SEPAKAN PENALTI CHONG KAH KIAT KE KUALA TERENGGANU!

SEPAKAN Penalti di dalam bola sepak sering memberikan kemenangan kepada pasukan penyerang yang diberi peluang menyepaknya. Namun terkadang kala tersasar walaupun yang menyepaknya bintang tersohor seperti Ronaldo.

Begitu juga yang berlaku dalam politik Sabah apabila Tan Sri Chong Kah Kiat diberi peluang melakukan sepakan penalti di Mahkamah Tinggi Kota Kinabalu di dalam perlawan kalah mati seperti kes Ma Tzu.

Sepakan Chong Kah Kiat gagal ditampan Datuk Seri Musa Aman sehingga tersasar ke Kuala Terengganu seperti Iklan Celcom apabila isu Ma Tzu menjadi bahan kempen besar-besaran untuk meraih 8,465 undi Cina yang akan menjadi penentu kepada Pilihanraya Kecil Kuala Terengganu.

Perlawanan tersebut terganggu atau diganggu oleh satu lagi perlawanan persahabatan di Mahkamah Rayuan Putrajaya berhubung Petisyen Pilihanraya Parlimen Pensiangan, namun anehnya keputusan rayuan Tan Sri Joseph Kurup terpaksa ditangguhkan kerana
demarkasi undang-undang membataskan Peguam Sabah berkhidmat di Semenanjung Malaysia disebabkan tidak menjadi ahli Bar Council!

Ironinya, Peguam Semenanjung pula boleh berkhidmat di Sabah secara 'Ad-Hoc'dan kenapa Mahkamah Rayuan bersidang di Putrajaya sedangkan undang-undang yang berkuatkuasa tidak membolehkan peguam dari Sabah mewakili anak guam mereka di Semenanjung?

Dalam permainan bola sepak, amalan ini dinamakan melengah-lengahkan permainan dengan menyimpan bola terlalu lama di kaki (menggoreng) kerana akhirnya Mahkamah Rayuan memutuskan untuk bersidang di Kota Kinabalu pada 19 Februari 2009 bagi memutuskan sama ada menerima atau menolak rayuan Kurup.

Agak menghairankan kenapa ada pihak yang cuba melakukan Media Black-Out sehingga majoriti editor menerima arahan lisan daripada 'Boss' agar tidak membuat liputan kes Ma Tzu kerana bimbang akan memberi kesan kepada pilihanraya Kecil Kuala Terengganu.

Bagi menjamin ketelusan media dan berita sampai kepada akar umbi, saya menyiarkan nota prosiding penuh Mahkamah pada 14 Januari 2009 kerana bimbang rakyat akan menghukum Barisan Nasional jika mereka tidak mendapat gambaran sebenar.

Soal permusuhan atau sengketa Chong Kah Kiat dengan Musa Aman ialah Sengketa peribadi dan tidak melibatkan pemimpin negara dan Barisan Nasional tidak wajar dihukum setelah mereka membaca nota prosiding bahawa Pihak Berkuasa Tempatan tidak pernah menyebelahi Musa Aman walaupun mereka tertakluk kepada arahan dan perintahnya.

Lebih menarik apabila Datuk bandar Kuala Terengganu, Mat Razali Kasim terpaksa meletakkan jawatan sebagai Pengurus Pilihanraya P 036 setelah Suruhanjaya Pilihan Raya (SPR) menerima aduan bahawa beliau berkempen untuk Barisan Nasional di kalangan kakitangan kerajaan. Saya turut menerima beberapa sms daripada rakan wartawan di Kuala Terengganu bahawa beberapa orang wartawan telah membuat laporan polis kerana kononnya diberikan RM300 setiap seorang di Pusat Media Kementerian Penerangan Kuala Terengganu agar membuat laporan yang memihak kepada Barisan Nasional.


LAPORAN...Wartawan Merdeka Review Chan Wei See and Chen Shaua Fui membuat laporan polis di Balai Polis Kuala Terengganu pada jam 6.45 petang kelmarin. Manakala gambar di sebelah Ong Boon Keong, daripada Mafrel, Chan Wei See, Chen Shaua Fui and Haris Ibrahim di Balai Polis.






Berikut adalah Nota Prosiding Mahkamah yang dicatat oleh Hakim Mahkamah Tinggi Kota Kinabalu Yew Jen Kie.

Kes: [K22-19-2008]

14th January 2009 at 9.30 a.m.
Continuation of trial.
Parties as before.
PW1 (Tan Sri Chong Kah Kiat) reaffirmed.

Continuation of examination in chief of PW1:

Haji Ansari: Are the presence of statue or 'Patung' by the roadside peculiar to Sabah only compared to the rest of the country?
CKK: I told the 1st defendant that Malaysia not only Sabah is know for its tolerance and religious structures as well as statues are found throughout the nation. I also told the 1st defendant that our pride as Malaysia can be seen even in all those
states, the Malay states with rulers, where various religious structure standing side by side. In fact, if I may be allowed to put on records, even in Sabah in the District of Tuaran where the State Minister for Local Government and Housing came from, we have mosque standing very near to Taoist pagoda and to Christian church.

Haji Ansari: Refer to page 37 PBD(1) exhibit P26, what does this photo show?
CK: This photo shows the District Mosque in Tuaran which is less than 300 meters away from the Taoist pagoda and right in the middle of Tuaran town. In between the District Mosque and the pagoda stands the Basil Christian Church.

Haji Ansari: To your knowledge, how tall is the pagoda?
CKK: Exactly 108 feet, the same height as our Statue.

Haji Ansari: Refer to page 42 PBD(1), during your service in he State and federal Government, do you recall anyone raising objection that the statue of the Sphinx is facing the mosque?
CKK: This statue was put up at Sunway Pyramid when I was still the Minister in the Federal Government. It looks directly across the mosque with the main road in between. There has never been any problem, then and now.

Haji Ansari: Are you aware of any objection on this location of the statue?
CKK: No.

Haji Ansari: May I have this document marked?

Attorney General: No objection.

Court: Item 29 at page 42 PBD(1): P39.

Haji Ansari: Yesterday you informed the Court that the main reason why the Statue was constructed was pursuant to a divine instruction. Besides this divine instruction, was there any other consideration that persuaded you to proceed with the project?
CKK: In fact in one of the written messages from the Goddess of the Sea it was said that with the Statue of the Goddess herself completed in Kudat, the economy, not only in Kudat, but the State will prosper. As the then Minister for Tourism I know that will be the case. Goddess of the Sea is one of the most popular deity in Taiwan and southern part of China from Fuchien down to Hainan, Hong Kong and Macau. These whole regions that I mentioned has a population of some 150 million. This Statue therefore will be another tourism icon for Sabah, Kudat in particular.

Haji Ansari: To your knowledge, based on the Government statistic and findings, which is the poorest district in Malaysia?
CKK: The northern region of Sabah which includes the District of Kudat has been known as one of the poorest.

Haji Ansari: What role do the Federal and State Ministry of Tourism play in promoting religious statue as tourist attraction in the country?
CKK: Very understanding, very supportive.

Haji Ansari: Refer to pages 39 (P28), 45 and 48 PBD(1). What do these photographs show?
CKK: They show the effort of the Federal Tourism Ministry in promoting the country as a multi-religious, multi-racial place for tourists to come for visit.

Haji Ansari: Apply for convenience at this time for the documents at pages 43 to 56 to be marked, which are not in dispute.

Court: Items 30 to 43 at pages 43 to 56 PBD(1) marked as P40 to P53 respectively.

Haji Ansari: From pages 43 untuil page 56 show various religious Statues and buildings, why are you exhibiting all these photographs as part of our bundle?
CKK: All these photos show first the high degree of tolerance for various religious structures to be put up in the country. Secondly, it also shows that they are even put up along high way or main road. Lastly, it also shows the respect and the high degree of tolerance shown by the Muslim community in the various states, including Kelantan.

Haji Ansari: Can you now refer to page 57 PBD(1), why did you include this item in your bundle?
CKK: This photo shows a mosque right in Kowloon in Hong Kong surrounded literally by Chinese shops and all types of business. There is a very powerful saying in Islam 'Laakum dinukum?which means 'Your religion is yours, and my religion is mine', This photo exemplifies the mutual respect taught in Islam.

Haji Ansari: May I have item 44 at page 57 to be marked, also an agreed document.

Court: Item 44 at page 57 of PBD(1): P54

Haji Ansari: Refer to page 58 of PBD(1). What is your objective in exhibiting this photo as part of your bundel?
CKK: It shows statue is not only put by non-Muslim. This is a statue of Ramses in Cairo, Egypt.

Haji Ansari: May I have item 45 pages 58 PBD(1) to be marked, also an agreed document.

Court: Item 45 page 58 of PBD(1): P55

Haji Ansari: After you received a copy of the letter from the State Mufti addressed to the 1st defendant, and extended to the 2nd defendant who went on to extend it to the 3rd and 4th defendants in the month of July 2006, what effort did you make to persuade the defendants to allow the Foundation to complete the project after you received this letter and until the end of the year?
CKK: Between that period the 1st defendant whenever I met him especially after the cabinet meeting no longer maintained that UMNO opposed. His new stand is that your Statue is near the mosque and I cannot allow it. That has been his stands after the Sipadan incident.

Haji Ansari: Were your successful to get the 1st defendant to change his mind in Year 2006.?
CKK: I did not notwithstanding the albums of photographs showing him the various religious statues in various states in Malaysia. But he did call me early the following year in February, that he would reconsider his decision to stop the Statue.

Haji Ansari: Before we go to 2007, I would like to refer to paragraphs 22 to 23 of your Statement of Claim at pages 6-7 of the Bundle of pleadings. Except for item (f) and (g), can you explain why you did not exhibit all these letters as part of your bundles?
CKK: These were all personal letters of mine trying to seek political support and understanding from my Federal Colleges, most of them were my former colleagues when I was there.

Haji Ansari: I would bring you now to January 2007. Was there anything special and out of ordinary in respect of Sipadan Island in January 2007?
CKK: In fact in late 2006 either in November or December, the State Government had agreed to privatize the management of Sipadan Island to a private group for a period of 25 years.

Haji Ansari: As a Minister of Tourism, were you consulted on this privatization of Sipadan and surrounding islands?
CKK: I was not consulted for the simple reason that even though Sabah parks which was under me was then managing the Island. The Island was under the control of a Joint Committee of the federal and the State Government.

Haji Ansari: Were you given any document by any of your officer in the Ministry in respect of the proposed privatization?
CKK: Yes, I have.

Haji Ansari: Do you know who are the owners of the group of company that is involved in the privatization proposal?
CKK: No, I did not.

Haji Ansari: Refer to Item 65 at pages 95 to 99 PBD(II) which are disputed. Can you confirm whether this is the document handed over to you and if so, by whom?
CKK: I confirm that this document was given to me by my then Permanent Secretary of my Ministry, Datuk Monica Chia.

Haji Ansari: Apply to mark this document but I believe my learned friend wish to object.

Attorney General (Datuk Roderick): The reason why we indicated that we are objecting to this document is because it is not a complete document, but part of the larger set of document. Secondly, I believe that it is a 'SULIT' document. This bundle came to me only last week, I have to check. Could we defer the marking of this document until this afternoon?

Haji Ansari: It is the case for the plaintiff and we have the discretion to use whatever document that is permissible under the law. Secondly, the author of this document is the 2nd defendant. Therefore when the original is in the possession of the adverse party we are allowed by law to tender just the copy of the same. Thirdly, we would like to cite the case of Takong Tabari vs Government of Sarawak and 3 others [1994] 3 AMR 52, the decision of the present Chief Justice of Sabah and Sarawak, who held and I quote.

