www.scribe.com.my 1 DALAM MAHKAMAH TINGGI MALAYA DI KUALA LUMPUR 1 DALAM WILAYAH PERSEKUTUAN, MALAYSIA 2 GUAMAN SIVIL NO : S-22-94-2010 3 4 ANTARA 5 6 LOGICAL OPERATIONS CONSORTIUM SDN BHD 7 (No Syarikat : 394720-X) …PLAINTIF 8 9 DAN 10 11 1. ABDUL RAHIM BIN ABDUL RAZAK 12 (No K/P : 600915-07-5393) 13 14 2. SILVERLAKE SYSTEM SDN BHD 15 (No Syarikat : 182899-W) …DEFENDAN-DEFENDAN 16 17 TARIKH : 29.12.2014 18 MASA : 09:16 AM 19 20 NOTA KETERANGAN 21 Koram 22 Hakim Yang Arif Siti Khadijah Bt S. Hassan Badjenid YA Peguam Plaintif S S Tieh SST Peguam Defendan Pertama Abdul Rashid Ismail Wan Norizan ABR WNZ Peguam Defendan Ke-2 H L Choon Elaine Siaw HLC ELS 23
132
Embed
DALAM MAHKAMAH TINGGI MALAYA DI KUALA LUMPUR1 2 … · 1/17/2018 · 1 dalam mahkamah tinggi malaya di kuala lumpur1 2 dalam wilayah persekutuan, malaysia 3 guaman sivil no : s-22-94-2010
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
www.scribe.com.my 1
DALAM MAHKAMAH TINGGI MALAYA DI KUALA LUMPUR 1
DALAM WILAYAH PERSEKUTUAN, MALAYSIA 2
GUAMAN SIVIL NO : S-22-94-2010 3
4
ANTARA 5
6
LOGICAL OPERATIONS CONSORTIUM SDN BHD 7
(No Syarikat : 394720-X) …PLAINTIF 8
9
DAN 10
11
1. ABDUL RAHIM BIN ABDUL RAZAK 12
(No K/P : 600915-07-5393) 13
14
2. SILVERLAKE SYSTEM SDN BHD 15
(No Syarikat : 182899-W) …DEFENDAN-DEFENDAN 16
17
TARIKH : 29.12.2014 18
MASA : 09:16 AM 19
20
NOTA KETERANGAN 21
Koram 22
Hakim
Yang Arif Siti Khadijah Bt S. Hassan
Badjenid
YA
Peguam Plaintif
S S Tieh
SST
Peguam Defendan
Pertama
Abdul Rashid Ismail
Wan Norizan
ABR
WNZ
Peguam Defendan
Ke-2
H L Choon
Elaine Siaw
HLC
ELS
23
www.scribe.com.my 2
Saksi – Saksi 1
SP-1
Singanallur Venkataraman Narayanan
SINGA
SP-2
Udhaya Kumar A/L Naranam
UDHAYA
SD-1
Razak Bin Mohd Mazlan
RAZAK
SD-2
Abdul Rahim Bin Abdul Razak
RAHIM
2
Jurubahasa - JRB Penterjemah - PTJ 3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
www.scribe.com.my 3
MULA 1
2
JRB Dengan izin, Yang Arif. Kes untuk sambung bicara S-22-94-2010 3
Logical Operations Consortium Sdn Bhd lawan Abdul Rahim Bin 4
Abdul Razak dan satu lagi. 5
6
SST Dengan izin, Yang Arif. SS Tieh for the Plaintiff. My learned friends, 7
Encik Abdul Rashid Ismail for the First Defendant and my learned 8
friends Mr HL Choon together with Ms Elaine Siaw for the Second 9
Defendant. 10
11
ABR Yang Arif, I ask permission for my pupil to sit in the bar table. Thank 12
you. 13
14
SST My Lady, today is for continued cross examination of the Second 15
Defendant’s witness. 16
17
YA Encik Razak, saya ingin cadangkan kalau Encik Razak memberi 18
keterangan dalam Bahasa Inggeris, selepas itu. 19
20
SD1 21
Nama : Razak Bin Mohd Mazlan 22
Bersumpah dan memberi keterangan dalam Bahasa Inggeris 23
Masa : 9:17 AM 24
25
Pemeriksaan Balas (Cross Examination) 26
Masa: 9:18 AM 27
28
SST Dengan izin, Yang Arif. Good morning Encik Razak. Just a reminder, 29
when you answer your questions, you want to give your answers, 30
please speak into the mic as loud as possible. Now, I hope that you 31
will just try to answer the questions and leave the explanations in re- 32
examination. Let your counsel decide whether or not you need to 33
explain further on your answers. That will save us a lot of time. We will 34
try to finish by the end of today, alright? Let’s continue. May I refer you 35
to Bundle B3, page 838 to 869? Now during your cross examination 36
on the 19th of December, you have confirmed receipt of this email. 37
www.scribe.com.my 4
RAZAK Yes. 1
2
SST From Udhaya to you, this is for Kazakhstan. Now, do you agree that 3
during this time, the focus was on the Bank Rakyat Project? This 4
email is dated 18.02.2007. So, you received this email from Udhaya to 5
you regarding Kazakhstan. Now, the question is do you agree that 6
during this time, the focus was on the Bank Rakyat Project? 7
8
RAZAK You refer to my Question and Answer Number 36. It’s not at all for the 9
Bank Rakyat Project. 10
11
SST You are not answering the question, Encik Razak. I am saying you 12
look at this email 18.02.2007 from Udhaya to you. 13
14
RAZAK Yes. 15
16
SST He sent you an email on Kazakhstan? 17
18
RAZAK Yes. 19
20
SST So my question is, do you agree that during this time, 18.02.2007, the 21
focus was on the Bank Rakyat Project? 22
23
RAZAK No, this is not related to the Bank Rakyat Project. 24
25
SST I am not saying it’s. 26
27
YA You answer the question. If you need to give any explanation, you can 28
do that in re-examination when your counsel asks you. 29
30
RAZAK Ok, you come back the question. 31
32
SST Do you agree that during this time, 18.02.2007, the focus was on the 33
Bank Rakyat Project? 34
35
RAZAK You are referring to this email or you are referring to the timeframe? 36
37
www.scribe.com.my 5
SST The timeframe. 1
2
RAZAK Ok. This is not related to the Bank Rakyat. 3
4
SST I didn’t say whether it’s related or not. 5
6
HLC I think the problem is that he is referring the witness to an email then 7
now he say it’s not related. So, how do you expect? That’s why the 8
witness actually ask him, are you referring to the timeframe or. 9
10
YA Well, you can clarify. 11
12
HLC No. I think the problem is that because he is insisting the witness to 13
answer certain questions when he is misleading the witness. 14
15
YA But witness already got the clarification. 16
17
HLC Yes. So, that’s why he wanted to answer. 18
19
YA So, I am saying, so the answer is yes or no. 20
21
HLC Correct. When the witness want to answer, I hope that my learned 22
friend will just allow him to answer without chopping him off because 23
he is the one who actually refers to the email, not the witness. 24
25
SST Yang Arif, I just need a yes or no answer, it’s only on the timeframe 26
that is all. So I asked him whether as at this point in time, the focus 27
was on the Bank Rakyat Project, it’s either yes or no. It’s up to him 28
actually. 29
30
RAZAK No, you are looking at the timeframe, Ok, during this time. 31
32
SST Encik Razak, you can give your explanation in your re-xamination, if 33
necessary. For now, if you can just cooperate with us, we can move 34
on very fast. 35
36
YA The question is whether you agree or (00:09:01 inaudible). 37
www.scribe.com.my 6
RAZAK No. That’s agree and disagree because if timeframe, yes, during this 1
period to this period, yes it’s related to Bank Rakyat, during this Bank 2
Rakyat Project but this is email is not related to Bank Rakyat Project. 3
4
SST He is trying to explain, Yang Arif. 5
6
RAZAK There’s agreement and disagreement. 7
8
YA Can you continue? 9
10
SST Sure. Do you agree that during this time, we are talking about 11
18.02.2007, the focus was on the Bank Rakyat Project? 12
13
RAZAK As I said, there’s agreement and disagreement. I agree that ok during 14
this time yes, we are on the Bank Rakyat Project but this email is not 15
related to the Bank Rakyat Project. 16
17
YA I think that’s ok. 18
19
ABR Yes, that’s ok. 20
21
SST Ok. So, yes during this time, the focus was on the Bank Rakyat 22
Project? 23
24
RAZAK But this email is not related to Bank Rakyat Project. 25
26
SST Now, since you have said that the focus was on the Bank Rakyat 27
Project, did you email Mr Udhaya questioning him as to why he sent 28
you this email? 29
30
RAZAK Come again the question? 31
32
SST Since the focus was on the Bank Rakyat Project, did you email Mr 33
Udhaya questioning him as to why he sent to you this email? 34
35
RAZAK As I can recall, there’s no email sending to him. 36
37
www.scribe.com.my 7
SST Now may I refer you to Bundle B5? Please look at page 1709. B5, 1
page 1709. Now, are you there? 2
3
YA Can you ask the question? 4
5
SST Encik Razak, this is your email dated 06.09.2007 to Udhaya. Now, 6
there is a word there “KH”. Do you see the word “KH”, the alphabets 7
“KH” in your email? 8
9
RAZAK Yes. 10
11
SST Can you confirm that “KH” refers to Khairil Hamzah? 12
13
RAZAK Yes. 14
15
SST He is with Bank Rakyat? 16
17
RAZAK Yes. 18
19
SST Thank you. Now then there is the other alphabets “ARAS”, do you see 20
that? 21
22
RAZAK Yes. 23
24
SST Right. Can you confirm that “ARAS” refers to Abdul Rahim Bin Abdul 25
Razak? 26
27
RAZAK Yes. 28
29
SST Now same bundle, may I refer you to pages 1927 to 1929? Bundle B5, 30
pages 1927 to 1929. 1927 until 1929. Are you there? Now, this is an 31
email from Koon Yin from the Second Defendant, the Project Manager 32
for the Bank Rakyat Project to a few people, here you see: Adrianne 33
Tan, yourself, Tham Weng Kwong, Teoh, Mr Udhaya, Dr Narayanan, 34
Cheah, Michael, Wong and it was also cc-ed to Mr Chee Chin Leong. 35
36
[00:15:00] 37
www.scribe.com.my 8
YA Are you referring to 1929? 1
2
SST 1927. 3
4
RAZAK Is this the question that you highlighted in the last session? 5
6
7
SST Yes but moving on that, this is what Koon Yin wrote, it says, hi all, 8
please find draft agenda for Bank Rakyat kick off. Draft has been sent 9
to customer for their feedback. Please feel free to comment. Udhaya, 10
as spoken, please prepare for session two on the overview for Credit 11
Card operations. Now, did you receive this email? 12
13
RAZAK Yes, I am in the list there. 14
15
SST Can you tell us who is Adrianne Tan and what is her designation in 16
Silverlake? 17
18
RAZAK Adrianne Tan is Product Expert on the Card System. 19
20
SST Sorry? 21
22
RAZAK The Product Expert on the Card System. 23
24
SST Product Expert on the Card System. Now, let’s move on to the same 25
Bundle B5, pages 1932 until 1935. 1932 to 1935, are you there? 26
27
RAZAK Yes. 28
29
SST No, this is an email from Adrianne Tan to again quite a number of 30
people, to Koon Yin, yourself, Tham, Teoh, Mr Udhaya, Dr 31
Narayanan, Cheah, Michael, Wong and it was also cc-ed to Mr Chee 32
Chin Leong. So, here Adrianne is attaching what she called an 33
application “SOW”. Now, would I be correct to say that “SOW” stands 34
for Scope of Works? 35
36
37
www.scribe.com.my 9
RAZAK Yes. It’s Scope of Work but it’s pre-operate, Ok, pre-operation. 1
2
SST Did you receive this email? 3
4
HLC Can you say louder, I can’t hear just now. 5
6
RAZAK This is Scope of Work for the pre-operation. 7
8
SST Now, did you receive this email? 9
10
RAZAK Yes, I am in the list. 11
12
SST Now same bundle, may I refer you to page 1955? B5 1955, are you 13
there? 14
15
RAZAK Yes. 16
17
SST Alright. Now, this is an email from Koon Yin to Mr Udhaya dated 18
17.11.2007, it was also cc-ed to a few people there including yourself, 19
Mr Chee Chin Leong and Adrianne Tan. Now, did you receive this 20
email? 21
22
RAZAK Yes, again this is talking about the pre-operation. 23
24
SST Fine. Did you receive this email? 25
26
RAZAK Yes, I am in the list. I am a copy list. 27
28
SST Now, this is what Koon Yin wrote, Udhaya, as spoken our immediate 29
plans after the kick-off are for Card Operations Teams (COT) to 30
commence starting 28th to 30th November followed by Application 31
Development Team (ADT) the following week 3rd to 5th December then 32
she went on to say the third paragraph, mainly the integration 33
requirements are in Appendix 4, you can read. 34
35
YA Actually, what is the question? 36
37
www.scribe.com.my 10
SST It will come, in a short while. 1
2
YA No, I want to hear whether you will ask. 3
4
SST Sure, before that, may I ask a few more questions? 5
6
YA No. The question on this page? 7
8
SST Yes, Yang Arif. I just want to confirm something with the witness. Now 9
under paragraph 5 it says, “Please take note and help make sure that 10
COT is able to cover this so that when ADT meet the IT, we are 11
hopeful to clear uncertainties that we currently have”. Do you see the 12
paragraph? 13
14
RAZAK Yes. 15
16
SST Now, COT refers to Card Operations Teams, right? 17
18
RAZAK Yes. I need to put note here, Ok. 19
20
YA You may do that when necessary if questioned by your lawyer but 21
maybe you can just note there on the relevant part. 22
23
SST Ok because that’s the reason why that Koon Yin kick off the project 24
earlier. 25
26
YA Encik Razak, this is the procedure (00:22:49 inaudible). 27
28
RAZAK Ok, thanks. 29
30
YA You just note down then refer to your lawyer (00:22:54 inaudible). 31
32
RAZAK Ok, thanks. 33
34
SST Thank you, Yang Arif. Now may I refer you to the same bundle, page 35
1960 to 1963? Now, this is an email from Udhaya to a few people, it 36
was also cc-ed to you, this email is dated 19.11.2007. 37
www.scribe.com.my 11
YA What is the question? 1
