LAPORAN PROSIDING MESYUARAT …...JHK 9.6.2010 Laporan Prosiding JK Hak dan Kebebasan / Bil. 3 /...

Bil. 3 Rabu 9 Jun 2010

MALAYSIA

LAPORAN PROSIDING MESYUARAT JAWATANKUASA

HAK DAN KEBEBASAN

PARLIMEN KEDUABELAS PENGGAL KETIGA

JHK 9.6.2010

Laporan Prosiding JK Hak dan Kebebasan / Bil. 3 / 2010

i

MESYUARAT JAWATANKUASA HAK DAN KEBEBASAN DI BILIK MESYUARAT JAWATANKUASA 1,

PARLIMEN MALAYSIA

Rabu, 9 Jun 2010

AHLI-AHLI JAWATANKUASA Hadir: YB. Tan Sri Datuk Seri Panglima Pandikar Amin Haji Mulia - Pengerusi

[Yang di-Pertua Dewan Rakyat] YB. Datuk Ronald Kiandee [Beluran] YB. Dato’ Razali bin Haji Ibrahim [Muar] YB. Tan Sri Datuk Seri Dr. Fong Chan Onn [Alor Gajah] YB. Puan Hajah Nancy Shukri [Batang Sadong] YB. Tuan Karpal Singh [Bukit Gelugor] YB. Tuan R. Sivarasa [Subang] YBhg. Datuk Roosme binti Hamzah [Setiausaha Dewan Rakyat] - Setiausaha

URUS SETIA

Encik Ikmalrudin bin Ishak [Setiausaha Bahagian (Pengurusan Dewan)] Encik Amisyahrizan bin Amir Khan [Ketua Penolong Setiausaha (Pengurusan Dewan)] Encik Mohd. Ikram bin Seri @ Rahimi [Penolong Setiausaha Kanan

(Perundangan dan Prosiding)] Encik Wan Kamarul Ariffin bin Wan Ibrahim [Penolong Setiausaha

(Perundangan dan Prosiding)]

JHK 9.6.2010


1

LAPORAN PROSIDING

MESYUARAT JAWATANKUASA HAK DAN KEBEBASAN PARLIMEN KEDUA BELAS, PENGGAL KETIGA

Bilik Mesyuarat Jawatankuasa 1, Bangunan Parlimen, Kuala Lumpur

RABU, 9 Jun 2010

Mesyuarat dimulakan pada pukul 11.58 pagi

[Yang Berhormat Tan Sri Datuk Seri Panglima Pandikar Amin Haji Mulia mempengerusikan

Mesyuarat]

11.33 pg

[Mesyuarat Jawatankuasa belum dimulakan secara rasmi]

[Yang Berhormat Permatang Pauh dan peguam terus memasuki ke dalam Bilik

Jawatankuasa walaupun mesyuarat belum dimulakan]

Dato’ Seri Anwar Ibrahim [Permatang Pauh]: [Bercakap tanpa menggunakan

pembesar suara]

Tuan Pengerusi: The Jawatankuasa will decide first.

Dato’ Seri Anwar Ibrahim: No, no. But the... Why don’t we start and then let me explain

before...

Tuan Pengerusi: Yang Berhormat, kalau…, we will start first and then after that kalau

necessary to call Yang Berhormat, then I will call.

Dato’ Seri Anwar Ibrahim: No, no. Please ya. I mean…Tidak apa Yang Berhormat

Nancy. You just sit down, just hear me out, okay.

Puan Hajah Nancy Shukri [Batang Sadong]: I cannot….

Dato’ Seri Anwar Ibrahim: [Ketawa] I am sorry. Jawatankuasa hendak panggil orang

untuk meminta penjelasan terhadap pertuduhan terhadap saya. Saya tidak dengar, peguam tidak

ada, jadi bagaimana prosiding boleh dimulakan tanpa saya? Kemudian, keputusan ini bukan

inquiry biasa, hendak hukum saya. Jadi, saya tidak tahu apa tuduhannya, apa maklumatnya, apa

tambahannya kemudian. Oleh sebab itu, ikut prosedur biasa, due process, saya perlu dengar

atau dalam kes ini. Ini kerana semalam Tuan Pengerusi, sebelum saya tinggal sidang, beritahu

kata saya boleh diwakili peguam sebagai penasihat. Jadi, kalau saya atau peguam mesti ada.

That is why I think, let you begin with the Committee. Hear me out first. Jangan buat summarily

decision begitu dan deny me…

Tuan Pengerusi: Yang Berhormat, I understand apa Yang Berhormat punya pemikiran.

Committee ini bukan seperti mahkamah when you talked about due process. Prosedur ini Yang

JHK 9.6.2010


2

Berhormat, bukan saya yang buat. Prosedur ini is already been here long before I came in. Yang

Berhormat sedar dan tahu ini semua.

Yesterday, in order to respond to what you said just now, saya mempunyai pendirian

bahawa– saya seorang, mempunyai pendirian bahawa pada ketika itu, he will be allowed in the

council sitting next to you, advising you, conferring to you kalau ada legal matters tetapi, rupanya

decision itu decision saya sendiri kerana panel-panel yang lain mahu decision itu to be very clear

because the interpretation of ‘diwakili oleh peguam’ berbeza. Ada yang mengatakan ‘diwakili’

means all the way seperti di mahkamah, cross examine dan sedemikiannya.

Dalam Committee, yang setahu saya sejak Parlimen ini diwujudkan, tidak ada sebegitu.

Ini kerana apabila saya buat begitu, bagus lagi kita buat sebagai mahkamah biasa. So, terpaksa

apabila Yang Berhormat keluar, then they had to take vote. You see. Itu makanya, decision yang

saya punya pendapat pada mulanya must keep aside. When the Committee decided, I cannot do

anything. It is because tafsiran pun kepada peraturan mesyuarat berbeza kerana Peraturan

Mesyuarat 83(7A) yang disebut ini oleh wakil daripada APCO pun, dan daripada Yang Berhormat

ialah, konon itu sebagai hak mandatori tetapi, interpretasi Ahli-ahli Jawatankuasa yang lain

mengatakan bahawa kalau dibenarkan with leave of the Committee you see. Jadi, interpretasi

peguam-peguam lain seperti Yang Berhormat Subang, seperti Yang Berhormat Bukit Gelugor

berbeza. Meaning, representation ‘diwakili’, all the way can cross examine. That is where

terpaksa mereka buat Belah Bahagian.

Pada ketika itu saya sudah tidak terlibat. You see. Ini kerana saya tidak mengundi. Jadi

apabila itu berlaku, makanya permohonan Yang Berhormat yang surat kelmarin dihantar kepada

saya, saya ambil kira, terpaksa juga saya kemukakan kepada Ahli Jawatankuasa ini untuk

mereka pula deliberate. I got to hati-hati dalam soal ini. Sekarang pula saya yang harus hati-hati

dalam soal ini, because dalam Committee, yang decide committee, bukan seperti dalam Majlis,

yang decide saya. That is what happened.

So, surat yang dihantar kelmarin kepada saya, inilah juga nanti yang permulaan

mukadimah dalam mesyuarat nanti. What you requested, I have to forward to them, let them

decide. So, the way I see it, nanti runding juga balik, because of interpretasi. You appreciate if

you can collate my problem, because presiding here means although kuasa-kuasa saya tertentu

seperti juga dengan Speaker di sana tetapi, I cannot decide on my own yang saya kata begini.

No, it is the Committee that decides.

Dato ' Ambiga Sreenevasan [Peguam Yang Berhormat Permatang Pauh]: Tuan

Pengerusi, may I speak with the leave of the committee as council for the...

Tuan Pengerusi: Committee have not started. Belum Committee ini start mesyuarat pun.

You see we have not started because baru juga one Committee member came in, Yang

Berhormat Bukit Gelugor, belum ada pun. Belum pun kami start ini. We have not started yet.

JHK 9.6.2010


3

Dato ' Ambiga Sreenevasan: But, if I could just pre-empt, if I could just inform Tuan

Pengerusi and then...

Tuan Pengerusi: It is because if I allow you to say something, I will have to allow

everybody to say something. The decision that we took yesterday means already meaningless.

Dato ' Ambiga Sreenevasan: Tuan Pengerusi, if I may, if I may say something...

Tuan Pengerusi: You may not. You may not.

Dato ' Ambiga Sreenevasan: I am only asking...

Tuan Pengerusi: You may not! Please, you may not.

Dato’ Seri Anwar Ibrahim: All right. Wait Tuan Pengerusi...

Dato ' Ambiga Sreenevasan: [Berbisik kepada Dato’ Seri Anwar Ibrahim] We need to

submit on the issue of council.

Dato’ Seri Anwar Ibrahim: Ya. Pertama, secara formal dan rasmi, saya dimaklumkan

boleh diwakili peguam walaupun sebagai penasihat, dan mesyuarat minta saya keluar untuk

memutuskan bukan soal perwakilan peguam tetapi peranan peguam sama ada penasihat atau

boleh buat submission. Itu yang rasmi yang saya diberitahu sampai pagi ini. Saya tidak ada

komunikasi lain dari Jawatankuasa mengenai keputusan membatalkan keputusan awal. Saya

tidak diberitahu bahawa keputusan itu keputusan peribadi, yang saya keluar, keputusan itu

keputusan Jawatankuasa. Itu yang pertama.

Keduanya, kalau Tuan Pengerusi dan Jawatankuasa tidak bersedia menimbangkan soal

kehadiran, saya pohon leave untuk submit keperluan diwakili. Ini kerana kalau Tuan Pengerusi

ulang, ini Jawatankuasa biasa, inquiry - seperti Tuan Pengerusi juga tahu, ia ada penal sanction,

it is not a normal inquiry. Saya tidak ada objection APCO hendak bawa peguam tetapi, itu

keputusan Jawatankuasa dalam hal ini. Beri ruang kepada saya atau peguam leave untuk submit

on this particular case, on this issue sama ada perlu saya diwakili kerana ada isu-isu yang

melibatkan substantive legal position of law yang memerlukan penyertaan peguam.

Katalah dengar, buat keputusan, tidak apalah. Ini belum dengar, tidak bolehlah buat

keputusan. Kemudian, hendak terus - saya diberitahu mesyuarat, Yang Berhormat Dato’ Seri

Anwar Ibrahim tidak perlu hadir sehingga diberitahu kelak. Kemudian baca maklumat, Dato’ Seri

Mohamed Nazri bin Abdul Aziz, dan APCO boleh datang. Saya yang dituduh, yang hendak

dihukum saya. Kemudian, Jawatankuasa dengar dengan semua pemikiran dan arahan-arahan

tertentu, kemudian saya hendak ulas apa? Apa ulasan saya kalau dengar kenyataan itu palsu

atau fakta itu direka?

Tuan Pengerusi: Yang Berhormat. Now yang ini Yang Berhormat, I am just trying to

engage you, although we have not started officially. Okay. It is because of your presentation.

Now, I have made myself very clear. Mesyuarat ini pun belum bermula.

JHK 9.6.2010


4

Okey, dalam permulaan mesyuarat nanti, ada perkara-perkara yang perlu saya beritahu

kepada Jawatankuasa sebagai mukadimah termasuk mengambil kira kepada surat Yang

Berhormat yang ditujukan kepada saya kelmarin. Ini termasuk juga kepada apa yang disebut

awal-awal kelmarin yang juga - apabila Yang Berhormat sudah keluar, Jawatankuasa ini

mengambil keputusan. Meaning, saya punya input yang Yang Berhormat difahamkan kelmarin

juga sudah di revoked oleh Jawatankuasa. Itu juga semuanya diambil kira. Banyak lagi perkara-

perkara juga yang demikian dalam mesyuarat ini, termasuk permohonan daripada APCO yang

diwakili oleh peguam, itu juga akan dibincangkan.