Court: The Court will defer the ruling to at later stage. Item 65 at pages 95 to 99 PBD(II): ID56


Haji Ansari: To the best of your knowledge, was this privatization proposal of Sipadan and Ligitan Islands approved by the authority concerned?
CKK: It was rejected by the Joint Committee and subsequently also rejected by the Federal Cabinet.

Haji Ansari: Do you recall when was this proposal rejected by the Federal Cabinet?
CKK: Before April 2007 when the 1st defendant called me to his office and accused me of 'sabotaging' this privatization together with the then member of parliament for Semporna, whom I understand is still the member of parliament. There and then he told me that my letter of appeal I wrote to him rejected.

Haji Ansari: Do you recall what were the words he accused you for conspiring with the member of parliament for Semporna?
CKK: He used the description to describe the member of Semporna which I were allowed, I would rather not say it.

Haji Ansari: Can you give the name of the member Parliament for Semporna and his designation in the Federal Government in April 2007?
CKK: Datuk Seri Shafie Apdal. He was then the Minister for Domestic Trade and Consumers Affairs.

Haji Ansari: Refer to page 9 of bundle of pleadings, paragraph c. Whether the letter of appeal that you mentioned in your Statement of Claim is the letter found at pages 209 to 210 of PBD(ll)?
CKK: That is correct.

Haji Ansari: May I apply for this letter to be marked, believe there is not objection.

Attorney General (Datuk Roderick): No objection.

Court: Letter of appeal at page 209-210 of PBD(ll).P57.

Haji Ansari: Can you recall the words the 1st defendant used when he told you that your appeal is rejected?
CKK: I do not want to say other than him telling me that my appeal was rejected. It is very unpleasant.

Haji Ansari: Under paragraph 24 of your Statement of Claim, what was the reason why you tendered your resignation as a member of the Sabah State Cabinet on 13.4.200?
CKK: I did not see any point in staying in the 1st defendant's cabinet as I failed to rationalize with him if there was no basis in him stopping my project, which is a private project on private land and with private funding.

Court: Stand down until 11.20 a.m. Signed. Yew Jen Kie at 10.50 a.m

Court resumed at 11.35 a.m

Parties as before.
PW1 is reminded that he is still under oath.

Continuation of examination in chief.

Haji Ansari: After you resigned on 13.04.2007, it is pubic knowledge that the 1st defendant informed the media that you had
been offered an alternative site for the Statue. Did you or the Foundation receive any offer to relocate the Statue?
CKK: No, we did not. In fact, I also issued a statement to the press that I do not see any reason why I should be offered an alternative if I have done nothing wrong. And that if my project site is wrong then the Local Authority should have taken action against me and my Foundation.

Haji Ansari: Are you or the Foundation prepared to relocated the project or the site of the Statue?
CKK: Firstly, the Foundation was given a proper approval by the Local Authority. Secondly, not withstanding that, I did in fact went back to my Moral Uplifting Society and seek an instruction from the Goddess of the Sea and I got the message also written divine message that the site stays.

Haji Ansari: Did you in the month of April 2007 after your resignation take up the appeal for the work on the Statue to recommence besides the Chief Minster?
CKK: I met the Prime Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister in the same month that I resigned my post in the State Cabinet.

Haji Ansari: What were their response to or appeal?
CKK: I presented to both the Prime Minster and the Deputy Prime Minister all the photos that I have, those that I gave to the Chief Minister, as well as all the relevant documents including the letter of approval from the Kudat Town board. Both the
Prime Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister were very understanding and told me that they would advise the Chief Minister to hands off with regard to my Statue project.

Haji Ansari: Refer to pages 105 to 106 part of item 67 of PBD(ll). When was this letter brought to or attention?
CKK: This was brought to my attention by my UMNO colleagues in Kudat in the same month in May 2007.

Haji Ansari: What was your reaction when this was shown to you?
CKK: A desperate attempt to politicize my project which to me has no bearing in terms of religion and race other than a very private project.

Haji Ansari: What did you do after you saw this letter?
CKK: I immediately telephoned to very senior Sabah State UMNO leaders, Datuk Seri Salleh Tun Said and Datuk Abdul Ghapur Salleh, who requested me to fax to them this circular issued by the State UMNO Secretary. They then happened to be in Kuala Lumpur.

Haji Ansari: Did you comply with their request?
CKK: I did send a fax letter to Datuk Abdul Ghapur Salleh.

Haji Ansari:Refer to pages 100 to 102 of PBD(ll), disputed document, who is the author and signatory fo this letter?
CKK: That is my letter written by me and faxed to Datuk Abdul Ghapur Salleh.

Haji Ansari: Apply to tender the letter through this witness who is the maker.

Datuk Roderick: No objection.

Court: Item 66 at page 100-101 of PBD(ll): P58.

Haji Ansari: Did anything positive come out of this letter P58 in so far as the project is concerned?
CKK: After several months in fact on 14th November 2007, I was called up by the Prime Minister to his office in Kuala Lumpur and was told of the good news that he had asked the Chief Minister to allow me to proceed with my Statue project. And also had asked the Chief Minister to withdraw the letter written by the State Mufti. That as on 14th November 2007.

Haji Ansari: After meeting with the Prime Minister on 14th November 2007, what happened on the next day 15th November 2007?
CKK: I came back from Kuala Lumpur to Kota Kinabalu on 15th November 2007 and was told that very afternoon by the Executive Secretary of Kudat Town Board, Encik Ariff Abdullah that he had received instruction to cancel the approval given to the Foundation.

Haji Ansari: Did he mention who gave that instruction?
CKK: He went to may house that very afternoon. He cried before me. He told me that he was summoned to a meeting chaired by the Honorable State Attorney General with other officials of the State Government.

Haji Ansari: Did he mention anything else?
CKK: He told me he did not know what to do. He showed me a draft letter that he was instructed to adopt. I advised him as an officer he would have to follow.

Haji Ansari: Did you or Foundation receive any letter from Ariff revoking the approval given by the 4th Defendant?
CKK: My consultant received a letter of revocation dated 15th November 2007. I was given a copy of the letter of revocation.

Haji Ansari: Turn to page 27 Item 14 PBD(1), not disputed except to the truth of the contents., Is this the letter that you mentioned?
CKK: Yes.

Mr Ansari: Item 14 at page 27 PBD(1):P59.

Haji Ansari: Did you receive another letter from the same officer of the 4th defedant in the following year n the same subject matter i.e. the approval and revocation of the project?
CKK: Yes, I did.

Haji Ansari: Can you refer to the next page at page 28 Item 15 PBD(1), whether this was the letter you received from the same officer?
CKK: Yes, this letter was personally handed to me by Encik Ariff Abdullah. In handing me this letter, he told me that was the month he was leaving office and he wanted me to have that letter that he told me he wrote personally.

Haji Ansari: Tender the letter as ID as we will be calling the maker.

Court: Item 15 at page 28 PBD(1): ID60

Haji Ansari: Besides writing to Datuk Ghapur and meeting up with the Prime Minister, did you do anything else in respect of the letter at page 195-106 of PBD(ll)?
CKK: I lodged a police report against the 1st defendant as Chief Minister and Head of UMNO Sabah as well as the Secretary of UMNO Sabah. I also forwarded my police report to the Prime Minister, the Deputy Prime Minister with three newspaper cuttings.

Haji Ansari: Refer to Item 67 at pages 102 until 110 PBD(ll), what are these documents?
CKK: That is the police report that I lodged together with all the supporting documents.

Haji Ansari: Apply to have these documents marked, admitted existence but not the contents.

Datuk Roderick: No dispute as toe existence but no admission to the content.

Court: Item 67 at pages 102 to 110 PBD(11): P61

Haji Ansari: The Consultant for the Foundation received the letter of revocation i.e. P59 on 15th November 2007. This letter mentioned non-compliance with section 15(2) of the Town & Country Planning Ordinance (Cap 141). After you receive this letter in the middle of November 2007, what action did you take on this letter?
CKK: I took that letter and flew back to Kuala Lumpur and met the Deputy Prime Minister. The Prime Minister then was in Singapore. I told the Deputy Prime Minister that the State Government had now withdrawn the approval on a new ground and I have no choice but to seek legal recourse.

Haji Ansari: What legal recourse did you take pursuant to the letter?
CKK: Under Section 16 of the Town and Country Planning Country Ordinance, an obligation to appeal to the Appeal Board which is to in existence. Hence on the advice of the lawyer, we took the matter to Court. Section 16 of the Ordinance requires me to act within 28 days to appeal to the Appeal Board, which does not exist.

Haji Ansari: Refer to Item 70 to 73 at pages 113 to 213 PBD(11). Can you confirm what are these documents?
CKK: This is the Originating Motion that I took out.

Haji Ansari: Apply for these documents to be marked, not disputed.

Court: Item 70 to 73 at pages 113 to 213 PBD(ll): P62 to P65 respectively.

Haji Ansari: After you have filed the Motion i.e. P62, did the Minister of Local Government and Housing issue a statement on the project?
CKK: Yes, he did trying to exculpate the State Mufti from this matter.

Haji Ansari: Refer to Item 68 at page 111 of PBD(ll), can you confirm either this is the statement you referred to?
CKK: Yes.

Haji Ansari: Can you read out the second and third paragraphs?
CKK: "Sementara tidak ada apa-apa surat bantahan daripada mana-mana pertubuhan temasuk dari Kudat, beliau berkata, bantahan Kerajaan negeri terhadap pembinaan patung itu adalah disebabkan sebarang fatwa yang didakwa dikeluarkan oleh Majlis Fatwa. Biar saya jelaskan. Perkara ini tidak ada kena mengena dengna sebarang fatwa. Selepas membuat kajian mendalam, kami dapati lokasi ini "tidak sesuai" katanya dalam kenyataan di sini, pada Sabtu."

Haji Ansari: Apply to have it marked, contents are not disputed.

Court: Item 111 at page 111 PBD(ll): P68.

Haji Ansari: The two paragraphs that you have read mentioned that there is no public objection, but it is an objection from the State Government on location. Before you left the Cabinet, was there any Cabinet decision that the location was not proper?
CKK: The State Cabinet has never discussed my project when I was there until I resigned on 13th April 2007.

Haji Ansari: Refer to a Memorandum from the Lands and Survey to the State Secretary at page 76 item 38 DBD. This letter in essence mentioned three requirements to be fulfilled, namely, (1) the re-zoning of the land; (2) conversion of the land and
(3) sub-division of the land. Would you like to reply to this document?
CKK: The little experience that I have in private legal practice, for as long as the zoning is in order, in any development in Sabah it is the established practice that the conversion and sub-division will come as we go along with the development of the land in question. It has never been a case that conversion and sub-division must take place before development can proceed.

Haji Ansari: Do you have anything in your bundle to prove that this is the situation and practice in Sabah?
CKK: Kudat Resort Hotel is the classic example.

Haji Ansari: Refer to pages 59 to 72 Items 46 to 52 PBD(1), what do these documents show?
CKK: A private application to Kudat Town Board to put up Kudat Resort Hotel with the land title attached.

Haji Ansari: Was TPM Consultant the same consultant engaged by the Foundation?
CKK: Yes.

Haji Ansari: Where is this hotel located?
CKK: It is adjoining the site of the Statue.

Haji Ansari: Refer page 60 which states the said land is demised herein expressly and only for the purpose of industrial (Fiberglass Factory). To your knowledge, was occupation certificate issued to the hotel?
CKK: Yes.

Haji Ansari: Do you have personal knowledge on this hotel development?
CKK: Yes. This was one of the project supported by me as the Minister for Tourism then.

Haji Ansari: Do you know why the final OC was issued four years later?
CKK: Because of one technical condition that was no fulfilled. That technical condition that was not fulfilled as the 100 buffet zone under the approved tourism zone, which subsequently the Town & Country Central Board decided to re-adjust the buffer zone. Whilst that readjustment was done, the Local Authority issued the full occupation certificate to the resort hotel.

