bank Rakyat and Silverlake not 9

IICSO and Silverlake. I am now looking at page 61 of my Witness 10

Statement first paragraph Silverlake kick-off meeting 1960 and 1963 11

of CBD-5. And this email is from myself to Koon Yin and this again is 12

the confirmation that I and Dr will attend, representing IICS operations. 13

And this is again the seminar where we had the different parties within 14

Bank Rakyat coming in and we are presenting what credit card 15

operations business risk, fraud and all that entails. And this is to help 16

them plan and work out what are the things that they as a 17

management of Bank Rakyat needs to do. It’s a two days’ workshop 18

seminar. I am now looking at 2075 CBD-6. On page 2075 of Bundle-6 19

this is an email from myself to Koon Yin the Project manager. 20

“Attached is a project schedule for the Bank Rakyat Islamic Card for 21

your consideration.” Now this is more of a project planning to help the 22

project manager put together the entire project as a whole. This has 23

got nothing to do with the scope of service as we defined in pre-24

operations but some of the scope that is agreed on, on 3864 probably 25

will come as one of the many items but I don’t have the benefit of 26

reviewing this project file to confirm that. Page 2076 is actually the 27

agenda of the seminar cum presentation that we are supposed to do. 28

The checking time and all that detail is more of logistics of that 29

presentation that day. It has got nothing to do with pre-operations at 30

all. I now move to page 3812 and 3819 of CBD-10. 31

32

YA 3872 or 272? 33

34

35

36


UDHAYA 3812 of B-10.Ok Yang Arif this is the actual presentation that we are 1

actually doing. At the workshop. Now if you look at it, develop the 2

scope or roles and responsibilities. Develop business procedures for 3

credit card operations other support services within Bank Rakyat for 4

the credit card business. 5

[00:30:00] 6

Defined and detailed card operations including outsourcing. Defined 7

and agreed on SLA address any business issues through the 8

implementation period. Sign off business requirements user 9

requirement documents which is not part of the scope as agreed 10

earlier, as mentioned in the earlier page 3864 isn’t it? Yes. Not within 11

the scope as agreed in page 3864 of the same document. These are 12

totally different things. See this one on page 3815 we talked about 13

invoicing and payment processing for outsourcing. Card 14

personalization embossing printing of mailers. That’s not part of the 15

scope that was agreed in 3864. Credit card statement in 3816 format 16

media you can see these are all not. So what actually we are doing in 17

this presentation is these are some of the areas that Bank Rakyat 18

needs to consider and look at. How you want your statement to look 19

like for your customers. What kind of branding you want to put in? 20

What are the information that you want? We can always provide these 21

are all the information that is available and they can pick and choose 22

how they want to present it to their customers. The end decision is 23

their customer so these are things that we are putting. Nothing to do 24

with our scope that is defined in 3864. A lot of is actually more of 25

Silverlake’s function as a system provider for Bank Rakyat. CBD-6. I 26

am now going to 2078 and 2087 of CBD-6. In 2078 it’s actually a 27

email from Silver Arrow I think it is from Encik Razak to me copied to 28

Dr. and also Encik Rahim. Now dear all, Silverlake’s sixth information 29

on the credit card project timeline please help me to update the info 30

that is highlighted in yellow and if you look at page 2079 I think the 31

one that is highlighted in yellow is from line 51 to 68. It’s slightly 32

greyish background. Now if you look at it, BR Cord. Cord is Bank 33

Rakyat card operation team which consist at the time between Dr and 34

myself. And one of the things that we need to do is on line 66, 35

Mastercard certification its duration is 20 over days. That is not part of 36

the scope as mentioned in our pre-operation as well. This is to help 37


Silverlake actually to get themselves certified and Bank Rakyat gets 1

certified. Now moving to page 2088 to 2089. 2

3

SST 2088? 4

5

UDHAYA 2088 and 2089 CBD-6 the same document. 2088 has nothing to do 6

with the, it’s more of the business relationship. It’s more of the 7

partnership and things like that. Nothing at all and 3864 sorry I think I 8

made a mistake that’s 2088 it should be 2078 to 87. 9

10

SST You have covered 2078. 11

12

UDHAYA Yes I think so. 2088 to 2089 sorry my confusion. So I reiterate that this 13