Mengenai dengan Yang Berhormat, itu makanya saya tangguhkan mesyuarat berhubung

dengan Yang Berhormat kerana you punya nanti, Yang Berhormat akan dipanggil balik dengan

lain hal kerana ini bukan seperti perbicaraan di mahkamah di mana itu witnesses in sequences.

Yang Berhormat Subang, Yang Berhormat Bukit Gelugor, Yang Berhormat Batang Sadong, Yang

Berhormat Dato’ Razali bin Haji Ibrahim daripada Muar ini, semua ini peguam. I have explained

to them. Ini bukan mahkamah kerana this is only an extension of what is happening dalam

Mesyuarat Majlis. Ini kerana mungkin tiada masa sana untuk menganalisis.

Pengertian saya dalam prosedur Committee as far Parliament Malaysia is concern, is

this. Panel-panel inilah yang akan bertanya kepada saksi-saksi tertentu. Yang Berhormat sendiri

berhak untuk menjawab balik kepada panel-panel ini. That is the reason why these panel

represented by all diverse of interest, as far as political parties are concern. Okay. I made it clear

to them. When we sit here and hear all the relevant evidence daripada witnesses, at the back of

our heads we are parliamentarian. Here we are trying to investigate, supposed to be an offence

committed by another parliamentarian. We are not here for anything. Jikalau Yang Berhormat

umpamanya drag it, mesti ada juga cross examinations of witness; you got to be present during

the other saksi itu dipanggil. That is not the purpose of a Committee as far as I know it. Lebih baik

lagi nanti kalau ada perbahasan dalam Majlis sana juga, yang tidak pandai bercakap Bahasa

Malaysia itu biarlah diwakili oleh peguam. Kita ubah kita punya peraturan mesyuarat.

Now, for today yang kita panggil APCO ini dan kita panggil Yang Berhormat Menteri dari

Jabatan Perdana Menteri ialah the Committee would like to ask also yang pembentang usul

sama ada dia membentang usul apa sebetul dia bukti. Because, I got to tell them what I know

about the law on all these. Ada tiga prasyarat then panel-panel ini akan tanya nanti kepada saksi-

saksi yang lain, begitu juga dengan APCO.

After we got all the evidence from them, then we will call back Yang Berhormat pada

ketika Yang Berhormat pun boleh hadir dan semua Ahli Jawatankuasa boleh hadir. At the end of

the day, kalau kami fikir perlu juga lagi untuk memanggil saksi-saksi untuk membantu dalam

perkara ini, list of saksi pun daripada Yang Berhormat yang kemukakan nanti. Ini kerana yang

memanggil saksi pun dalam kita punya Jawatankuasa ini yang berhak cuma Committee.

JHK 9.6.2010


5

■1145

Apabila ahli-ahli Committee ini pun hendak memanggil saksi masing-masing, they got to

give notice. They got to submit to the Setiausaha. Then baru mereka panggil saksi-saksi siapa

yang mereka akan tanya mengenai dengan hal-hal relevan. Jadi saya telah terangkan pendirian

saya bahawa, I am not prepared to go away from the established procedure of Committee

meeting procedure as far as Parliament Malaysia is concern. Ini sudah 50 tahun ini Parlimen. I’m

not prepared for that. You see, saya punya opinion pun, they can be thrown away because pada

akhirnya, mereka boleh minta Belah Bahagian like yesterday, and the interpretation of

representation diverse yesterday. Satu pihak mengatakan representation means full

representation, it can cross examine. You can be present and the hearing when hearing that

witnesses. Itu interpretasi orang lain tetapi, interpretasi orang lain, no! You see. So at the end of

the day terpaksa mereka mengikut Peraturan Mesyuarat 84, ada Belah Bahagian, and I don’t like

Belah Bahagian because Belah Bahagian means, another words at the end of the day, terpaksa

kita juga tunjukkan bahawa inilah pendirian kita masing-masing. I don’t like that.

Dato' Seri Anwar Ibrahim: Saya ulangi. Saya tidak menyebut Jawatankuasa ini seperti

mahkamah tetapi, hendak anggap ini sebagai congressional hearing pun tidak tepat. Ini kerana

ada penal sanction. Ada orang yang dituduh dan didakwa, dan ada hukuman. Congressional

hearing is to get to establish matters of concern of facts to be adduced to demand explanation

from relevant parties. Saya ada sanction. Now, what is my defense? With due respect to

Committee Members, do you have the document that I have… [Menunjukkan dokumen yang

berkaitan] On APCO. Do you have the document what Ehud Barak said on 1Israel?

Tuan Pengerusi: We, we...

Dato' Seri Anwar Ibrahim: No, no, no. Let me finish Tuan Pengerusi, with due respect.

Kalau tidak, why can’t I hear what the APCO rep has to say…, if you say, don’t ask question, fair!

Don’t crosses examine, fair! But at least I am privy to what being said or to be alleged against me.

Itu sahaja yang saya minta. Tuan Pengerusi dok bangkit, right to cross examination. Itu semua

terserah kepada Jawatankuasa. Your wisdom to think you want to deny certain right to the

council or to allow me…

Tuan Pengerusi: Kalau, kalau...

Dato' Seri Anwar Ibrahim: Fair but, do not then deny me of this basic right. Just to know

what’s being said against me before you come out with the decision or whether you have made or

you have not, come out with the specific decision to reprimand or suspend...

Tuan Pengerusi: Yang Berhormat Permatang Pauh, I am not concern about some other

thing that have been said...

Dato' Seri Anwar Ibrahim: Sorry, about...

Tuan Pengerusi: About what has been said kepada cerita panjang lebar ini.

JHK 9.6.2010


6

Dato' Seri Anwar Ibrahim: Ya, ya.

Tuan Pengerusi: Saya telah beri penjelasan kepada Jawatankuasa. Kuasa

Jawatankuasa ialah semata-mata untuk menimbang Usul apa yang dibentangkan. Iaitu cuma

beberapa perkataan sahaja. We are focus on that. Manakala yang soal-soal lain, waktu Yang

Berhormat perjelaskan apa pendirian yang sebenar, yang lain, itu bukan Jawatankuasa punya hal

because apabila saya timbang, if I were to engage you on this, the whole issue is only centering

on that a few sentences or perkataan-perkataan.

Dato' Seri Anwar Ibrahim: These are related sentences.

Tuan Pengerusi: Yes...

Dato' Seri Anwar Ibrahim: Tuan Pengerusi has said that yesterday.

Tuan Pengerusi: You see they are related. You see...

Dato' Seri Anwar Ibrahim: But you are confining me not to say anything except the

three words...

Tuan Pengerusi: Because that is are...

Dato' Seri Anwar Ibrahim: Then there’s no need for inquiry.

Tuan Pengerusi: Because that is what is all about Yang Berhormat.

Dato' Seri Anwar Ibrahim: What is the need for an inquiry?

Tuan Pengerusi: What it’s all about? You see, yang surat-surat tadi yang you sebut itu,

dokumen mungkin dipanggil juga oleh this panel. You see, bermakna ada surat yang

membuktikan bahawa what you said yang, 1999 itu adalah 1Malaysia. Sekarang ini pula 1Israel,

1Malaysia, that will be called. I can assure you, this panel also will call. Selepas itu I would like to

remind you, bukan ini Jawatankuasa nanti yang menentukan what is your guilt.

Kita cuma buat nanti recommendation, penyata laporan kepada Majlis, untuk Majlis pula

lagi berbahas. Selepas itu Majlis yang menjatuhkan. Apabila kita mengambil kira semua perkara

yang sudah disebut di sini.

Dato' Seri Anwar Ibrahim: Terima kasih Tuan Pengerusi. Apa yang saya minta, yang

saya minta setelah Tuan Pengerusi bagi maklumat kepada saya, sampai sekarang secara rasmi

saya belum dimaklumkan keputusan itu telah dibatalkan okey. Kalau ini yang disebut sebagai the

new decision, that means the decision itu dipinda oleh atau dibatalkan oleh Jawatankuasa

semalam. Saya baru di maklum, dan saya hendak beritahu, kalau begitu bagi peluang kita submit

on this substantive issue.

Sama ada dalam kes di mana ada penal sanction, seorang yang dituduh berhak tahu dan

dengar apa yang dituduh terhadapnya. Ini sahaja yang saya minta yang fundamental point yang

kita hendak jelas dulu. Saya hendak formal application sekarang. Now we convene the meeting a

formal application because I have not been told officially.

JHK 9.6.2010


7

I were shock when I learn that you decided to continue with the proceeding in my

absence after telling me that I will be notified to be present at the next meeting and then to

assume that my lawyer will be able to advise me.

Tuan Pengerusi: Okay, can I kindly ask you Yang Berhormat to leave now so that

Committee can convene meeting officially.

Dato' Seri Anwar Ibrahim: Thank you.

Tuan Pengerusi: Because we already know what you have in mind.

Dato' Seri Anwar Ibrahim: But, but can I be told officially now what was the decision,

this never conveyed. Semalam officially I’m able to bring a council.

Tuan Pengerusi: Okey. Kalau...

Dato' Seri Anwar Ibrahim: The only issue of contention was whether the counsel – yang

dipertikaikan adalah sama ada peguam boleh menasihat, bukan menasihat..., boleh mengikut

serta ataupun soal balas. Kita tidak mahu gunakan cross examination because this is not normal

court of the law. Okay this is the enquiry. I leave it to your wisdom to decide the term to be use

whether submission dan sebagainya.

That was point number one. If that is what you are going to say, to convey to me then I

beg for leave to submit on this particular point. Ada penal sanction is grossly an manifestly unjust

for a person to be accused and to appear to the Committee with the possibility of a penal sanction

and a suspension without having recourse. Not only to defend effectively because he has no

access to the information…

Tuan Pengerusi: Okey.

Dato' Seri Anwar Ibrahim: Why is being alleged to the Minister?

Tuan Pengerusi: Okey.

Dato' Seri Anwar Ibrahim: I don’t know. What to be defended said by APCO, I don’t

know. You are saying give the full trust and confident to the Committee of Enquiry. I have no

question on that. I’m not questioning the integrity each Member. Yang saya tanya hanyalah,

mengapa saya tidak boleh tahu apa orang tuduh saya, “That Anwar is corrupt! Anwar is lying.” I

want to know what is said. Itu sahaja. And please, this must be recorded...

Tuan Pengerusi: I will convey to you secara official sekarang ini bahawa apabila Yang

Berhormat kelmarin, telah dilepaskan untuk boleh keluar, bebas, Jawatankuasa memutuskan

apabila berunding balik iaitu Yang Berhormat tidak..., was not given leave. Tidak dibenarkan oleh

Jawatankuasa untuk diwakili oleh peguam in any capacity. Bermakna peguam tidak juga boleh

duduk bersebelahan. That was decision of the Committee yesterday. So, ekoran daripada itu, the

next course of action Yang Berhormat mahu buat, it’s up to you. Sama ada mahu tulis balik

kepada Committee ini, mahu appeal that decision that is your...