Haji Ansari: Apply to mark Items 46, 47, 49 to 52 of PBD(1): P67 to P72 respectively.

Haji Ansari: Refer to page 73 item 53 PBD(1), can you explain to the Court to whom this letter was addressed and why you are using it?
CKK: This letter was issued by Kudat Town Board to Penuwasa Sdn. Bhd., that is the shipyard company and the donor of the Statue site. This letter is to remind the land owner that even though they are holding the land title that is specified for industrial land use, the authority had in Year 2001, 17th April, already rezone that land in question together with all the adjoining land from industrial to tourism use. The owner was given a period of ten years from 2001 to 2011 to have their existing operation as a shipyard. After that they have to look for appropriate land for their shipyard.

Haji Ansari: Apply to mark Item 53 PBD(1).

Court: Item 53 at page 73 PBD(1): P73.

Haji Ansari: Yesterday you mentioned and also in paragraph 14 of your Statement of Claim, thirteen craftsmen were supposed to come to assemble the Statue. You only have approval for eleven. Do you have the additional document to support the approval of more craftsmen in addition to the eleven?
CKK: Yes.

Haji Ansari: I have shown this document ot my learned friend who has kindly agreed to them. Apply to have them marked. The previous eleven approvals was marked P20.

Court: Approval for two craftsmen: P20(a-b).

Haji Ansari: You have mentioned in paragraph 29(f) at page 10 of BP, where did you get this information from?
CKK: From both the senior UMNO members, Datuk Seri Panglima Salleh bin Tun Said and Datuk Ghapur Salleh.

Haji Ansari: Would you like to add anything before we conclude the examination in chief?
CKK: No.

Haji Ansari: That is the end of our examination in chief.

Court: To 2.30 p.m


Datuk Roderick: I would require more time before I can cross-examine this witness. Serious allegation were made against the
1st defendant, I would need to take instruction.

Court: The cross-examination of PW1 can be deferred. The plaintiff can proceed to call other witnesses from outstation this afternoon.

Signed. Yew Jen Kie


Court resumed at 2.45 p

Parties as before.


PW2:
Mohd Najib Bin Muntok (MNM)
Affirms and states in B.M
54 years old
District officer Kota Belud


Haji Ansari: Did you receive a subpoena to testify and toe produce document in court for this trial?
MNM: Yes, I did.

Haji Ansari: When did you serve Kudat District as Assistant District Officer?
MNM: From October 1999 until November 2006.

Haji Ansari: In your eight years stay in Kudat, how would you describe the inter-racial relationship of the various communities in Kudat town?
MNM: The inter-racial relationship is very good.

Haji Ansari: Did you hold any post in the Mosque Committee for Masjid As-Syakirin?
MNM: Yes, as Chairman.

Haji Ansari: When was that?
MNM: From 2003 to November 2006.

Haji Ansari: Did the Committee ever discuss putting up an objection to the construction of the Goddess of Mercy or Maju in Kudat sometime in April or May 2006?
MNM: No, the committee did not hold any discussion on this.

Haji Ansari: Was the site of the Statue located next or adjoining to the As-Syakirin Mosque?
MNM: It is not adjoining; it is about 700 meters away.

Haji Ansari: Refer to page 44 to DBD, according to this letter, the Mosque Committee has decide to object to the construction of the Goddess of Mercy which is next to the Mosque. Do you agree with the content of this letter?
MNM: I disagree.

Haji Ansari: Did this "Elly Kassim Bin Adin" hold any post in the Committee in May 2006.
MNM: Yes, as Assistant Secretary.

Haji Ansari: Does the Mosque Committee have any letterhead? Is this the letterhead of the Mosque Committee?
MNM: We do not have any official letterhead.

Haji Ansari: Did you or anybody else form the Committee authorize Elly Kassim Bin Edin to write this letter?
MNM: None.

Haji Ansari: Did you Committee wrote a letter to Tan Sri Chong Kah Kiat sometimes in August 2006.
MNM: Yes.

Haji Ansari: You were ordered under the subpoena to produce a copy of the letter that you wrote to the plaintiff, do you have a copy of that letter with you?
MNM: I did bring along one copy.

Haji Ansari: Are you the author and the signatory of this letter?

MNM: Yes. [Witness shows the copy that he has brought along].

Datuk Roderick: No objection to this letter.

Court. Letter dated 5th August 2006. P74

Haji Ansari: We will make copies of the letter later.

Haji Ansari: Can you read out the whole letter including the people who signed?
MNM: [Read from P74].

Haji Ansari: Will the Statue obstruct the directions of prayers of those who pray in Masjid As-Syakirin?
MNM: In our view, it will not.

No Further question.


Cross-examination of PW2:

Datuk Roderick: Apply to mark the letter at page 44 of BDB as Defence ID.

Court: Letter at page 44 of DBD: IDD1.

Datuk Roderick: Shown Page 44 of DBD, who was the Setiausaha?
MNM: Haji Assan Bin Wijiarto.

Datuk Roderick: Prior to today were you aware of this letter?
MNM: No.

Datuk Roderick: Am I correct that today is the first time you saw this letter?
MNM: Yes.

Datuk Roderick: Shown P74. Can you explain why was letter issued by those persons named there?
MNM: We heard that there was objection to the construction of the Statue. So we wrote this letter to show that it was not the Committee who raised the objection.

Datuk Roderick: So there were other objections to the Statue but not by your Committee?
MNM: Not that I know of.

Datuk Roderick: If you were not aware of any other objection, then why the need to write P74?.
MNM: We heard there was an objection during Committee discussion.

Datuk Roderick: Did the plaintiff request you to write this letter?
MNM: No.

Datuk Roderick: Why was P74 addressed to Tan Sri Chong Kah Kiat?
MNM: We know that Tan Sri Chong ws the one who constructed the Statue.

Datuk Roderick: Prior to the issuance of P74, was there any discussion in the Committee?
MNM: Yes. That was what we discussed in the Committee.

Datuk Roderick: Was Elly Kassim Bin Edin a signatory to P74.
MNM: No.

No further question.

Haji Ansari: No re-examination. May I ask for the witness to be released.

Haji Ansari: Before I proceed I would like to know whether my learned friend has any objection to the presence of witnesses in Court.

Datuk Roderick: I do not mind.

Haji Ansari: We confirm that we have no objection to the presence of the defendants?witnesses in Court.

PW 3:
Sebastian Lim (SL)
Affirms and states in English
52 years old
District officer Kudat



Haji Ansari: When did you assume duty as District Officer of Kudat?
SL: 8th June 2001.

Haji Ansari: What is your position in Kudat Town Board?
SL: I am a commissioner of the Town Board.

Haji Ansari: To the best of your knowledge and experience, when the 4th defendant received development plan for approval, what
do you do with those plans.
SL: I am the chairman of the Building Plan And Town Planning Sub-Committee. Our terms of reference is to approve or reject or to require amendments to the application. Normally the agenda is prepared by the secretariat. We proceed item by me. If there is no objection from the members in the committee, we would then the approval in principle subject to compliance of any technical requirement of the Technical Department.

Haji Ansari: Based on your experience until Year 2006, does the 4th Defendant send the plan to the Central Town and Country Planning Board?
SL: It normally depends on the advice of Town & Country Planning Department.

Haji Ansari: Refer to P6 at pages 6 to 9 of PBD(1). Have you seen this document before?
SL: I have just seen it.

Haji Ansari: This is an approval by your committee pursuant to meeting on 25th October 2005. Do you recall being present at
the meeting to decide the application to construct the Goddess of Mercy Statue in Kudat?
SL: Yes, I did.

Haji Ansari: Did the Town and Country Planning Department during that meeting advise you to refer this development plan to
the Central Board for approval?
SL: No.

Haji Ansari: Were there instances in the past in which you were advised to refer matters to the Central Board by the
Department of Town and Country planning.
SL: Yes.

Haji Ansari: Do you remember being ordered or asked to attend a meeting on 15 November 2007 at the office of State Attorney
General?
SL: I am not so sure who invited me but I attended the meeting.

Haji Ansari: Was there anyone else besides you that was called to the meeting from Kudat?
SL: Encik Ariff and I

Haji Ansari: Who chaired the meeting 15 November 2007 at the SAG抯 office?
SL: The State Attorney General.

Haji Ansari: Is he in Court?
SL: Yes.

Haji Ansari: Do you remember who else attended the meeting beside the Honorable SAG, Ariff and yourself.
SL: One of AG'S staff, Director of Lands and Surveys Encik Osman Jamal, Encik Mosshidi the director of Town and Country
Planning, the 3rd defendant was there but he came late, another officer from the Town and Country Planning Department, I cannot remember his name.

Haji Ansari: Can you briefly describe what transpired during that meeting?
SL: We ere briefed about the project. Accordingly to the chairman i.e. the SAG, we had not complied with section 15 of the Town and Country Planning Ordinance. The Executive Officer of Kudat Town Board was asked to sign a letter to withdraw the approval.

Haji Ansari: Who was the person who asked Ariff to sign the letter?
SL: The chairman i.e. the AG.

Haji Ansari: What happened next?
SL: I understand that Ariff brought back the letter and to type on the letterhead of the Kudat Town Board.

Haji Ansari: Did you or Encik Ariff raise any question or objection to the instruction?
SL: We did not raise any objection. We just feel ?we were afraid that it would delay the future projects and also concerned about what would happened to the previous projects that we had approved.

Haji Ansari: Have you received the subpoena we issued?
SL: Yes.

Haji Ansari: We have also asked you to bring the letter. Did you bring?
SL: Yes, I brought a letter.

Haji Ansari: Who gave you this letter?
SL: The original letter was given to Encik Ariff.

Haji Ansari: Who gave the original of this letter to Encik Ariff?
SL: I cannot recall, it was one of the staffs from AG Chambers.

Haji Ansari: I am applying for that letter to be admitted and marked as an exhibit.

Datuk Roderick: No objection.

Court. Letter dated 7th November 2007; P75.

No further question

Court: Stand down till 4.15p.m


Mr Ansari: I have no objection. But I am of the view that is is not proper for the honourable SAG to cross-examine the
witness.

Signed Yew Jen Kie at 3.50 p.m.


Court resumed at 4.30 p.m.
Parties as before
Cross-examination of PW3 by Mr Hanafiah:

Hanafiah: Can you tell the Court what exactly is your role as chairman of the Committee?
SL: I chair the meeting and go by the agenda prepared by the secretary.

Hanafiah: Do you personally go through the submitted development plans or building plans?
SL: Yes, normally the plans will go round the table.

Hanafiah: Are you also responsible to set out any conditions as chairman in the Committee?
SL: No, I don't. I go according to the technical requirement set by the technical department.

Hanafiah: What do you mean by technical department?
SL: The are many technical department like Town and Country Planning Department, JKR, Bomba, Lands and Surveys, Drainage
and Irrigation Department, Sabah Electricity Board, Environmental Department and Environmental Protection Department, Water Works, and also the Town Board itself.

Hanafiah: Am I correct to say that these technical departments which you mentioned are the ones with the relevant expertise to set out the relevant conditions in approving a development plans and building plans.
SL: Yes.

Hanafiah: Refer to pages 6 of PBD(1) i.e part of P6. This letter was addressed to TPM Consultant Sdn. Bhd. Paragraph 2 clearly stated that the above proposed development has been approved and it also states that it is subject to compliance to the conditions set out by the technical departments, Am I correct to say that the following contents of this document are the feed backs and conditions given by the technical departments?
SL: Yes.

Hanafiah: It is also stated in paragraph 2 that the Project had been approved in the meeting held on 25 October 2005. Also refer to page 31 DBD, is this the extract of the minutes of the meeting held on 25 October 2005 you referred to earlier?
SL: Yes.