2
SST Yes. Number one, Encik Razak, did you receive this email? 3
4
RAZAK I am in the copy list. 5
6
SST In other words, you received this email? 7
8
RAZAK Yes, I am in the copy list, yes. 9
10
SST Now Udhaya wrote here, “Hi Koon Yin, Dr Narayanan and myself will 11
be representing IICS Operations. Dr would have to leave after lunch 12
on Monday while I will see through until the end of the day, Tuesday”. 13
Now, IICS Operations was supposed to be the company which was 14
going to run the Card Operations, is that correct? 15
16
RAZAK It’s an option to appoint them to run the post-operation, yes. And this 17
is pre-operation again. 18
19
SST I am moving on to other things. Now, with regards to the Bank Rakyat 20
Project team structure, were you the Project Director? 21
22
RAZAK We have the structure in the project, Ok, we have the structure in the 23
project. 24
25
YA Encik Razak, yes or no? 26
27
RAZAK I can’t recall because once implementation my activities. 28
29
SST Ok, you can’t recall? 30
31
RAZAK Yes. 32
33
SST Now again with regards to the Bank Rakyat Project team structure, 34
Koon Yin was the Project Executive? 35
36
37
www.scribe.com.my 12
RAZAK It’s overall Project Manager. 1
2
SST Is it the same thing? 3
4
RAZAK Yes. 5
6
SST Project Executive, same? 7
8
RAZAK Yes. 9
10
SST Now again on the Bank Rakyat Project team structure, Mr Chee Chin 11
Leong was one of its Project Advisors? 12
13
RAZAK He is one of the Marketing Support. 14
15
SST So he is not a Project Advisor? 16
17
RAZAK No. 18
19
SST Now again on the Bank Rakyat Project team structure, the Application 20
Team are? Can you confirm whether the actually consisted of this guy 21
called Michael and Lionel? 22
23
RAZAK Lionel and Adrianne. 24
25
SST Lionel and Adrianne. 26
27
RAZAK And both of them reporting to Yoke Kun (00:27:59). The subsequent 28
email is Wong Yoke Kun. 29
30
SST Sorry? Lionel and who, sorry? 31
32
RAZAK Lionel and Adrianne and both of them report, Lionel, Adrianne and 33
Michael report to this Yoke Kun. 34
35
36
www.scribe.com.my 13
SST Then what about the Data Centre Team under the Bank Rakyat 1
Project team structure, would I be correct to say that they comprised 2
of this Tham then his initial I think “WK” and Cheah KH”, Cheah Kok 3
Hoon (00:28:37,) I think. 4
5
RAZAK I can confirm only Tham and Cheah. 6
7
SST Tham and Cheah? 8
9
RAZAK Tham is Data Centre Head. 10
11
SST And again on the Bank Rakyat Project team structure, the Card 12
Operations Team consisted of Dr Narayanan and Mr Udhaya? 13
14
RAZAK And Michael also involved in the Operation. 15
16
SST That’s means Dr Narayanan, Udhaya and Michael? 17
18
RAZAK Yes. And this is on the pre-operation again. 19
20
SST Now, let’s move on to the same bundle, page 1964. B5 1964 until 21
1969. Now this is an email from Silverlake to Udhaya dated 22
21.11.2007. Now, can you confirm that Silverlake is your email? 23
24
[00:30:00] 25
26
RAZAK It’s my personal email which I can’t use, during that time I can’t use my 27
office email, I am using my personal email. 28
29
SST And here you have attached Silverlake’s proposed revised charges 30
and payment schedule to IICSO. Now, can you look at page 1966? 31
1966 under item 3.0, the fifth column, the last column on the right. Do 32
you see that? 33
34
RAZAK Yes. 35
36
www.scribe.com.my 14
SST Right. I will just read this, “Silverlake will provide the Operations 1
Centre for IICS thus these charges soft loan is no longer applicable. 2
IICS will occupy 75% of the floor spaces and Silverlake will take up 3
the balance of 25% of the floor offices”. Now, can you confirm that 4
Operations Centre refers to the premises at Wisma Bandar where the 5
Bank Rakyat Card Centre will be based? If you look at under item 3. 6
7
RAZAK No, are you referring to Silverlake Operations Centre or Bank Rakyat 8
Card Centre? 9
10
SST Ok, you look at the fifth column under item 3.0, this is what you wrote, 11
Silverlake will provide the Operations Centre. 12
13
RAZAK It’s Silverlake Operations Centre, yes. 14
15
SST This is at Wisma Bandar? 16
17
RAZAK First Floor Wisma Bandar. 18
19
SST First Floor. Can you remember the exact address of this Wisma 20
Bandar Operations Centre? 21
22
RAZAK If I am not mistaken, it’s First Floor No. 18 Jalan Tuanku Abdul 23
Rahman. 24
25
SST I see. Now, I am going to refer you to three emails, we have gone 26
through this, I will just ask one question for all these three emails. It’s 27
in Bundle B5. The first email is one we have gone through earlier, 28
1849 to 1850. Now, the second email which we have referred to is 29
page 1851 to 1853, alright? And the third one is 1927 to 1929, I have 30
referred all these emails to you. 31
32
RAZAK Ok. It’s four emails is it? 33
34
SST Three emails. 1849, 1851, 1927. I have referred that to you earlier, 35
right? 36
37
www.scribe.com.my 15
RAZAK Ok. 1
2
SST Now, these were all emails from the Second Defendant’s Project 3
Manager to Project Management Team including Dr Narayanan and 4
Mr Udhaya. Now, as at these dates, now if you notice these dates are, 5
the dates of these email are in November of 2007. 6
7
RAZAK Which email you are referring? 8
9
SST All three emails. I am asking one question for all three emails. Alright. 10
Now for all these three emails, these were all dated around November 11
2007? 12
13
RAZAK To be specific, from 9 to 16 November. 14
15
SST Now 1849. This is dated 09.11.2007. 16
17
RAZAK Yes. 18
19
SST The second email is 1851, this is also 09.11.2007. 20
21
RAZAK Yes. 22
23
SST And the third email 1927, this is 16.11.2007. 24
25
RAZAK Yes. 26
27
SST Now, as at these dates in November 2007. 28
29
RAZAK You have two dates, 9 and 16 November, correct? 30
31
SST Sure, 9 November and 16 November. 32
33
YA What is the question? 34
35
36
www.scribe.com.my 16
SST I’m asking actually. Now as at these dates, 09.11.2007 and 1
16.11.2007, do you agree that there was no formal contract between 2
the Second Defendant and IICSO or the Plaintiff with regards to the 3
running of the Bank Rakyat Card Centre? 4
5
RAZAK During that stage, we are negotiating the contract. 6
7
SST No. At that stage? 8
9
RAZAK There’s a contract but we negotiate, both part negotiating the contract. 10
11
SST There is a contract but both parties were negotiating? 12
13
RAZAK The contract not yet signed and the contract yet to finalise. There’s a 14
contract, we are negotiate with them. 15
16
SST Ok. I will take your answer. There is a contract but we are negotiating. 17
Not finalised yet. 18
19
RAZAK Because. 20
21
SST Not finalised yet, right? 22
23
RAZAK Not because we are considering them as one of the option. 24
25
SST Now, since you knew that as at 09.11.2007 and 16.11.2007 there was 26
no formal contract between the Plaintiff or IICSO with the Second 27
Defendant, upon receipt of these emails from Koon Yin, did you email 28
Koon Yin asking her to remove Mr Udhaya and Dr Narayanan as part 29
of your Project Management Team? 30
31
RAZAK As my statement is very clear, Ok, unless I recap by my statement. 32
33
SST Yes or no, Encik Razak? 34
35
RAZAK During implementation my activities and Project Implementation. 36
37
www.scribe.com.my 17
SST Did you send her an email? 1
2
YA (00:39:40 inaudible). 3
4
SST Now as at these dates, 9 November and 16 November 2007, upon 5
receipt of this email, and you knowing that there was no formal 6
contract between the Plaintiff or IICSO with the Second Defendant, did 7
you email Koon Yin asking her to remove Mr Udhaya and Dr 8
Narayanan as part of the Project Management Team, yes or no? 9
10
RAZAK There’s no email. 11
12
SST Now, we have moved on to Bundle B6, page 2190. Now this is an 13
email from Koon Yin to a few people. It was also cc-ed to you and Mr 14
Chee Chin Leong, in fact Koon Yin actually sent this Udhaya as well. 15
This is, we are now at 31.12.2007. You see the date of the email. 16
Now, did you receive this email? 17
18
RAZAK Yes, I am in the copy list. 19
20
SST Now, just to confirm, Goh is the owner of the Silverlake Group of 21
Companies? 22
23
RAZAK He is also the decision making. 24
25
SST Also a decision maker and he is also a Director of the Second 26
Defendant, right? 27
28
RAZAK He is a Director of Second Defendant. He cannot hold Executive 29
Chairman because he is Executive Chairman for a listed company. 30
31
SST And there’s one term there “BRICC” in the first paragraph, you have 32
clarified that this is a temporary name for the Bank Rakyat Islamic 33
Card Centre, right? 34
35
RAZAK Yes as what we discussed on the last session, correct? 36
37
www.scribe.com.my 18
SST Yes. Now as at this date 31.12.2007, now do you agree that there was 1
no formal contract between the Plaintiff or IICSO with the Second 2
Defendant with regards to the running of the Bank Rakyat Card 3
Centre? 4
5
RAZAK As I explained earlier, we are negotiating contract with them, there’s 6
no formal contract. And this is related to pre-operation again. 7
8
SST Now, if you have noticed from this email, Koon Yin under, you can 9
see, under item 4. “Udhaya all task”, do you see that? 10
11
RAZAK Yes. 12
13
SST Now, since you knew that as at 31.12.2007, now there was no formal 14
contract between the Plaintiff or IICSO and the Second Defendant to 15
run the Card Centre, did you email Koon Yin questioning her as to 16
why Udhaya was assigned as the person responsible for all tasks for 17
the Card Centre? 18
[00:45:00] 19
20
RAZAK To note, I don’t understand what is “all tasks”, Ok? And then to note 21
here again, Koon Yin is aware that we are negotiating the contract 22
with the Plaintiff. 23
24
YA Encik Razak, please answer the question. 25
26
RAZAK Ok. 27
28
YA (00:45:16 inaudible). 29
30
RAZAK Yes, Ok, sorry. Come again the question? 31
32
YA Question is? 33
34
35
36
www.scribe.com.my 19
SST Let me ask the question. I’ll just read out the question. Since you knew 1
that as at 31.12.2007 that there was no formal contract between the 2
Plaintiff or IICSO and the Second Defendant for the running of the 3
Bank Rakyat Card Centre, upon receipt of this email from Koon Yin, 4
did you email Koon Yin questioning her as to why Udhaya was 5
assigned as the person responsible for all tasks for the Bank Rakyat 6
Card Centre, yes or no? 7
8
RAZAK If I can. 9
10
SST Yes. Got email or no email? 11
12
RAZAK If I can recall, I don’t send any email to her. 13
14
SST Now, I will move on to the next issue, another issue. Yang Arif, I am 15
trying to focus my questioning on issues as what the Defendant has 16
suggested in the last occasion. Now Bundle B6, page 2223. Now, this 17
is an email from Mr Chee Chin Leong to Andy Ng, it was also cc-ed to 18
Mr Udhaya, yourself and Mr Goh. This is dated 01.01.2008. 19
20
YA Page? 21
22
SST 2223, Bundle B6, Yang Arif. 23
24
RAZAK 2223 until? 25
26
SST No, just 2223. Now, do you agree that this email is basically with 27
regards to the Silverlake or Second Defendant IICSO subcontract? 28
29
RAZAK Yes. 30
31
YA Encik Razak, (00:48:57 inaudible) you have to speak louder. 32
33
RAZAK Ok. Can you repeat back? Yes, Ok. 34
35
SST So, yes. Can I confirm that, to save time, you have read this email? 36
37
www.scribe.com.my 20
RAZAK I am in the copy list. 1
2
SST But to save time you have actually read this email? 3
4
YA What is the question? 5
6
7
SST I can move on. Alright. Now, let’s turn to the next page, Bundle B6, 8
page 2224. Are you there? 9
10
RAZAK Yes. 11
12
SST This is an email from Mr Goh Peng Ooi forwarding the 01.01.2008 13
email to Mr Chee Chin Leong, Mr Andy Ng and it was also cc-ed to 14
you and Mr Udhaya. Now again this is also with regards to the Second 15
Defendant IICSO subcontract, right? 16
17
RAZAK You are referring to the email from Mr Goh? 18
19
SST Yes, 2224. 20
21
RAZAK Because since he is going to make the decision that’s why he is 22
asking input form Andy. 23
24
YA So, what is your question? 25
26
SST Whether this email is with regards to the Second Defendant IICSO 27
subcontract, that’s all. 28
29
RAZAK Because Mr Goh is responding email from IICS for the IICS contract. 30
31
SST So, the answer is yes it’s actually in relation to the IICS. 32
33
RAZAK I am not sure what is mentioned Andy any comment because if you 34
read the subsequent one. 35
36
37
www.scribe.com.my 21
YA The answer is “I’m not sure”. Is that your answer? 1
2