JHK 9.6.2010


8

Dato' Seri Anwar Ibrahim: Okey, terima kasih. Jadi kalau itu jelas. Maknanya kalau itu

keputusannya maka kalau saya hendak perbaharui permohonan, dan pohon Jawatankuasa

menimbangkan semula dan membenarkan kami buat submission tentang perkara ini.

Perkara ini bagi saya sangat penting Tuan Pengerusi. Walaupun Tuan Pengerusi sebut

ini inquiry biasa seperti congressional hearing, saya ulangi, dia ada penal sanction. Oleh yang

demikian, beri ruang untuk saya dan peguam mengemukakan rayuan dan motion supaya dapat

dipertimbangkan oleh Jawatankuasa tentang perkara ini. Oleh kerana perkara ini belum didengar,

saya sekali lagi menegaskan tidak wajar dipanggil orang yang lain yang mengemukakan suatu,

membuat tuduhan atau yang hendak berikan keterangan seperti APCO tanpa kehadiran saya

ataupun peguam. Ini kerana ia tidak memberikan keadilan untuk saya dengar dan jawab, atau

tanya, atau minta penjelasan. Saya hanya hendak serah Tuan Pengerusi dan Jawatankuasa

summarize dan sieve through apa yang wajar, apa yang relevan atau tidak. Itu ‘pandangan’ saya.

Tuan Pengerusi: Ya terima kasih.

Dato' Seri Anwar Ibrahim: Permohonan, maaf!

Tuan Pengerusi: Thank you.

Dato' Seri Anwar Ibrahim: I take it as no decision is made now. You are leaving it to the

Committee...

Tuan Pengerusi: Ya, when we start, I go to convene the meeting secara official.

Dato' Seri Anwar Ibrahim: Minta maaf. When you convey to me, I presume the meeting

semula. How do you convey to me privately? You have to convey to me officially.

Tuan Pengerusi: That is the reason why Yang Berhormat, I allow you to sit there

together with two peguam on the left on the right. Otherwise I would not be kind enough to let you

to sit there.

Dato' Seri Anwar Ibrahim: Yes, you have been exceedingly kind. I just want to make

sure you...

Tuan Pengerusi: Thank you very much.

Dato' Seri Anwar Ibrahim: .. You must be exceedingly just in the...

Tuan Pengerusi: Thank you very much...

Dato' Seri Anwar Ibrahim: .. Two differences there.

Tuan Pengerusi: Either you sarcastic to me or not, I just take it as a compliment.

Dato' Seri Anwar Ibrahim: [Ketawa]

Tuan Pengerusi: Thank you.

Dato' Seri Anwar Ibrahim: Terima kasih Tuan Pengerusi.

Tuan Pengerusi: Terima kasih.

Dato' Seri Anwar Ibrahim: Terima kasih Jawatankuasa.

[YB Permatang Pauh dan peguam meninggalkan Bilik Mesyuarat]

JHK 9.6.2010


9

11.58 pg.

[Yang Berhormat Tan Sri Datuk Seri Utama Pandikar Amin Haji Mulia

mempengerusikan Mesyuarat]

[Sesi mesyuarat dimulakan]

Tuan Pengerusi: Okay, good afternoon. Can we start meeting? Assalamualaikum dan

salam sejahtera. Terlebih dahulu saya ingin mengucapkan terima kasih atas kehadiran Yang

Berhormat sekalian ke mesyuarat ketiga, Jawatankuasa Hak dan Kebebasan, Parlimen Kedua

Belas. Yang Berhormat sekalian, semalam iaitu hari Selasa, 8 Jun 2010 Jawatankuasa Hak dan

Kebebasan telah memanggil Ketua Pembangkang, Yang Berhormat Dato’ Seri Anwar Ibrahim,

Ahli bagi kawasan Permatang Pauh sebagai saksi untuk memberikan keterangan beliau.

Namun Jawatankuasa telah membuat keputusan untuk menangguhkan sesi untuk

mendapatkan keterangan lanjut daripada Yang Berhormat Permatang Pauh bagi membolehkan

Jawatankuasa berbincang dan memutuskan beberapa perkara yang telah dikemukakan oleh

beliau terutamanya:

(i) Permohonan membenarkan Ahli-ahli Dewan untuk mengikuti sesi

mesyuarat Jawatankuasa Hak dan Kebebasan sebagai pemerhati;

(ii) permohonan Yang Berhormat Permatang Pauh supaya dibenarkan

diwakili peguam.

Setelah perbincangan Jawatankuasa telah membuat keputusan secara undian belah

bahagi iaitu:

(i) Sesi mesyuarat Jawatankuasa Hak dan Kebebasan akan dijalankan

secara tertutup di mana Ahli-ahli Yang Berhormat yang lain tidak

dibenarkan hadir dalam mesyuarat sebagai pemerhati.

■1200

(ii) Jawatankuasa tidak bersetuju untuk membenarkan Yang Berhormat

Permatang Pauh diwakili oleh peguam semasa sesi mesyuarat

Jawatankuasa ini.

Ahli-ahli Yang Berhormat, saya juga telah menerima surat daripada Yang Berhormat

Permatang Pauh pada hari Selasa, 8 Jun 2010 yang telah memohon beberapa perkara untuk

ditimbangkan semula oleh Jawatankuasa iaitu:

(i) Membenarkan Yang Berhormat Permatang Pauh dan peguam hadir

mengikuti sesi mesyuarat Jawatankuasa melibatkan saksi-saksi lain;

(ii) membenarkan Yang Berhormat Permatang Pauh dan peguam

mempunyai akses kepada keterangan saksi-saksi dan hak untuk

menyoal balas keterangan saksi-saksi.

JHK 9.6.2010


10

Ahli-ahli Yang Berhormat sekalian, merujuk kepada keputusan Belah Bahagi yang telah

dijalankan semasa mesyuarat semalam, hari Selasa 8 Jun 2010, Jawatankuasa tidak bersetuju

supaya Yang Berhormat Permatang Pauh diwakili oleh peguam dalam mesyuarat Jawatankuasa

ini. Oleh itu, permohonan Yang Berhormat Permatang Pauh untuk hadir bersama peguam bagi

mengikuti mesyuarat Jawatankuasa yang melibatkan saksi-saksi lain tidaklah dapat

dipertimbangkan oleh Jawatankuasa ini. Yang Berhormat Permatang Pauh sebagai saksi juga

tidak boleh hadir semasa saksi-saksi lain memberikan keterangan kepada Jawatankuasa ini. Ini

ekoran daripada decision kita yesterday.

Untuk makluman Ahli Yang Berhormat, saya juga telah menerima surat daripada APCO

Worldwide bertarikh 8 Jun 2010 yang menamakan seorang pegawai daripada syarikat itu untuk

hadir bersama sebagai pemerhati. Seperti keputusan terdahulu, keputusan Belah Bahagi telah

dibuat pada mesyuarat semalam supaya mesyuarat Jawatankuasa dijalankan secara tertutup

dengan tidak membenarkan pemerhati daripada pihak Ahli-ahli Dewan mahupun pihak luar.

Selain daripada itu, pihak APCO Worldwide juga telah memohon supaya saksinya

dibenarkan untuk mengemukakan sworn affidavit kepada Jawatankuasa. Dalam hal ini saya

kemukakan kepada semua Ahli Jawatankuasa untuk membuat pertimbangan dan untuk

makluman Ahli-ahli Yang Berhormat, pada pagi ini Jawatankuasa telah memutuskan untuk

memanggil dua orang saksi untuk hadir mengikut susunan seperti berikut iaitu saksi pertama

ialah Yang Berhormat Dato’ Seri Mohamed Nazri bin Abdul Aziz, Menteri di Jabatan Perdana

Menteri dan selepas itu Mr. Brad Staples, Chief Executive Officer of APCO Worldwide Europe,

Middle East in Africa Region.

Ahli-ahli Yang Berhormat sekalian, tanpa melengahkan masa lagi kita teruskan

mesyuarat kita pada hari ini dengan agenda mesyuarat yang seterusnya iaitu memanggil saksi-

saksi saya sebutkan tadi.

Tuan R. Sivarasa [Subang]: Tuan Pengerusi, dengan izin.

Tuan Pengerusi: Silakan.

Tuan R. Sivarasa: Yang Berhormat Permatang Pauh telah mengemukakan melalui surat

itu permintaan untuk hadir juga. Saya hendak bertanya, isu yang diwakili oleh counsel adalah

berbeza dengan isu yang kedua itu iaitu kehadiran beliau sama ada sendiri atau diwakili

itu,counsel, it is separate issue. Isu yang diwakili oleh counsel memang sudah dibincangkan

semalam dan diputuskan melalui belah bahagian dan kita menerima keputusan tersebut sebab

pada masa itu, it is an absolute just no representation.

Soalan yang kedua yang dibincangkan semalam tidak dikemukakan iaitu bentuk

perwakilan itu kalau dibenarkan sama ada dihadkan pada hanya duduk di sana beri nasihat

ataupun dibenarkan buat hujah atau dibenarkan buat soalan melalui dengan izin Tuan Pengerusi

atau Jawatankuasa. Semua tidak dibincangkan.

JHK 9.6.2010


11

Hanya kita putuskan all or nothing, diwakili peguam atau tidak. That is one issue. We

settled that. Isu yang dibangkitkan oleh Yang Berhormat Permatang Pauh dan surat ini bawa isu

yang sangat penting juga. Isu yang berlainan which is as he has explained his presence here to

hear what other witnesses are saying in accusation of him.

Tuan Pengerusi has explain just now before we officially start the meeting that you are

following old practice and back the normal inquiries of Committee hearing, this Committee or

other Committee of this House. With respect this is a different kind of proceeding. This is not like

PAC hearing. I mean, we are familiar - some of you are familiar with that other Committee where

it is normal even in the other Parliament we will listen to a series of witnesses, ask certain

question if necessary, deliberate and write the report. That procedure is fine for that purpose but

that procedure is different from what we are dealing with.

I mean it is not suitable for what we are dealing here because here a Member of the

House, he is being accused of an offence of breaching privileges and which is visited by penal

sanction if this committee decide that offence has taken place. So, this is quite fundamental now

where he is asking now the next two witnesses are going to come and present the facts and

evidences of the allegations because of Tuan Pengerusi clarified in the Dewan, also Yang

Berhormat Padang Rengas clarified in the Dewan. This is an allegation. The usul is an allegation.

It is not a finding. Remember we have the debate Tuan Pengerusi clarified.

Tuan Pengerusi: Okay, that is very clear. So, what is your opinion on that?

Tuan R. Sivarasa: So, the issue now is this Committee is going to hear the facts and

evidences? Now, the person who knows the facts and evidences is also Yang Berhormat

Permatang Pauh but, he doesn’t hear what is being accused against him. This is really

fundamental. It is not like a court of law. It is just basic; it is basic principle natural justice.

If you do the disciplinary inquiry in say of misconduct in the employment, it is the same

thing. That accused person stands there, he listens to all the accusation then dia jawab sama ada

melalui peguam atau - it is separate issue but he knows he is being accused you did these day or

you did not do these day or what you say is not true. Dia dengar. If he is not here, how does he

know what they said, how does he know what was alleged towards him here. He does not even

know the proceeding. We cannot speak to him. That is not correct because we are not supposed

to speak to anybody. This is quite fundamental and how does he - to help us. We are trying to

establish the truth. At the end of the day, as Tuan Pengerusi has point it out. The accusation

must be proved first. There must be some factual basis first to show that what Yang Berhormat

Permatang Pauh said in the Dewan is false.