got nothing to do with the pre-operation consultancy that was agreed 14

upon between Silverlake and Bank Rakyat as defined in. What’s the 15

page? 16

17

SST 386. 18

19

UDHAYA 3? 20

21

SST 386. 22

23

UDHAYA Yes correct 3864. That was agreed upon between Andy of Silverlake 24

and our side. This is 2090 of B-6 it’s actually an email from Koon Yin 25

who is the Project Manager to me and Encik Khairil who is now part of 26

Bank Rakyat and also one chap Teoh of Silverlake and copied to 27

many other parties. Now important thing is if you look at it, the way, 28

the places where my name is mentioned that means Plaintiff as well, I 29

have answered her question as yes. That is credit card users Udhaya 30

and Khairil are being consulted on. So that by itself is the definition of 31

our consultancy services confirmed here. She does not wish to spend 32

time confirming with users whatever not. And then if you go down 33

further to the next line where my name is mentioned. Udhaya, Lionel 34

and Khairil please make absolutely sure that all of us are in sync with 35

this. And further down it say please make sure Udhaya and Khairil 36

meet and confirm requirements within the ambit of standard 37


information and advice before the ADT discuss with IT on each and 1

every topic. So again this is nothing to do with the pre-operation as 2

defined in the scope of service on page 3864. Next I am going to page 3

2216 of Bundle-6. Here we have details of hardware and software 4

requirement for SLCC operations centre. This is addressing to one Mr 5

Tan who was in charge of the hardware and the data centre. I 6

apologised for the delay attached is the detail of the equipment and 7

the time the equipment are expected. So this is basically a list of 8

equipment’s that we are expecting and the quantity of, this one are in 9

pages 2217,2218, 19,220,2221 and all that. Basically what we have 10

provided here is assistance to help them to define what are the 11

hardware and software requirements for more of the office. This has 12

got nothing to do with the pre-operation this has got to do as a 13

consultancy services as to what are the different things that we require 14

in the Silverlake’s commitment to Bank Rakyat. I am now moving to 15

2490, 2491 of CBD-7. Ok on page 2490 Yang Arif, on Bundle-B7 16

which is mentioned in my Witness Statement page 6, first paragraph 17

from the top. Ok this is a, basically an email from Michael who is one 18

of the team member from Silverlake who has some credit card 19

background. Most of Silverlake folks don’t have any credit card 20

background but he has some. And here the question is “I am not sure 21

if you have provided justification for the assets to be purchased. 22

Remember Razak talking to you about this. If so please forward me 23

those info if not kindly provide a brief note on the equipment’s and 24

work stations requested.” And earlier you can see Koon Yin sending 25

an email to Michael and Razak please work directly with Uday on the 26

information as we understand please copy us. Office premises and 27

equipment I don’t believe that is mentioned as a scope of service in 28

page 3864 and 3865. This was more of a consultancy services that we 29

provided as part of the business procurement to help Silverlake 30

comply to Bank Rakyat’s role and responsibility that was agreed on. 31

Next I am looking at page 2495 of CBD-7 or Bundle-7. 32

33

[00:45:00] 34

35

36


UDHAYA This email is from Encik Rahim to me and copied to Dr Narayan and 1

his comments is specialised in credit card outsourcing. Any rationale 2

of committing those words how about a manager’s for fraud and 3

authorisation function. Totally disagreed to indicate Muslim in the 4

advertisement. This is in response to my email to Encik Rahim copied 5

to Dr Narayan. ”Attached is a recruitment document that we finished at 6

our end. The next step is to get Idris. Encik Idris is one of the people 7

that we brought on board to help us with the staff recruitment for 8

IICSO. This is expected to be done on Monday time is not confirmed 9

with Idris yet. If you have any comments then we also incorporate 10

them.” The next thing for recruitment. HR recruitment is not part of the 11

pre-operation consultancy services as agreed between Silverlake and 12

IICSO or the Plaintiff in page 3864. Next I am moving to the last 13

paragraph of that answer page 2496 to 2499 of CBD-7. This is an 14

email from myself to one Nur Zuzila of Bank Rakyat. And this is 15

basically a request from them to provide the file I think it’s a five year 16

financial projection for card centre that is on pages 2497, 98, 99 and 17

this is to confirm Yang Arif that some of the work that we have done 18

although we were not first party in presence with Bank Rakyat they 19

have actually benefited from our work. This is a classic example. This 20

was actually requested by Bank Rakyat and the person that we are 21

supposed to share this file was with this lady Cik Nur Zuzila. This was 22

as a follow through of they want to have a version of the file for their 23

safe keeping. Previously all engagement between Silverlake and their 24

corporate strategy not the card side. So the card side said can I get a 25

copy of it. So we are actually forwarding it through them with the 26

request coming through Silverlake actually. That’s pretty much it. So in 27

summary if you look at it, all these documents got nothing to do with 28

the pre-operation and the pre-operation is very clearly defined and 29

agreed upon in page 3864 and 3865. That’s all. 30

31

SST Now please refer to your answer question 30 at page 9. 32

33

UDHAYA Question number? 34

35

SST 30. 36

37


UDHAYA That’s page number? 1

2

SST Page No.9. 3

4

UDHAYA Sorry. Yes I have them. 5

6

SST Right now it was put to you that the estimate revenue of RM 140 7

million was merely the Plaintiff’s projections and that the Second 8

Defendant has got nothing to do with it. You disagreed. Why? 9

10

UDHAYA Just read through and see. May I have the question again please? 11

12

SST Sure. It was put to you that the estimate revenue of RM 140 million 13

was merely the Plaintiff’s projections and that the Second Defendant 14

has got nothing to do with it. You disagreed. 15

16

UDHAYA Yes. Can I get some help on the principal agreement where in the 17

Bundles? 18

19

SST What are the principal agreement between here? 20

21

UDHAYA Yes there are a few versions of it and there. 22

23

SST Between? 24

25

UDHAYA Between Bank Rakyat and Silverlake. 26

27

SST Ok, alright you can try. 28

29

UDHAYA I think. 30

31

SST I think earlier on you refer to this. 32

33

UDHAYA In the index 198 Bank Rakyat Islamic card implementation ISCS 34

agreement and payment. That’s Uday to Andy. Sorry, not that one. 35

36


SST Ok, one of it is in Bundle-B4, 1355. Can you refer to this in your B-4 1

1355? This is Bank Rakyat and Silverlake. 2

3

UDHAYA What’s the page number please? 4

5

SST B-4 1355. You referred to this one earlier on. 6

7

UDHAYA Yang Arif, I bring your attention to page 1398 of Bundle-B4 it’s actually 8