Hanafiah: Can you read out the contents of the minutes?
SL: "Diluluskan tertakluk mematuhi ulasan-ulasan Jabatan teknik."

Hanafiah: Do you confirm now that the same condition i.e. compliance to the conditions set out by the technical department is stated in both the documents referred to you earlier?
SL: I guess so because it is not prepared by me but by my secretariat.

Hanafiah: Who is your secretary?
SL: Encik Ariff Abdullah, Executive Officer is also the secretary.

Hanafiah: Wish to tender the document at page 31 of DBD.

Haji Ansari: This witness is not the maker, we will be calling Encik Ariff.

Court: Extract of Minutes of meeting held on 25 October 2005. IDD2.

Hanafiah: You said in examination in chief that you were not sure who invited you to the meeting. Can you clarify that?
SL: I tried to recall who called me to attend the meeting but I cannot.

Hanafiah: What was the main discussion during the meeting?
SL: on-compliance with section 15.

Hanafiah: The document that your brought to Court today i.e. P75, is this the letter which talked about the non-compliance with section 15 of the Town and Country Planning Ordinance?
SL: Yes.

Hanafiah: Can you recall how long was the meeting?
SL: It was short meeting but we waited a long time for it to start.

Hanafiah:`Did the meeting confirm that there was non-compliance with section 15 of the Town and Country Planning Ordinance?
SL: That was what the AG said.

Hanafiah: What else were discussed beside non-compliance in the meeting?
SL: That was the only topic being discussed.

Hanafiah: You said in examination in chief that there was a letter drafted by Mr Ariff, what is that letter about?

Haji Ansari: The question is wrong. The letter was drafted and given to Encik Ariff to sign.

Hanafiah: Can you recall what it was all about?
SL: It was all about section 15.

Hanafiah: Can you explain how was the atmosphere of the meeting?
SL: It was a friendly atmosphere.

Hanafiah: Do you recall whether anyone was being threatened or anything like that?
SL: No

Hanafiah: In respect of the non-compliance with section 15, do you recall whether anyone in the meeting made any objection to
the stance?
SL: No objection, we just raised our concerns.

No further question.

Hanafiah: You were asked in the cross-examination the atmosphere of the meeting. You had earlier testified under examination in chief that Encil Ariff was asked to sign the letter. In cross-examination you said it was a friendly atmosphere. In what friendly manner was the instruction given to Encik Ariff?
SL: Friendly means there was no shouting or argument. Ariff was director to sign.

No further question.


Court: Witness is released.
In view of the time, adjourned to Monday, 19th January 20098 at 9.30 a.m.

Signed. Yew Jen Kie at 5.00 p.m
14th January 2009.

HASSNAR CABAR ABAS ALI LETAK JAWATAN SEBAGAI PENGERUSI MUIS DAN ADUN BALUNG

LAPOR....Hassnar menunjukkan laporan polis yang dibuatnya di hadapan balai Polis Karamunsing terhadap Abas Ali.


MANTAN Ketua Daerah Sandakan, OKK Hassnar MP Ebrahim mencabar Pengerusi Majlis Agama Islam Sabah (MUIS), Datuk Syed Abas Syed Ali agar meletakkan jawatannya kerana bersikap hipokrit dan tidak layak menjaga hal ehwal Umat Islam di Sabah.

Kata Hassnar, Abas telah mencabul Fasal 3 Perlembagaan Persekutuan, menghina agama Islam dan melakukan jenayah menghina Mahkamah Syariah Pahang apabila membuat teguran secara terbuka berhubung hukuman enam sebatan yang dijatuhi terhadap seorang lelaki dan wanita yang meminum arak di khalayak ramai sebagai terlalu berat.

"Sebagai seorang Pengerusi MUIS, beliau tidak langsung menghormati Institusi Mahkamah Syariah apabila secara sedar telah mempersendakan agama Islam apabila mengkritik hukuman yang dijatuhi oleh Mahkamah Syariah sebagai tidak adil dan terlalu berat," ujar Hassnar yang menggesa agar Ketua Menteri Sabah, Musa Aman agar melantik personel yang berkelayakan menerajui MUIS.

Sebagai seorang Islam, kata Hassnar, Abas tidak boleh membuat kenyataan yang berunsur hasutan dan menghina agama rasmi Malaysia kerana keputusan berkenaan dibuat oleh Hakim Mahkamah Tinggi Syariah.

"Apa hubungan Abas dengan pesalah dan kenapa beliau membela pesalah di luar mahkamah? Dari segi undang-undang, pesalah boleh memfailkan rayuan dan bukannya mewakilkan kepada Abas membuat kenyataan umum," tegas Hassnar yang menggesa agar Ketua Menteri tidak mempolitikkan agama Islam terutama perlantikan Pengerusi MUIS yang tidak langsung mempunyai latar belakang agama.

Kata Hassnar Abas sebenarnya pengecut dan berjubahkan agama Islam apabila gagal menjalankan tugas memastikan syiar Islam terpelihara dengan membiarkan ramai umat Islam di Sabah yang menyertai Islam melalui Pertubuhan Islam Seluruh Sabah (USIA) telah murtad dan kembali kepada agama asal mereka disebabkan tiada bimbingan daripada MUIS dan USIA.

Kata Hassnar, beliau sedih kerana ada jenazah umat Islam yang telah dikebumikan di tanah perkuburan bukan Islam setelah meninggal dunia kerana MUIS memandang remeh isu agama Islam di Sabah.

"Saya juga mempunyai bukti campurtangan Abas di dalam satu kes perbicaraan apabila Abas bersubahat dengan seorang hakim membuat keputusan secara salah dan membelakangkan undang-undang," kata Hassnar yang menuding jari kepada Abas yang membantu seorang wanita yang disahkan murtad walaupun aduan rasmi dibuat kepadanya.

Oleh itu, Abas harus mengosongkan kerusi DUN Balung dan Pengerusi MUIS kerana telah melakukan jenayah syariah apabila menghasut umat Islam agar meremehkan hukuman Mahkamah Tinggi Syariah.


PENGERUSI...Kata Hassnar Inilah kerja dan sikap Pengerusi MUIS.

Hassnar turut mendesak Abas meminta maaf secara terbuka kepada Umat Islam kerana telah menyakiti hati umat Islam dengan mempersendakan agama dan mendorong Umat Islam mendekati khamar atau arak yang menjadi punca segala kejahatan.

Cadangan Abas agar umat Islam yang meminum arak dihantar ke pusat pemulihan sebagai cadangan orang hilang akal kerana wang rakyat terpaksa dibelanjakan untuk merawat orang yang merosakkan diri mereka dengan arak melainkan Abas bersedia menjadikan rumahnya sebagai pusat pemulihan arak.

"Saya mencabar Ketua Polis Negara agar tidak terlalu mengamalkan sikap double standard dengan menangkap Teressa Kok dalam kes azan sebaliknya membiarkan Abas menghina agama Islam sesuka hati," kata Hassnar yang berjanji akan mendedahkan segala salah laku Abas selama beliau menjadi Pengerusi MUIS.

Sebelum ini kata Hassnar, tindakan Mufti Negeri Sabah, Datuk Ahmad Alawi mengeluarkan fatwa mengharamkan pembinaan patung Ma Tzu sebagai mencampuri urusan penganut agama lain dan amat memalukan Umat Islam apabila penglibatan Mufti dalam kes Ma Tzu didengar di Mahkamah terbuka.

Dalam pada itu, Hassnar juga mencabar Mufti Negeri Sabah agar turut meletakkan jawatan sebagai hukuman dunia kerana bersubahat dengan Musa Aman mengeluarkan fatwa yang menyebabkan wujudnya sengketa agama di antara penganut Ma Tzu dengan agama Islam.

Hassnar telah membuat laporan polis di Balai Polis Karamunsing pada jam 12.24 tengahari, 15 Januari 2009 melalui laporan Karamunsing/000858/09 yang berbunyi;

"Pada 15 Januari 2009 lebih kurang jam 10.30 pagi, saya terbaca di muka surat 2 dan diruang bahasa malaysia akhbar daily express, semasa berada di kawasan Api-Api Centre Kota Kinabalu, Sabah, Pengerusi Majlis Agama Islam Sabah, Datuk Syed Abas Syed Ali telah mengeluarkan kenyataan menghina mahkamah. Kenyataan Datuk Syed Abas Syed Ali bahawa hukuman, 6 kali sebatan rotan ke atas Mohamad Nasir Mohamad dan Noorazah Baharudin, kedua–duanya beragama Islam, dijatuhkan oleh Hakim Mahkamah Syariah di Pahang, YA Abdul Rahman Yunus, kerana kesalahan meminum arak, dianggap berat adalah jenayah yang bertujuan menjatuhkan imej Mahkamah Syariah di Malaysia. Saya buat aduan ini supaya Polis diRaja Malaysia siasat dan ambil tindakan di bawah undang undang jenayah ke atas Datuk Syed Abas Syed Ali dan semua kakitangan akhbar yang menyiarkan kenyataan tidak bertanggung jawab seperti terkandung dan disiar oleh akhbar berkenaan. Photostatnya dikepilkan bersama laporan ini, pada 15hb januari 2009."

Dalam pada itu, Mahkamah Tinggi Syariah Kuantan telah menjatuhi hukuman denda RM5,000 dan enam sebatan mengikut hukum syariah ke atas seorang lelaki dan seorang wanita yang mengaku bersalah meminum arak.

Hakim Datuk Abdul Rahman Yunus menjatuhkan hukuman itu selepas kedua-dua tertuduh, Mohd. Nasir Mohamad @ Sulaiman, 38, dan Noorazah Baharuddin, 22, mengaku melakukan perbuatan yang dilarang oleh agama Islam itu tahun lalu.




NOORAZAH mengaku bersalah meminum arak di Mahkamah Tinggi Syariah di Kuantan smentara MOHD NASIR tenang ketika dijatuhi hukuman denda RM5,000 dan enam kali sebat semalam

Mohd. Nasir dituduh meminum arak jenama Tiger Beer di Fun Pub, Holliday Villa, Cherating, pada 11 Julai lalu, pukul 11.37 malam. Dia telah berkeluarga dan mempunyai empat orang anak, bekerja dengan sebuah syarikat perkapalan di Kemaman, Terengganu.

Sementara itu, Noorazah yang bekerja sebagai seorang pelayan di sini, dituduh meminum arak jenama Heineken di Black Forest Pub, Jalan Gambut dekat sini, pukul 1.20 pagi pada 12 Julai tahun lalu.

Kedua-dua tertuduh didakwa telah melakukan kesalahan di bawah Seksyen 136 Enakmen Pentadbiran Ugama Islam Dan Adat Resam Melayu Pahang 1982 dan dihukum di bawah Seksyen 4 Enakmen Pentadbiran Ugama Islam Dan Adat Resam Melayu Pahang (Pindaan) 1987.

Berikut berita penuh yang ditulis Bernama tetapi disiarkan semua akhbar di Malaysia;

TAWAU, 14 Jan (Bernama) Pengerusi Majlis Ugama Islam Sabah (Muis) Datuk Syed Abas Syed Ali berkata hukuman enam kali sebatan rotan yang dikenakan oleh Mahkamah Tinggi Syariah Pahang terhadap seorang lelaki dan seorang wanita Islam di negeri itu kerana meminum arak adalah terlalu berat.

Sambil menyifatkan hukuman berkenaan sebagai tidak berkesan untuk mencegah umat Islam daripada minum arak, beliau sebaliknya mencadangkan supaya pendekatan pemulihan digunakan untuk mendidik umat Islam supaya tidak mendekati tabiat haram itu.

"Itu (sebatan) bukan caranya. Lebih baik umat Islam yang ditangkap meminum arak dihantar menjalani proses pemulihan untuk membolehkan mereka meningggalkan tabiat itu.