First of all, that is the starting premise. Then we look at the issue whether he knew that is

false or so on. But first it must be established if it is false. We have to hear the facts. That is what

our role is. We do not know the facts. We are only to get the facts from the witnesses and that is

JHK 9.6.2010


12

why it is fundamental principle of this process unlike other inquiries. I think this is what with

respect I want to point out. This is not like PAC inquiry into PKFZ or other issues, different. This is

a person accused of an offence and he knows what he said. He has the facts. He has the

documents. We don’t know. So, if APCO stands there [Merujuk ke arah tempat duduk saksi] sit

and says A, B , C , D, E, we do not know.

I do not know whether it is true or false. I do not know what to ask. I may ask certain

things but he may have, he will be there, he will say ‘No’ wait of course with your permission I will

leave from this committee, he will ‘Can I ask this question? Would the Chairman put this

question?’ Then we ask. That is how we arrived to the truth. He will help us arrived the truth but if

we exclude his presence and his lawyer’s presence, then we prevent ourselves from arriving the

truth. That is why I am urging this committee to appreciate that this is different. Then - .the

processes in the procedure here become exceeding and unfair particularly when he is facing a

penal sanction.

So, that is why I am urging Mr. Chairman and those are my fellow Members in this

committee to appreciate. This is not a normal committee hearing, not like other committees and I

appreciate, you know, on what Tuan Pengerusi has said. That is the practice I agree. But I think

we have not had - even when Yang Berhormat Bukit Gelugor was - in 2004 if I was not mistaken,

I do not think there is a hearing taken place apparently there was an issue of law only and it was

no need for factual evidences. Here..

Datuk Ronald Kiandee [Beluran]: Is the case was direct to Dewan?

Tuan R. Sivarasa: No. It was hearing but the issue was quite straight forward in the

sense that whether there was particular legal provision in the Oath and Affirmation Act. This is

straight for legal point. You did not need evidence. Here we are dealing with complicated factual

issue sama ada ayat itu betul atau tidak. What is the factual basis? That is what we are having

this hearing. We could not have it in Dewan. So, this is where I think we need to appreciate the

difference and to - I think we also want to decide the right precedence. This is unusual

precedence. We don’t have the precedence. So, we have to deal with the situation as it is.

Datuk Ronald Kiandee: Tuan Pengerusi, boleh saya komen? Thank you. Boleh saya

komen Tuan Pengerusi?

Tuan Pengerusi: Sure.

Datuk Ronald Kiandee: Yang Berhormat Subang melihat daripada sudut keadilan yang

dituduh Yang Berhormat Permatang Pauh. Dikatakan kalau kita - pandangan sayalah, kalau kita

buka, memberi peluang kepada Yang Berhormat Permatang Pauh untuk duduk ataupun lawyer

nya untuk duduk dan mendengar sahaja, perkara yang sama juga harus kita lihat nanti apabila

saksi-saksi yang lain, kepentingan saksi-saksi yang lain, berapa banyak Menteri di Jabatan

Perdana Menteri ataupun APCO.

JHK 9.6.2010


13

Apabila Yang Berhormat Permatang Pauh memberikan keterangan, perkara yang sama

juga harus kita lihat. Lawyer mereka juga harus mendengar kerana mereka yang akan lebih tahu

perkara-perkara, pada butiran-butiran yang akan dikemukakan oleh Yang Berhormat Permatang

Pauh berkaitan dengan APCO. Orang APCO juga dalam keadaan yang sama memerlukan hak

untuk mendengar kerana mereka akan lebih tahu. Maknanya, kita akan membuka flood gate,

membuka ruang yang lebih besar kepada semua orang. Kalau kita memberi peluang kepada

Yang Berhormat Permatang Pauh, peluang saksi yang lain, keterangan-keterangan daripada

saksi yang lain, kepentingan mereka juga harus diambil perhatian oleh Jawatankuasa.

Kalau begitu harus kita ambil perhatian. Maknanya APCO juga kehadiran APCO ketika

Yang Berhormat Permatang Pauh memberikan keterangan kelak harus juga kita fikir tentang

kehadiran mereka. Lawyer mereka mendengar sama ada keterangan Yang Berhormat

Permatang Pauh itu benar ataupun bercanggah dengan apa fakta yang mereka ada.

Tuan R. Sivarasa: Tuan Pengerusi, I appreciate dengan hujah ataupun point yang

dibuat oleh Yang Berhormat Beluran tetapi ada beza yang sangat penting antara kedudukan

Yang Berhormat Permatang Pauh dan kedudukan APCO you see. APCO maybe it is just like an

interest sahaja. Meaning, maksud saya beza yang penting ialah APCO tidak akan - APCO it is

not have problem…

Tuan Pengerusi: I know. I appreciate both arguments.

Tuan R. Sivarasa: Huge difference.

Tuan Pengerusi: If we are to allow Yang Berhormat Permatang Pauh to have a lawyer,

begini, begini...

Tuan R. Sivarasa: And to be present.

Tuan Pengerusi: Orang lain pun can have the same right.

Tuan R. Sivarasa: Tuan Pengerusi, that is why I want to keep its separate issue. Issue

right to counsel is satu, presence in hearing separate. Right to counsel first. That one will may

allow both. It is up to the committee. Those APCO also allow a lawyer while they are present here

as a witness. The issue that Yang Berhormat Beluran brought up is if we allow Yang Berhormat

Permatang Pauh presence through the hearing as an accused person, the argument has been

made. Ini akan dipakai oleh semua saksi, ada dia hendak duduk sepanjang prosiding. Itu lain,

that is wrong. I am with respect.

That is not correct because they come as witnesses. They are not facing any penal

sanction. Nothing. They are not in the position of where Yang Berhormat Permatang Pauh is.

They come hear to give evidence.

Datuk Ronald Kiandee: Dalam mahkamah pun ada watching brief.

Tuan R. Sivarasa: Betul I have no problem.

Datuk Ronald Kiandee: I mean if you are talking about mahkamah.

JHK 9.6.2010


14

Tuan R. Sivarasa: That was to decide. We will follow the Standing Order which is their

rights and interests are affected. They are allowed to be here through to the lawyer. That doesn’t

mean they are allow to be here present throughout the hearing because they are not in that

position of Yang Berhormat Permatang Pauh. That point is Yang Berhormat Permatang Pauh is

the accused person here and he is the one facing the penal sanction.

So, he has to know the accusation against him. That is the point. APCO is coming here to

substantiate, what Yang Berhormat Padang Rengas is going to say. Because Yang Berhormat

Padang Rengas is the one who brought the allegation, who is going to prove whatever he has to

prove, that APCO witnesses and other witnesses will have to prove that. That is fine.

If they apply for the lawyer, it is up to them to decide for that moment whether they have

a lawyer. The issue is Yang Berhormat Permatang Pauh being present throughout of the hearing

to hear what people is saying is completely different from what allowing APCO - I would not

allowed witnesses to see us. Why should we? As we say, this is not a court. We agree with that.

We are not disputing that but fundamental fairness is the same for any proceeding. It is not about

the court whether you are in the court or not. We must remain fundamentally fair. I think that is

the point. We cannot move from that.

Dato’ Razali bin Haji Ibrahim [Muar]: Tuan Pengerusi..

Tuan Karpal Singh [Bukit Gelugor]: What we are conducting Mr. Chairman is an

inquiry. It is not an inquisition. That is the difference. As an inquiry, I think the person who is

facing agenda charge and what Yang Berhormat Permatang Pauh is facing, is in the nature of a

charge. He has to given every opportunity I think this is fundamental. I do not want to repeat what

Yang Berhormat Subang has said just now. But I think we have to go to fundamental. He ought to

be given every opportunity the precedent set that I was not given an opportunity.

I think precedent which ought not to be set. It is practice whether what was ensure on

that time was a point on the law. I have every right to be here to in fact submit a point on the law.

I would not give the opportunity. So that ought not to be taken as the precedent. In fact if we take

that as precedent we accept the precedent is very dangerous and something had to be done

about it. We should reverse what happen in that situation. By now allowing Yang Berhormat

Permatang Pauh to be here, it is fundamental.

Anybody was condemned has the right to be here, to hear his accuser. At least accuser

here will be even in the Prime Minister Department, Dato’ Seri Mohamed Nazri bin Abdul Aziz. I

think to exclude the presence of Yang Berhormat Permatang Pauh, I think will be - .to me in fact

manifesting in justice to him. I think that is fundamental as that. I do not wish to repeat what had

been said today and yesterday.

Tan Sri Datuk Seri Dr. Fong Chan Onn [Alor Gajah]: Tuan Pengerusi, pandangan

saya ialah saya mengandaikan forum seperti ini adalah an extension of the forum in Parliament.

JHK 9.6.2010


15

Of course Parliament is very big body so maybe do not have - cannot involved all the MPs to

investigate. So, we are representing Parliament. I think since one of our colleagues is been said

to be doing something ought not that we need evidence to look at, I personally think that as an

extension in Parliament Yang Berhormat Permatang Pauh can sit there, anytime and listen to

anybody making accusation.

■1215

In that sense, I would extend that as the Members of Parliament standing been said to

have done something which we do not like, I think I will say that he should be given the - that as

in Parliament the chances to seat and listen but he just seat and listen - because we are

conducting an inquiry ourselves, he should not be allowed to but in, to cross examine something.

You know, he can listen and then after that he make his own submission when we call him back

again lah. I think that would be one way of getting around.

Tuan Pengerusi: Okay. Yang Berhormat Muar.

Dato’ Razali bin Haji Ibrahim: Tuan Pengerusi saya setujulah dengan perkara yang

dibangkitkan walaupun kadang-kala kita pernah buat kesilapan sebelum ini. Kita tidak boleh buat

kesilapan yang sama dalam Committee ini lagi sekali. Kalau hendak fikir mengenai right of

counsel saya rasa Yang Berhormat Bukit Gelugor pun tahu masa kes Pemuda UMNO, pun ada

meminta seperti yang disebut. Mereka yang hendak hadir itu bukan peguam pun, yang hendak

hadir itu saya, Ahli Majlis. It is like a watching brief but was denied, but okay, it was my mistake

not to pursue or to push. Akan tetapi ceritanya sama. Dalam kes ini saya rasa saya tidak ada

masalah untuk mereka mendengar, sesiapapun hendak mendengar kerana kita boleh buat

keputusan seperti yang diperuntukkan. Maknanya tidak salah. We must be seen.

Cumanya kalau boleh, bahan yang kita ada ini sebenarnya tidak cukup seperti Yang

Berhormat Subang kata, kita hendak tanya pun, kita tidak ada bahan. Kalau boleh, seperti Yang

Berhormat Permatang Pauh sendiri sebut, untuk pusingan pertama ini saya rasa kita boleh minta

kepada nama-nama saksi, ataupun mereka yang kita rasakan perlu dipanggil yang telah pun kita

buat keputusan, untuk mengemukakan…, sebab semua tahu usul yang dikemukakan.

Kemukakan kepada kita, dan kalau perlu kita kongsi dengan yang lain atas kita punya

budi bicara, untuk mereka membuat persiapan. Dengan cara itu mungkin APCO tidak perlu bawa

lawyer dan masing-masing dapat tahu apa yang hendak dibangkitkan.