RAZAK Because I am not sure why he mentioned “Andy, any comment?” but if 3
you look the second email, it’s related to IICS contract. 4
5
SST But can you confirm that you did receive this email? 6
7
RAZAK Because I am in the copy list. 8
9
SST Now, let’s turn to page 2225, Bundle B6. Now this is an email dated 10
02.01.2008 from Andy Ng to Goh Peng Ooi and Chee Chin Leong, it 11
was also cc-ed to you and Udhaya. Did you receive this email? 12
13
RAZAK Yes, I am in the copy list. 14
15
SST Now, I take it that you have read this email? 16
17
YA What is your question? 18
19
SST I ask him whether he has actually read this email. 20
21
RAZAK Read meaning that reading now or upon I receiving the email? 22
23
SST Whatever, either one. 24
25
RAZAK No, you must be specific. Because if you ask me reading, I am 26
reading it now. 27
28
YA That is why I said what is your question. 29
30
SST Have you gone through the email then? 31
32
RAZAK Yes, because I am in the copy list. 33
34
SST Now do you agree that as at this date 02.01.2008 as far as the 35
Second Defendant is concerned, they have already accepted the 36
revised terms of the IICSO’s D2 subcontract? 37
www.scribe.com.my 22
RAZAK We only accepted one of the contracts signed but at this stage we are 1
still negotiating the contract with IICSO. 2
3
SST In other words, do you agree or disagree? 4
5
ABR My Lady, the witness just answered that, I think that should be the 6
answer, I mean, sometimes they don’t come out as disagree or agree. 7
I find it difficult to follow my learned friend’s question actually 8
sometimes. If the answer implies as disagree, it should be taken as 9
disagree. There’s no need for witness to say I disagree or I agree, 10
Yang Arif. It’s very difficult in that question. 11
12
YA Can I have your question again? 13
14
SST Sure. Now, do you agree that as at this date you are aware that the 15
Second Defendant had accepted the revised terms of the IICSO D2 16
subcontract, as at this date? 17
18
RAZAK I disagree. 19
20
SST Now, let’s move on, same bundle, page 2234 to 2235. Are you there? 21
22
RAZAK This again related to the previous email, correct? 23
24
SST Now this is an email from Udhaya to Andy Ng, Goh Peng Ooi, Chee 25
Chin Leong, it was also cc-ed to you. Now Udhaya highlighted here, 26
“Hi Andy, we thank you for acceptance of the terms of the commercial 27
issues” then he went on to say other things. Now, did you receive this 28
email? 29
30
RAZAK Yes, I am in the copy list. 31
32
SST Now, do you recall of any email from Andy Ng or Goh Peng Ooi or 33
Chee Chin Leong or even yourself to Udhaya disputing what he wrote 34
here “We thank you for acceptance of the terms of the commercial 35
issues”? Was there any such email? 36
37
www.scribe.com.my 23
RAZAK I believe that he referring to the proposal made by the IICSO, correct? 1
It’s a plenty of email. 2
3
SST Udhaya wrote here, “Hi Andy, we thank you for acceptance of the 4
terms of the commercial issues”. My question is, do you recall of any 5
email from Andy Ng, Goh Peng Ooi or Chee Chin Leong or yourself to 6
Udhaya disputing this? 7
8
RAZAK That’s what there’s a lot of email involved or talking about the 9
acceptance or the term and commercial. And because each time we 10
receive the term and condition keep changing. 11
12
YA We are talking about this page, 2234. 13
14
RAZAK But you refer to this page, not anything specific which email this email 15
refer to except only the next. 16
17
YA That can be explained through your lawyer. 18
19
RAZAK No, I agree Yang Arif but if the email only related to the subsequent 20
email only. 21
22
SST Yang Arif, I cannot understand why the witness is actually is 23
answering like this. It’s a very. 24
25
RAZAK He’s referring to the question which related to this email, what I can 26
see only these two email related to this email. 27
28
YA That can be explained for your lawyer to question. Now we are talking 29
about this page, “we thank you for acceptance of the terms of the 30
commercial issues”. So the question is whether (00:58:26 inaudible). 31
32
SST Whether there was any email from Andy Ng? 33
34
YA Why don’t you ask that to the witness? 35
36
SST Yes. Do you recall of any email from Andy? 37
www.scribe.com.my 24
YA Whether the witness replied, not the others. 1
2
SST I am asking that he might have seen, if there is an email maybe it has 3
been cc-ed to him. 4
5
YA Why don’t you ask one by one? 6
7
SST Alright, sure. Do you recall of any email from Mr Andy Ng to Udhaya 8
disputing what Udhaya wrote here, we thank you for acceptance of the 9
terms of the commercial issues? 10
11
RAZAK For me to recall all the email, I have to look up all the document back 12
because it’s not only. 13
14
SST You can’t recall, is it? 15
16
RAZAK No, I can recall some of them but you have to refer back to each 17
specific. 18
19
YA That’s why I say better ask the witness only with regard to the witness. 20
(00:59:21 inaudible). 21
22
RAZAK But some of the email I am aware but I can’t recall which email that 23
referring to. 24
25
SST If you cannot recall, it’s fine. 26
27
YA Counsel, just reduced this. 28
29
RAZAK Because it’s very difficult for me to say I can’t recall because some of 30
the email I am aware, Ok. But if can recall, I can’t recall I mean I know 31
nothing about that. 32
33
SST Encik Razak, you are here to answer questions posed by me as at this 34
stage, If you need to clarify, your counsel will ask you to clarify. 35
36
[01:00:00] 37
www.scribe.com.my 25
RAZAK But. 1
2
SST Now, for questions which I have asked, if you cannot recall, you say I 3
cannot recall. If there is answer is no, you just say no. If you agree, 4
you say yes, I agree. If you are going to keep on answering like this, 5
it’s going to take us a long time to finish this and I am really trying to 6
finish this by today. 7
8
RAZAK But again I am defending my company. 9
10
SST Now, if you can just cooperate with us, we can move on very fast. 11
12
YA Can I have the question again? 13
14
SST Do you recall of any email from Andy Ng, Goh Peng Ooi, Chee Chin 15
Leong or you to Udhaya disputing what he wrote here? 16
17
YA The question is whether you can recall, whether you can recall now. 18
19
RAZAK Now I can’t recall because there’s a lot of email. 20
21
YA Now, you can’t recall? 22
23
RAZAK Yes, there’s a lot of email. 24
25
SST I will accept that, I will accept that’s the answer, I can’t recall. Let’s 26
move on to Bundle B7. Please look at pages 2528 to 2529. Are you 27
there, Encik Razak? 28
29
RAZAK Yes. 30
31
SST 2528 to 2529. Now this is an email from Udhaya to Andy Ng, Chee 32
Chin Leong, it was also cc-ed to you and a few others. We are now 33
08.04.2008. Now first question, did you receive this email? 34
35
RAZAK I am in the copy list, yes. 36
37
www.scribe.com.my 26
SST Now, if you look at the first paragraph of this email, I will just highlight 1
the first sentence it says, Dear Andy and Chee then you go straight to 2
the first sentence, in our meeting I was made to understand that we 3
have agreed to the following items 1, 2 and 3, do you see that? Now 4
the question is this, do you agree that as far as Udhaya’s concerned, 5
there were only three issues remaining between the Second 6
Defendant and IICSO? 7
8
RAZAK In the first and second it related to pre-operation and the third one 9
relating to subcontractor, ok. 10
11
SST The question is, as far as Udhaya is concerned, there were only three 12
issues remaining between the Second Defendant and IICSO. Do you 13
agree? 14
15
RAZAK It is as what as per their email. 16
17
SST It is as what per their email, Ok. It is as what as per his email, his 18
email, right? 19
20
RAZAK Udhaya email. 21
22
SST Yes, Ok, thank you. Do you agree that as at this stage 08.04.2008, the 23
Second Defendant did not furnish or did not provide a signed copy of 24
the contract between the Second Defendant and Bank Rakyat to the 25
Plaintiff or IICSO? 26
27
RAZAK Come again the question? 28
29
SST Do you agree that as at this stage, 08.04.2008, the Second Defendant 30
did not provide or furnish a signed copy of the contract between the 31
Second Defendant and Bank Rakyat to either the Plaintiff or IICSO? 32
Do you understand the question? 33
34
RAZAK Are you referring to the contract signed between Silverlake and the 35
Bank Rakyat? 36
37
www.scribe.com.my 27
SST Yes, the main contract for the Bank Rakyat. 1
2
RAZAK Ok, the nature of the contract there’s a competitive clause. 3
4
YA The question is whether the Plaintiff, is it? 5
6
SST Plaintiff or IICSO as at this stage. 7
8
RAZAK Because that’s the reason why. 9
10
YA No, the question is whether it was sent. 11
12
RAZAK They have seen the draft copy, it’s almost like the final which is not 13
signed document. 14
15
YA The question if you send the contract. 16
17
RAZAK We have not sent any signed document to them. We have not signed. 18
19
SST Encik Razak, please listen to Yang Arif’s direction, please. 20
21
22
YA No, actually we are referring to the question. I think you should focus 23
on the question, there are a lot that you want to explain but if it is 24
relevant, you can re through your lawyer. He is very sharp, your 25
lawyer. He is marking your answer. If there is anything to be asked, it 26
can be done through your lawyer. 27
28
RAZAK Ok, you come back to the question. 29
30
YA So the question is whether you send a copy of the contract (01:06:43 31
inaudible). 32
33
RAZAK Can repeat back the question? 34
35
YA Can repeat the question? 36
37
www.scribe.com.my 28
SST Sure. Now, do you agree that as at this date the Second Defendant 1
did not provide a signed copy of the contract between the Second 2
Defendant and Bank Rakyat to the Plaintiff or IICSO? 3
4
RAZAK You are referring signed is a physical document? No, I need 5
clarification on this signed document, are you referring to the physical 6
document? 7
8
SST Encik Razak, as at this point in time 08.04.2008, has Silverlake signed 9
a contract with Bank Rakyat with regards to the Bank Rakyat Project? 10
11
RAZAK We signed on 21.11. 12
13
SST That’s what I am asking. So, the question is again, do you agree that 14
as at this stage, the Second Defendant did not provide a signed copy 15
of this contract between the Second Defendant and Bank Rakyat to 16
either the Plaintiff or IICSO? 17
18
YA Did you provide a copy of the contract? 19
20
RAZAK No. 21
22
SST Thank you. Now, let’s move on to the same bundle, pages 2488 to 23
2489. 24
25
RAZAK Come again? 26
27
SST 2488 to 2489. Then can you also look at, to save time, can you also 28
look at page 2502, the same bundle, 2502. Now my question is, do 29
you agree that as far as these two emails are concerned Mr Udhaya 30
was basically asking for the signed contract between the Second 31
Defendant and Bank Rakyat? 32
33
RAZAK Email 2488 referring to the first note, correct, the contractual 34
agreement between IICS Operations and Silverlake? 35
36
37
www.scribe.com.my 29
SST Yes. 1
2
RAZAK Because there’s four item there. 3
4
SST Yes, under item 1 note, our lawyers also want a copy of the signed 5
and page by page initial master contract between Silverlake and Bank 6
Rakyat as multiple references in this contract are made in the contract 7
Silverlake and IICSO. And at page 2502, do you want me to read the 8
first paragraph Encik Razak, we are still waiting. 9
10
RAZAK Ok, what is this? 11
12
SST Right. So, basically do you agree that Udhaya was asking for the 13
signed contract between Silverlake and Bank Rakyat? 14
15
RAZAK As per his email, yes. 16
17
SST Now let’s go to page 2503, same Bundle B7, 2503 until 2504. Now 18
this is your email to Udhaya and Dr Narayanan, you also cc-ed this to 19
Chee Chin Leong and Koon Yin. This is 16.03.2008. Now my question 20
is, do you agree that instead of you providing the signed contract 21
between the Second Defendant and Bank Rakyat, you instead 22
produced a confidentiality clause which was found in the principal 23
contract? 24
25
RAZAK Principal contract between Bank Rakyat and Silverlake? 26
27
SST Yes, correct. Do you want me to repeat the question? 28
29
RAZAK Yes. 30
31
SST Now do you agree that instead of you providing the signed principal 32
contract between Bank Rakyat and the Second Defendant, you 33
instead produced the confidentiality clause which was contained in 34