"Penagih arak bukan mudah untuk meninggalkan tabiat berkenaan. Ia seperti perokok yang sukar meninggalkan tabiat merokok," katanya kepada Bernama di sini, Rabu.

Syed Abas yang juga Anggota Dewan Undangan Negeri Sabah kawasan Balung berkata demikian ketika diminta mengulas mengenai keputusan Mahkamah Tinggi Syariah di Pahang yang mengenakan hukuman enam kali sebatan rotan terhadap Mohamad Nasir Mohamad, 38, dan Noorazah Baharuddin,22, seorang pelayan, kerana didapati bersalah meminum arak di sebuah pub di Pahang tahun lalu.

Selain hukuman rotan, Mohamad Nasir dan Noorazah juga masing-masing dikenakan denda.

Syed Abas berkata menggunakan pendekatan hukuman berat seperti itu bukan sahaja tidak berkesan dalam mendidik umat Islam supaya menjauhi perbuatan haram itu, malah ia tidak akan menyelesaikan masalah berkenaan.

"Jika inilah pendekatan yang diambil, lebih baik umat Islam diharamkan sama sekali daripada memasuki kelab malam atau pub kerana majoriti mereka yang mengunjungi tempat-tempat tersebut akan minum arak.

"Kalau tidak, beribu-ribu umat Islam akan disebat kerana meminum arak. Lebih baik mereka yang ditangkap minum arak ditahan seketika untuk membantu mereka meninggalkan tabiat berkenaan," katanya.



SALINAN laporan polis Hassnar.

TAUSUG VS IC PALSU

Di hadapan Pejabat Perdana Menteri Malaysia semasa menghantar buku IC PROJEK-Agenda Tersembunyi Mahathir? pada 26 Januari 2007.












EMPAT buku yang saya tulis mengenai IC Palsu dan Skandal Kewarganegaraan Sonsang iaitu (1) IC PALSU Merampas Hak Anak Sabah, (2) Pengundi Untuk Disewa, (3) IC PROJEK Agenda Tersembunyi Mahathir? dan (4) 007-Lelaki Malaysia Terakhir? telah menimbulkan pelbagai pandangan daripada keturunan Tausug di Sabah.

Namun hakikatnya saya tidak pernah mendakwa bahawa semua kaum Sulug @ Tausug itu Pendatang Asing Tanpa Izin (PTI) dan semua Pendatang Tanpa Izin itu Tausug.

Untuk mendalami lagi isu Tausug yang ditohmah sebagai Pendatang Asing oleh pihak tertentu dan mengesahkan dakwaan bahawa Tausug adalah 'Anak Negeri' Sabah, saya membaca buku TAUSUG & KESULTANAN SULU karya Asreemoro.

Buku Versi SEJARAH MELAYU dan HIKAYAT MERONG MAHAWANGSA ini ditulis oleh saudara Asreemoro mengikut gaya tulisan modern adalah penulisan semula buku sejarah mengikut sudut pandangan 'ex-parte' kerana ada kalanya anakronis dan menyimpang daripada fakta dan weelstenchauung.



Saya bangga dengan keberanian saudara Asree menulis buku berkenaan yang dibuat secara bersahaja berdasarkan fakta secara ex-parte dan bukannya secara ilmiah dan sudut pandangan seorang wartawan yang mengutamakan alibi dan bukti yang melampaui keraguan munasabah.

Buku Tausug & Kesultanan Sulu memberi natijah yang amat besar kepada sejarah modern terutama sangkutan kepada desakan politik Filipina sekalipun buku tersebut lebih kepada Sastera Sejarah yang dipapah turun daripada satu generasi kepada suatu generasi tanpa melalui ujian forensik dan pentarikhan radio karbon.

Saya telah menulis komen yang ringkat kepada Asreemoro melalui emailnya seperti berikut;

ASSALAMUALAIKUM WARAHMATULLAH HIWABARAKATUH,

Saudara Asree, saya turut menjiwa tulisan saudara dan harap dapat dikomersilkan lagi dengan fakta dan logika. Harus diingat, tiada yang pandai tanpa membaca dan tidak semua yang membaca itu pandai. Selamat berkarya. Lawat blog saya http://mutalibmd.blogspot.com




Saya gembira apabila Asreemoro menjawab seperti berikut;

Wa alaikumussalam warahmatullahi wabarakatuh,

Syukran jazilan jazakallah kepada saudara Mutalib MD, kerana telah sudi membaca buku saya Tausug & Kesultanan Sulu. Sebenarnya sejak buku tuan sampai ke telinga saya pada 2007 lalu saya mula memasang niat untuk membeli. Mungkin ada maklumat yang saya sangat perlukan berada dalam buku tulisan tuan. Oleh kerana terlalu mahal saya gagal mendapatkannya, "mahal" sebab kandungannya yang mungkin eksklusif.

Pada dasarnya saya kurang bersetuju dengan kajian saudara disebabkan yang tuan sudah sedia maklum saya adalah dari kaum Sulu. Walaubagaimana pun, tuan berhak membongkarnya atas dasar tertentu yang mana tuan sendiri anggap sebagai perjuangan tuan, kerana sekiranya dilihat dari aspek lain kajian tuan memang ada kebenarannya. Benar sebab memang terbukti kebenarannya, tinggal lagi ia kelihatan terdorong oleh sikap kepartian (politik).

Dalam hal ini (Pemberian IC kepada kaum Sulu) saya berpandangan sekiranya ia memang sah dari segi undang-undang maka saya menyokong. Tetapi kiranya memang palsu dan menipu kaum Sulu (kaum Muslimin yang dianggap PTI) yang kemudian diperalat mengundi sebagai pengundi hantu, maka saya tidak setuju terhadap pemberian IC palsu, malah saya menentang keras.

Hal ini saya dah katakan kepada sahabat saya dalam PKR dan PAS, laporkan kepada polis kiranya ada kaum Muslimin Sulu yang diberi IC palsu, kerana ini bukanlah bantuan tapi penganiayaan.

Asreemoro
+6016-347 2849
http://tausug-global.blogspot.com

Sehubungan itu, saya petik Prakata Penulis dalam bukunya, TAUSUG & KESULTANAN SULU.

Bismillahirrahmanirrahim, SYUKUR alhamdulillah ku panjatkan ke hadrat Allah s.w.t kerana dengan izin-Nya jua buku ini dapat disiapkan. Kesyukuran terhadap nikmat-nikmat yang tidak dapat dihitung. Nikmat iman dan Islam serta nikmat wasilah (menyampai risalah Ilahi) kepada umat manusia di muka bumi iaitu Rasulullah s.a.w, keluarganya dan para sahabatnya yang diredhai serta para ulamak haq (memberi peringatan) hingga kiamat.

Sebelum saya memulakan penulisan buku ini pelbagai pertanyaan diajukan kepada saya oleh sahabat-sahabat tentang isi kandungannya serta fakta-fakta yang saya perlu paparkan. Kerana menganggap tulisan seperti ini boleh mengancam keselamatan diri. Rasanya kalau saya diberi pilihan sama ada untuk terus menjadi seperti kambing dan lembu (hidup hanya untuk cari makan) atau mahu menjadi pembela “sesuatu”, saya tetap akan pilih pembela. Pembela kalau mati tetap ada harga diri dan mendapat nilaian di sisi-Nya. Walau bagaimanapun, sebagai warganegara Malaysia, saya meletakkan keselamatan negara sebagai keutamaan untuk dipertahankan.

Bagi saya pendedahan dalam buku ini tidaklah melibatkan keselamatan atau pun dianggap bahaya, sebaliknya memperjelaskan beberapa fakta kabur tentang Kesultanan Sulu serta tuntutan terhadap Sabah oleh para Sultan-sultan Sulu yang menyamar Sultan. Sudah tentu para penyamar ini didalangi oleh Filipina. Namun, dalam masa yang sama saya mengajak agar para pejuang bersenjata Moro menghentikan tentangan mereka terhadap Filipina. Kerana, hingga hari ini pun penentangan mereka masih juga tidak pernah menampakkan kejayaan melainkan kemusnahan masyarakat Moro bertambah teruk dengan menjadi pelarian dan berbunuh-bunuhan sesama sendiri. Kemunduran dan kemelaratan semakin berleluasa.

Sebenarnya kunci keamanan di Sulu atau wilayah Moroland (Mindanao dan Sulu) hanyalah dengan meletakkan semula kuasa kesultanannya kembali berdaulat. Saya optimis bahawa hanya Sultan Sulu yang sah sahaja satu-satunya yang boleh dijadikan simbol keamanan dan perpaduan seterusnya layak menjadi “nakhoda” untuk membawa keluar “kapal” itu dari jeti Filipina. Sejak sekian lama kapal itu tertambat di jeti mereka tanpa penjagaan yang sewajarnya. Akhirnya karam dan para penumpangnya berenang ke kapal lain mencari perlindungan.

Sejak kemangkatan Sultan Jamalul Kiram-II pada 1936 tiada lagi sultan yang boleh diharapkan menjadi “nakhoda” kapal. Kerana kebanyakan individu yang mengangkat dirinya sebagai Sultan Sulu selepas itu tidak layak lagi jadi “nakhoda” ke-rana merekalah yang menyerahkan tali kapal mereka sendiri untuk diikat di jeti Filipina. Sejak itu pencarian rakyat Sulu terhadap Sultan mereka yang benar masih berterusan hingga ke hari ini. Kerana mereka tahu suatu hari nanti “nakhoda” yang benar pasti datang mengambil semula kapalnya dari jeti Filipina yang menyeksakan itu.

Semoga buku ini menjadi titik permulaan kearah tercetusnya pemahaman bahawa dengan mendaulatkan semula Kesultanan Sulu sahajalah yang boleh mengembalikan keamanan di Sulu dan Mindanao seterusnya dapat menyelesaikan masalah penghijrahan orang-orang Sulu ke Sabah. Akhir kata, segala maklumat yang baik didalam buku ini bolehlah dimanfaatkan sebaik mungkin oleh para pembaca. Manakala yang kurang nilainya terutamanya yang menyentuh sensitiviti sesetengah pihak saya memohon jutaan kemaafan. Semoga Allah s.w.t mengampuni kita semua. Amin.

Sekian dan terima kasih.

ASREEMORO 2007

Lebih menarik kerana dalam Bab 21 bertajuk: EKSKLUFSIF SURAT TERBUKA Asreemoro mencatatkan Ucapan YM Datu Lajamura Bin Datu Wasik seperti berikut;

Bismillahirrahmanirrahim,

PERTAMA : Kita kena kembali semula kepada sejarah. Mengapa kita perlu melihat sejarah? Kerana sejarah akan memberitahu kita segala-galanya di mana ia bermula. Kerana setiap peristiwa akan menjadi sejarah. Setiap yang terjadi akan tercatat sebagai sejarah. Sebab itu masalah dan kemelut hari ini perlu dilihat kepada sejarahnya dimana ia bermula. Setiap yang bermula pasti akan berakhir, inilah hukum alam atau sunnatullah. Dan kami berkeyakinan masaalan ini akan berakhir jua. Hujan ribut yang bermula semalam pastinya akan berhenti juga samada esok atau lusa. Hujan bom di negara asal kami (SULU) pastinya akan berakhir jua tetapi bagaimana? Dengan kembali melihat sejarah sebagai kompas.