Dan daripada Yang Berhormat Permatang Pauh tadi, saya dengar seperti beliau ada

banyak bahan tetapi, bahan itu tidak salah kalau kita minta diberi kepada kita lebih awal supaya

kita sendiri boleh berbincang kepada bahan-bahan yang ada. Yang Berhormat Menteri di Jabatan

Perdana Menteri pun mungkin ada bahan. So apa juga bahan dalam bentuk dokumen, surat-

menyurat ataupun in term of statement, what we call as evidence meet by them themselves or

their answer when we ask the question, in round one I think we have some clear picture, kepada

JHK 9.6.2010


16

saya. Oleh sebab setakat ini kita hanya ada perkara yang semua orang tahu bukan setakat kita

Jawatankuasa. Kita tidak ada privilege sebab perkara yang dibekalkan, sama yang dicakap

dalam Dewan. Saya rasa mungkin pihak Urus Setia boleh minta mereka yang dinamakan itu

kemukakanlah.

Kalau ada apa-apa dokumen yang berkaitan kepada Usul supaya kita boleh buat

preliminary di kalangan kita terlebih dahulu before we pursue or discuss whether the degree of

this case, the representation and we might reverse our decision after looking at the document,

memang betul ada keperluan a full representation pun, sebab perkara itu disebut. Cuma di

peringkat awal saya hanya menyatakan apa yang kita bincang semalam sebab perkara ini

bergantung kepada apa yang kita dibekalkan sahaja. Jadi saya mohon kalau boleh, bagi

mengelakkan further complication, I think to be fair to us, all of us we do not know, apa yang

berlaku di sebelah yang satu lagi.

Tuan Pengerusi: Yang Berhormat Batang Sadong.

Puan Hajah Nancy Shukri [Batang Sadong]: Terima kasih Tuan Pengerusi. Bagi saya

kalau hendak membenarkan Yang Berhormat Permatang Pauh untuk hadir, saya rasa itu tidak

ada masalah. Mungkin kita lari daripada our normal practice but, perhaps it something that goes

towards the betterment the normal practice. It is something that bagaimana ahli panel Yang

Berhormat Alor Gajah nyatakan, kita beri peluang sebab kalau dalam…, in the House pun beliau

boleh duduk, why not we allow him here. At least he knows what is said throughout the inquiry…,

I won’t say “hearing”. So throughout the inquiry at least Yang Berhormat Permatang Pauh boleh

menyiapkan diri untuk to submit bila the need arises nanti. So I have no problem with that. Okay.

Tuan Pengerusi: Okay, are we - okay from the opinion that I have heard, kita semua

bersetuju bahawa kita tidak ada halangan untuk membenarkan beliau mendengar sewaktu saksi-

saksi nanti diambil keterangan mereka. Adakah ini juga kita lanjutkan kepada membenarkan

beliau membawa peguam sebagai advisory duduk di sebelahnya, mereka berbisik-bisik sewaktu

keterangan saksi diambil? Is that...

Tan Sri Datuk Seri Dr. Fong Chan Onn: Tuan Pengerusi, I think that is a separate

issue. That is a separate issue because if I may assuming this is an extension of the debate in

the House. Debate as an elected MP, he has every right, the Speaker cannot stop him from

entering the House, whereas other non MPs, the Speaker has the right to say no. I mean, you

need my permission to go in. I think that is a basic difference. I mean we cannot deny him...

Tuan Pengerusi: Is that the decision yang mana kita membenarkan beliau untuk hadir

mendengar sewaktu keterangan-keterangan saksi yang lain kita sedang dengar.

Tuan Pengerusi: Without.

JHK 9.6.2010


17

Tuan R. Sivarasa: Ya. I think that is two issues, as I said; one issue is whether his

presence. I think judging from what we heard from the other members of this Committee it look

like that was the consensus, that is no issue there and I think that is quite clear…

Tuan Pengerusi: Okay.

Tuan R. Sivarasa: But with the Tuan Pengerusi permission. Because we heard clearly

just now Yang Berhormat Permatang Pauh he ask for an appeal, he made an appeal about the

ruling yesterday. I would like to now ask the Committee to look at the appeal. I think yesterday

perhaps we got stuck into the absolute issue, counsel or no counsel, and because we talked

about the full representation. I think can we revisit that issue and say what the amount you would

allow. In other words, Tuan Pengerusi started earlier yesterday about saying, you did not see

personally and you see about advising and sitting there on advising on issues.

Now, in other inquiries, I mean same type of inquiries not necessary in Parliament

inquiries again the Committee will control, it is not like a court of law. Court of law it is pretty

unaffected. That means that is absolute right to leave evidences to cross examine and so on and

no body can question. But for example in Royal Commission they will control it. The lawyer

cannot just stand up and assume the right to question, no. It is by leave, by our permission. I think

what we should be open to, not deciding now; we should be open to that. Meaning allow the

lawyer in the advisory capacity and if circumstance rise they have factual issue to clarify they ask

permission, they ask question with our permission. That is how you control the process. If does

not legal issues and they say, can I be heard on this then we listen to it. Again it’s up to us to

decide and that is the way proper inquiry is done.

Again at all the time recognize, this is not a court of law. I think this is quite clear

distinction. That is the way we should approach, that is acceptable, can we approach it on that

basis.

Puan Hajah Nancy Shukri: Can I add…

Dato’ Razali bin Haji Ibrahim: Tuan Pengerusi, I will give my view after I get all the

documents related to the case. Otherwise my decision ataupun my vote for yesterday still

remains.

Tuan Pengerusi: Ya.

Puan Hajah Nancy Shukri: Tuan Pengerusi, I like to add on to what Yang Berhormat

Subang said. Just now he was asking specifically on counsel. Now if let say we allow the counsel

to come, let say APCO would also want to bring somebody else to accompany just as observer,

are we going to allow that? Now, if we allow Yang Berhormat Permatang Pauh to bring the

counsel along with him, now are we going to allow APCO without - we should inform APCO first

that we are allowing Yang Berhormat Permatang Pauh to bring the counsel and you are allowed

to bring you know…, an observer or a counsel with you and then we have to limit the number. Do

JHK 9.6.2010


18

we have to do that? Because before we decide on that you know, we have to think further on the

request of APCO earlier on wanted to bring an observer. Thank you.

Tuan R. Sivarasa: Tuan Pengerusi, just to respond briefly to Yang Berhormat Batang

Sadong. Again I think we need to distinguish the situation Yang Berhormat Permatang Pauh in

and further capacity APCO is coming. APCO is coming as a witness, and I open at that point,

when we have application I am sure some point that application will be made. They come, they

want lawyer, and we will deal with them. As to whether they would appear. Once they are

appearing as witness, the issue whether the lawyer will be allowed to seat with them in advisory

capacity, we can decide. Either now we can decide, or we can decide it then.

But that is the separate issue. I think Yang Berhormat Permatang Pauh capacity here is

as I said earlier, he standing here as a person accused of an offence by violating privilege of the

House. Which we are going to - if we find proven, we would let him to consider punishment. That

is the big difference between the two situations. So in other words, what we decide on Yang

Berhormat Permatang Pauh is not necessary - is no way tying our hands on any of other

witnesses. Different witnesses have different interest, we can decide differently also. So I think

we should be opened to that. That is the correct approach to be flexible.

Tuan Pengerusi: Okay, any opinion.

Datuk Ronald Kiandee: You have to be fair to the Committee, to us you know. You must

to the access to the correct information. So, I mean I come back to what I am said just now. Saya

balik kepada apa yang saya cakap tadi, ketika Yang Berhormat Permatang Pauh nanti beri

keterangan…, saya masih terbuka bahawa kita perlu panggil allow they were here, wakil saksi-

saki yang lain untuk datang. I mean Yang Berhormat bercakap tentang keadilan kepada Yang

Berhormat Permatang Pauh tetapi, kita harus juga bercakap tentang keadilan kepada kita untuk

membuat keputusan itu.

Oleh sebab kita akan membuat keputusan, jadi kalau kita allow - saya setuju yang I

mean banyak perkara di luar yang public does not understand, yang boleh diputarbelitkan kepada

isu yang lain. Saya setuju Yang Berhormat Permatang Pauh, keputusan saya atau pandangan

saya, setuju Yang Berhormat Permatang Pauh untuk duduk tetapi, kalau kita allow lawyers, kita

mesti allow juga kepada watching brief kepada yang lain…

Tan Sri Datuk Seri Dr. Fong Chan Onn: Ya, I think for the start - make the Speaker to

start with...

Datuk Ronald Kiandee: Kalau Yang Berhormat Permatang Pauh to sit here untuk

mendengar sama-sama dengan kita, tetapi kalau kita allow legal advisor duduk bersama dengan

beliau, saya juga minta untuk cadangkan agar kita juga beri kebenaran untuk legal advisor yang

lain, saksi-saksi yang lain untuk watching brief. Kalau tidak then saya rather biarkan Yang

Berhormat Permatang Pauh duduk seorang tanpa lawyer.

JHK 9.6.2010


19

Tuan Pengerusi: I do not think Yang Berhormat Subang will object to that. Cuma

sekarang ini Yang Berhormat Subang, and I think if I can assume Yang Berhormat Bukit Gelugor

is prepared for the decision that Yang Berhormat Permatang pauh sahaja yang mempunyai

peguam yang duduk dekat dia, yang orang lain tidak kerana perbezaan dia kata ialah dia bukan

tertuduh. So dia prepare to go on that. When you propose keadilan, mereka pun ini ada peguam,

duduk bersama peguam on that. Do I understand clear and loud?

Tuan R. Sivarasa: Yes, Tuan Pengerusi.

Tuan Pengerusi: Okay. So sekarang what the decision now?

Tan Sri Datuk Seri Dr. Fong Chan Onn: I think we start with the round Yang Berhormat

Permatang Pauh. Kita mula dengan kehadiran, membenarkan kehadiran Yang Berhormat

Permatang Pauh, dan saya juga bersetuju dengan pandangan Yang Berhormat Muar ini iaitu

apabila kita masuki ke siasatan ini, mungkin ada banyak dokumen dikemukakan. Pada peringkat

itu, mungkin ada isu-isu yang convoluted dan sebagainya, then pada ketika itu kita boleh buat

keputusan sama ada kita izinkan...

Tuan Pengerusi: Mengenai dengan dokumen-dokumen ini apabila - ini pemikiran saya.

Katakanlah when we go through – kita ambil keterangan Yang Berhormat Permatang Pauh itu,

then of course he is in the liberty of tendering apa sahaja dokumen yang dia fikir untuk membantu

kesnya than that will be the time. Kalau kita minta juga dokumen-dokumen yang relevan lebih

awal, saya rasa peraturan mesyuarat membenar, kan?

Tuan R. Sivarasa: Ya.

Tuan Pengerusi: Then we can request the things, but we do not know what to request to

you. Paling tidak pun apa, kita kata, sudi apa kiranya membekalkan kita dokumen-dokumen yang

dianggap sebagai relevan kepada kes ini. Kita tidak boleh spesifik tujuan because we do not

know…

Tan Sri Datuk Seri Dr. Fong Chan Onn: Because we do not know.

Tuan Pengerusi: You see so only during when we call him then maybe we will request

him. Kalau umpamanya Yang Berhormat Subang mahu tanya dia, then ada lagi dokumen-

dokumen mengatakan supporting you’re - statement you said, “…1999”, you kata begini, I mean

that kind of the thing. That I am thinking aloud, you see.

Tuan R. Sivarasa: Tuan Pengerusi, in fact if we can assist here, I mean we also lawyers

and we practice, actually in the formal court, there are the process for that. The court forces the

parties, put in all your documents. So everything will be before the court but, we are not like that.