non-fulfilment active card compensation charges. Now if you look at 9

that, there is a computation that was proposed and agreed later on but 10

maybe not in the exact terms as you see here. But basically it’s the, 11

what is the number of customer or card base and in that first line of 12

that Appendix 6 we actually say “RDL please peruse carefully to 13

ensure that you are agreeable with the following.” And if you take the 14

following third line from there, “The computation is based on non-15

fulfilment of committed active card based per month based on Table 1 16

below.” And Table 1 is actually what we have provided in pages 1399, 17

1400 which are the originals that we deleted and counter proposed on 18

page 1401. Now the important point here is this. 19

[01:00:00] 20

At this time when we are talking about the negotiations with Bank 21

Rakyat, the number of years for the computation of the card projection 22

was ten years. This eventually came down to 6 years and finally 23

agreed to 7 years. Now the important point here is that what is the 24

customer base or the card base that Bank Rakyat committed to 25

Silverlake? Based on that we actually worked out that projection of 26

RM 140 million which is not shared with Bank Rakyat. It’s between us 27

the Plaintiff and Silverlake and from there we take the 60% for 28

Silverlake and 40% for the IICSO. Now where do we get all these 29

numbers? All these numbers come from Bank Rakyat’s commitment to 30

Silverlake and Silverlake transmitting that information to us. So it 31

cannot be said that these numbers were done for us and for us only. 32

Did I answer the question? 33

34

SST Let me read the question. 35

36

UDHAYA Yes. 37


SST It was put to you that the estimated revenue of RM 140 million was 1

merely the Plaintiff’s projections and that the Second Defendant has 2

got nothing to do with it. Very clear. 3

4

UDHAYA Ok, it has got everything got to do with the commitment that Silverlake 5

actually has with Bank Rakyat. So we are preparing all these and this 6

is one of the examples that work in progress that we did where then it 7

was 10 years. If I go through some more I could actually go to the 8

agreement where it is actually finalised to 7 years. If you can give me 9

some time I’ll go through that. 10

11

SST You are looking for the final draft. 12

13

UDHAYA Actually I have got one which is on page 1575 which is actually comes 14

down to 7 years. If you look at page 1575 you can see that card base 15

is now 200,000 and in 7 years. So from 10 years negotiation after a 16

few iteration has now come down to 7 years. Based on that 7 year 17

revenue internally is estimated at RM 140 million. What I need to do is 18

to look at that RM 140 million projection. 19

20

YA Actually few more question only? 21

22

SST Have to count, got a few. 23

24

YA So 2:30? 25

26

SST 2:30? 27

28

ABR Can I ask for 2:30 My Lady because I have to do something? 29

30

YA Can you proceed in your absence? 31

32

ABR Ok. That’s fine. I’ll be here. 33

34

JRB Court bangun. 35

AKHIR 36

MASA : 12:37 PM 37


TARIKH : 08.12.2014 1

MASA : 2.19PM 2

3

MULA 4

5

SST Dengan izin Puan, I believe Encik Rashid will join us afterwards. He 6

sends his apologies. Much obliged Puan. Now may I refer you to 7

answer question 108.1, this would be at page 62 of your Witness 8

Statement. 9

10

UDHAYA Yes I have that. 11

12

SST This also refer to Bundle B9, pages 3384 to 3401. 13

14


16

SST It was put to you that this financial proposal is without any Capex and 17

therefore it is meaningless because no business could start without 18

Capex, you totally disagreed. Why? I believe counsel was focusing on 19

the title at the top of page 3384, no Capex. 20

21

UDHAYA Yang Arif, if I can draw your attention to page 3398, somewhere in the 22

middle of that table after earning, before interest and depreciation, I 23

have capital injection, bank borrowing, interest expenses and capital 24

expenditure. So there is actually capital expenditure. Matter of fact, if 25

you go to pages 3386 to 3396, we even provide the breakdown of the 26

capital expenditure by the month. I think why the heading is called no 27

Capex, this is to go into what the business model these days, it’s 28

called software as a services or platform as a services or basically 29

providing services without incurring upfront costs. What we can do or 30

examples you can see is sometimes, you lease the equipment’s or 31

you take the equipment’s on rental basis. This are provided by big 32

companies like Dell Computers, service providers like, actually if you 33

look at it, the whole concept of Silverlake outsourcing is really a no 34

Capex model for Bank Rakyat. Bank Rakyat don’t own the system. 35

They don’t own the data centre. All that cost is the capital expenditure 36

is on Silverlake. So Bank Rakyat is actually going on a no Capex 37


model and what we are projecting here is a similar model where we 1

provide the bodies or the minds who actually would work on the 2

operations and all capital expenditure is borne by Silverlake. But 3

nevertheless there is still minimum capital expenditure. So the 4

heading is to say that we avoid the major capital expenditure. That’s it. 5

6

SST Now it was put to you that since IICSO only has a paid capital of 7

10,000, it was unrealistic, unreal for IICSO to hope to make RM 60 8

million in profit over 7 years, you totally disagreed, why? 9

10

YA Actually witness has answered all this. There is no doubt, I mean 11

there’s nothing to clarify. In fact the previous answer is very clear. 12

13

SST Yes. 14

15

YA Even that answer just now, I mean after that. What do you mean now? 16

17

UDHAYA Basically you don’t need a huge paid up capital. There’s no relations 18

to the capital expenditure. So if we rent, we actually bring down. 19

Secondly, earlier I think I also mentioned that we seek pre-payments 20

from Silverlake. That’s like down payment to rental so that’s how we 21

can bring down the cost. 22

23

YA Witness had already explained that previously in the cross. 24

25

SST I’m sorry because it came up a few times. 26

27

YA Yes, there’s something that’s important about that. 28

29

SST Now you please refer to answer question 54 at page 19. It was put to 30

you that the meeting on 05.12.2006 did not take place, you disagreed, 31

why? 32

33

UDHAYA Sorry, again please? 34

35

SST It was put to you. 36

37


YA I thought, I'm sorry, I thought the witness has clearly explained that all 1

meetings are, returned the minutes, some of them, not able to read, 2

they go for teh tarik, things like that. Is that the one? 3

4

SST No this is different, this on the presentation to the Second 5

Defendant’s. because what happened Yang Arif, quite a number of 6

questions coming from the Second Defendant’s counsel they refer to 7

different documents and different meetings, so that’s why I have to 8

cover them. Because it doesn’t make sense for the witness to always 9

say I disagree without knowing explanation. 10

11

YA No, I was thinking that they want termination and all that but for this 12

point, next point, can you? 13

14

SST Whether why did he disagree that to the suggestion that the 15

05.12.2006 meeting didn’t take place. Because counsel for the 16

Second Defendant had taken that position that there was no such 17

meeting. 18

19

UDHAYA Yang Arif, the meeting on 5th December actually did take place and 20

the people who attended as indicated in page 3820 was Encik Rahim, 21

Mr Andy, Encik Razak and one lady from accounts of Silverlake. And I 22

think couple of days later; there was an email from that accounts lady, 23

asking clarification on there. I don’t have that page really where the 24

email came from but if you give me time, I could look through. It’s 25

actually clarification, how did we arrive at that. That was all presented 26

to Mr Andy primarily who was the audience on 5th. Let me just look at 27

that. Can I ask you for help to look for that email? It’s from Andy’s 28

office the accountant, asking for that. I went into the wrong one. It’s an 29

email basically asking clarification on the fee structure that we said 30

and how would that work. Basically it’s a clarification on the 31

interchange fee, how would that work. 32

33

[00:15:00] 34

35

36


SST If I may refer, I believe this is the one, if you can refer to your answer 1

question 70, at page 29. The third paragraph, is this the one? 2

3

UDHAYA Yes, that’s right, I think that’s the one. 4

5

SST There’s a reference to Bundle B2, page 685. 6

7

UDHAYA Yang Arif, this is the one confirmation but it doesn’t mention the date 8

but what we have done is we actually presented a PowerPoint and a 9

projection and Ms Ying Ling of the Mr Andy’s office say they have 10

looked through the forecast worksheet and PowerPoint in relations to 11