Malaysia telah berusaha menganjurkan perdamaian (bersama OIC) antara Filipina dan pejuang MNLF atau MILF (Tidak termasuk Abu Sayyaf kerana di anggap pengganas) dengan harapan Selatan Filipina akan kembali aman maka masalah pelarian dan pendatang di Sabah akan dapat diselesaikan dalam masa yang sama umat Islam Moro di Selatan Filipina akan berkembang maju dan stabil. Kami mengucapkan jutaan terima kasih atas usaha dan keprihatinan kerajaan Malaysia, alhamdulillah. Persoalannya apakah kandungan yang menjadi isu dalam perdamian itu? Jawapannya tentu terserah kepada hasil muafakat atau persetujuan antara dua pihak iaitu Filipina dan Pejuang Islam? Malaysia sebagai penganjur bersama OIC tidak akan campur tangan hanya berkecuali kerana hanya pemerhati proses damai? Ya itulah jawapannya maka kita akan lihat proses damai hanya tinggal nama dan membuang masa kerana tidak melihat kepada permasaalahan utama.

Bukankah masaalah utama ialah orang Islam Moro itu mahu merdeka dari kerajaan Filipina? Maha suci Allah, sungguh kita telah berjaya diperbodohkan oleh kuffar selama ini. Tahukah tuan-tuan Filipina tidak akan melepaskan Sulu (atau Mindanao) itu kepada pejuang hingga kiamat sekiranya kita (Pejuang Islam) menuntut kemerdekaan? Mengapa? Kerana Sulu itu memang tidak dijajah dan sememangnya merdeka sejak zaman sebelum Spanyol hingga kini jadi bagaimana kita pandai-pandai mahu memerdekakan Sulu atau Moroland itu pula? Isu Kemerdekaan tidaklah timbul. Sebab itu kita perlu melihat sejarah sebagai cermin permasaalahan ini.

Kerajaan Filipina telah buat perjanjian dengan Kesultanan Sulu dahulu untuk menjaga dan membangunkan Sulu itu (bukan dijajah) tetapi perjanjian itu telah terbatal setelah Presiden Fedinand Marcos melanyak orang Islam Sulu dengan membunuh berpuluh ribu muslimin. Perjanjian Sultan Sulu dan Kerajaan Filipina (perjanjian Carpenter 1915 dan perjanjian selepasnya) telah terbatal dengan sendirinya setelah apa yang dilakukan oleh Ferdinand Marcos itu. Apakah anda tahu mengapa Ferdinand Marcos melancarkan peperangan itu? Sekiranya anda tahu siapa Ferdinand Marcos itu sebenarnya maka anda dengan sendirinya memahami kedudukan sebenar orang-orang Sulu itu. Sebab itu kami katakan perlu kembali kepada sejarah.

Sulu atau Moroland itu hanya ibarat "Sebuah kapal yang berlabuh di jeti Filipina". Pemilik kapal ialah kesultanan Sulu. Sultan Sulu punya panji atau benderanya sendiri yang dikenali oleh kerajaan Filipina itu (lihat panji di muka hadapan). Oleh sebab itu sesiapa yang datang mahu mengeluarkan Sulu itu dari tangan Filipina dengan membawa panji lain selain panji Sultan Sulu maka kerajaan Filipina akan memeranginya. Buktinya sekiranya anda mempunyai bendera sulu itu dan memacak di tepi rumah anda tiada sesiapa yang akan ganggu anda sekalipun askar Filipina lalu-lalang di situ. Tapi akan berlaku sebaliknya (ditangkap atau dibunuh) sekiranya anda menegakkan bendera selain bendera sulu itu kerana dianggap menentang Kesultanan Sulu yang mana kerajaannya telah diamanahkan kepada kerajaan Filipina sebagai penjaga. (Lihat penjelasan kami terhadap isu ini di bab yang lebih khusus)

KEDUA : Seperti yang dimaklumkan kepada rombongan kami oleh Pehin Seri Maharaja Dato Seri Utama Prof. Hj. Awang Mohd. Jamil Al-Sufri (Ahli Majlis Mesyuarat Diraja & Pengetua Pusat Sejarah, Negara Brunei Darussalam) ketika kami datang berjumpa beliau di pejabatnya di Brunei Darussalam bahawa tiada lagi waris kesultanan Sulu yang tinggal yang boleh menuntut hak kesultanan Sulu kecuali Keluarga Maharaja Adinda Aranan. Tetapi dengan syarat mesti berusaha terlebih dahulu mempersatuka umat Islam Sulu keseluruhannya, mengejutkan mereka dari lamunan peperangan yang didalangi kuffar agar meletak senjata dan bersatu menegakkan bendera Sulu. Kerana kapal yang dilabuh di jeti Filipina itu mesti dibawa keluar oleh nakhoda yang benar dan ikhlas. Dan sekarang Keluarga Maharaja Adinda waris Raja Kedua mesti tampil menyelamatkan ummat yang nasib mereka hanya diperjudikan oleh peperangan terancang oleh pihak tertentu. Pehin Prof. Hj. Awang Mohd. Jamil Al-Sufri mengingatkan kepada kami bagaimana Kesultanan Sulu dan Kesultanan Brunei adalah bersaudara. Sejak itu kami telah mengetahui mengapa peperangan Moro yang dilakukan oleh Presiden Ferdinand Marcos pada tahun 1972 itu sebenarnya "Ada udang disebalik batu".

Dan kami mula sedar peperangan itu telah memporak-perandakan perpaduan dan kestabilan Negara Sulu, kesultanan dan rakyatnya agar menjadi pelarian dan melarat. Dengan itu masyarakat Moro Sulu akan hanya menumpukan perhatian kepada perang yang sengaja dirancang itu agar tidak dapat pembangunan, pendidikan anak-anak dan terus menjadi bodoh selama-lamanya. Mereka sangat mengharap setelah orang Moro Sulu menjadi pelarian dan anak-anak menjadi buta huruf (sebab tidak mampu menghantar kesekolah) serta bapa-bapa mereka hanya sibuk berperang (perang jihad?) akhirnya Sulu tidak akan tertuntut kepada pemiliknya yang asal. Apakah kita masih tidak menyedari "Divide & Conquer" mereka? Maka kerja keras kami hari ini ialah mempersatukan sokongan rakyat Sulu dan kami para datu-datu Diraja Sulu akan tampil memikul amanah Allah dan RasulNya (untuk menegak Kalimah Allah kembali ke Sulu) dengan bantuan tuan-tuan guru yang menuntun kami agar dapat mengembalikan semula kedaulatan Kesultanan Sulu.

Sekiranya peperangan 1972 itu tidak disahut oleh Prof. Nur Misuari (MNLF) tentu rakyat Sulu hari ini tidak menjadi peminta-minta (Pelarian). Apakan daya telah pun berlaku peperangan itu malah hingga hari ini masih berlangsung. Ia ketentuan Ilahi yang tentunya punya hikmah. Jangan dikesali perkara yang dah berlalu tetapi kita merungkai dan mengambil hikmahnya sebagai pemangkin semangat meneruskan perjuangan. Perjuangan dalam bentuk baru iaitu kebangkitan rakyat menuntut hak nenek moyang mereka dengan mengembalikan kedudukan Kesultanan Sulu ketempatnya.

Sekiranya menjadi kenyataan hak nenek moyang rakyat Sulu diperakui dengan meletak Kesultanannya semula (berdaulat) maka rakyat Sulu akan berbondong-bondong kembali ke Negara Asal Mereka. Tidak perlu lagi menghambat mereka hari-hari untuk 'dilokapkan' dan dirotan kerana mereka akan kembali sendiri membina negara mereka Sulu. Tidak perlu lagi ahli politik menimbulkan isu IC palsu atau IC projek yang ditimpakan keatas rakyat Sulu itu yang sememangnya orang-orang Sulu tahu "mereka hanya jadi mangsa Politik"? Orang-orang Sulu bukan pendendam tapi akan tidak melupakan 'Pahit Manis' ketika menjadi pelarian di negara orang.

Apa yang kami harapkan ialah Malaysia dapat membantu kami demi keamanan dan kesejahteraan. Agar Malaysia memainkan peranan lebih aktif untuk kedamaian antara Filipina dengan Selatannya dengan membetulkan halatuju perjanjian damai itu. Selagi yang berhak masih tidak diberi haknya maka selagi itulah "Juru Damai" akan buntu malah akan menjadi hairan mengapa kedamaian tetap juga tidak tercapai. Kedamaian menjadi gagal kenapa? Kerana tidak melihat sejarah. Di Malaysia, apabila kaum-kaum lain (selain Melayu) meminta hak yang lebih dari yang ditetapkan oleh "Perjanjian Sosial" yang dipersetujui bersama sebelum ini, apa yang perlu dilakukan untuk menyelesaikannya? Rujuk semula sejarah dimana ia bermula, sejarah tidak akan berdusta melainkan mendedahkan kedustaan 'si pemutarbelit sejarah'.

Kami hanya melihat Negara Malaysia sahaja yang akan dapat membantu kami (dengan sokongan Badan Dunia dan OIC) disebabkan Malaysia sendiri adalah sebahagian dari "Sejarah Perang Moro MARCOS lawan MNLF" dahulu dan sebagai "Penerima Tunggal Pelarian Sulu". Kami percaya Malaysia akan dapat mencapai kata putus untuk Kedamaian sebagai "Juru Damai". Setelah itu Kerajaan Malaysia membantu kami memajukan ekonomi dan apa sahaja jenis bantuan yang boleh dimanfaatkan oleh rakyat Sulu dan rakyat Malaysia.

Dalam masa yang sama Filipina sebagai "Negara Jiran" dan sahabat, akan terus manjalin kerjasama dengan Sulu. Tidak ada dendam dan sengketa. Filipina akan kembali kaya raya disebabkan tidak perlu lagi berhabis jutaan dollar malah berbillion dollar setahun untuk membiayai peperangan di Selatan. Kerana selama Filipina memerangi Selatan untun tunduk kepada kekusaannya, Filipina telah berjaya memiskinkan negaranya hinggakan wujud Bandaraya Sampah di Manila lantaran rakyatnya yang terlalu miskin maka apakah lagi yang boleh diharapkan dari Filipina untuk membangunkan Selatan?

Kami menyeru kepada umat Islam keseluruhannya agar membantu kami kerana tanpa bantuan anda menyelamatkan umat Islam Sulu ini maka kehancuran demi kehancuran akan bakal menunggu kita (kerana pendatang Sulu semakin ramai di Sabah). Sekiranya umat Islam tetap membiarkan kami maka kami hanya mampu mengatakan, "La hawla wala quwata illa billahil aliyyil 'azim" dan cukuplah Allah sebagai pembantu kami "Wa hasbunallaha wani'mal wakil".

Wassalam

Ulasan: Demikianlah keterangan dua perkara oleh YM Datu Uda @ Lajamura bin YM Datu Wasik-Aranan. Beliau berpandangan bahawa bukanlah kemerdekaan yang dituntut itu (sebab Sulu sejak dulu memang merdeka kerana tidak pernah dijajah) tetapi mengembalikan semula kuasa Kesultanan Sulu yang telah hilang itu kepada Kesultanan Sulu. Kerana dengan demikian kerajaan Filipina akan terus menjadi sahabat baik kepada Kesultanan Sulu. Peperangan dan penjualan senjata kepada orang-orang Moro di selatan mestilah dihentikan oleh Filipina kerana umum mengetahui segala senjata dan peluru yang dimiliki oleh orang Sulu itu adalah datangnya dari tentera kerajaan Filipina juga (atau pun baki persenjataan perjuangan Moro yang lepas). Tindakan kerajaan Filipina berunding dengan pejuang Moro seperti MNLF dan MILF itu tidak akan menghasilkan apa-apa buktinya wilayah otonomi di selatan itu sendiri telah dianak tirikan tanpa dihirau oleh kerajaan Filipina sendiri kerana pentadbirnya Prof. Nur Misuari itu bukannya sultan yang boleh dijadikan simbol perpaduan orang-orang Sulu.