We have not got a procedure where you ask, let say, “Yang Berhormat Padang Rengas, I want

your statement or evidence first…” dengan semua dokumen. We have not done that. If we are

going that way, we should go to that also but, we have not started that.

JHK 9.6.2010


20

■1230

So, the request for Yang Berhormat Muar dan Yang Berhormat Alor Gajah for documents

will unfold as the process starts. Yang Berhormat Padang Rengas will come and explain certain

things. He might mention certain documents. So, it might appear relevant. Then it will be asked

for. Similarly with APCO and then later, when Yang Berhormat Permatang Pauh attends, he

probably will have something. That is the way the document’s issue will be handle. It is a process.

Dato’ Razali bin Haji Ibrahim: To me, never been done before bukan isu sebab yang

dibincangkan ini pun tidak pernah kita buat. Saya ingat lagi dalam banyak kes, sekurang-

kurangnya kenyataan akhbar yang dibuat sebagai bahan tuduhan, ada. Sikit-sikit bahan tuduhan

itu ada ataupun dalam kes Pemuda UMNO, perlakuan dan laporan ada, yang ini satu pun tidak

ada. Tidak ada langsung.

Saya hanya memetik tadi apabila Yang Berhormat Permatang Pauh kata bahawa dia ada

banyak dokumen. Bila dia bagi waktu kita tanya, since dia kata dia sudah ada - saya bukan bawa

benda baru, saya tidak terfikir pun sebelum ini tetapi sebab dia kata dia sudah ada banyak,

bagilah. Oleh sebab kita hendak buat satu pengesahan juga bahan-bahan itu betul atau tidak.

We do not have the procedure. Saya tahu kalau dia menipu dalam..., atau bukan dialah, sesiapa

yang memberi dokumen palsu dalam Jawatankuasa ini boleh kita sabitkan bersalah tetapi, kita

perlu masa untuk mengesahkan dokumen-dokumen yang dikemukakan. Jadi, kalau dia sebut

tadi dia ada banyak bahan yang belum dibentangkan, saya hendak tahu juga. Mungkin banyak

pada dia, kita sudah boleh buang separuh Tuan Pengerusi. Separuh sebab kita pun boleh tahu

perkara-perkara itu relevan atau tidak dalam kita punya pertimbangan.

Tuan Pengerusi: Okay, in order to save time. Can we be unanimous in making a

decision whereby we request first segala relevant documents...

Dato’ Razali bin Haji Ibrahim: Jikalau tidak ada, tidak mengapa... [Bercakap tanpa

menggunakan pembesar suara]

Tuan Pengerusi: ...Yang dianggap sebagai dokumen membantu kes umpamanya

seperti Yang Berhormat Permatang Pauh, we ask first whether the documents that they are said.

Begitu juga dengan APCO, begitu juga dengan Dato’ Seri Mohamed Nazri bin Abdul Aziz for

instance…

Tuan R. Sivarasa: We have to start first with Yang Berhormat Padang Rengas first to

produce first whatever they have.

Tuan Pengerusi: Also can.

Dato’ Razali bin Haji Ibrahim: They can produce later but - also can. No problem. But,

at least we have something to start with. Now I do not have anything.

JHK 9.6.2010


21

Tuan R. Sivarasa: Yes, then we have to ask Yang Berhormat Padang Rengas to give

whatever their bring straight away first before we start. That is what I mean. We have to apply to

everybody and it applies to the accusers first.

Dato’ Razali bin Haji Ibrahim: No, what I am saying just now, if I can refresh, I said, the

round one if - since they are here they can give in form of documents or in form of statements and

whatever we need to request them– bagi yang tidak sempat kita boleh tulis surat tetapi, kalau

tidak pun saya hanya request the documents for us to consider could be an answer to our

question or they have a ready documents that they can share because they know the Usul or

whatever usul lah yang dibekalkan. So, kalau dia tidak dapat bagi sekarang, waktu dipanggil dia

beri pun kita pakai juga. At least something.

Tan Sri Datuk Seri Dr. Fong Chan Onn: Tuan Pengerusi, pandangan saya is that we

should be more flexible and I think this is not the court of law. They can give us the documents

now or later on in the process they can produce more documents. I am open to that. But, two

things I want to say is, we should proceed on and secondly, as I said just now, the issue of an

advisory council or something, then we can meet later on if the documents submitted much too

complicated, might be, then we make the decision. For now, let us start dengan kebenaran dan

kehadiran Yang Berhormat Permatang Pauh dan kita panggil saksi-saksi kedua dan ketiga. And

then they can submit the documents now or they can submit the documents later. It is up to them.

Of course, our request is whatever documents they give to us now, so easier for us to deliberate.

Tuan Pengerusi: Okay, so...

Tuan R. Sivarasa: Are we still saying Tuan Pengerusi, just to be clear of Yang

Berhormat Alor Gajah, that he is not allowed the lawyer to sit with him even now. Just to sit by his

side. Are we saying - I thought we were okay, you are open to it.

Tuan Pengerusi: The decision yang cuma dibenarkan ini sepanjang kefahaman saya

apa yang dihujahkan tadi ialah beliau dibenarkan untuk duduk atas sebab dia pun sebagai Ahli

Parlimen, kalau dalam Mesyuarat Majlis dia tidak boleh...

Tuan R. Sivarasa: He can sit.

Tuan Pengerusi: Ya, he can sit tetapi, yang counsel itu tidak ada kena mengena

dengannya. The decision is still like that.

Tan Sri Datuk Seri Dr. Fong Chan Onn: I am taking this as an extension of the

Parliament sitting. Even the Speaker has no rights to deny Yang Berhormat Permatang Pauh. He

has rights to sit there and listen to the full debate but, any other visitor, non MP, the Speaker has

the rights to decide whether they can come in or not. I understand, that is the basic principal.

Datuk Ronald Kiandee: Can we make decision already?

Tuan R. Sivarasa: Yang Berhormat Permatang Pauh has the rights to be here?

JHK 9.6.2010


22

Tan Sri Datuk Seri Dr. Fong Chan Onn: Yes, Yang Berhormat Permatang Pauh has the

right to be here.

Tuan R. Sivarasa: He has applied?

Tan Sri Datuk Seri Dr. Fong Chan Onn: Yes.

Datuk Ronald Kiandee: We made the decision in the Committee.

Tuan R. Sivarasa: Yes, I know but he ask to appeal, just now he make an appeal to be

sitting here.

Tuan Pengerusi: Ya.

Tuan R. Sivarasa: That is why I am asking.

Tuan Pengerusi: Ya, that is why I asking everybody and the decision seems to be like

that. Decision is status quo.

Tuan R. Sivarasa: [Bercakap tanpa menggunakan pembesar suara]

Tuan Pengerusi: Belum ada counsel.


Tan Sri Datuk Seri Dr. Fong Chan Onn: For now, because we are interviewing the

second witness and third witness. I think it is proper for Yang Berhormat Permatang Pauh to be

present and to listen to them but, whether he should be accompany by counsel or not, I think for

now our decision is no, but later on if the issues becomes - the documents is submitted, it

becomes too complicated, then we might revisit that issue again.

Tuan Karpal Singh [Bukit Gelugor]: Tuan Pengerusi, I think its beyond extension of

Parliament. I think it is a Privileges Committee setup for certain purpose. I think the standing

orders applied. Standing Order 83(7A) said, he has the right to counsel. [Bercakap tanpa


Datuk Ronald Kiandee: It is by leave. It is not mandatory... [Bercakap tanpa


Tuan Karpal Singh: Yes by leave. So, you cannot say this is extension… [Bercakap

tanpa menggunakan pembesar suara]

Dato’ Razali bin Haji Ibrahim: For now, I do not grant the leave, my vote. I do not know

the rest for now because I do not have any documents to consider at the moment but, I agree

with Yang Berhormat Alor Gajah.

Tuan Karpal Singh: The documents must come in as evidence.


Dato’ Razali bin Haji Ibrahim: I know. No, we are not wrong in asking. Come in

presence or come in documents.

Tuan Karpal Singh: [Bercakap tanpa menggunakan pembesar suara]

JHK 9.6.2010


23

Dato’ Razali bin Haji Ibrahim: I know but, it is not wrong to ask. Like when you bring up

all these uncustomary, I want to ask, because I do not have any lead. For example, I was

appointed, I ask the Speaker, before I come I want all documents. So, I am sure the Secretariat

will write to get something for me to consider. So, for now I think I do not have enough sufficient

to agree or to grant by leave that given under the provision.

Tuan Pengerusi: Shall we leave it there because to what I have heard thus far, means

some of the Members will still have an open mind. We can revisit again the decision that we have

made as far as it is right to the counsel or not. Can we just leave it as it is first? Because,

otherwise, the unfortunate thing here is when opinions are thrown on the floor like that, there is no

one single person decide what should be done. It is the decision of the Committee itself. So, it

ends up that you, Members of the Committee to convince each other. If I want to leave that, go

on, then we will not be able to start the hearing, because this guy from APCO is from UK all the

way, and how long are we going to take him here? They also wrote to us, a lawyer actually, a

legal firm wrote to us that they want to be accompanied by a lawyer but, when they heard about

the decision yesterday, so, they have to retract that request, and they only put sworn affidavit,

something like that...

Tan Sri Datuk Seri Dr. Fong Chan Onn: I think let us start of. I mean, let us start of this

way...

Tuan R. Sivarasa: Tuan Pengerusi, is he replacing... [Bercakap tanpa menggunakan

pembesar suara]

Tuan Pengerusi: No, he will be here. He is here. He is around here.

Tan Sri Datuk Seri Dr. Fong Chan Onn: Let’s start. We can start...

Dato’ Razali bin Haji Ibrahim: We can ask them then. They just want to put that as

documents and we can ask whatever...

Tuan Karpal Singh: Affidavit as evidence?

Dato’ Razali bin Haji Ibrahim: I think they will bring. I do not know. That is what they

have mentioned.

Tuan Karpal Singh: Let’s us be sure on what the... [Bercakap tanpa menggunakan

pembesar suara]

Dato’ Razali bin Haji Ibrahim: As a sworn affidavit.

Tan Sri Datuk Seri Dr. Fong Chan Onn: Why don’t they present it to us to look into it

and decide on it?

Datuk Ronald Kiandee: So, at least we have something to read.

Tuan Pengerusi: So, that is as far as Yang Berhormat Permatang Pauh is concern. So,

before we call witnesses, there is another letter here from - just delivered from Yang Berhormat

Puchong. So, izinkan saya untuk baca surat ini.

JHK 9.6.2010


24

“Saya merujuk kepada perkara tersebut di atas iaitu Mesyuarat

Jawatankuasa Hak dan Kebebasan di bawah peruntukan Peraturan Mesyuarat

83...

Tan Sri Datuk Seri Dr. Fong Chan Onn: Tuan Pengerusi, I think we should not be

distracted by all these. Let’s proceed on...

Tuan Pengerusi: ...Persidangan tersebut di atas telah pun bermula hari ini dan

saya bersama beberapa Ahli Parlimen yang lain iaitu Yang Berhormat Gombak,

Yang Berhormat Lembah Pantai, Yang Berhormat Shah Alam, Yang Berhormat

Selayang, Yang Berhormat Hulu Langat, Yang Berhormat Kuala Selangor, Yang

Berhormat Padang Serai, Yang Berhormat Kelana Jaya dan Yang Berhormat

Ampang telah membuat permohonan untuk dibenarkan masuk dan hadir semasa

prosiding untuk melihat prosiding tetapi dihalang.