the above and they asked certain questions. This came about from 12

that initial meetings. 13

14

YA The answer to your question? What’s the answer? 15

16

SST Part of answer question 70. This document was referred to in answer 17

question 70, page 29. 18

19

YA What was the answer that you’re trying to clarify? 20

21

SST I was trying to clarify because the suggestions was put to him that the 22

05.12.2006 meetings did not take place. 23

24

YA That’s why I’m asking, so does this answer your question? 25

26

SST In a way, yes. 27

28

UDHAYA Because we presented those projections and all that verbally in 29

person in Silverlake’s office on 5th. 30

31

YA And do this, I mean answer to that question? 32

33

UDHAYA On 5th December, on page 3820, we did. 3820 of CBD10. So the 34

question was this meeting did not take place. This meeting took place 35

on 5th December and we actually were in person presenting to the 36

people that I mentioned earlier. Mr Andy and present was Encik 37


Rahim and our side as well. And based on that, this presentation, they 1

after reviewing and all, they came back with these questions and all 2

that. So that’s how they got the copy of the presentation and all those. 3

They couldn’t have answered or raised this question without getting a 4

presentation and they made the mention here that worksheet and 5

PowerPoint in relations to the above. That’s it. 6

7

YA You are talking about, I just want to get things clear. So it’s page 8

2685? 9

10

SST Yes. 11

12

YA 2685. This arose out of the meeting that took place on the 5th of 13

December. 14

15

SST That’s correct, that’s what the witness is saying. 16

17

UDHAYA Yes. 18

19

SST Now in your answer question 55.1 page 19. You were asked by 20

counsel whether you asked the senior management of the Second 21

Defendant during the presentation whether they were awarding the 22

project to the Plaintiff. You said there was no need and you wanted to 23

explain. 24

25

UDHAYA Yes, I need to go to the presentation. Yang Arif, if I can draw your 26

attention to page 268 of Bundle B1. This was an email sent and if you 27

look at it, there are three items, and the last item is PowerPoint 28

presentation from IIC or IICSO to Silverlake. Now if I draw your 29

attention to page 287, you will see in the presentation, we actually 30

give some background information that Silverlake and Logical 31

Operation, submitted proposal to Bank Rakyat separately. Second 32

bullet point, based on Bank’s feedback a joint proposal was submitted 33

with Silverlake as technology service provider while a new co to be 34

setup to provide the operation support services. “Presentation to iron 35

up all the issues and gain mutual understanding of the roles and 36

responsibilities and duties of each partner in the alliance.” So the 37


partnership is already cemented so the role is basically to work out the 1

detail, what are the issues and to iron out. So there was never any 2

time there was a role of whether there is a partnership and whether 3

there is a need to propose the alliance. I think it was basically to work 4

out the roles and responsibilities of the different parties. That’s all. 5

6

[00:30:00] 7

8

SST Now this is in relation to this presentation. Now when you were asked 9

whether you told the senior management members of the Second 10

Defendant that you will be charging the Second Defendant for 11

business procurement services for preparing and attending the 12

presentation, you said no. Why? 13

14

UDHAYA You are referring to which one? 15

16

SST The same presentation to the Second Defendant. Now you were 17

posed this question, when asked whether you told the senior 18

management members of the Second Defendant whether you will be 19

charging them for business procurement services for preparing and 20

attending the presentation, you said no. Why? 21

22

UDHAYA At that presentation, it was pretty much to iron out the issues like 23

alliance partnership. If you go to page 301 of B1, one of the key areas 24

where we were talking about is how the payments are, the cash 25

payments flow. When Bank Rakyat pay Silverlake, Silverlake pays 26

XYZ which is the services and ICIC which was then supposed to be 27

the marketing arm run by Encik Rahim. So that’s basically the 28

structure and details. Did I answer the question? 29

30

SST No, you have not answered. Basically counsel is saying, you have 31

attended this presentation to the Second Defendant management. So 32

he’s asked you whether or not you actually told the Senior 33

Management of the Second Defendant at that point in time that you 34

will be charging them business procurement services for preparing 35

and attending the presentation, now you said no. 36

37


UDHAYA Yes, because Yang Arif what I am trying to say is this forum is about 1

the alliance partnership and we are talking about all these things. It’s 2

not like something that you want to ask them at that time. We did ask 3

at different times and Mr Chee and Encik Razak all have given us 4

confirmation that it will be taken care of. That was verbal but in this 5

meeting, it is not the forum for that kind of discussion, that’s why we 6

didn’t bother to ask that question. Here we are trying to figure out how 7

the payments from Bank Rakyat will go and which is the best way to 8

handle them. 9

10

SST Now please refer to your answer question 62, page 23. It was put to 11

you that the reason why the Second Defendant was still reviewing the 12

details of this materials is because the Second Defendant has not 13

made a decision on whether or not to accept these projections as 14

produced by the Plaintiff, you disagreed, there was no specific 15

reference, but I think it relates to your answer question 62. 16

17

UDHAYA Can you repeat the question please? 18

19

SST It was put to you that the reason why the Second Defendant was still 20

reviewing the details of this materials is because the Second 21

Defendant has not made a decision on whether or not to accept these 22

projections as produced by the Plaintiff? I think if you read your 23

answer question 62, this is an event subsequent to the meeting which 24

you had where you presented to the Second Defendant? 25

26

YA You are asking him, what the rulings given? Is that what you’re 27

saying? 28

29

SST This was what was posed by the counsel for Second Defendant. So 30

I’m just asking him to explain why he disagree? 31

32

YA What was the answer? 33

34

SST He actually disagree. 35

36


YA In the first place that question is asking to the witness what Silverlake 1

is thinking whether they were really, because we have not decided. 2

3

SST I think what happened was that, subsequent to the presentation to the 4

Second Defendant’s senior management, in the witness, Witness 5

Statement answer question 62, he said that there were actually two 6

follow up meetings with the Second Defendant’s personnel to review 7

the details of the materials developed by the Plaintiff. So this in 8

reference to the presentation made. So the witness also said an 9

additional meeting was held with this Andy and Razak and a few other 10

staff of the Second Defendant on a particular date, 12th December. 11

And there was another meeting that took place at the Second 12

Defendant on the 19th December. So I think what counsel is trying to 13

say is look, the reason why there were two subsequent meetings, 14

following the presentation by the Plaintiff to their senior management 15

is because the Second Defendant had not made a decision on 16

whether or not to accept the presentation materials in other words by 17

the Plaintiff. This was what was posed by the counsel for the Second 18

Defendant, that’s why I or if I may just refer to. 19

20

YA I’m just wondering whether in the first place if this witness is in the 21

position to answer that question. 22

23

SST He actually disagreed with that suggestion, so. 24

25

YA Because they were just putting their case. By asking that question, 26

they were putting the case. So I suppose witness has to disagree what 27

to what he deem is the case. Perhaps if you can? 28

29

SST Yes, or let me pose the question. I’m just trying to quote for better 30

information. So it was put to you that the reason why the Second 31

Defendant was still reviewing the details of the materials is because 32

the Second Defendant had not made a decision on whether or not to 33

accept these projections as produced by the Plaintiff and you 34

disagree? 35

36


UDHAYA Yes, if what they were trying to imply on is that we are putting a 1

proposal and that’s an acceptance. What we are trying to say is, all 2

these are work in progress, we take feedback and we propose and 3

they consider the different changes and there is also one important 4

element that comes from Bank Rakyat and they say this is the 5