Maka dengan hanya mengembalikan kedamaian yang "sebenar" di Sulu akan dapat menyelesaikan masaalah pertambahan pelarian perang, pelarian politik mahupun pelarian ekonomi di Sabah. Damai yang bagaimana? Damai yang mana 'sejarah kesultanan Sulu' dijadikan kompas. Kerana rakyat Sulu memerangi Filipina tanpa "kompas" sejak sekian lama. Gambaran situasi di Sulu pada hari ini ialah:

Ia seperti seorang anak lelaki yang bergaduh dengan anak jiran, si anak tetap melawan walau tidak mampu akhirnya dibelasah teruk. Di mana si ayah yang sepatutnya dapat menghalang pergaduhan itu? Adakah salah si ayah atau si anak hinggakan si anak itu tadi lebam di belasah? Sekiranya si ayah berada di dalam rumah sepatutnya si anak memanggilnya keluar untuk memperbetulkan keadaan demi mengelak kemusnahan yang lebih teruk. Apa yang berlaku ialah si ayah dikuncikan pintu dari luar oleh si anak. Lalu meneruskan pergaduhan....

Inilah akibatnya apabila si anak tidak menyedari atau sengaja lupa akan kewujudan ayahnya sebagai penyelesai masaalah mereka. Begitulah Sultan Sulu dengan rakyatnya. MNLF, MILF, Abu Sayyaf dan kumpulan-kumpulan kecil yang lain melancarkan perang JIHAD? keatas kerajaan Filipina yang dianggap menindas dan merampas hak mereka, hak kumpulan mereka? atau hak umat Islam Moro keseluruhannya? kalau iya mengapa berpecah belah? Mereka berpecah belah dengan menubuhkan kumpulan masing-masing tanpa menghiraukan sumber perpaduan yang mengikat mereka sejak hampir 400 tahun sebelum ini.

Simbol yang menjadi pengikat mereka sehingga tidak terkalahkan selama hampir 400 tahun lamanya. Simbol yang menjadikan "Empayar Kesultanan Sulu" sebagai sejarah kegemilangan Umat Muahammad saw di Nusantara. Simbol yang menyebabkan Umat Moro dikenal di seluruh dunia sebagai umat Muahammad saw yang gagah berani rela mati demi agama dan bangsa serta tanah air tercinta. Wahai umat Islam Moro!! Lihatlah kebelakang dimana anda bermula!! Berdoa'alah kepada Tuhan yang Maha Kuasa agar kita semua dapat dipertemukan dengan pemimpin yang dapat menyatukan kita semua seperti zaman kegemilangan kita yang lalu!! Iaitu pemimpin yang diredhai dari sulbi Rasulullah sallallahu 'alaihi wasallam para ahlul baitnya iaitu waris kesultanan Sulu yang sah. Begitulah do’a dalam tangisan orang-orang Sulu pada hari ini. Tangisan yang tidak mampu lagi melehkan air mata.

Wallahu a'lam.

PENGAKUAN MUTALIB M.D: Saya bukannya ingin mengkritik gaya atau buku tulisan saudara Asreemoro yang telah bersungguh-sungguh menggali sejarah dicelah Keruntuhan Kesultan Sulu, tetapi saya akan mengupas kenapa saya tidak bersetuju dan menentang tuntutan Filipina ke atas Sabah di suatu forum yang akan diadakan di Universiti Malaysia Sabah (UMS) dan akan menjemput Saudara Asreemoro untuk menyampaikan kertas kerjanya dan saya akan membentangkan kertas kerja saya sebelum didokumentasikan.

SURAT TERBUKA BUAT HAJIJI HAJI NOOR

YB DATUK HAJIJI HAJI NOOR

Surat Terbuka ini dipetik daripada blog http://nasirudinanjud.blogspot.com/

NASIRUDIN ANJUD
KG. TAMBALANG
PS 760 89208 TUARAN
SABAH

Jumaat, 17 Oktober 2008

YB Datuk Hj. Hajiji Bin Hj. Noor
Menteri Kerajaan Tempatan Dan Perumahan,
Kementerian Kerajaan Tempatan Dan Perumahan,
Tingkat 4, Blok C, Wisma Tun Fuad Stephens,
88999 Kota Kinabalu.

Yang Berhormat Datuk,

KESUKARAN HIDUP PENDUDUK KG. TAMBALANG TUARAN KERANA TIADA KEBENARAN LALUAN (Right Of Way) KE JALAN UTAMA.

Sukacita dimaklum bahawa saya, Nasirudin Bin Anjud, adalah pengundi berdaftar di kawasan P170 Tuaran dan N10 Sulaman dan ingin membawa ke perhatian Datuk suatu masalah dahsyat yang menimpa saya, keluarga dan penduduk setempat baru-baru ini iaitu kesukaran kerana tiada Kebenaran Laluan Jalan (Right of Way, RoW) ataupun jalan raya untuk kemudahan keluar masuk dari Jalan Utama ke kawasan kediaman kami, di Kg. Tambalang Tuaran.

Perkara kesulitan ini telah diadukan oleh Ibu saya sendiri iaitu Puan Warhana Bte Harun kepada Pejabat Daerah/Pejabat Tanah/Pihak Berkuasa Tempatan Tuaran (PD,PT&PBT Tuaran) melalui surat beliau bertarikh 2 Jun 2008. Kandungan surat tersebut antara lain menyebut mengenai sebidang tanah yang biasa digunakan untuk kemudahan keluar masuk dari kawasan rumah kami sekeluarga telah dijual oleh pemilik asalnya yang difahami berbangsa Cina kepada pembeli sekitar bulan Mei 2008. Difahamkan juga pembeli-pembeli baru adalah perkongsian adik-beradik Omar Salleh dan Awang Salleh atau penama-penama mereka yang difahamkan berketurunan ‘Suluk/Bajau’ beragama Islam yang juga merupakan jiran sempadan rumah kami.

Di dalam surat tersebut juga disebutkan bahawa pemilik-pemilik baru yang saya sebutkan di atas telah menotiskan secara lisan suatu tarikh untuk menutup dan memagar kawat jalan tersebut mulai Julai 1, 2008 yang lalu. Bimbang dengan ketiadaan jalan keluar masuk, Ibu saya telah mengadukan hal tersebut untuk memohon campurtangan daripada PD,PT&PBT Tuaran supaya segera menangani masalah tersebut.

Susulan daripada surat Ibu saya dan walaupun agak lewat menerima jawapan, difahamkan PD,PT&PBT Tuaran melalui ADO telah menetapkan suatu tarikh pada 26.09.08 untuk membincangkan perkara ini yang hanya disebutkan sebagai ‘Bicara Tanah’.

Dalam masa yang sama, pemilik-pemilik baru tersebut tanpa tolak ansur telah mula memagar dan menutup terus jalan tersebut sekitar bulan Julai 2008menggunakan kawat duri. Malapetaka dari penutupan jalan, telah menyebabkan penduduk-penduduk yang terbabit terpaksa meletak kenderaan di jalan utama dan memanjat pagar kawat berduri untuk menyeberang ke halaman rumah masing-masing saban hari. Antara penduduk-penduduk yang terlibat dalam malapetaka ini, selain daripada keluarga saya sendiri termasuklah Encik Abdullah sekeluarga, Encik Ispek Bin Hj. Nul sekeluarga, Encik Muji Hj. Ibrahim sekeluarga, Puan Azizah Satarali sekeluarga, Encik Kasang sekeluarga, Encik Salimat sekeluarga dan lain-lain yang kesemuanya 11 buah rumah. Perlu direkod bahawa dalam masa yang sama pegawai yang dikenali sebagai ‘Karim’ dari PD,PT&PBT Tuaran hanya membuat tinjauan sekali-sekala itu pun selepas dirayu berulang kali oleh penduduk.

Pegawai-pegawai dari Biro Pengaduan Awam selepas diadukan perkara ini oleh adik perempuan saya telah datang menyaksikan dan mengambil foto pelajar-pelajar sekolah yang memanjat pagar kawat berduri untuk keluar ke Jalan Utama dan seterusnya ke Sekolah. Namun tiada tindakan segera untuk menangani masalah secara serius.

Kesulitan ini telah membuat Ibu saya yang menghidap kanser tahap-3 tertekan. Nenek saya Puan Beduli Abdul Rahman yang sudah uzur dan perlu dibawa ke Hospital secara berjadual untuk merawat penyakit tuanya juga tidak terkecuali malahan menyulitkan perjalanan penduduk warga emas lain yang terpaksa melalui kawat berduri saban hari untuk keluar mendapat rawatan di Hospital.

Perlu saya fahamkan kepada Datuk bahawa hampir keseluruhan penduduk setempat yang terlibat dalam kesukaran ini adalah tergolong sebagai orang-orang yang disebut sebagai miskin tegar dan kebanyakan mereka hanyalah berharap kepada pemberian nafkah anak-anak. Bayangkanlah Datuk, orang sudah tua panjat kawat berduri, ibarat jatuh ditimpa tangga lagi dan terbiar tanpa pembelaan dari sesiapa pun.

Difahamkan bahawa pegawai-pegawai PD,PT&PBT Tuaran, secara sedar, sedia maklum dengan perkara ini pada keseluruhan masa tetapi apa yang mengikat mereka dari bertindak tidaklah dapat saya huraikan dan sering jadi tanda tanya. Dan apabila ditanya oleh penduduk yang terkesan mengenai jalan penyelesaian mereka, pegawai PD,PT&PBT Tuaran hanya suruh bersabar dan tunggu ‘bicara tanah’ nanti.

Seperti yang dijanjikan pada 26.09.08, ‘Bicara Tanah’ telah dijalankan di Pejabat ADO Tuaran dan dipengerusikan oleh ADO iaitu Encik Celestinus. Saya difahamkan oleh Ibu saya yang menghadiri ‘Bicara Tanah’ tersebut bahawa mesyuarat tersebut tidak berjalan dengan baik, Bukan sahaja tiada keputusan segera dicapai daripada mesyuarat tersebut bahkan keadaan menjadi tidak terkawal dengan tunjuk-menunjuk, teriakan dan tempikan suara oleh orang yang bertanggungjawab sepenuhnya menutup jalan tersebut iaitu Awang Salleh seperti orang ‘histeria’.

Saya berpendapat, sekiranya ADO tersebut mahir dan berpengetahuan menjalankan tugas, sepatutnya beliau telah mengambil langkah awal untuk meneliti laporan, memikir terlebih dahulu dan membuat persediaan rapi sebelum memanggil mesyuarat tersebut. Memandangkan beliau sudah sedia maklum tiada kesepakatan dari Omar dan Awang Salleh, ADO seharusnya boleh gunakan kuasa beliau sahaja untuk membentangkan sahaja jalan penyelesaian dan memutuskan keputusan berdasar fakta-fakta perundangan tanah. Sebaliknya ‘bicara tanah’ hanya sia-sia dan kawat duri masih meluka penduduk terpenjara.

Antara lain cadangan yang disebut dalam ‘bicara tanah’ juga menimbulkan tanda tanya kepada saya mengenai tahap kompeten ADO menjalankan tugas iaitu agenda mesyuarat yang ganjil mengenai roboh-meroboh dapur Ibu saya dan rumah Awang Salleh konon untuk beri laluan kepada pembinaan jalan kerana ianya saya anggap sebagai cadangan menghancur (destructive solution) di mana ADO sepatutnya cari penyelesaian yang membina (constructive solution). Bukankah jalan secara amnya dibina bengkang-bengkok untuk elakkan melanggar rumah dan struktur yang sudah lama didirikan? Saya kurang pasti apakah relevannya roboh meroboh dalam perkara memohon jalan keluar?

Beberapa pertemuan susulan dengan PD,PT&PBT Tuaran oleh Ibu saya sehingga hari ini masih juga tidak menjanjikan apa-apa penyelesaian dan malangnya keadaan memanjat kawat berduri oleh penduduk yang terbabit masih berterusan sehingga ke hari ini.