Saya difahamkan bahawa satu keputusan telah pun dibuat untuk

menyekat kami Ahli-ahli Parlimen daripada menghadiri prosiding di atas. Di sini

saya bagi pihak diri saya sendiri dan juga bagi pihak Ahli-ahli Parlimen yang

dinyatakan di atas dengan rendah diri memohon supaya diberikan keputusan

penuh yang dinyatakan di atas serta alasan-alasan di atas mana keputusan

tersebut dibuat.

Kami di sini juga merayu agar keputusan tersebut dikaji semula dan kami

dibenarkan hadir untuk memerhati dan mengikuti prosiding. Kepada saya isu

yang dibangkitkan dalam prosiding ini isu yang berkepentingan awam yang telah

pun menerima perhatian seluruh negara dan juga antarabangsa.

Adalah cukup penting untuk kami sebagai Ahli-Ahli Parlimen untuk

dibenarkan mengikuti prosiding bukan sahaja untuk pengetahuan kami sebagai

Ahli-ahli Parlimen tetapi juga supaya dapatlah kami menjelaskan kepada

masyarakat berkenaan prosiding ini dengan lebih mendalam dan teliti.

Saya percaya amalan biasa di negara lain adalah bahawa bukan sahaja

Ahli Parlimen tetapi juga orang awam dan media dibenarkan masuk dan

mengikuti prosiding dan dengan segala hormatnya saya tidak dapat melihat asas

untuk menjadikan precedent lain di negara kami melalui prosiding ini dengan

keputusan menghalang kami daripada menghadiri prosiding ini. Saya dengan

segala hormatnya merayu agar keputusan yang dinyatakan dikaji semula dan

saya dimaklumkan berkenaan dengan perkara-perkara yang dipohon seawal

boleh.”

So, this is a request from Members of Parliament. Those name has been mentioned in that

letter requesting that at least the names that have been mentioned be granted to be inside dan

JHK 9.6.2010


25

Ahli-ahli Parlimen yang lain. So, that also we will need to have a decision before we call the

witness.

Dato’ Razali bin Haji Ibrahim: Saya rasa kita baru bincang tentang Yang Berhormat

Permatang Pauh itu sendiri boleh masuk. Saya rasa memadai. Jikalau tidak sama juga seperti

yang saya nyatakan semalam bagaimana dengan lain-lain Ahli Parlimen yang mungkin berminat

tetapi tidak tahu tentang kebolehan mereka untuk masuk dan hadir. Jadi, buat masa ini mungkin

kehadiran Yang Berhormat Permatang Pauh itu lebih mendesak dan lebih penting daripada yang

lain-lain.

Tuan Pengerusi: Yang Berhormat Alor Gajah?

Tan Sri Datuk Seri Dr. Fong Chan Onn: Saya accept. Saya bersetujulah kita mula

dengan kehadiran Yang Berhormat Permatang Pauh.

Tuan Pengerusi: Yang Berhormat Beluran?

Datuk Ronald Kiandee: Saya kekal dengan keputusan semalam.

Puan Hajah Nancy Shukri: Sama I maintain seperti yang semalam.

Tuan Karpal Singh: Tuan Pengerusi, if this is an extension of Parliament, that is what

Yang Berhormat Alor Gajah said, that every Members who wishes to be here should be extended

the right, following up from what you have said.

Tan Sri Datuk Seri Dr. Fong Chan Onn: When I am saying the extension of Parliament-

because Yang Berhormat Permatang Pauh he stands, he is different from the others. He stands

being said to have done something that we have to inquire. Therefore, I think his presence - if we

deny it, then it would not be fair.

Tuan Karpal Singh: But, I am talking about the presence of the others who have

requested. I think lets go to the point. You said this is an extension of the Parliament, the

Privileges of Committee extension. So, they have a right, whoever wishes to be here should be

allowed that opportunity.

Tan Sri Datuk Seri Dr. Fong Chan Onn: But, this is a close inquiry. I mean, I would

extend my argument to the presence of Yang Berhormat Permatang Pauh, but for now I think it is

not necessary for us to extend it further for the other MPs. I mean, that is my stand.

Tuan Karpal Singh: I think we should allow them. That is my stand.

Tuan Pengerusi: Yang Berhormat Subang?

Tuan R. Sivarasa: Tuan Pengerusi, pendirian saya masih seperti semalam di mana

hujah saya iaitu kita harus ikuti amalan Parlimen UK di mana mereka jelas dengan pendirian

mereka di mana mereka mengiktiraf hak setiap Ahli Majlis mereka hadir dalam semua prosiding.

Hadir sahaja dan memerhati sahaja tanpa buat apa-apa yang lain. Bagi saya kita harus ikuti

amalan yang baik itu dan itu cadangan saya, dan pendirian saya.

JHK 9.6.2010


26

Tuan Pengerusi: Okay, ladies and gentlemen, you both side sudah already heard

pendapat masing-masing. I think if my opinion goes by anything, let’s do this slowly step-by-step

where – walaupun amalan Parlimen selama ini bahawa mesyuarat seperti ini tertutup dan tidak

ada orang lain boleh masuk, begitu juga dengan hak Yang Berhormat Permatang Pauh.

■1245

But, I see that there is progress. Meaning, kita lari daripada precedent itu secara bukan

drastik, mendadak tetapi secara perlahan sedemikiannya. I can see the opinion bahawa some

don’t mind revisit again the decision that we made about representations. In this particular case

also from what I heard, also is like that. Yang Berhormat Muar is saying - yang lain belum dengar

dan yang lain pun mungkin mahu masuk. Yang Berhormat Alor Gajah pula dia juga tiada hard

fast rule dan sedemikiannya.

Lets start first with the hearing proper, yang the rest on the procedure, which I think

procedure yang saya punya pendirian secara tegas, prosedur Parlimen, how we conduct

proceedings, that one will never be able to question oleh sesiapa pun, because that is how we

conduct our procedure, because otherwise then how do we conduct our own proceedings sama

ada di Majlis ataupun dalam Mesyuarat. Let’s start with panggil saksi-saksi dahulu then nothing

will stop us dalam procedure juga apabila Committee ini sendiri decides to revisit again on the

previous decision, that nobody can stop us. Mungkin feedback daripada kawan-kawan lain, Ahli-

ahli Parlimen yang lain mungkin juga selepas mesyuarat ini ada mereka mengatakan, “We also

want to come in”. Kalau majoriti Ahli-ahli Parlimen semua mohon masuk untuk come in..

Datuk Ronald Kiandee: Habis!

Tuan Pengerusi: Then apa Jawatankuasa - Jawatankuasa got to take into

consideration. Let’s do it step by step, because the way I see it, yang ini panjang ini, I don’t think

we can finish this hearing dalam masa sesi Parlimen ini.

Seorang Ahli: Tidak sempat.

Tuan Pengerusi: Because, it’s up to siapa..., nanti semua yang akan datang also

whether Yang Berhormat Permatang Pauh sendiri will be present during that time dan

sedemikiannya. I hope yang dua ini, terutama sekali yang ini Brad Staples dapat diselesaikan

dengan cepatlah. Kalau boleh kita panggil dia dahulu because he came all the way from UK.

Tuan R. Sivarasa: Tuan Pengerusi, if I may I. First, I think we should just called Yang

Berhormat Permatang Pauh, inform him lah. That’s what we have been decided, I think that is the

first thing but, second I think, it is Yang Berhormat Padang Rengas yang membawa - and what he

correctly describe ini pertuduhan. So, I think he should present it and bagi apa-apa penjelasan.

Then of course, the second witness will follow. So, otherwise apa yang disebut oleh APCO tidak

ada konteks. The context must be set oleh Yang Berhormat Padang Rengas; I mean there is no

hard and fast rule.

JHK 9.6.2010


27

Tuan Pengerusi: ...Because we are the one who is doing the recommendation.

Tuan R. Sivarasa: So, we should follow…

Tuan Pengerusi: Don’t worry, we can do submission in sequences. Okey, kita panggil

Permatang Pauh dahulu, we got to inform him about the decision.

Datuk Ronald Kiandee: Dia duduk mana? Duduk..., bagus sedikit, tak kan duduk

belakang. Dia duduk di situlah...

Tuan Pengerusi: You got to call him first, and after that kita bagi tahu sama beliau

mengenai dengan...

Tuan Karpal Singh: Mr. Chairman, we haven’t take any decision on the request from

Yang Berhormat Puchong.

Tuan Pengerusi: What is the request, I thought the request is that the stand is that pada

ketika ini, belum lagi dibenarkan.

Tuan Pengerusi: Like yesterday’s decision. Is that the pendirian?

Tuan Karpal Singh: It can’t be step-by-step either. They are allowed from the beginning

or they are not? You can’t say along the line we will decide. It doesn’t make sense. They have the

right to be here.

Tuan Pengerusi: It make sense in this Committee because, like what I say, in this

Committee is no hard and fast rule.

Tuan Karpal Singh: I know...

Tuan Pengerusi: We have already - because if you were to go like that, then you are

forcing the rest to make a decision like that also.

Tuan Karpal Singh: You have to make a decision sometime.

Tuan Pengerusi: Of course we have to make a decision, we already make a decision.

There is already a decision made

Tuan Karpal Singh: No, either they have right to come in from the beginning or they

don’t have the right. You can’t say for the first witness, no and then the second, third, yes!...

Tuan Pengerusi: No, what we are saying is Yang Berhormat Bukit Gelugor, Ahli-ahli

Parlimen ini mahu masuk yesterday, mahu masuk juga kalau dibenarkan. The decision yesterday

was bahawa tidak dibenarkan. Now, yesterday our decision also bahawa Anwar tidak boleh

masuk dalam ini, but nobody stop us from revisiting our previous decision, this is what they are

saying. We can also revisit our decision and not allowing this MP’s as this thing progress.

Tuan Karpal Singh: This is a commencement of a proceeding and they want to be here

at the commencement.

Tan Sri Datuk Seri Dr. Fong Chan Onn: I appeal to you, lets start off. We are trying to -

I personally try to be as flexible as possible. So, we can proceed then depending on the

JHK 9.6.2010


28

documents submitted on the evidence then we can revisit whatever issue that you want to bring

up. That’s all, if you want to start off with a full bang, it is very difficult for us.

Tuan Pengerusi: Okay, let us make a decision now, Yang Berhormat Bukit Gelugor want

us to make a decision.

Tuan Karpal Singh: Make a decision, you can’t say we don’t want to make a decision.

Tuan Pengerusi: I don’t have any problem, because you gentleman are the ones that

make the decision.

Tuan Karpal Singh: If decision has to be made, it has to be made. You can’t just defer it

and depends on circumstances.., we will see…

Tuan Pengerusi: The decision has been made, they said, no!

Tuan Karpal Singh: No, no decision have been made yet Mr. Chairman, the request is

made by Yang Berhormat Puchong.

Tuan Pengerusi: Yes, but the decision is that they are not allowed.

Datuk Ronald Kiandee: We didn’t count the numbers yet.

Tuan Karpal Singh: No decision has been made yet.

Datuk Ronald Kiandee: No Belah Bahagi yet.

Tuan R. Sivarasa: Or shall we say for the record, it is the majority says no, then it can be

put for the record.