numbers or this is the rates like for instance, in the beginning when we 6

worked on a projection, it was based on card membership fee, 50-50 7

sharing. That means if Bank Rakyat charges RM100 to the customer, 8

RM50 goes to Silverlake, RM50 goes to Bank Rakyat. Bank Rakyat 9

half-way through the negotiations decided not to. So these are 10

information’s that comes to us and we adapt and change. So it is not 11

about accepting our proposal or financial projections. It is actually 12

working together to refine the numbers based on the latest events 13

that’s taking place. 14

15

SST May I refer you to your answer question 60.1, 60.2 and 60.3, this 16

would be from pages 22 and 23 of your Witness Statement. Now it 17

was put to you that there was no prior agreement between the parties 18

on how to split the profit, then you said that there was no reason to 19

split the profit. I need you to explain that, why did you say there was 20

no reason to split the profit? 21

22

[00:45:00] 23

24

UDHAYA Yang Arif, from the onset, we said cut operation outsourcing we do 25

and we propose directly to Bank Rakyat through Silverlake carrying 26

the documents to present. And then for the sake of Bank Rakyat’s 27

requirement that one single proposal, so we worked as sub-contractor 28

to Silverlake, but our scope of work is very clear, Silverlake scope of 29

work is very clear. So we worked on that. What they are asking here 30

60% is actually the work done in IICS or the Plaintiff’s portion they 31

wanted 60% and the only reason they wanted the 60% was because 32

they are the prime vendor. Not because of any productivity gain that 33

they do to justify that 60%. So they were just being greedy to say that 34

I’m the principal, I’m making less, and you are the sub-contractor how 35

can you make more. So they came with that kind of this one. So it was 36

unreasonable but we worked out and say that at 50-50, it is still 37


worthwhile for us to go. So that’s why we said that if you look at 1

question 60.3, we wrote the email asking for 50% as against to 60%, 2

that’s in page CBD1, 317. And eventually it was agreed we will go with 3

60-40 but the quantum actually increases that means we enlarged the 4

cake. How we did that is because we increase the cash withdrawals 5

fee. So that, in order to that, we needed to get Bank Rakyat’s 6

agreement as well. That was presented and Bank Rakyat also 7

accepted and that’s how we made that viable. 8

9

SST But, I don’t think the witness has answered the question because he 10

said there was no reason to split the profit but now if you are based on 11

your answer, you are still talking about splitting the profit. 12

13

UDHAYA No, what I am saying is, there is no. 14

15

YA My understanding is that, the Plaintiff’s portions is further split? 16

17

UDHAYA Yes. 18

19

SST Right. 20

21

YA Am I wrong? 22

23

SST That’s what I heard. 24

25

UDHAYA You are totally this one because. 26

27

YA Can you give your evidence so that I can really understand. 28

29

UDHAYA Yes. See the entire project is very clearly demarcated by Silverlake 30

providing systems, so anything got to do with the system fees, 31

charges and all that, it goes to the bank and what we are saying is, 32

outsourcing project, this is all the cost and fee that Bank Rakyat have 33

to pay. Now it’s very clear demarcation, what Silverlake di was after 34

that, they wanted to take away 60% of IICS or Plaintiff’s portion of it 35

simply because they were the prime vendor and there is no 36

productivity gains on SIlverlake’s part for doing all that, so it’s a free 37


money really. That’s why I said there is no reason to split it but this 1

was basically arm-twisting by prime vendor. 2

3

SST Alright, we move on. Now, you said that a new co was setup to 4

provide operation support service. You added that this new co was not 5

meant to do business procurement. Counsel for the Second 6

Defendant then replied that there was never any need for business 7

procurement services and then you said you totally disagree with this 8

statement, you recall that? 9

10

UDHAYA Yes. 11

12

SST Why is that? 13

14

UDHAYA I think from the onset it was two entities and then there was merger 15

based on Bank Rakyat’s requirement that single proposal. But as we 16

are working on this proposal, Encik Razak actually asked us to help 17

him to do the portions for Silverlake itself and clearly there are emails 18

from Encik Razak asking the core services of Silverlake’s systems and 19

whether that should be provided or not and we have email 20

correspondence that we actually confirm that these areas are core 21

and these are optional and all that which has got nothing to with card 22

operations and all that. So we been doing it for them, secondly, all the 23

financial projections if it’s just for us would be to present to Silverlake. 24

But what we were doing was preparing for Silverlake’s negotiations for 25

Bank Rakyat. One clear example is in the principal agreement, you 26

will see penalty clauses, that’s how we mitigate the risk that previously 27

one of the counsel also asked, what about economic downturn and all 28

that. What happens if Bank Rakyat de-signs the contract and we put 29

all the investment and they do not even launch a single card? So we 30

put all this penalty clause so that our investment in that case, when I 31

say our investment means Silverlake would be protected as well. So 32

there is minimum revenue that we built in and it came from our side. 33

So this is how we’ve been helping them to do business procurement. 34

Otherwise they and go get their business, they should be getting only 35

700,000 outright sale of their system and yearly they probably get 36

20% or 30% of 700,000 as system maintenance and all that. There is 37


no way they would have got what they got. That’s just a few. We also 1

helped them to draft the agreement and RDL counsels were there and 2

we told them what are the things we need to put in. There’s email 3

specifically saying what are the areas in the agreements that we have 4

mentioned, it’s all there in writing. There’s no way they can come and 5

say that this is assessment of whether you are qualified to take in the 6

project or not. That was from the beginning already done deal. 7

8

SST Now I’m going to move on to the cross-examination by learned 9

counsel for First Defendant. Now please refer to your answer question 10

No.6 at page 2 of your Witness Statement. 11

12

UDHAYA Yes I got that. 13

14

SST Now it was put to you between 18.09.2006 and 20.09.2006, the First 15

Defendant Rahim actually called you and not the Plaintiff, but you 16

disagreed. Why? 17

18

UDHAYA Yes, the call was to me but in the capacity as office bearer in Plaintiff 19

and he did request for Dr’s presence also in that meeting. 20

21

SST Now it was then put to you that when the First Defendant called you 22

for the meeting, he could not have invited the Plaintiff because at that 23

time you didn’t know of the full extent of the Bank Rakyat project, and 24


26

UDHAYA Yang Arif I disagreed is because other than this the Bank Rakyat, 27

there were two other minor projects for Bank Islam as well was talked 28

about or mentioned in that meeting. So all the work that we have done 29

with First Defendant’s bank, Bank Islam is through LOC, there was no 30

work was done directly or independent of LOC by myself as an 31

independent consultant or anything. So at all time, all relationship with 32

Bank Islam and Encik Rahim on a business capacity basis was 33

through LOC, the Plaintiff. 34

35

36


SST Now it was put to you that when the First Defendant met up with you 1

and Dr Narayanan, it was for the exploration of the possibility of 2

working together on the Bank Rakyat project and you disagreed. 3

Why? 4

5

UDHAYA From the onset, the problem that Silverlake had was they submitted a 6

proposal according to them and which I think the counsel also 7

mentioned as first or three weeks before that and the problem was 8

Bank Rakyat wanted a total solution similar to what they were 9

comparing to MBF. MBF provides the system; they provide the card 10

outsourcing operations as well, all in one. And Silverlake with their 11

proposal of 700,000 to sell their system did not match up to Bank 12

Rakyat’s expectation. So they had a problem, so they came to us to 13

ask us to agree to work with them to propose the card operation as an 14

independent entity directly to Bank Rakyat. 15

16

[01:00:00] 17

18

SST Now it was further put to you that on 21.09.2006, nobody at the lunch 19

could have been or would have been certain about getting or securing 20

the Bank Rakyat project. Now you disagreed with this. Why? 21

22

UDHAYA Certainty, there were certainty. If we did not help Silverlake, they are 23