that? 35
36
37
www.scribe.com.my 30
RAZAK What the first question? 1
2
SST Sorry? 3
4
RAZAK What is the first question? 5
6
SST First question, that’s the only question. 7
8
YA Instead of providing a contract. 9
10
RAZAK It’s not providing the contract. 11
12
YA Instead. 13
14
SST Do you agree that instead? You understand the question? 15
16
RAZAK Yes. 17
18
SST Instead of providing the signed contract between the Second 19
Defendant and Bank Rakyat, you produced this confidentiality clause 20
of that signed contract? 21
22
RAZAK Yes. 23
24
SST Now, let’s move on to page 2505 to 2506. 2505, Bundle B7, 2505 25
Bundle B7 until 2506. Are you there, Encik Razak? 26
27
[01:15:00] 28
29
RAZAK Yes. 30
31
SST Now, this is an email, this is 17.03.2008 from Udhaya to you and also 32
the Dr, it was also cc-ed to Chee Chin Leong and Koon Yin where its 33
wrote there, “Hi Razak, there are issue to work around only rest with 34
you and the only advise I can give is to refer to your lawyers”. Now, 35
can you confirm that you did receive this email? 36
37
www.scribe.com.my 31
RAZAK Yes. 1
2
SST And the question is, did you refer this work around to your lawyers? 3
4
RAZAK Yes. 5
6
SST Now, I am now going to refer you to a series of emails and this again 7
to save time. Bundle B7, the first email pages 2507 to 2509. Do you 8
see that? 9
10
RAZAK 2507? 11
12
SST Until 2509. This is an email 25.03.2008 from Udhaya to Mr Chee Chin 13
Leong and Andy Ng, it was also cc-ed to you, Koon Yin and Dr 14
Narayanan. Udhaya was basically seeking a meeting with the Second 15
Defendant to resolve the issue of the signed Principal Agreement. Do 16
you see that email? 17
18
RAZAK Yes. 19
20
SST Alright, let’s move on to the second email. Bundle B7, pages 2510 to 21
2512. Now this is an email from Chee Chin Leong to Udhaya as well 22
as to Andy Ng, it was cc-ed to you, Koon Yin and Dr Narayanan. And 23
now we are at the 25.03.2008, basically Chee Chin Leong was 24
suggesting a meeting to discuss the Principal Agreement issue. You 25
have seen this email? 26
27
28
RAZAK I am in the copy list, yes. 29
30
SST Also B7, pages 2513 to 2515. Are you there, Encik Razak? 31
32
RAZAK Yes. 33
34
35
36
www.scribe.com.my 32
SST This is an email 25.03.2008 from Udhaya to Chee Chin Leong and 1
Andy Ng, also cc-ed to you, Koon Yin and Dr Narayanan. Basically 2
Udhaya was proposing Thursday as the meeting day and again he 3
highlighted the requirement of the signed Principal Agreement. You 4
are aware of this email, right? Are you aware of this email? 5
6
RAZAK I am in the copy list, yes. 7
8
SST Yes. Next one, B7 pages 2522 until 2524. Now basically this is an 9
email dated 27.03.2008, this is from Chee Chin Leong to Udhaya and 10
Andy Ng, it was also cc-ed to Razak, Koon Yin and Dr Narayanan. 11
Basically in a gist, Chee Chin Leong basically told Udhaya that the 12
Principal Agreement as far as it relates to IICS will be provided and 13
Chee also told you to take out the confidential task of the agreement 14
between the Second Defendant and Bank Rakyat and to leave the 15
parts which are relevant to IICS as part of an attachment to the IICS 16
agreement. Now, are you aware of this email? 17
18
RAZAK Yes. 19
20
SST Now let’s go to B7, pages 2528 to 2529. Are you there? 21
22
RAZAK Yes. 23
24
SST Now this is an email 08.04.2008, this is form Udhaya to Andy Ng, 25
Chee Chin Leong and it was also cc-ed to you and Koon Yin and a 26
few others. Now, do you agree that here, this is about 12 days after 27
Chee’s email on 27.03, Udhaya was still asking for the Principal 28
Agreement minus the confidentiality clause, are you aware of this? 29
30
RAZAK Yes. 31
32
SST Now, let me refer you to three combined emails, same bundle, page 33
2533 to 2584. This is your email 10.04.2008 to Udhaya, you also cc-34
ed this to Koon Yin. Do you recall this email? 35
36
37
www.scribe.com.my 33
RAZAK Yes. 1
2
SST Next is page 2586 until 2587. This is Udhaya’s email to Andy Ng, 3
Chee Chin Leong, it was also cc-ed to you, Koon Yin and a few 4
others. We are at 14.04.2008, are you aware of this email? 5
6
RAZAK Yes, I am in the copy list. 7
8
SST So basically Udhaya was telling you that he is waiting for his lawyers 9
to revert to you on the draft, correct or not? 10
11
RAZAK Are you referring to the point number 3? 12
13
SST Yes, item number 3 where it says, we have also received a proposed 14
agreement and so on. Yes. Then finally we go to Bundle B7, page 15
2680. 2680 until 2733. This is Udhaya’s email to Andy, Chee Chin 16
Leong, it was cc-ed to you, Koon Yin and Dr Narayanan. We are at 17
22.04.2008 and Udhaya has attached an amended subcontract 18
between the Second Defendant and IICS. Can you see that, it starts at 19
page 2683? 20
21
RAZAK Ok. 22
23
SST Now the question is, do you agree that the Second Defendant did not 24
accept the contents of this attached agreement, do you agree? 25
26
RAZAK And your question again? 27
28
SST My question is, do you agree that the Second Defendant did not 29
accept the contents of the attached agreement? 30
31
RAZAK Yes. 32
33
SST I am moving on to the next issue. Now for this next issue can you look 34
at your answer Question 105? 35
36
37
www.scribe.com.my 34
RAZAK Page what? 1
2
SST Page 36 - 105, 106, 107, 108, 109. 36 to 38. Sorry, let’s go back to 3
Bundle B7, page 2591 to 2593. Are you there? 4
5
RAZAK Yes. 6
[01:30:00] 7
8
SST Now this is Mr Udhaya’s email to Mr Chee Chin Leong, it was cc-ed to 9
you, Koon Yin, Dr Narayanan and Andy Ng. Now first, are you aware 10
of this email? 11
12
RAZAK Yes, I am in the copy list. 13
14
SST Now my question is, do you agree that it was Udhaya who suggested 15
the splitting of the subcontract into pre-ops and post-ops so as not to 16
affect the pre-ops work which was ongoing? Do you agree? Do you 17
get the question? 18
19
RAZAK This you are referring to email 2561? 20
21
SST Yes, 2591. You want me to repeat the question for you? 22
23
24
RAZAK I read first. 25
26
SST Ok, sure. Now, do you agree that it was Udhaya who suggested the 27
splitting of the subcontract into pre-ops and post-ops so as not to 28
affect the pre-ops work which was ongoing? 29
30
RAZAK Can I read first this one? 31
32
SST Sure. 33
34
RAZAK Ok, your question? 35
36
www.scribe.com.my 35
SST Do you agree that it was Udhaya or Mr Udhaya who suggested the 1
splitting of the subcontract into pre-ops and post-ops so as not to 2
affect the pre-ops work which was ongoing? Do you agree or not? 3
4
RAZAK Come again? 5
6
SST Do you agree that it was Mr Udhaya who suggested the splitting of the 7
subcontract into pre-ops and post-ops so as not to affect the pre-ops 8
work which was ongoing, do you agree? 9
10
RAZAK Yes, agree. 11
12
SST You agree. Can we now refer to page 2594 to 2597, the same Bundle 13
B7, 2594 to 2597. Are you there, Encik Razak? 14
15
RAZAK Yes. 16
17
SST Now, this is Mr Udhaya’s email to Michael and Hayati, it was also cc-18
ed to Mr Chee Chin Leong, yourself, Koon Yin and Andy. This is 19
18.04.2008. Now do you have that? 20
21
RAZAK Yes. 22
23
SST Do you want to read the email first? 24
25
RAZAK Yes, I have it. 26
27
SST You have read the email? 28
29
RAZAK No, I read first. Ok, your question? 30
31
SST Right. You were definitely aware of this email at that point in time, 32
right? 33
34
RAZAK Yes. There’s a copy to me. 35
36
www.scribe.com.my 36
SST Now, do you agree that as at this point in time 18.04.2008, Udhaya 1
was still chasing for the Second Defendant’s confirmation as to 2
whether they were agreeable to split the subcontract into two or let it 3
remain as one, do you agree? 4
5
RAZAK Based on this email, yes. 6
7
SST Now, let’s turn to pages, same Bundle B7, pages 2651 to 2654. Are 8
you there, Encik Razak? 9
10
RAZAK Yes. 11
12
SST Now, this is an email from Mr Chee Chin Leong to Mr Udhaya, it was 13
cc-ed to you, Koon Yin, Dr Narayanan and Andy Ng. We are at 14
21.04.2008. Are you aware of this email? 15
16
RAZAK Yes, I am in the copy list. 17
18
SST Now do you agree that by this email the Second Defendant agreed 19
with Mr Udhaya’s suggestion to split the subcontract into two? 20
21
RAZAK Yes. 22
23
SST Same Bundle B7, pages 2655 to 2674. Are you there?. 24
25
RAZAK Yes, I read. These are 2655? 26
27
SST Yes, 2655 to 2674. Now this is an email from Mr Udhaya to Mr Chee 28
Chin Leong, it was cc-ed to you, Koon Yin, Dr Narayanan and Andy 29
Ng. This is also dated 21.04.2008. Are you aware of this email? 30
31
RAZAK Come again the question? 32
33
SST Are you aware of this email? 34
35
RAZAK Yes, I am in the copy list. 36
37
www.scribe.com.my 37
SST Can you look at the attachment at pages 2659 to 2674? Now this is a 1
proposal which Udhaya attached to his email. Now my question is this, 2
do you need to read the proposal, Encik Razak? 3
4
RAZAK Yes, I am reading. 5
6
SST Alright. Now, my question is this, do you agree that Mr Udhaya was 7
trying to help the Second Defendant by providing this proposal on the 8
pre-ops for the Second Defendant to sign and thereafter to move on 9
with the Bank Rakyat Project? 10
11
RAZAK This is a proposal, not the agreement that we are asking for. 12
13
SST It’s not what I am saying. 14
15
RAZAK Yes, this is a proposal submitted by Udhaya to Chee. 16
17
SST Encik Razak, my question is this, do you agree that Mr Udhaya was 18
trying to help the Second Defendant by providing this proposal on the 19
pre-ops for the Second Defendant to sign and thereafter to move on 20
with the Bank Rakyat Project? 21
22
RAZAK No, the word “help” because this is what they are recommending. 23
24
SST You disagree, is it? 25
26
RAZAK No, this is what they are recommending they submitted the proposal 27
to split the contract into two, one is a pre-op and second one is a post-28
operation. And this is what referring to the first one. 29
30
YA Encik Razak, the question is. 31
32
RAZAK The word of “help”. 33
34
YA Yes, whether or not. 35
36
37
www.scribe.com.my 38
SST If you disagree, then never mind. 1
2
RAZAK No, it’s the “help” word. 3
4
SST You disagree that Udhaya was trying to help you, is it? 5
6
RAZAK No, I am agreeable that they submitted this as a part of their proposal 7
to spilt into two. 8
9
YA Can you explain that if necessary, later? 10
11
HLC I think he is just trying to say that it’s the problem is the word “help”. 12
13
YA But if this is the way, this is the way it’s going on, when are we going 14
to finish with this case? (01:40:47 inaudible). 15
16
HLC Yes. 17
18
YA And you have a chance to re. 19
20
HLC No, that’s why I say, Yang Arif. 21
22
YA You should tell him though. 23
24
HLC That the witness actually answered and say, yes this what they gave 25
us, so the. 26
27
YA The answer is yes or no. What are you trying to do? 28
29
HLC Ok, so then if you want to say no to the word “help”, you just say no to 30
the word “help”, Ok. 31
32
SST Do you want me to repeat the question? 33
34
RAZAK Yes, please. 35
36
www.scribe.com.my 39
SST Do you agree that Mr Udhaya was trying to help the Second 1
Defendant by providing this proposal on the pre-ops for the Second 2
Defendant to sign and thereafter to move on with the Bank Rakyat 3
Project, agree or disagree? 4
5
RAZAK No, if word “help” is no. 6
7
SST No to the word “help”, is it? 8
9
RAZAK Yes. 10
11
SST Yes, Ok. Now let’s look at same Bundle, 2675 to 2679. Are you there, 12
Encik Razak? 13
14
RAZAK Yes. 15
16
SST This is email from Chee Chin Leong to Mr Udhaya, cc-ed to Andy Ng, 17
yourself and I think that’s Loh Koon Yin? 18
19
RAZAK Yes. 20
21
SST 22.04.2008. Now, do you agree that basically Chee was telling 22
Udhaya that “Look we are checking your proposal to see whether it’s 23
consistent”. You are aware of this? 24
25
RAZAK Yes. 26
27
SST And then let’s go to Bundle B7, 2736 to 2760. Are you there? This is 28
your email? 29
30
RAZAK Yes. 31
32
SST Your email to Mr Udhaya, cc-ed to Mr Chee Chin Leong and Koon 33
Yin, this is 29.04.2008. You have attached what’s called a draft 34
Services Agreement, it’s at page 2737. Is that correct? 35
36
www.scribe.com.my 40
[01:45:00]1
2
RAZAK It’s a Draft Pre-Operation Agreement, yes. 3
4
SST Yes. So basically my question is, instead of checking the proposal 5
which we have referred to earlier, you came up with another draft. Do 6
you agree? 7
8
RAZAK Yes. 9
10