Datuk Ronald Kiandee: I said no! I stick with yesterday’s decision.


Datuk Ronald Kiandee: It is recorded already.

Tuan Karpal Singh: You can’t do that. Somebody makes a request in writing, you reply

him by writing. Are we going to reply to Yang Berhormat Puchong and say that, we will decide at

some other point of time, depends on documents, what about...

Tuan Pengerusi: Yang Berhormat Bukit Gelugor, whatever I say in here in verbatim has

been written. So to me, that has a little experience in chairing a meeting like this, not in court of

law all the time. I take it as the decision has been made because I’ve been listening to the

arguments, but if you are forcing me every time on issues that has been raised, that I go to ask

for Belah Bahagi, can! I don’t have any problem on that.

Tuan Karpal Singh: I am not forcing you Mr. Chairman.

Tuan Pengerusi : Because, you seem to be forcing me to do that, because to me, I

asked you my decision has been taken that the MP’s are not allowed to come in.

Tuan Karpal Singh: No, Mr. Chairman said at some point of time they are allow to come

in.

Tan Sri Datuk Seri Dr. Fong Chan Onn: No!

JHK 9.6.2010


29

Tuan Pengerusi: No, because I am listening to the opinion, maybe you don’t understand

that in Malay. They are willing to revisit.

Tuan Karpal Singh: What are you to revisit?

Tan Sri Datuk Seri Dr. Fong Chan Onn: No, I mean..

Tuan Karpal Singh: No, I am not forcing anyone.

Tan Sri Datuk Seri Dr. Fong Chan Onn: If you want to play hard ball, we have to play

hard ball also.

Tuan Karpal Singh: Come on.

Tan Sri Datuk Seri Dr. Fong Chan Onn: You know...

Tuan Pengerusi: Never mind, now Setiausaha ...

Tuan Pengerusi: Who’s in the toilet?

Tuan Karpal Singh: You want to make a decision or you don’t?

Tuan Pengerusi: Okay, we are making a decision.

Tuan Karpal Singh: Are we going to reply...

Tuan Pengerusi: We will make a decision. This time around we will make decision. I can

promise you we make a decision, because I don’t want to sit also in this Committee for long, so

we make decisions. I think we have been making decisions, you are the only one that sometimes

doesn’t understand whether the decisions has been made or not.

Tuan Karpal Singh: Mr. Chairman, no, I think we have been quite decisive, you have not

been…

Tuan Pengerusi: What do you mean I have not been, because I can’t vote in this thing.

Tuan Karpal Singh: No, you have been throwing tantrums like yesterday.

Tuan Pengerusi : I didn’t throw tantrums, because after those people go in..

Tuan Karpal Singh: No yesterday, tantrums thrown, we can’t do that.

Tuan Pengerusi: Yang Berhormat Bukit Gelugor, what are the tantrums, which are the

tantrums?

Tuan Karpal Singh: Yesterday for example, or...

Tuan Pengerusi: What are the tantrums, are you not throwing tantrums now?

Tuan Karpal Singh: No, I am not, I am telling you Mr. Chairman.

Tuan Pengerusi: Why are you telling me, why do you always tell me? What right you

have to tell people all the time Yang Berhormat Bukit Gelugor?

Tuan Karpal Singh: Because I am decisive.

Tuan Pengerusi: I will still also have the power like that to ask you to….

Tuan Karpal Singh: No, Mr. Chairman, you do not threaten me with that.

Tuan Pengerusi: I am not threatening you, I am telling you the fact what is the power

that I have.

JHK 9.6.2010


30

Tuan Karpal Singh: Because you are indecisive.

Tuan Pengerusi: You see, meaning you are slighting me. You know what is slighting

means?

Tuan Karpal Singh: I don’t care about slighting.

Tuan Pengerusi: Exactly, you don’t care.

Tuan Karpal Singh: No, Mr. Chairman, if it has to be done, it has to be done.

Tuan Pengerusi: You see.

Tuan Karpal Singh: You are not making decisions.

Tuan Pengerusi: Of course, these are the people that making decisions, now what?

Tuan Karpal Singh: You can’t say to be at some point of time.

Tuan R. Sivarasa: We just record and then move on.

Tuan Karpal Singh: No, I think let...

Tuan Pengerusi: I am listening to all the arguments, I am concentrating. These are the

things, but if assuming that the decision all the time Belah Bahagian, I do not have any problem

with that.

Tuan R. Sivarasa: I think the decision is clear.

Tuan Pengerusi: You see, it is very clear, but it is not clear with Yang Berhormat Bukit

Gelugor. Now he accused me that…

Tuan R. Sivarasa: No, no I understand.

Tuan Pengerusi: ...That I am not indecisive.

Tuan Karpal Singh: Yang Berhormat Subang, I can talk for myself, please.

Tuan R. Sivarasa: Just the issue...

Tuan Karpal Singh: No, don’t interrupt me when I am talking.

Tuan R. Sivarasa : Fine. We should reply.

Tuan Karpal Singh: Shss!

Tuan R. Sivarasa: I think we should reply Yang Berhormat Puchong.

Tuan Pengerusi: Okay, everybody’s here, mana Yang Berhormat Muar.

Tuan Karpal Singh: What I am saying is, make a decision.

Tuan R. Sivarasa: This is the reply for..

Tuan Karpal Singh: No, no, please. You have to be decisive, if you are going to be...

Tuan Pengerusi: Yang Berhormat Bukit Gelugor, I am decisive, you are not listening.

Tuan Karpal Singh: You are not decisive

Tuan Pengerusi: You are not listening

Tuan Karpal Singh: I am asking you to make a decision on Yang Berhormat Puchong’s

request. Yang Berhormat Puchong has made a request, make a decision.

JHK 9.6.2010


31

Tuan Pengerusi: Yang Berhormat Bukit Gelugor, I am warning you, I am not threatening

you.

Tuan Karpal Singh: Please don’t warn me also.

Tuan Pengerusi: If assuming - you see, I can’t warn you, but you can tell anything to me,

but I can’t warn you. What is the power that you have to slight me that I am indecisive?

Tuan Karpal Singh: You are always some how rather under that impression that I am

slighting you.

Tuan Pengerusi: Come on, what are you are saying is you already slighting me, what

impression we are talking about?

Tuan Karpal Singh: You are suffering some phobia that I called you a dictator. You got it

the last time. It goes on and on.

Tan Sri Datuk Seri Dr. Fong Chan Onn: No, stop this lah.

Tuan Pengerusi: Yang Berhormat Bukit Gelugor, I am warning you right now, otherwise

I will chase you out from this Jawatankuasa.

Tan Sri Datuk Seri Dr. Fong Chan Onn: No, no Mr. Speaker no, no!

Tuan Karpal Singh: Don’t be under phobia.

Tuan Pengerusi: Yang Berhormat Bukit Gelugor, if you don’t tone down, I will not allow

you in this Committee, believe me. I am not threatening you. I have been very fair.

Tuan Karpal Singh: You have no right to point your finger at me at the moment also, put

the finger down.

Tuan Pengerusi: You don’t threaten me.


Tuan Pengerusi: No, no, no Yang Berhormat Bukit Gelugor, No!!

Tuan Karpal Singh: You are prejudice against me from the beginning.

Tuan Pengerusi: What prejudice against you, I have never been prejudice against you.

Tuan Karpal Singh: You make it very clear. I called you a dictator, no one will…

[Bercakap tanpa menggunakan pembesar suara]

Tan Sri Datuk Seri Dr. Fong Chan Onn: Mr. Speaker, this...

Tuan Karpal Singh: ..Action taken by you in Parliament and suspend me for one year.

You tried that, but it didn’t work.

Tuan Pengerusi: So, now what?

Tuan Karpal Singh: You try that, isn’t?

Tuan Pengerusi: So, now what?

Tuan Karpal Singh: You try that...[Bercakap tanpa menggunakan pembesar suara]

Tan Sri Datuk Seri Dr. Fong Chan Onn: Tuan Speaker.

JHK 9.6.2010


32

Tuan Karpal Singh: ....That is unreasonable...[Bercakap tanpa menggunakan pembesar

suara]

Tan Sri Datuk Seri Dr. Fong Chan Onn: Yang Berhormat Bukit Gelugor, Bukit Gelugor..

Tuan Karpal Singh: ...That is what happened.

Tan Sri Datuk Seri Dr. Fong Chan Onn: Yang Berhormat Bukit Gelugor..

Datuk Ronald Kiandee: We should discuss...

Tan Sri Datuk Seri Dr. Fong Chan Onn: Yang Berhormat Bukit Gelugor, I think we tone

down, I think we tone down.

Tuan Karpal Singh: It is not personal because... [Bercakap tanpa menggunakan

pembesar suara]

Tuan Pengerusi: Yang Berhormat Bukti Gelugor, can you please get out from this

Committee.

Tan Sri Datuk Seri Dr. Fong Chan Onn: No, no!

Tuan Pengerusi: Please, please, it is within my power. Please!


Tuan Pengerusi: No, I want you to be out from this Committee.

Tuan Karpal Singh: No, Mr. Chairman, you have no right personally to make that

decision.

Tuan Pengerusi: Please!

Tuan Karpal Singh: No, Mr. Chairman, you don’t simply…

Tuan Pengerusi: Please, because whatever the kuasa of the Speaker there is also in

here.

Tuan Karpal Singh: Mr. Chairman, you don’t sit here as Speaker. You sit here as

Chairman of the Committee. The Committee decides. You have no right to ask me to go out. The

Committee decides you are not Speaker here. Standing order don’t apply, you cannot suspend

me for ten days from here.

Tuan Pengerusi: If you don’t come out, I am not going to conduct the meeting.

Tuan Karpal Singh: You have no rights, the Committee has the rights if at all. If you

want to abuse your power, then I am not going to accept that. You have been suffering from a

phobia.

Tuan Pengerusi: Let’s adjourn the meeting. The meeting is adjourned.

Tuan Karpal Singh: That is another matter. You all have to make decisions and you

must make decisions.

Tuan Pengerusi: It is enough, meeting is adjourned. It’s enough!

Tuan Karpal Singh: What? The meeting is adjourned as simple as that?

JHK 9.6.2010


33

Tuan Pengerusi: Because, anything you say anymore, not in the meeting, I am not

answerable to you. It’s enough.

Tuan Karpal Singh: You don’t have to throw tantrums like that.

Tuan Pengerusi : What are you throwing? You think I am going to throw tantrums.

Tuan Karpal Singh: I am asking you to make decisions.

Tuan Pengerusi: It’s enough! I have made decision.

Tuan Karpal Singh: Your decisions?

Tuan Pengerusi: Meeting adjourned, it’s enough!

Tuan Karpal Sing h: That is about all?

Tuan Pengerusi: It’s enough!

Tuan Karpal Singh: You can’t suspend me.

Tuan Pengerusi: It’s enough! Meeting is adjourned. It is enough!

Tuan Karpal Singh: That’s right.You can’t suspend me from here, I have been appointed

by the House.

[Tuan Pengerusi meninggalkan Bilik Mesyuarat]

Mesyuarat ditangguhkan pada pukul 12.59 tengah hari.

LAPORAN PROSIDING MESYUARAT …...JHK 9.6.2010 Laporan Prosiding JK Hak dan Kebebasan / Bil. 3 /...

Documents

Transcript of LAPORAN PROSIDING MESYUARAT …...JHK 9.6.2010 Laporan Prosiding JK Hak dan Kebebasan / Bil. 3 /...