out of contention. So there were certainty that it’s not whether you can 24

get it but you are definitely out because what they wanted was similar 25

to MBF, MBF provide both system and operation. So here, Silverlake 26

providing only system do not stand a chance. That’s the reason they 27

were rushing and coming all the way to Cyberjaya to meet us and 28

actually in the telephone conversation earlier with Encik Rahim, we 29

actually suggested that we meet over the weekend but there was a 30

sense of urgency that you had to do it as soon as possible and they 31

were willing to drive all the way to Cyberjaya to meet us. That’s from 32

KL to Cyberjaya is quite a distance to drive to just come and talk about 33

this kind of things. 34

35


SST Now it was also put to you that no agreement was breached between 1

the parties on 21.09.2006 with regards to the Bank Rakyat project, 2


4

UDHAYA In principal it was agreed that we will support Bank Rakyat’s project 5

that Silverlake wants to participate as an independent service provider 6

to Bank Rakyat in alliance with Silverlake, that’s one agreement. And 7

that was fermented and solidified in the subsequent presentation and 8

proposals that we prepared for Bank Rakyat directly. By the 5th 9

October, it was brought to our attention that they wanted a single 10

proposal. So that’s when we started to put in together single proposal 11

by the time on 5th October. 12

13

YA I think we have a short break. 14

15

AKHIR 16

17

MASA : 3.23PM 18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

32

33

34

35

36

37


TARIKH : 08.12.2014 1

MASA : 3.41PM 2

3

MULA 4

5

SST Dengan izin Yang Arif. 6

7

YA May I remind you of your oath. 8

9

UDHAYA Yes, I am. 10

11

SST We are still continuing with the cross-examination which was done by 12

my learned friend for the First Defendant. Now it was put to you that 13

the First Defendant was never an independent consultant for Bank 14

Rakyat, you disagreed, why? 15

16

UDHAYA That’s what Encik Rahim claimed to be from the onset. Thereafter, 17

documents and information like the MBF rates, these are information 18

that was provided for us to use as a comparison. So we thought it 19

comes from his capacity as an independent consultant. But more 20

importantly, Bank Rakyat actually was engaging with Bank Islam to 21

consider using Bank Islam’s system for their operations of cards and 22

all that. And I think eventually Bank Islam’s management decided not 23

to provide that partnership with Bank Rakyat and Encik Rahim was the 24

principal person from Bank Islam’s side if I’m not mistaken. So he had 25

a lot of access influence in Bank Rakyat’s folks who are considering 26

the card operations. 27

28

SST Now it was also put to you that it does not make sense for Bank 29

Rakyat to appoint Encik Rahim, the First Defendant as an 30

independent consultant when Bank Islam and Bank Rakyat are 31

competitors, you disagreed, why? 32

33

34

35


UDHAYA There are many instances where competing rival banks actually share 1

systems and all that, and I come from my past experience has been 2

with Maybank. Maybank had Kwong Yik Bank and Maybank Finance, 3

also within the group but then we were competing with one another 4

but we shared the same system. So in the US, you see a lot more of 5

this kind of arrangements where they compete on the marketing, not 6

on the operations. They even have things like authorisation services 7

which is managing risks and all that on a collaborative way. New 8

Zealand actually has one authorisation centre for all the banks in New 9

Zealand. So that’s actually cooperation among competitors, so that’s 10

not new. 11

12

SST It was put to you that between September 2006 and March 2008, the 13

First Defendant was not a consultant or a representative of the 14

Second Defendant, you disagreed, why? 15

16

UDHAYA From the onset on the 21st September meeting, it was Encik Rahim 17

who actually facilitated the meeting so he could have been introducer 18

of two separate parties. But more than that in all our interaction, he 19

was actually playing a role where in the initial stage was very much 20

towards representing Silverlake and helping Encik Razak who get no 21

experience in credit card operations at all and we had no doubts that 22

he had certain arrangement with Silverlake for sure. In the so called 23

meeting that we had with Andy, he stayed back and he said he is 24

talking and negotiating with Andy for his position with Silverlake where 25

he is supposed to take over the operations from Silverlake standpoint. 26

Matter of fact, one important area is, when we were developing or 27

designing the floor plan for the operations, he wanted a room for 28

himself with a bathroom. So that’s a specific request that he wanted 29

and we subsequently when it went up to Mr Goh and that was actually 30

changed and there was no room for that. So from our standpoint, all 31

that indicates that he was pretty much working on behalf of Silverlake 32

and as an independent consultant or employed or promised for an 33

employment, I’m not sure. But he was working in the interest of 34

Silverlake as well. 35

36


SST During cross-examination by the learned counsel for the First 1

Defendant, this will be on the 1st December; you were referred to 2

several emails where you said were sent to the First Defendant, for his 3

info or for his views, now you agreed that there was no payment to the 4

First Defendant by the Plaintiff for his views. Question is why wasn’t 5

there any payment to the First Defendant by the Plaintiff for this? 6

7

UDHAYA There was no indication that there was a payment request. But Encik 8

Rahim through his proxies wanted 60% of IICSO and there was also a 9

IICS Management that’s how the company name IICS came about 10

because he setup a company IICS Management and he’s supposed to 11

be the management company that go out and get more businesses 12

similar to Bank Rakyat like the Kazakhstan and Indonesia for instance 13

and the idea was when the company generates new businesses, there 14

is a fee paid to the management so it’s like a management fee. 15

Secondly, the shares in IICS was actually apportioned to Encik 16

Rahim’s proxies up to over 60%, idea was 30% stays with Plaintiff, 17

60% goes to Rahim and his proxies and there was a balance 10% 18

which he even actually suggested that that 10% is held by Dr for on 19

behalf of Razak of Silverlake which I think when I mentioned this to Dr, 20

he said no way he wants to do proxy and illegal things like that. So in 21

terms of benefit, there were many benefits that Encik Rahim actually. 22

He had his legs on IICS, there was a leg into IICS Management and at 23

the same time into Silverlake as a person employed by them or as an 24

independent consultant. So he had so many different options from 25

this, so there’s no reason why he wants to specifically ask for 26

payment. But he did ask when the first payment was made whether he 27

could get some money for going for holidays and Dr refused. So that 28

was also one instance where he actually requested for some money. 29

30

SST Now with regards to the first meeting on the 21.09.2006, you testified 31

that you didn’t tell the Defendants that you were an authorised 32

representative of the Plaintiff, why was that? 33

34

35

36


UDHAYA Yang Arif as I mentioned more than close to that time, 7 – 8 years, 1

2006, maybe 6 to 7 years, I’ve been dealing with Encik Rahim and 2

Bank Islam for and on behalf of Plaintiff and all my business card and 3

all that, I carry the Plaintiff’s name and we’ve been dealing with that all 4

through. Primary contact for Bank Islam and LOC was myself. Dr 5

would come in where the final decisions and where it would go into 6

technical discussions. So as far as marketing and sales for LOC the 7

Plaintiff, it’s always been me as far as Bank Islam is concerned. Now 8

Encik Rahim actually called me for the 21st September meeting and 9

then requested Dr Narayan to also attend. So there’s no doubts about 10

why he want to use me because he knows that I’m the primary 11

contact. 12

13

SST During your cross-examination, you disagreed when you were 14

challenged that there was no meeting on the 07.11.2006. This is 15

actually related to the material representations as pleaded in the 16

Statement of Claims. If you look at Bundle A, page 55, under 17

paragraph 13. Now if you look at the first sentence, there was an 18