SST Now let’s go to page 2762. Can you also cross refer this to Bundle 11
B10, pages 3859 to 3874? Now my question is this, do you agree that 12
the Draft Services Agreement which we have just referred to just now. 13
Do you remember that? 14
15
RAZAK Ok. 16
17
SST You know which one I am talking about, right? 18
19
RAZAK Which I sent the email to Udhaya? 20
21
SST Yes, your email at page 2736 where you attached the, it’s called a 22
Draft Services Agreement. 23
24
RAZAK Ok. 25
26
SST So now my question is this, do you agree that this Services 27
Agreement for pre-ops as attached to your email at page 2736, 28
Bundle B7 was not signed and instead the pre-ops proposal at page 29
3859 of B10 was signed? 30
31
RAZAK That’s the two questions, correct? The first one is. 32
33
SST I don’t, I am trying to save time. So I have combined. 34
35
RAZAK No, I need to understand the question. 36
37
www.scribe.com.my 41
SST Ok, let me split it. Do you agree that the Draft Services Agreement for 1
pre-ops as attached to your email at Bundle B7, pages 2736 to 2760 2
was not signed? 3
4
RAZAK Yes. 5
6
SST Yes. And do you agree that instead the pre-ops proposal at Bundle 7
B10, pages 3859 to 3874 was signed? 8
9
RAZAK Yes. 10
11
SST We move on to another part. Now, do you agree that based on the 12
numerous emails which we have gone through just now. 13
14
RAZAK Are you referring to which email? 15
16
SST Wait, hang on. As far as the subcontract between IICSO and the 17
Second Defendant for the running of the Bank Rakyat Project is 18
concerned, the parties were merely trying to finalise the terms of the 19
subcontract? 20
21
RAZAK Come back again, now you are talking about the post-operation or 22
pre-operation? Because you are talking about the subcontract, ours 23
from the beginning we mentioned that the pre and post. 24
25
SST Let me repeat again. Do you agree that based on the numerous 26
emails which we have just gone through, as far as the subcontract 27
between IICSO and the Second Defendant for the running of the Bank 28
Rakyat Card Centre is concerned, the parties were merely trying to 29
finalise the terms of the subcontract? 30
31
RAZAK Yes. 32
33
SST Just one more question, Yang Arif and I move on to the next stage, 34
maybe after that, we can have a break. Just one related question, 35
Bundle B7, page 2588 to 2590. Now this is Mr Chee Chin Leong’s 36
email to Mr Udhaya, it was cc-ed to you, Koon Yin and Dr Narayanan 37
www.scribe.com.my 42
as well as Mr Andy Ng. We are at 16.04.2008. Now, are you aware of 1
this email? 2
3
RAZAK Yes, I am in the copy list. 4
5
SST Now my question is this, do you agree that as far as the Second 6
Defendant is concerned, the Second Defendant was asking IICS to 7
continue with their UAT work so that the project is not impacted even 8
without the finalised IICSO – Silverlake agreement? Do you 9
understand the question? 10
11
RAZAK Come back again? 12
13
SST Do you agree that basically what Chee is trying to say here is that 14
look, Silverlake is asking IICS to continue with their UAT work so that 15
the project is not impacted even without the finalised IICSO – 16
Silverlake Agreement? 17
18
RAZAK Can you repeat back the question? 19
20
SST Ok. Do you agree that by this email Silverlake is asking IICS to 21
continue with their UAT work so that the project is not impacted even 22
without the finalised IICSO – Silverlake agreement? 23
24
RAZAK No, that’s a two question, correct? The first one you are talking about 25
UAT. UAT, yes I agree, will not affected UAT, Ok. The second one 26
that, correct me if I am wrong. 27
28
SST There’s only one question. 29
30
RAZAK No, there’s two there. 31
32
SST Ok, let me read the email. “Dear Udhaya, we are processing the 33
second batch of payments for the work done by IICS. We would like 34
you to continue with the UAT and UAT is User Acceptance Test”, 35
right? 36
37
www.scribe.com.my 43
RAZAK Yes. 1
2
SST Ok. “So that the project is not impacted. It is imperative however as 3
per our previous discussion that we finalise the agreement between 4
IICS and Silverlake ASAP before the payment of future invoices”. 5
6
RAZAK Yes. 7
8
SST So my question again, do you agree that basically Silverlake was 9
asking IICS to continue with their UAT work? 10
11
RAZAK That one yes, I agree. 12
13
SST So that the project is not impacted? 14
15
RAZAK Yes. 16
17
SST And this even without the finalised IICSO – Silverlake Agreement? 18
19
RAZAK Yes. 20
21
Masa: 11:12 AM 22
23
SST Yang Arif, I will move on to the next issue, shall I continue? 24
25
YA We continue 11:30 am. 26
27
SST 11:30 am. 28
29
JRB Court bangun. 30
31
32
33
34
AKHIR 35
36
MASA : 11:12 AM 37
www.scribe.com.my 44
TARIKH : 29.12.2014 1
MASA : 11.35AM 2
3
MULA 4
5
SST En. Razak. 6
7
RAZAK Yes. 8
9
SST I am moving onto a new new issue. May I refer you to Bundle B-10. 10
Pages 3859 – 3874. This is the contract dated 20.5.2008 which you 11
have referred to just now before the break it was signed between 12
ICSO and the Second Defendant. Now, I need you to focus on pages 13
3868 – 3871. 14
15
RAZAK 38? 16
17
SST 3868 – 3871. 18
19
RAZAK Ok. 20
21
SST Now, these four pages basically talks about credentials and 22
experiences of both Dr. Narayanan and Mr. Udhaya. 23
24
RAZAK Are you referring to the proposal signed off by Silverlake? 25
26
SST Yes, this is part of it. 27
28
RAZAK It is not a contract signed with Silverlake and it is a proposal signed by 29
(00:02:30 inaudible) because they are not agreeable to sign off the 30
agreement as our draft agreement. 31
32
SST En. Razak. 33
34
RAZAK Yes. 35
36
37
www.scribe.com.my 45
SST I have referred to you pages 3859 – 3874. 1
2
RAZAK Yes. 3
4
SST This is the signed pre-ops between ICSO and the Second Defendant. 5
6
RAZAK Pre-signed proposal by Silverlake. It is not a contract. Pre, it is signed 7
off as acceptance of proposal. 8
9
SST Let me rephrase the question. 10
11
RAZAK Ok. 12
13
SST En. Razak, this is the signed pre-ops proposal. Is that correct? 14
15
RAZAK Yes. 16
17
SST Yes. 18
19
RAZAK It is not a contract, ok? 20
21
SST That’s your view. 22
23
RAZAK Ok. This is not a contract. It is a pre-ops proposal. 24
25
SST En. Razak, enough. 26
27
RAZAK Ok. 28
29
SST Now, pages 3868 – 3871. 30
31
RAZAK 38? 32
33
SST 3868 – 3871. Now, this basically talks about the credentials and 34
experiences of Dr. Narayanan and Mr. Udhaya. Now, my question is 35
this. 36
37
www.scribe.com.my 46
RAZAK 3867 – 3869? 1
2
SST 3868 – 3871. 3
4
RAZAK Ok. 5
6
SST Now, this basically talks about Dr. Narayanan and Mr. Udhaya’s 7
credential or even experience. Now, is the Second Defendant 8
disputing Dr. Narayanan’s and Udhaya’s credentials or experience? 9
10
RAZAK To my knowledge, there is nothing mentioned about disputing his 11
credentials. This is what the proposal they submitted to us. 12
13
SST Ok. Enough, En. Razak. I am moving on to another document. Can 14
you look at Bundle-B(6)? Page 2153. 15
16
RAZAK Page? 17
18
SST 2153. Are you there? 19
20
RAZAK Ok. 21
22
SST Now, this is your email to Mr. Udhaya, you cc this to Koon Yin and Mr. 23
Cee Chin Leong. This is at 18.12.2007. You need to read the email 24
first. 25
26
RAZAK Yes. 27
28
SST Why don’t you read it first? 29
30
RAZAK Ok. 31
32
SST Can you confirm that you are the author of this email? 33
34
RAZAK Yes, I sent out today. 35
36
www.scribe.com.my 47
SST Now, you said, please assist us to provide the following tables for us 1
to plan out the renovation of the office at Wisma Bandar. We are 2
targeting to complete the renovation by mid February and by that time 3
your team can move in to the new renovated office. Now, this 4
renovation at Wisma Bandar, this is referring to the operation centre of 5
the Bank Rakyat project. Right? 6
7
RAZAK It is the first floor. Yes. 8
9
SST Yes. First floor, is it? 10
11
RAZAK Yes. 12
13
SST Now, may I refer you to Bundle-A? Can you turn to pages 135 – 167? 14
This is the Second Defendant’s defence in English origin. 15
16
RAZAK What page? 17
18
SST 135 – 167. 19
20
RAZAK 135 to? 21
22
SST 167. Now, the first question. Were you involved in the preparation of 23
this defence? 24
25
RAZAK Which defence? 26
27
SST 135 – 167. This is the Second Defendant’s defence. This is the 28
English version. Were you involved in the preparation of this defence. 29
30
RAZAK Can I have a look first? 31
32
SST Sure. 33
34
YA (00:11:10 inaudible). 35
36
www.scribe.com.my 48
SST I am going for the representations. So the following questions will be 1
on the representation issues. In that case, En. Razak, can you also 2
look at the Statement of Claims, the English version is at pages 43 – 3
76. 4
5
RAZAK Page what, 43? 6
7
SST 43 – 76. Bundle-A, the Statement of Claims. Now, in the Statement of 8
Claims, there are reference to a few meetings. The first meeting is 9
21.9.2006, this is at Cyber Logde, Cyberjaya involving the First 10
Defendant, you, Mr. Udhaya and Dr. Narayanan. 11
12
RAZAK You are referring to what line? What number is it? 13
14
SST I am trying to compile that. The second meeting which was referred to 15
the Statement of Claims is a 1.10.2006 meeting. This is at Concord 16
Hotel Shah Alam. In attendance were the First Defendant, yourself, 17
Mr. Udhaya and Dr. Narayanan. The next meeting which was referred 18
is a meeting on the 5.10.2006. 19
20
YA (00:13:41 inaudible). 21
22
SST I am prepared from my notes. 23
24
YA (00:13:46 inaudible) Just now, you are going through Statement of 25
Claims? 26
27
SST Yes. 28
29
YA At page 43. 30
31
SST until 76. 32
33
YA (00:13:56 inaudible). 34
35
SST I am referring to the English version. 36
37
www.scribe.com.my 49
RAZAK Yes, I have Bundle-A here. 1
2
SST If I may just point out one more set of this, then that’s it. Sorry, the 3
5.10.2006 meeting; this was a meeting at Ambank’s Cafeteria in 4
Cyberjaya involving you, Dr. Narayanan and Mr. Udhaya and later on 5
there was a series of meetings between 5.10.2006 and 7.11.2006. Ok. 6
This is what is in the Statement of Claim. 7
8
RAZAK Ok. 9
10
SST Alright now, back to the question, were you involved in the preparation 11
of the Second Defendant’s defence? If, yes, then you would have 12
known all these things, then I can move on to other questions. 13
14
RAZAK The most, I think, we are discussed with my legal counsel. 15
16
[00:15:00] 17
18
SST Yes, so you are aware of your defence. 19
20
RAZAK Some of the things, yes because there are a few parties involved, 21
preparing this. 22
23
SST Ok. Fine. Now, do you agree that the Second Defendant knew of the 24
Bank Rakyat project at least on or before the 1.9.2006? 25
26
RAZAK Yes. 1.9.2006. 27
28
SST On or before 1.9.2006. 29
30
RAZAK Yes, which we submitted our first proposal. 31
32
ABR What date? September? 33
34
SST On or before 1.9.2006. And would you agree that as at this point in 35
time, September 2006, the Second Defendant knew of Bank Rakyat’s 36
requirement as far as the Bank Rakyat project is concerned? 37
www.scribe.com.my 50
RAZAK Can repeat the question? 1
2
SST Do you agree that as at this point in time, September 2006, the 3
Second Defendant knew of Bank Rakyat’s requirement as far as the 4
Bank Rakyat project is concerned because you have already 5
submitted. 6
7
RAZAK Will agree in brief, yes. 8
9
SST So you should know the other parties? 10
11
RAZAK Yes. Why if we agree in brief? 12
13
SST I will repeat the question. 14
15
RAZAK Ok. 16
17
SST Do you agree that as at this point in time, September 2006, the 18
Second Defendant knew of Bank Rakyat’s requirements as far as the 19
Bank Rakyat project is concerned? 20
21
RAZAK We agree. Ok. 22
23
SST Did you know of Bank Rakyat’s requirements for the projects? 24
25
RAZAK Come back to the question. 26
27
SST Do you agree that as at this point in time, September 2006, the 28
Second Defendant knew of the Bank Rakyat’s requirements as far as 29
the project is concerned? 30
31
RAZAK We agree up to this. We knew that Bank Rakyat looking for the out 32
sourcing partner. 33
34
SST I will rephrase the question. As at September 2006, did the Second 35
Defendant know of Bank Rakyat’s requirements as far as the project? 36
37
www.scribe.com.my 51
RAZAK Yes. 1
2
SST And do you agree that as at this point in time, September 2006, Bank 3
Rakyat was planning to outsource the Bank Rakyat project? 4
5
RAZAK Yes. 6
7