averment of some representations made between 05.10.2006 and 19

07.11.2006, so there is a challenge posed by the First Defendant, that 20

there was in fact no meeting on 07.11.2006 during your cross-21

examination, you disagreed, why? 22

23

[00:15:00] 24

25

UDHAYA Yang Arif, what we are saying is between 5th October and 7th 26

November, there were so many discussion and impromptu meetings. 27

It can be like I said at teh tarik at 3rd floor cafeteria, it could be just 28

lunch in one of the restaurants, it could be just in his office or he could 29

be in one of his staff Encik Khairil who eventually joined Bank Rakyat 30

in his office. So some of it was impromptu but there were discussions, 31

there were many iterations and all that so I’m not saying there were a 32

formal agreement of a meeting on this particular day with email 33

exchange or notification or anything like that. 34

35

36


SST Please look at your answer questions 44 to 46.1, this would be at 1

pages 15 and the top part of page 16. Then please also look at the 2

Bundle of Pleadings the same page just now, page 55, paragraphs 3

13(a) and 13(b). 4

5

UDHAYA Page 55, Bundle A? 6

7

SST Yes, correct. Paragraphs 13(a) and 13(b). You have a read of your 8

answer question 44 to 46.1, then I’ll pose to you the question. 9

10

UDHAYA Ok, I’ve got it. 11

12

SST Now during the cross-examination, you disagreed that there was no 13

mention of the material representations as stated in paragraphs 13(a) 14

and 13(b) of Bundle A, in your answer questions 44 to 46.1, you 15

understand the question? 16

17

UDHAYA Yes, can you just repeat the question again please? 18

19

SST During cross-examination, you disagreed that there was no mention of 20

the material representations in paragraphs 13(a) and 13(b) of Bundle 21

A, in your answer questions 44 to 46.1, why? Do you understand the 22

question? 23

24

UDHAYA Yes, can you just. 25

26

SST Ok, maybe I just. What counsel is saying that look, if you look at your 27

answer questions 44 to 46.1, there is no mention whatsoever of the 28

material representations which appear at page 55 of your Bundle A. 29

Do you understand the question? 30

31

UDHAYA Yes. Can I have the question again? Basically why there was no 32

representation mentioned in 44 to 46.2, is that? 33

34

35

36


SST Counsel is asking you if you look at page 55 of the Bundle of 1

Pleadings, there are two sets of representations here in paragraphs 2

13(a) and 13(b). So he is saying these two sets of representations 3

does not or do not appear in your answers in questions 44 to 46.1, 4

now you actually disagreed with that? 5

6

UDHAYA Actually if you refer to page 15, 45.3, I actually mentioned that “This 7

file refers to a new company (tentatively ICIC), since Rahim and 8

Razak had required the Plaintiff to set up a different company purely 9

for card operations and to have the Second Defendant (as the prime 10

vendor for Bank Rakyat) subcontract the card operations to this new 11

company.” That I think addresses page 55, material representation for 12

B. I’m now looking at A, on the material representation. As for A, 13

material representation in item 13, page 55. What I can say is why it’s 14

not mentioned here is that these are already mentioned in other 15

documents in presentations to Silverlake which Encik Rahim is also a 16

party to. So it’s more of an administrative kind of thing I think. These 17

were all mentioned earlier in my question 7 and 8, specifically 8. On 18

21st September, I’m looking at my witness statement, page 2, question 19

8. “On 21.09.2006, according to Rahim and Razak of the Second 20

Defendant, Bank Rakyat required a partner to help in setting up and 21

running a proposed Islamic card operations, a one-stop outsourcing 22

company.” So this is already mentioned here and thereafter from 5th 23

October to 7th November was more formalisation based on the 24

documents or presentations that was prepared. 25

26

SST Is that all? 27

28

UDHAYA Yes. 29

30

SST Now please refer to Bundle B1 starting with page 15. 31

32

[00:30:00] 33

34


36


SST During the cross-examination you disagreed with the suggestion that 1

this was merely a proposal from you for consideration by the Second 2

Defendant, why? Do you understand the question? 3

4

UDHAYA Again please? 5

6

SST Basically counsel is saying if you look at the document starting at 7

page 15, he is saying this is just a proposal, merely a proposal from 8

you for consideration by the Second Defendant, you disagreed with 9

that, why? 10

11

UDHAYA Yes. On 21st September, the request was to be partner to Second 12

Defendant, Silverlake to jointly submit a proposal, jointly means two 13

separate proposals that is why if you look at the heading here on page 14

15, Credit Card Insourcing Plan prepared for Bank Rakyat. It’s not 15

prepared for Silverlake, proposed by Logical Operations Consortium 16

Sdn Bhd. And basically provides what are the company’s background, 17

what are the projects that we have taken and done. There is nothing 18

here mentions that it is for Silverlake’s consideration. 19

20

SST Is that all? 21

22

UDHAYA Yes, that’s all. 23

24

ARB May I have the next question? 25

26

SST Just one question, I think it sounds very familiar which was asked by 27

the counsel for the Second Defendant. I’ll ask the next question. 28

Answer question 13, page 4. The last sentence for that answer you 29

said that, “I knew the First Defendant very well”. 30

31

UDHAYA Yes. 32

33

SST Now during the cross-examination, it was suggested that your 34

statement where you said this, that you knew the First Defendant very 35

well was inaccurate, you disagreed with this suggestion. Why? 36

37


UDHAYA Yang Arif, I know him very well. Started off with a business 1

relationship and over the time I came to know him personally as well. 2

I’ve had breakfast meetings with him with his wife’s presence. So 3

before the meeting we actually have breakfast with his wife, we don’t 4

talk about business, we just talk other thing. There was a session 5

where we had breakfast with his son as well. I’ve been to his place for 6

Hari Raya, so that’s for me I think I know him pretty well. But whether 7

I’m a bosom buddy and all that, I don’t think so but I know him pretty 8

well. I’ve come to know some of the trial and tribulation that he had 9

gone through when he was in school, what he had to do to get through 10

exams so much so the teacher actually offered some money to him to 11

pay for the fees and all that for the exams and all that. So here he 12

comes from a very hard life and he has managed to reach, I would say 13

a very admirable position in society, so I know him very well. 14

15

SST Now the last 5 questions to go. Answer question 65.1, page 24 up to 16

25. 17

18


20

SST You were asked whether you had personal knowledge that the 21

comparison that you did for MBF proposal were used by either Rahim 22

or Razak to convince Bank Rakyat, you said no and you wanted to 23

explain further. 24

25

UDHAYA I’m just reading this thing. Can I have the question? 26

27

SST During cross-examination, you were asked whether you had personal 28

knowledge that the comparison for this MBF proposal were used by 29

Rahim or Razak to convince Bank Rakyat, you said no and you 30

wanted to explain further. 31

32

UDHAYA Yes, what I understand from them was that, there was a meeting in 33

Singapore between Mr Goh the Chairman of Silverlake and Bank 34

Rakyat’s senior management and that document was used to actually 35

convince them. How far that is true or not, I wouldn’t know because I 36

was not there in presence but this is the feedback that Rahim and 37


Razak gave. Additionally, this data that we got also clearly indicates 1

that they got this information from MBF proposal to Bank Rakyat, 2

through Bank Rakyat people who needed assistance. That jives well 3

to Encik Rahim’s role as an independent consultant to Bank Rakyat as 4

well. So we prepared that and how it was used, I’m not sure whether 5

that was used but for me personally, I think that was the shifting point 6

for Bank Rakyat to move to Silverlake because they could see the 7

comparison, what is the impact of going with MBF and what is the 8

impact of going with Silverlake. Silverlake was more advantages for 9

Bank Rakyat. 10

11

SST You also disagreed that there was no guarantee that IICSO will make 12

profit at the initial stages. Why? 13

14

UDHAYA IICS will make profit in the initial? 15

16

SST Will not make? Sorry, will make profit at the initial stages. 17

18

ABR What was the question again? 19

20

SST You disagreed that there was no guarantee that IICSO will make profit 21

at the initial stages. 22

23

UDHAYA Was it in reference to any projections? 24

25

SST No, just a question asked. 26

27

UDHAYA Just a general question? 28

29

SST Yes, correct. 30

31

UDHAYA Yang Arif, what we have done is in the proposal, we actually worked 32

on fixed fee and variable fee. Fixed fee is basically to cover all our 33

costs and the variable fee is to cover additional income. So the fixed 34

fee how we worked out is to cover all expenses at all time and we 35

actually asked for pre-payment which was all agreed upon with 36

Silverlake. Now that way, we actually removed the risk of uncertainty 37


from fluctuations because of failure on Silverlake’s part or Bank 1

Rakyat’s part. So that’s how we can do that. So it’s like a salary every 2

month for our team. That’s basically what it is. So it’s a low risk kind of 3

option, that’s why we think we could make money. Although not so 4

decent as compared to the 140 million that was taken away by the 5

60:40 split. 6

7

SST Just ask, I think the following question was put to you by counsel for 8

First Defendant. May I just clarify with witness? Have I asked you 9

whether or not it was put to you that Rahim never said he was a 10

consultant for Second Defendant? 11

12

UDHAYA I do remember explaining how Encik Rahim was involved with 13

Silverlake. 14

15

SST Ok, I think that was it. Now please refer to your answer question 23, 16

page 7, and the first paragraph of your answer. Now, I’ll just read this 17

paragraph to you. “At the initial stages, the Plaintiff was under the 18

impression that Rahim was interested in getting the right partner for 19

Bank Rakyat. Later on, he made it known to the Plaintiff that he was 20

also negotiating with Goh Peng Ooi (Chairman for the Second 21

Defendant) for a position in the Second Defendant for himself” Now it 22

was put to you by counsel for the First Defendant that Rahim didn’t, 23

that the First Defendant didn’t say this to you, you disagreed, why? 24

You understand the question? 25

26

[00:45:00] 27

28

UDHAYA Yes, I think let me just read that and clarify with you. Question again 29

please? 30

31

SST It was put to you by counsel that Rahim didn’t say that, that referring 32

to paragraph one to you, you disagreed. 33

34

35

36


UDHAYA Yes, there were many instances where he mentioned and to be 1

specific for this one, he actually mentioned that he was meeting with 2

Mr Goh for dinner and to work out what the, for his position. This was 3

followed through with our meeting where we do presentation to Andy 4

and the team where Encik Rahim actually stayed back to discuss the 5

details with Mr Andy and he informed us that he needs to talk to Andy 6

about his position with Silverlake. 7

8

SST That’s all? 9

10

UDHAYA That’s all. 11

12

SST Last question. Now it was put to you that the First Defendant was not 13

acting for the Second Defendant, you disagreed. I think the earlier 14

question I wanted to ask you whether he was acting as an 15

independent consultant for the Second Defendant. So this one is 16

different. It was put to you by the First Defendant’s counsel that the 17

First Defendant was not acting for the Second Defendant, you 18

disagreed, why? 19

20

UDHAYA I disagreed that he was acting as an independent consultant? 21

22

SST No. Now there’s a difference. The earlier question I think was referring 23

to whether or not he was acting as an independent consultant for the 24

Second Defendant, so now he is asking you whether or not he was 25

actually acting for the Second Defendant? 26

27

UDHAYA As an employee? 28

29

SST I think, in other words, I suppose that’s what he means. He did not 30

went on to say that for sure. Never mind, let me just rephrase that 31

question. It was put to you that the First Defendant was not acting for 32

the Second Defendant, you disagreed? 33

34

35

36


UDHAYA Like I said Yang Arif, from the onset, we thought it was that but as we 1

moved on, he’s seeking office with a bathroom and all that and 2

negotiating sometimes on behalf of Silverlake and using some of our 3

issues we raise it to him so that he can take it up with Mr Goh and 4

others. So we already see that as he’s able to influence Silverlake and 5

act on Silverlake’s behalf. They are issues when we talk about where 6

he wants to protect Silverlake’s interest as well as primary goal as 7

well. That he acted on behalf of Silverlake I think. 8

9

SST Thank you Mr Udhaya. Yang Arif, that’s the end of the re-examination. 10

11

YA Thank you Mr Udhaya, I think it finally ended. 12

13

UDHAYA Thank you very much. So I can just step out. 14

15

ABR Yang Arif, before we finish, the 29th and 30th date, is it has been 16

confirmed? 17

18

YA Almost, we will confirm by next week after the 12th and there is a 19

Saturday, Sunday. 20

ABR We have a date on the 19th. 21

22

YA What was the date just now that we fixed? 23

24

JRB 19th. 25

26

YA On the 18th, we’ll be able to fix. 27

28

ABR I just want to highlight to My Lady, because my witness Encik Rahim 29

will be going for umrah from the 24th December to 4th January. I’m just 30

thinking whether perhaps we can start with the Second Defendant, 31

first? 32

33

YA Your case is coming up again on the 19th, right? 34

35

ABR That’s right, my case will start on the 19th, so I’m just thinking whether. 36

37


YA Encik Rahim is coming? 1

2

ABR No he’s supposed to come but he’s going to umrah on the 25th. So if 3

we can, I don’t think we finish, judging from the past cross-4

examination, I don’t think he will finish in one day. I’m just thinking 5

whether we can call the Second Defendant first and then Encik Rahim 6

will continue subsequently because if not we won’t be able to utilise 7

that 29th and 30th dates. I’m just thinking aloud so that we can. 8

9

YA Whatever is best and so that we can have a continuous trial and finish 10

this year if possible. There’s no problem with me, have you consulted? 11

12

ELS It is acceptable Yang Arif, the dates are suitable for us. 13

14

ABR If you call your witness first? 15

16

ELS Yes. 17

18

ABR They are ok with calling Razak on the 19th. 19

20

ELS Yes, Yang Arif. 21

22

YA So Encik Razak will be called on the 19th? 23

24

ABR Yes. 25

26

YA And then? 27

28

ABR And then because he is away, 29th, 30th for umrah, my witness, so 29

probably one day sometime in January Yang Arif. 30

31

YA What about end of December? 32

33

ABR He is only coming back on the 4th of January from umrah. He is 34

leaving on the 25th. 35

36

YA I’m only having 19th after this? 37


SST As of now, we have the 19th. 1

2

YA So are you saying that you are not agreeing to the three days in 3

December? 4

5

ABR No, I’m agreeing but we can take the Second Defendant first Yang 6

Arif. I doubt very much that he will finish within that three days, judging 7

from the cross that we have had. I suspect that he’s going to start on 8

the 19th. 9

10

YA I hope we don’t waste any of the days? 11

12

ABR No, that’s why I am just suggesting that my learned friend has agreed 13

to continue with Encik Razak on the 19th and the 29th and 30th would 14

be him still I think. Based on, judging from the previous experience. 15

16

YA Is that so? 17

18

SST I have no problems. 19

20

YA I mean would you take that long to finish cross-examination? 21

22

SST I think for Encik Rahim I should take at least a day, for Encik Razak I 23

think would be a day plus. 24

25

ABR And plus re-examination. 26

27

SST Because Encik Razak’s witness statement, his is more thick as 28

opposed to Encik Rahim’s one. My learned friend actually has given 29

an updated witness statement today, it’s double from the previous 30

one, so there is about 15 or 16 pages, but I think I should still be able 31

to finish him in one day. I think. 32

33

YA In one day? 34

35

SST In one day, I think. 36

37


YA We still have Mr Choon. 1

2

ABR Mr Choon, yes. 3

4

YA So I suppose it’s alright to let Encik Razak first. 5

6

ABR So my witness will be excused during those dates Yang Arif. 7

8

YA Ok. 9

10

ABR Much obliged. 11

12

SST Much obliged. 13

14

AKHIR 15

16

MASA : 4.36PM 17

18

19

20

21

dalam wilayah persekutuan, malaysia2 guaman sivil … · 2017/3/15 · 3 1 mula 2 3 jrb dengan...

Documents