SST Ok. Direct answer, Yang Arif. Thank you. Do you agree that as at 8
September 2006, the Second Defendant had submitted this proposal 9
to Bank Rakyat specifically at least a proposal dated 1.9.2006? 10
11
RAZAK Yes. 12
13
SST Now, do you agree that in September 2006, the Second Defendant’s 14
proposal for the Bank Rakyat project was not accepted by Bank 15
Rakyat? 16
17
RAZAK Disagree. You are referring to the 1.9.2006, the first proposal 18
submitted by Silverlake. Correct? 19
20
SST Yes. Disagree is it? 21
22
RAZAK Yes. 23
24
SST Is there anywhere in the Bundles to show acceptance by Bank Rakyat 25
of the 1.9.2006 proposal? 26
27
RAZAK No. 28
29
SST Do you agree that in fact, the contract for the Bank Rakyat project, I 30
am referring to the contract between the Second Defendant and 31
Bandaraya was only officially awarded to the Second Defendant on 32
the 21.11.2007? 33
34
RAZAK Contract signed on 21.November. Yes. Earlier confirmed. 35
36
37
www.scribe.com.my 52
SST Was signed on the 21.11.2007. 1
2
RAZAK Earlier confirmation, we supposed to signed on 16 November as per 3
email by En. Khairil. 4
5
SST Now, do you agree that around September 2006, the Second 6
Defendant was aware of the proposal from MBF to Bank Rakyat 7
biding for the same Bank Rakyat project? 8
9
RAZAK You are referring to September 2006 the specific date or general 10
date? 11
12
SST Around, general date. 13
14
RAZAK As per our first submission on the. 15
16
SST Yes or no. Agree or disagree. 17
18
RAZAK Can you come back the question again? 19
20
SST Do you agree that around September 2006, the Second Defendant 21
was aware of the proposal from MBF to Bank Rakyat biding for the 22
same Bank Rakyat project? 23
24
RAZAK I can’t recall that. 25
26
SST Sorry. 27
28
RAZAK I can’t recall that. 29
30
SST I can’t recall that. Do you agree that around September 2006, the 31
Second Defendant knew that Bank Rakyat had yet to agree to accept 32
MBF’s proposal? 33
34
RAZAK I have no idea. 35
36
www.scribe.com.my 53
SST No idea. By the way, when did the Second Defendant first hear about 1
Bank Rakyat’s intention to outsource its Bank Rakyat project? 2
3
RAZAK Earlier than September 2006. 1.9.2006. 4
5
SST Earlier than 1.9.2006. 6
7
RAZAK Yes. 8
9
SST And from whom did the Second Defendant hear this news from? 10
11
RAZAK That one I can’t recall. 12
13
SST Now, do you agree that prior to September 2006, you knew the First 14
Defendant? 15
16
RAZAK Come again. 17
18
SST Do you agree that prior to September 2006, you knew the First 19
Defendant? 20
21
RAZAK We heard that they are doing for Bank Islam project. We heard. 22
23
ABR What was the question again? 24
25
SST Do you agree that prior to September 2006, you knew the First 26
Defendant? You, I am talking about you. 27
28
RAZAK Me or Silverlake? 29
30
SST You. 31
32
HLC First Defendant is Rahim. 33
34
RAZAK Come again. 35
36
www.scribe.com.my 54
SST Do you agree that prior to September 2006, you knew the First 1
Defendant. Let me repeat that. You know Abdul Rahim bin Abudl 2
Razak? 3
4
RAZAK Yes. 5
6
SST Do you agree that you knew Abdul Rahim bin Abdul Razak when he 7
was with Bank Islam? 8
9
RAZAK You are talking about me and Razak or me and Silverlake. 10
11
SST You. If I want to refer to the Second Defendant, I will say it say 12
Second Defendant. 13
14
RAZAK I knew him since the early days in Bank Negara. 15
16
SST Since the early days in Bank Negara and including when he was in 17
Bank Islam? 18
19
RAZAK Yes. 20
21
SST So, both of you were from Bank Negara? 22
23
RAZAK Yes, so both of us came from Bank Negara. 24
25
SST I see. Ok. And how long you and En. Abdul Rahim bin Abdul Razak 26
were in Bank Negara Malaysia? 27
28
RAZAK He attached to the Audit Department. I am attached to the ID 29
Department and he was my end user. 30
31
SST He was attached to the Bank Negara’s 32
33
RAZAK Audit Department, Bank supervision. 34
35
SST Audit Department and you were? 36
37
www.scribe.com.my 55
RAZAK ID Department. 1
2
SST And you were colleagues for how long in Bank Negara? 3
4
RAZAK During that time, he was my end user that is why I train him to use this 5
application system. From that day, we knew each other. After that he 6
left and I left Bank Negara. I believe he left earlier than me. I left in 7
1987. Sorry 1997. 8
9
SST You left in 1997. He left earlier. 10
11
RAZAK Earlier than that. After that we never met until in Bank Islam, 12
introduced by IT Head of Bank Islam. Not because he is asking me 13
how long because I can’t just. 14
15
YA (00:25:16 inaudible.) 16
17
RAZAK You got to address the specific period which I can’t tell him. 18
19
SST Now, do you agree that when En. Abdul Rahim bin Abdul Razak was 20
with Bank Islam more specifically with the Bank Islam Card Centre, or 21
BICC, the Second Defendant was providing software system for 22
BICC? 23
24
RAZAK Yes. 25
26
SST Now, when answer you have to address Yang Arif. 27
28
RAZAK Yes. Software and services. Correct? Not software services. 29
30
SST Sorry. 31
32
RAZAK Software and services? 33
34
SST Software and services. And do you agree at that point in time, you 35
were the marketing person for the Second Defendant as far as BICC 36
was concerned? 37
www.scribe.com.my 56
RAZAK I disagree because you have a lot of marketing people attached to the 1
Bank Islam project. 2
3
SST Now, just to clarify, what was your role for the Second Defendant in 4
BICC? 5
6
RAZAK Ok. I support towards the last four years, sorry. Early 2000 for Bank 7
Islam and specifically I am supporting only this card because there is 8
on the Card Department. 9
10
SST Sorry. You need to speak on the Mike. 11
12
RAZAK Ok. I am supporting only for the Card Department because in Bank 13
Islam, there is two, one is called Banking and one is a Card. Ok. The 14
Core Banking is taken care by someone else in the marketing gourp 15
and the credit card, I am taking over since 2003 and 2004 only. 16
17
SST Now, do you agree that you did meet up with En. Abdul Rahim bin 18
Abdul Razak, Mr. Udhaya and Dr. Narayanan in Cyber Lodge at 19
Cyberjaya on 21.9.2006. 20
21
RAZAK Come again. 22
23
SST Do you agree that you did meet up with En. Abdul Rahim bin Abdul 24
Razak, Mr. Udhaya and Dr. Narayanan on 21.9.2006 in Cyber Lodge, 25
Cyberjaya? 26
27
RAZAK Yes, introduced by the First Defendant. Personally I never met them 28
before. 29
30
SST Now, may I refer you to your Answer, Question No. 7, page 3? 31
32
RAZAK Question No.? 33
34
SST 7, page 3. 35
36
37
www.scribe.com.my 57
RAZAK Ok. Are you referring to the amended one. 1
2
[00:30:00] 3
SST Yes. 4
5
RAZAK Ok. 6
7
SST Now do you still maintain that this meeting was set up by the First 8
Defendant? 9
10
RAZAK It’s arranged by the. I am sorry. Come again the question. 11
12
SST En. Razak. You said here. Question, do you know Dr. Narayanan and 13
Mr. Udhaya Kumar, then I think the amendments were after the 14
amendments agreed like this, we met for the first time for this Bank 15
Rakyat project which was also attended by the First Defendant. It was 16
the First Defendant who set up this meeting sometime in second half 17
of 2006. 18
19
RAZAK Yes. 20
21
SST Yes. So this meeting was actually was setup by the First Defendant? 22
23
RAZAK Not set up. It is an introductory meeting. 24
25
SST En. Razak, you look at your answer. It was the First Defendant who 26
set up this meeting. 27
28
RAZAK Yes. Ok. 29
30
SST Do you still maintain this? 31
32
RAZAK Yes. 33
34
SST Now, at this meeting, did you give your name card to either Mr. 35
Udhaya or Dr. Narayanan? 36
37
www.scribe.com.my 58
RAZAK I can’t recall it. 1
2
SST I can’t recall it. May I refer you to Bundle-B(10), page 3902? 3
4
RAZAK 39? 5
6
SST 3092. Now, can you confirm that at that time, you were the Senior 7
Vice President, South Asia and Brunei? 8
9
RAZAK Yes. 10
11
SST Now back to you Answer, Question No. 7, are you there? 12
13
RAZAK Yes. 14
15
SST Now, do you still maintain that you met Mr. Udhaya, Dr. Narayanan 16
and En. Abdul Rahim bin Abdul Razak for the Bank Rakyat project? 17
Do you still maintain it? 18
19
RAZAK You are referring to the new one? 20
21
SST Question 7, your answer is, we met for the first time for this Bank 22
Rakyat project. So I am asking you, do you still maintain this that the 23
meeting was for the Bank Rakyat project/ 24
25
RAZAK Is it the latest one which I have made the changes? 26
27
SST Yes, correct. 28
29
RAZAK Ok. Yes. 30
31
SST Now, do you agree that in this first meeting, 21.9.2006, it was 32
proposed that the Plaintiff be the Bank Rakyat partner to manage the 33
outsourcing operations for Bank Rakyat and to use the Second 34
Defendant’s sister? 35
36
37
www.scribe.com.my 59
RAZAK Come again the question? 1
2
SST Do you agree that in this first meeting, 21.9.2006, it was proposed that 3
the Plaintiff be the Bank Rakyat partner to manage the outsourcing 4
operations for Bank Rakyat and to use the Second Defendant’s sister? 5
6
RAZAK Disagree. 7
8
SST Disagree. Do you agree that in this first meeting of 21.9.2006, the 9
Plaintiff will submit his proposal for the outsourcing operations to Bank 10
Rakyat and the Second Defendant will submit his proposal for 11
systems to Bank Rakyat? 12
13
RAZAK Come back the question. 14
15
SST Do you agree that in this first meeting of 21.9.2006, the Plaintiff will 16
submit his proposal for the outsourcing operations to Bank Rakyat and 17
the Second Defendant will submit his proposal for systems to Bank 18
Rakyat? 19
20
RAZAK These are come from the meeting. Are you referring to that/ 21
22
SST Sorry. 23
24
RAZAK Come back the question. 25
26
SST Do you agree that in this first meeting of 21.9.2006, the Plaintiff will 27
submit his proposal for the outsourcing operations to Bank Rakyat and 28
the Second Defendant will submit his proposal for systems to Bank 29
Rakyat? 30
31
RAZAK I can’t recall it. 32
33
SST Can’t recall. Do you agree that then, there was a second meeting on 34
1.10.2006, between En. Abdul Rahim bin Abdul Razak, you, Mr. 35
Udhaya and Dr. Narayanan at Concorde Hotel, Shah Alam to discuss 36
further the Bank Rakyat project? 37
www.scribe.com.my 60
RAZAK Which one are you referring to? 1
2
SST I am asking question on the representations issues. 3
4
RAZAK On what date? 5
6
SST I am not referring to a specific Answer, Question in your Witness 7
Statement. I am trying not to do that. I am trying to. Ok, Yang Arif’s 8
point on this, just following on the issues. So, if you can just listen to 9
the question again. 10
11
RAZAK Can you slow down. 12
13
SST I will break up the question. Do you agree that there was a second 14
meeting on 1.10.2006 between En. Abdul Rahim bin Abdul Razak, 15
you, Mr. Udhaya and Dr. Narayanan at Concorde Hotel, Shah Alam? 16
17
RAZAK I can’t recall that. 18
19
SST Can recall. Never mind. Maybe the next question will jolt your memory. 20
Do you agree that this second meeting was also to discuss the Bank 21
Rakyat project? 22
23
RAZAK I can’t recall. 24
25
SST Can’t recall. Now, do you agree that this venue Concorde Hotel, Shah 26
Alam, was chosen because it was nearer to En. Abdul Rahim bin 27
Abdul Razak’s home? 28
29
RAZAK No idea. 30
31
SST No idea. Do you know that En. Abdul Rahim bin Abdul Razak stays in 32
Shah Alam? 33
34
RAZAK Yes. 35
36
www.scribe.com.my 61
SST Do you agree that during this second meeting, 1.10.2006, one of the 1
items discussed was to change the Plaintiff’s operations proposal from 2
outsourcing to in sourcing because the operations was to post the 3
base in Bank Rakyat’s premises. 4
5
RAZAK Could you slow down a bit the question? 6
7
SST Sure. Do you agree that during this 1.10.2006 meeting, one of the 8
items discussed was to change the Plaintiff’s operations proposal from 9
outsourcing to in sourcing because the operations was going to be 10
based in Bank Rakyat’s premises? 11
12
RAZAK I can’t recall it. 13
14
SST Can’t recall. May I refer you to Bundle-B(1), pages 14 – 51? 15
16
RAZAK B(1)? 17
18
SST B(1), pages 14 – 51. Are you there? 19
20
RAZAK Yes. 14 -? 21
22
SST 14 – 51. 23
24
RAZAK Ok. 25
26
SST Now, we have gone through thse emails earlier on. You have already 27
confirmed receiving this email. Now, can you just look at. Sorry. The 28
day of this email is 3.10.2006 which is two days after the 1.10.2006 29
meeting. Now, can you just look at page 15? Turn to the next page. 30
31
RAZAK Ok. 32
33
SST Now, at the top of the page, can you see credit card in sourcing plan? 34
35
RAZAK Yes. It is what is stated here. 36
37
www.scribe.com.my 62
SST Yes, correct. It is stated there. Now, I put it to you that this title credit 1
card in sourcing plan is consistent with the change of the outsourcing 2
of the proposed outsourcing operation to in sourcing as discussed on 3
1.10.2006? You want me to repeat the question? 4
5
RAZAK Yes. 6
7
SST Do you agree that this title, credit card in sourcing plan is consistent 8
with the change of the outsourcing of the proposed outsourcing 9
operation to in sourcing as discussed on 1.10.2006? 10
11
RAZAK You are referring to in sourcing and outsourcing. Correct? 12
13
SST I am just saying. 14
15
RAZAK Why don’t you put it under? 16
17
SST I put it to you that this title, credit card in sourcing plan is consistent 18
with the change of an outsourcing operations to in sourcing as 19
discussed on 1.10.2006. Do you agree? 20
21
RAZAK Disagree. 22
23
SST Disagree. Now do you agree that subsequently there to, subsequent 24
to the 1.10.2006 meeting, there were further meetings between 25
5.10.2006 and 7.11.2006 involving you, En. Abdul Rahim bin Abdul 26
Razak, Mr. Udhaya and Dr. Narayanan with regards to the Bank 27
Rakyat project? You want me to repeat the question? 28
29
RAZAK Yes. 30
31
SST Do you agree that subsequent to the 1.10.2006 meeting, there were 32
further meetings between 5.10.2006 and 7.10.2006 involving you, En. 33
Abdul Rahim bin Abdul Razak, Mr. Udhaya and Dr. Narayanan with 34
regards to the Bank Rakyat project? 35
36
37
www.scribe.com.my 63
RAZAK I can’t recall it. 1
2
SST Can’t recall. Do you agree that between this period 5.10.2006 and 3
7.11.2006, the separate scenario was changed to a single proposal to 4
Bank Rakyat to be submitted by the Second Defendant and that a new 5
company be set up to run the operations? Want me to repeat the 6
question? 7
8
[00:45:00] 9
10
RAZAK Yes. 11
12
SST Do you agree that between this period 5.10.2006 and 7.11.2006, the 13
separate scenario was changed to a single proposal to Bank Rakyat 14
to be submitted by the Second Defendant and that a new company be 15
set up to run the operations? 16
17
RAZAK Disagree. 18
19
SST Disagree. Now, may I refer you to Bundle-B(1) again? Pages 268 – 20
313. Now, we have gone through this email earlier, you have already 21
confirmed receipt of this email. May I ask you to look at page 268, you 22
see there, item 3, power point presentation from ICC to SL, 23
Silverlake? 24
25
RAZAK Yes. 26
27
SST Do you that. 28
29
RAZAK Yes. 30
31
SST You see that. Ok. Now, can you look at the attachment at pages 286 – 32
313? 33
34
RAZAK 286 35
36
37
www.scribe.com.my 64
SST Until 313. 1
2
RAZAK Until 313? 3
4
SST Yes. Now, before that, can you confirm that there was a presentation 5
by Udhaya and Dr. Narayanan to the Senior Management of the 6
Second Defendant on 5.12.2006? 7
8
RAZAK What date is it? 9
10
SST 5.12.2006. Can you confirm that there was this presentation by 11
Udhaya and Dr. Narayanan to the Senior Management of the Second 12
Defendant? 13
14
RAZAK 5 December? 15
16
SST Yes. 17
18
RAZAK I can’t recall that. 19
20
SST You can’t recall. Never mind. Let’s look at page 287. 21
22
RAZAK 287? Ok. 23
24
SST Now, look at the first two bullet points. Let me just read. Background 25
information, Silverlake and Logical Operations (00:48:49 inaudible) 26
submitted proposal to Bank Rakyat separately. Based on bank’s 27
feedbank, a joint proposal was submitted with Silverlake as 28
technology service provider while a new Co is to be set up to provide 29
the operations support services. Do you see that? 30
31
RAZAK Ok. 32
33
SST Right. Now, since you did receive this email? 34
35
RAZAK Yes. 36
37
www.scribe.com.my 65
SST From Mr. Udhaya and you have. You know about the attachments to 1
the email, did you write or wrote. Did you email or wrote to Udhaya 2
challenging his version of this background information which I have 3
just read? 4
5
RAZAK No. 6
7
SST No. 8
9
RAZAK Because this is another proposal to Silverlake. 10
11
SST Enough, En. Razak, please. Let’s move on to the next issue. Now, 12
let’s go back to Bundle-A. I am going to refer you to the Second 13
Defendant’s defence, the English version. Please look at page 137, 14
paragraph 7. The pagination is at the top right. 15
16
RAZAK 137? 17
18
SST 137, paragraph 7. 19
20
RAZAK Page 137? 21
22
SST Page 137, the numbering is on the top right hand side. 23
24
RAZAK Top right. 25
26
SST You look at paragraph 7. Have read first then I will take you through 27
the other paragraphs. 28
29
RAZAK Point No. 7 or what? 30
31
SST 7. Do you see the number 7 there? 32
33
RAZAK Yes. 34
35
SST Can you have read. Or you want me to read it to you? 36
37
www.scribe.com.my 66
RAZAK Yes, I will read first. Ok. 1
2
SST Next, page 138, paragraph 10.2. Ok. Have a read as well. 3
4
RAZAK Ok. 5
6
SST Next, same page, paragraph 10.7. 7
8
RAZAK Ok. 9
10
SST Next page 146, paragraph 12.10. Have you read it? 11
12
RAZAK Ok. 13
14
SST Now in the gist, what the Second Defendant is trying to say in all 15
these paragraphs is that the Second Defendant was already tendering 16
or submitting their proposal for their Bank Rakyat project. Is that 17
correct? 18
19
RAZAK Yes. It is 1.9.2006. 20
21
SST Where was this proposal in the Bundles? 22
23
RAZAK The proposal is between Silverlake and the Bank. It is a confidential 24
by nature. 25
26
SST Confidential in nature. 27
28
RAZAK Yes, all our proposal submitted to the company. 29
30
SST Hang on. En. Razak, you are saying is confidential in nature, right? 31
32
RAZAK Yes. 33
34
SST In other words, the 1.9.2006 proposal is not in the Bundles? Is that 35
correct? 36
37
www.scribe.com.my 67
RAZAK Yes. 1
2
SST Yes. Now, I am going to put it to you. I know you have said that you 3
raised the issue on confidentiality. I am going to put it to you that the 4
only reason the Second Defendant is not producing the proposal, the 5
1.9.2006 proposal here in this honourable Court, is because those 6
documents will show that the Second Defendant’s original proposal to 7
Bank Rakyat only offered IT systems. 8
9
RAZAK Come again. Can you slow down a bit the question? 10
11
SST Sure. Do you agree that the only reason the Second Defendant is not 12
producing the 1.9.2006 proposal to Bank Rakyat here to this 13
honourable Court, is because that proposal will show that the Second 14
Defendant’s proposal to Bank Rakyat only offered IT systems. 15
16
RAZAK Disagree. 17
18
SST Disagree. Now do you agree that as at this point in time, the Second 19
Defendant knew that MBF’s proposal to Bank Rakyat had included 20
both IT systems and operations support? 21
22
RAZAK Come back again. 23
24
SST Do you agree that as at this point in time, the Second Defendant knew 25
that MBF’s proposal to Bank Rakyat had both IT systems and 26
operations support? 27
28
RAZAK You are referring the time, which time is it you are referring? 29
30
SST September 2006. 31
32
RAZAK Ok. Can you come back. 33
34
SST Do you agree that as at this point in time, the Second Defendant 35
knew that MBF’s proposal to Bank Rakyat had both IT systems and 36
operations support? 37
www.scribe.com.my 68
RAZAK No idea. 1
2
SST No idea. I put it to you that the Second Defendant was aware that in 3
order to secure the Bank Rakyat project, the Second Defendant had to 4
out bid MBF. 5
6
RAZAK Come back again? 7
8
SST I put it to you that the Second Defendant was aware that in order for it 9
to secure the Bank Rakyat project, the Second Defendant had to out 10
bid MBF. 11
12
RAZAK Disagree. 13
14
SST You disagree? 15
16
RAZAK No. Come back to the question? 17
18
SST Never mind, I accept that as your answer. 19
20
RAZAK No. Come back to the question. 21
22
SST Ok. To be fair to you. I put it to you that the Second Defendant was 23
aware that in order to secure the Bank Rakyat project, the Second 24
Defendant had to out bid MBF. 25
26
RAZAK Meaning that we have to. 27
28
SST You know the meaning of out bid? 29
30
HLC I think Mr. Tieh, can you just slow down. I think you are just pushing 31
and run like a train. I don’t think, that is (00:57:34 inaudible) time. No, 32
that’s why the witness could not understand and then he will just jump 33
and jump. So. 34
35
YA No. His defence Mr. Tieh. Nothing wrong with the question. 36
37
www.scribe.com.my 69
HLC No. The question is nothing wrong. It is fast. The guy cannot follow. 1
That’s all. That’s why I say don’t run like a train. Ok. 2
3
SST I will slow down my speed. 4
5
HLC Yes. That’s all I am asking for. I am not questioning about the 6
question. The question is fine. No problem with that. It is just the 7
speed. I think, that is why he is struggling to follow. 8
9
RAZAK That is why I keep asking, Yang Arif, I keep asking slow down little bit 10
because. 11
12
SST Sure. I will slow down. 13
14
RAZAK You speak very fast. I can’t catch the words. 15
16
SST I will slow down. Let me rephrase. I put it to you that the Second 17
Defendant was aware that in order to secure the Bank Rakyat project, 18
the Second Defendant had to out bid MBF. 19
20
RAZAK Can, if you don’t mind translate in Bahasa? 21
22
SST Saya cadangkan kepada kamu bahawa Defendan Kedua sedar 23
bahawa untuk Defendan Kedua memperolehi project Bank Rakyat 24
tersebut, Defendan Kedua perlu out out bid, out bid, I can’t have the 25
Bahasa word with me MBF. 26
27
RAZAK What is out bid? Any idea? 28
29
SST In other words, you need to have a better proposal than MBF, out bid, 30
you are (00:59:05 inaudible) person. 31
32
RAZAK Yang Arif, I am confusing about the out bid. 33
34
YA (00:59:10 inaudible). 35
36
SST Melebih, yes or atau lebih baik 37
www.scribe.com.my 70
YA Lebih baik daripada. 1
2
SST Daripada MBF? 3
4
RAZAK But, Yang Arif, I answer that one, I have no idea what is MBF proposal 5
and how for me that Silverlake have to out bit, ok, melebihi MBF? I 6
have no idea because I have no idea. How can I answer that? 7
8
SST I will accept that. He has no idea. 9
10
YA (00:59:42 inaudible). 11
12
SST He has no idea. Do you agree that in view of this, the Second 13
Defendant had no hesitation in forming a strategic alliance with the 14
Plaintiff in order to secure the Bank Rakyat project? Agree or 15
disagree? 16
17
[01:00:00] 18
19
RAZAK Come back the question. 20
21
SST Do you agree that in view of this, the Second Defendant had no 22
hesitation in forming a strategic alliance with the Plaintiff in order to 23
secure the Bank Rakyat project? 24
25
RAZAK Can’t get the question, Yang Arif. 26
27
SST Do you agree that in view of this, the Second Defendant had no 28
hesitation in forming a strategic alliance with the Plaintiff in order to 29
secure the Bank Rakyat project? Agree or disagree? 30
31
HLC Sorry, when you say in forming, it is in forming or informing a word? 32
33
YA Forming, 34
35
HLC In forming. 36
37
www.scribe.com.my 71
SST In forming. 1
2
HLC I see.Ok. 3
4
RAZAK Meaning in other words, I have to inform the Plaintiff. Correct? 5
6
SST Ok. Now, I see your point. Now, I see your problem. Ok. I will pose it in 7
Bahasa Melayu. 8
9
RAZAK Ok. I appreaciate. 10
11
SST Adakah anda bersetuju bahawa berdasarkan keadaan ini, Defendan 12
kedua tidak mempunyai hesitation the BM word skip it lah, untuk 13
menjaring suatu strategic alliance, satu pakatan strategic dengan 14
Plaintif untuk memperolehi projek Bank Rakyat? You understand? 15
16
RAZAK You mention that. Tadi you cakap pasal. Can you repeat back the 17
question? Just one a few words that are confusing. 18
19
SST Ok. Adakah anda bersetuju bahawa berdasarkan keadaan in. 20
21
RAZAK No. What is keadaan ini? 22
23
SST Keadaan ini, I am talking about MBF. 24
25
RAZAK Ok. 26
27
SST Defendan kedua tidak mempunyai hesitation untuk menjaling suatu 28
pakatan strategic dengan Plaintif untuk memperolehi projek Bank 29
Rakyat ini? 30
31
RAZAK I disagree. 32
33
SST Disagree. Now, may I refer you to Bundle-B(1), pages 345 to 360. Are 34
you there? 35
36
37
www.scribe.com.my 72
RAZAK Yes. 1
2
SST You have already confirmed (01:03:12 inaudible). 3
4
RAZAK Yes. 5
6
SST Just look at pages 350, 351, 352, 354, 355, 356. Now, this basically 7
an evaluation or comparison between MBF and the Second 8
Defendant’s proposal. Now, my question is do you agree that this 9
comparison proposal or evaluation proposal at pages 346 – 358 was 10
prepared by the Plaintiff? 11
12
RAZAK Based on the email, yes what I received. 13
14
SST Did you or the Second Defendant email Udhaya disputing this 15
comparison which he did? 16
17
RAZAK To my knowledge, I did not send any email. 18
19
SST I put it to you that this evaluation or comparison proposal was 20
prepared by the Plaintiff in view of the strategic alliance which was 21
already formed by the Second Defendant and the Plaintiff. 22
23
RAZAK Yang Arif, I mentioned earlier that I am aware what is the proposal by 24
MBF. And how for me to agree or disagree on this? I don’t know. 25
26
SST Why don’t you just say you don’t know. 27
28
RAZAK I don’t know. I have no idea. 29
30
SST Fantastic. I accept that you don’t know. Ok. I am moving on to another 31
issue. Now, may I refer you to Bundle-B(10)? Two documents, the first 32
document at pages 3879 – 3888. 33
34
RAZAK You are referring 3879? 35
36
37
www.scribe.com.my 73
SST 3879 – 3888. And the second document, this is at pages 3889 – 3898. 1
2
RAZAK Come back again. The first one is 3879. 3
4
SST Yes. 5
6
RAZAK until? 7
8
SST 3879 – 3888. 9
10
RAZAK Ok. 11
12
SST The second document 3889 – 3898. 13
14
RAZAK Yes. 15
16
SST Now, do you agree that both are contracts between the Plaintiff and 17
the Second Defendant dated 27.10.2007 and this is with regards to 18
the Bank Islam card centre. 19
20
RAZAK This is sign off proposal. Not contract. 21
22
SST En. Razak. 23
24
RAZAK Contract, there is a legal term and condition. 25
26
SST I am not here to dispute. 27
28
RAZAK Ok. 29
30
SST I am just asking you. 31
32
RAZAK Acceptance of their proposal, yes. 33
34
SST Did the Second Defendant pay for the Plaintiff for these two? 35
36
37
www.scribe.com.my 74
RAZAK Yes. We did. 1
2
SST Yes. Paid. And you signed for the Second Defendant for both? 3
4
RAZAK Yes for both. 5
6
SST And jus to clarify for the first document, since you don’t like the word 7
contract. 8
9
RAZAK It is a proposal. 10
11
SST The payment was RM310,000. 12
13
RAZAK Yes. 14
15
SST and the second document, the payment of RM165,000. 16
17
RAZAK Yes. 18
19
SST What was the duration for the first document? 20
21
RAZAK I have no idea the time line but it is towards the. 22
23
SST Was it three months? 24
25
RAZAK It is somewhere stated there. 26
27
SST Page 3885. Starting September ending December. It is about three 28
months, right? 3885. 29
30
RAZAK Yes. But the timeline is not there. Yes. 31
32
SST Yes, about on three months. 33
34
RAZAK Yes, based on the project schedule. 35
36
www.scribe.com.my 75
SST Yes. And for the second document, the timeline, how long is this? Is it 1
also three months? 2
3
RAZAK It says three months but there is no indicative date. 4
5
SST Indicative date. 6
7
RAZAK It is not. 8
9
SST Ok. If you look at 3895, you have duration at the very top W1 – W12. 10
This will be week 1 to week 12. Right En. Razak? 11
12
RAZAK Which one? 13
14
SST 3895. 15
16
RAZAK 3895. No specific date. 17
18
SST Yes, there is W1 – W7 as you can see in the project schedule. W 19
should be referring to week. Right. You signed this document. 20
21
RAZAK Yes, I assume it is week. Yes. 22
23
SST Week, so 12 weeks should be three months. Right? 24
25
RAZAK Think so because mentioned here on 3896 is end of month three. 26
27
SST Now, I am moving on to a new issue. May I refer you to. 28
29
RAZAK Yang Arif, can we have a break, lunch break? 30
31
YA (01:13:52 inaudible.) 32
33
34
AKHIR 35
36
MASA : 12.49PM 37
www.scribe.com.my 76
TARIKH : 29.12.2014 1
MASA : 2:15 PM 2
3
MULA 4
5
ABR My Lady, I would like to ask for me to leave court earlier at 4:00 today 6
because I’ve got mediation at Bar Council at 5:30. Is it okay, Yang 7
Arif? My pupil will continue to take notes. Thanks. 8
9
SST Dengan izin. We’re moving on to a new issue. 10
11
RAZAK Okay. 12
13
SST Now may I refer you to Bundle-A, please turn to page 152 paragraph 14
17.5. This is part of the 2nd Defendants Defence. Would you like to 15
read first? 16
17
RAZAK Okay. 18
19
SST We’re going on the financials. Have you finished reading? 20
21
RAZAK Wait. Okay. 22
23
SST Next can you turn to page 165, paragraph 48.6? 24
25
RAZAK The same Bundle. 26
27
SST Same Bundle, it’s part of your, it’s part of the 2nd Defendants Defence. 28
29
RAZAK What page is it? 30
31
SST 165 the pagination on the top right hand corner. Paragraph 48.6. 32
33
RAZAK 16? 34
35
www.scribe.com.my 77
SST 165, paragraph 48.6. These two paragraphs are part the 2nd 1
Defendants Defence, the English version. 2
3
RAZAK Okay. 4
5
SST Alright. Now do you agree that as far as the 2nd Defendants position 6
with regards to financials or financials projections prepared by the 7
Plaintiff, the 2nd Defendants position is that these financials or financial 8
positions were unrealistic, unreliable and untrustworthy? 9
10
RAZAK Can you repeat? 11
12
SST Okay. Do you agree that it is the 2nd Defendants position that the 13
Plaintiffs financials or financial projections prepared by the Plaintiff 14
were unrealistic, unreliable and untrustworthy? Is that your, is that the 15
2nd Defendants position? 16
17
RAZAK Yes based on the on our response of 48.6. 18
19
YA (00:05:06 inaudible). 20
21
RAZAK Yes? 22
23
YA (00:05:07 inaudible). 24
25
RAZAK No, in our response in 48.6,okay, Defendant believe that projection 26
put up by Plaintiff OICO as they are unrealistic, unreliable and 27
untrustworthy. 28
29
ABR Yes, his answer is yes. 30
31
YA The answer is yes. 32
33
SST Yes, he said yes. That is their position, the 2nd Defendants position. 34
Now may I refer you to your answer question 19, page 7. Are you 35
there? Your answer question 19. 36
37
www.scribe.com.my 78
RAZAK Yes. 1
2
SST Page 7. 3
4
RAZAK Okay what’s the question? 5
6
SST Now you’ve referred to Bundle-B1, pages 93 to 111. Can you turn to 7
Bundle-B1, pages 93 to 111? 8
9
RAZAK 111 is it? 10
11
SST 111. 93 to 111. 12
13
RAZAK Okay. 14
15
SST Now my question is are the financials which you were referring to at 16
pages 94 to 111? 17
18
RAZAK Okay, 94 to. 19
20
SST Are those the financials which you were referring to? 21
22
RAZAK Yes, base on my statement. 23
24
SST Yes. Next can you look at your answer question 20? Your answer 25
question 20. 26
27
RAZAK Okay. 28
29
SST You’ve made reference to Bundle-B1, pages 112 to 131. Now can you 30
confirm that the financials which you were referring to are at pages 31
114 to 131? 32
33
RAZAK Yes. 34
35
36
www.scribe.com.my 79
SST Yes. Now please go to your answer question 22 at page 8. Now 1
you’ve referred to three sets of documents. First one is 134 to 155, the 2
second is 156 to 179 and the third is 180 to 238. Now my question is 3
can you confirm that the financials which you were referring to are at 4
pages, the first set is 136 to 155? 5
6
RAZAK Okay. 7
8
SST Yes or no? 9
10
RAZAK Yes. 11
12
SST Second set is 158 to 179. 13
14
RAZAK Yes. 15
16
SST Yes. And the next one is 185 to 200. 17
18
RAZAK Okay. 19
20
SST Yes, right. 21
22
RAZAK Yes. 23
24
SST Okay next your answer question 24, page 9. 25
26
RAZAK Question 24. 27
28
SST Question 24. You referred to pages, sorry, in B1 pages 268 to 313. 29
You referred to B1, pages 268 to 313. 30
31
RAZAK 268. 32
33
SST To 313, Bundle-B1. That’s what you refer to in your witness statement. 34
Now my question is can you confirm that the financial proposal which 35
you referring to is at pages 269 to 285? 36
37
www.scribe.com.my 80
RAZAK Yes. 1
2
SST Yes. Next on the same answer question 24, you referred to four sets 3
of documents, all in B1. The first one is pages 314 to 316, the second 4
is 317 to 343, the third is 344 and the next one is 345 to 360. 5
6
RAZAK 345 to 360 is it? 7
8
SST Right. This one you’ve referred to in your answer question 24. 9
10
RAZAK Okay. 11
12
SST Now my question again. Can you confirm that the financials which you 13
were referring to are at Bundle-B1? 14
15
RAZAK Yes. 16
17
SST First one pages 315 to 316. 18
19
RAZAK The e-mails are sequence with the financial, correct. 20
21
SST I’m sorry. 22
23
[00:15:00] 24
25
RAZAK The e-mails with the subsequent, as attachment of the e-mail, correct. 26
27
SST Yes, correct. This is what you referred to in your answer question 24. 28
29
RAZAK But if you refer 314 to 316 but the attachment is 315. 30
31
SST 315, 316 yes. 32
33
RAZAK Yes, okay. 34
35
SST Did you refer to this as a financial? 36
37
www.scribe.com.my 81
RAZAK Yes. The first, the front page is e-mail and subsequent is attachment. 1
2
SST Yes, I’m focusing on 315 to 316. 3
4
RAZAK Okay. 5
6
SST I just want to clarify whether you’re referring to this as financials or not. 7
8
RAZAK Because my statement is 314. 9
10
SST Yes, you started with 314. I referred you to all these documents in 11
(00:15:35 inaudible) focusing on trying to identify the financials which 12
you’re referring to. 13
14
RAZAK Okay. 15
16
SST Alright. So can you just confirm for the e-mail at 314 to 316 the 17
financials are at 315 to 316? 18
19
RAZAK Yes. 20
21
SST Yes. And the next one, the financials for the e-mail at 317 to 343. This 22
will be at 318 to 343. Would that be correct? 23
24
RAZAK Yes. 25
26
SST And for the e-mail at pages 345 to 360 you referred to the financials at 27
359 and 360. 28
29
RAZAK 3? 30
31
SST 59 and 360. 32
33
RAZAK Yes. 34
35
36
www.scribe.com.my 82
SST Then let’s move on to your answer question 29, page 11. Now you 1
referred to e-mails at, sorry you referred to e-mails in Bundle-B2, 2
pages 492 to 513. Can you confirm that the financials are at pages 3
493 to 513? Sorry let me repeat that, 493 to 506, my mistake, to 506. 4
Are the financials at 493 to 506, my apologies? 5
6
RAZAK Okay, yes. 7
8
SST Then the other e-mail which you referred to at pages 515 to 527. Now 9
can you confirm that the financials which you’re referring to are at 10
pages 516 to 527? 11
12
RAZAK Yes. 13
14
SST Yes. Let’s move on to your answer question 30, same page 11. Now 15
you’ve referred to pages 542 to 588. 16
17
RAZAK 588. 554 or 558.588. 18
19
SST This is what you put. The subsequent e-mails at pages 542 to 588. 20
Unless there’s a mistake. 21
22
RAZAK Yes. 23
24
SST Yes. 25
26
RAZAK It’s a final projection. 27
28
SST So let’s confirm. So the financials are at pages 543 to 554. 29
30
RAZAK Yes, financial projection. 31
32
SST And then the next one 557 to 571. 33
34
RAZAK Yes, again financial projection from the Plaintiff. 35
36
www.scribe.com.my 83
SST Next just wondering are you prefix (00:23:48). Can you refer to pages 1
580 to 588? 2
3
RAZAK 588. 4
5
SST 580 to 588. Are you there? Because your e-mail, your reference goes 6
from 542 to 588 so for 580 to 588, are you referring to this as. Are you 7
treating this as financials as well? 8
9
RAZAK Sensitivity analysis is part of financials. 10
11
SST In other words yes you’re treating this as financials. 12
13
RAZAK The sensitivity analysis, yes. 14
15
SST Let’s move on. Answer question 31. You’ve referred to Bundle-B2 16
pages 604 to 630. Now can you confirm that the financials which 17
you’re referring to are at pages 605 to 630? 18
19
RAZAK Yes another financial projection from the Plaintiff. 20
21
SST Next answer question 32. You’ve referred to two e-mails. The first one 22
pages 631 to 657. Now for this e-mail can you confirm that you were 23
referring to 632 to 657 as the financials? 24
25
RAZAK Yes, modification by the Plaintiff on the financial projection. 26
27
SST Then the next e-mail you referred to 658 to 684. Now can you confirm 28
that you were referring to 659 to 684 as the financials? 29
30
RAZAK Yes, again it’s a subsequent modification as I mentioned earlier. 31
32
SST Then let’s move on to your answer question 64. 64 at page 22. Now 33
you referred to Bundle-B5, pages 1715 to 1731. Bundle-B5. Now can 34
you confirm that you were referring to 1716 to 1731 as the financials? 35
36
37
www.scribe.com.my 84
RAZAK 171? 1
2
SST 1716 to 1731 were you treating this as financials? 3
4
RAZAK Question 64, correct. 5
6
SST Question 64, page 22 of your witness statement. 7
8
[00:30:00] 9
10
RAZAK Your question. 11
12
SST Can you confirm that the you were treating 1716 to 1731 as 13
financials? 14
15
RAZAK Yes, this time is ICSO is included (00:30:47 inaudible). 16
17
SST Now can now look at your answer question, you can write this down. 18