Datuk,

Saya amat terkesan sekali melihat penderitaan Ibu, Keluarga dan penduduk setempat lain. Oleh yang demikian saya terpaksa membawa ke perhatian Datuk kerana saya percaya Datuk seoarang prihatin dengan perkara-perkara yang menyukarkan rakyat apatah lagi di kawasan Datuk sendiri. Belum pernah saya mendengar ataupun menyaksi perkara sebegini di mana-mana jua tempat yang saya pernah diami di Malaysia atau pun tempat-tempat lain di dalam dunia. Sayangnya, ia berlaku di kawasan rumah keluarga saya sendiri di daerah yang Datuk menjadi ketuanya. Saya percaya Datuk belum dimaklumkan perkara ini, maka itulah Datuk belum bertindak untuk menangani masalah kami ini.

Untuk pengetahuan Datuk, saya sendiri berdepan dengan risiko kekerasan daripada Awang Salleh dan suku-sakatnya apabila saya bertindak menulis surat ini. Buktinya Datuk, saya sendiri pernah diugut untuk dipukul oleh ‘adik’ Awang Salleh yang diketahui dengan nama ‘Sabli’ seorang pemandu bas mini (saya letakkan simbol buka tutup kata kerana saya tidak kenal 100%) pada sekitar tahun 2000 di kaki lima Pekan Tuaran. Kata ‘Sabli’ saya ‘cari pasal’ dengan abangnya Awang Salleh sedangkan saya tidak pernah berdiri dalam jarak 10 kaki pun hampir dengan Awang Salleh apalagi untuk ‘cari pasal’.

Ibu-Bapa saya sendiri pernah membuat laporan polis terhadap Awang Salleh sekitar tahun 2000 kerana Awang Salleh mengguna kekerasan menetak mengguna parang panjang yang terkena pagar zink sempadan rumah kami hanya kerana Ibu saya tanyakan pendapat beliau mengenai pecah geran tanah yang dikongsi geran. Polis kemudian datang rumah Awang Salleh dan ‘nasihat’kan beliau sahaja.

Pada 14 Januari 2007 saya pula terpaksa buat laporan polis di Tuaran kerana dipukul dengan teruk secara berkumpulan oleh ‘Sabli’ dan anak saudara Awang Salleh iaitu anak kepada Arwah Asgari Salleh (abang kepada Awang Salleh) kerana saya dituduh mereka langgar lembu mereka di atas jalan raya milik kerajaan. Sedangkan kereta saya pandu Kembara SA5056W tidak sedikit pun bercalar atau ada kesan melanggar. Lembu pula masih berdiri dan makan rumput. Kes ini masih lagi dalam perhatian polis dan saya bercadang untuk membawa ke muka pengadilan.

Saya hanyalah seorang rakyat marhaen biasa yang sudah bermastautin di kawasan Datuk selama hampir 10 tahun. Walaupun saya belum lagi menjadi ahli UMNO, tetapi saya telah mengundi Barisan Nasional apabila saya berkesempatan dan tidak pernah mengundi Parti pembangkang.

Seperti yang Datuk tahu Omar Salleh dan anaknya (Awang tidak saya ketahui) adalah penyokong kuat Parti Keadilan Rakyat, PKR. Rumah beliau yang jadi markas PKR Kg. Tambalang sentiasa dipenuhi oleh orang-orang Parti keadilan Rakyat pada kempen dan pilihanraya bulan mac 2008 yang lalu dan menaikkan bendera PKR di rumahnya.

Bukan kami tidak rujuk kepada Pegawai Kemajuan Rakyat, Ketua Kampung dan sebagainya malah pelbagai cara sudah kami usahakan termasuklah mahu bayar pampasan tanah sekiranya ada kesudian pemilik tanah namun saya percaya kerana Awang Salleh dan Omar Salleh berputar-belit untuk menentang apa saja tindakan kami ini serta amat cenderung mengguna cara kekerasan. Pada suatu hari pada bulan Julai yang lalu Omar Salleh ada menemui ipar saya iaitu Jasmi Bin Slamat (seorang pegawai SUHAKAM) dan menggertak beliau bahawa tujuan mereka menutup jalan adalah untuk ‘mengajar’ Ibu saya.

Saya percaya Ibu saya adalah setulus-tulusnya manusia dan tidak perlu di’ajar’ lagi oleh Omar Salleh serta adiknya Awang Salleh dan ‘Sabli’ pemandu van yang amat tidak segan silu guna cara kekerasan. Baru-baru ini juga saya telah menerima berita sahih bahawa Encik Abdullah telah dipukul oleh orang-orang yang sama hanya kerana suara yang kuat dari ‘speaker’ radio beliau sedangkan ianya hanya berkumandang dalam rumah beliau sendiri dan tidak ganggu sesiapa.

Datuk,

Saya dengan takzimnya Wallahi, Wabillahi, watallahi bersumpah bahawa kandungan surat saya ini adalah semata-mata benar tiada yang lain melainkan yang benar sahaja.

Saya menyerahkan kepada kearifan Datuk yang sudah menjadi Pemimpin Tuaran paling disegani MERANGKAP Menteri bertanggungjawab berkenaan dengan Pihak Berkuasa Tempatan untuk menimbang serta mengambil tindakan untuk menyelamatkan kami penduduk-penduduk Kampung Tambalang yang secara sengaja dianiaya oleh juak-juak berniat jahat yang secara terang sanggup guna kekerasan dan apa saja cara untuk menindas sesama orang Islam. Saya yakin Datuk tidak akan sampai hati untuk melihat kami sekampung terus dianiayai oleh orang-orang yang tiada peri kemanusiaan ini

Sekian terima kasih.

Yang benar,

ditandatangani

_____________________

NASIRUDIN ANJUD

MAMPUKAH MA TZU HERET MUSA AMAN KE MAHKAMAH?

KES Saman Tan Sri Chong Kah Kiat terhadap Ketua Menteri Sabah, Datuk Seri Musa Haji Aman yang sepatutnya dimulakan kelmarin 12 Januari 2009 sudah mula didengar di Mahkamah Tinggi Kota Kinabalu pada hari ini, 13 Januari 2009.

Ketika Musa sibuk melawat mangsa banjir di Pitas Kudat, Chong telah mula memberi keterangan dan meluahkan apa yang terbuku di hati di hadapan Hakim Yew Jen Kie.

Dalam masa yang sama Calon Barian Nasional Kuala Terengganu, Datuk Wan Farid Wan Salleh mula seperti cacing kepanasan kerana terpaksa menjawab pelbagai tohmahan termasuk rungutan lebih 5,000 pengikut Ma Tzu daripada 8,465 pengundi Cina yang tidak puas hati dengan layanan Kerajaan Barisan Nasional.

Mampukah Chong Kah Kiat mengheret Musa Aman ke Mahkamah untuk memberi keterangan atau Musa hanya mewakilkan Peguam Negeri Sabah tanpa mempedulikan karenah Chong Kah Kiat adalah suatu yang menarik untuk dikaji?.

Lebih 250 email yang diterima daripada seluruh negara untuk mengetahui kes perbicaraan pada hari pertama membuatkan saya berusaha mendapatkan catatan penuh di Mahkamah Tinggi Kota Kinabalu agar ahli UMNO dapat membuat penilaian yang saksama apakah wajar Ketua Perhubungan UMNO Sabah mengheret ahli UMNO ke kancah peperangan peribadinya dengan Chong Kah Kiat.


MALAYSIA
IN THE HIGH COURT IN SABAH AND SARAWAK AT KOTA KINABALU
SUIT NO: K22-18-2008

12th January 2009. 9 a.m Chambers..

AG argued for postponement until tomorrow.

Issues raised- duplicity of issues namely prayers b and c.
And withdraw 2nd, 3rd and 4th defendants from the suit.

Hj Ansari: I have to sought my clients instruction.

Judge: court adjourn. Matter to be heard in open court.

Tan Sri Chong Kah kiat-

AG: Application to make:

My Lady there are two reliefs in this suit which duplicates the Om appeal. I understood that the two prayers be dropped. I am now inviting the two counsel for the plaintiff to dropped the two prayers and probably withdraw some of the defendants. We have agreed for this matter to be stood down until tomorrow.

Hj Ansari: I conform that the parties have discussed and agreed to adjourn the matter till tomorrow. I would need to discuss the matter with my client.
To seek instructions from my client. Ag also requires instructions from the 1st and 2nd defendants who are not in town. Cm will only be back this evening. Secretary general-this weekend. That is the reason why i had agreed for this matter to be stood down until tomorrow.

Judge Ruling: Adjourn till tomorrow. 9 a.m

13th January 2009. 9 a.m......

First witness: Tan Sri chong Kah Kiat:

Hj Ansari: Much oblige my lady. The parties are as before and the plaintiff is ready for trial but i was informed that my learned friend the AG wishes to address the court.

Judge: Yes Datuk Roderick.

AG: Since yesterday morning adjournement, I have been informed by the learned counsel for the Plaintiff that the plaintiff will not be dropping relief (b) and (c) and 2nd, 3rd and 4th Defendants. That being the position it force the defendants to make an application to strike out those reliefs abd also to those defendants. We are prepared to make the application orally or in formal application. With the consent of the plaintiff, we will make an oral application and if the court allows, by this afternoon. If it is a formal application we will need slightly longer than that.

Hj Ansari: The law is clear. The parties can at any stage of the proceeding before the final judgement is entered either to strike out the parties or part of the pleadings. We are prepare to oppose even now both applications either orally or in writing. In view that there are civil servants involved as witnesses in this case, we insist that the trial will proceed this morning. We leave it to court and my learned friend as to when the application to strike out the parties or pleading.

Judge: How many witnesses of the plaintiff are in court this morning?

Hj Ansari: I think eight of them; they also came yesterday. Five of them are from outstation.

Judge: In view that the plaintiff's witnesses are present in court to give evidence and in order not to interrupt with the proceedings, especially where it involve witnesses from out station, the court will hear the application by tje Defendants orally after the witnesses from out station have given their evidence.

Hj Ansari: May we start with the marking first?

Judge: Bundle of Pleading BP
Plaintiff's Bundle of Documents PBD (I)
Plaintiff's Bundle of documents Volume 11 PBD (II)
Defendant's List and Bundle of documents DBD

Haji Ansari: We have come to the agreement that in respect of PBD (I), there is only one disputed item, i.e item 15. There are three item i.e item 3, 12 and 13, the contends thereof are not agreed, the rest are agreed.
In respect of PBD (II), there are six documents veing disputed, i.e item 54,55, 56, 57, 65 and 66. Item in respect of which contents are in dispute are item 58 until 64 and 67. The rest of the item are admitted.
In respect of DBD, items of which contents are disputed are items 7, 30, 32, 34, 37 and 38. The disputed document are items 20 to 28, 39 to 40. The rest are admitted.

I would like to make an oral opening address.

Most of the judges normally asked me for written opening speech after i had made my oral opening speech. Your Lady does not have to record the opening speech as my assistant will record it verbatim and the same will be furnished to the court.

(Opening Speech upload earlier in this blog)

I shall now call my first witness, the plaintiff himself.


PWI: CHONG KAH KIAT (480602-12-5245)
Affirms and states in English
60 years old
2402, Taman Chin Sang,
Kilometer 7, Jalan Tuaran, Likas.

Examination in Chief:

Hj Ansari: Where were you born?
CKK: In Kudat Sabah.

Hj Ansari: Where did you take early education?
CKK: I did my primary education in St.James Primary School in Kudat.

Hj Ansari: In your 60 years of age, how long have u spent your time in Kudat?
CKK: Except my secondary education in Kota Kinabalu, which of course i went back during school holiday and except for my five university years in New Zealand and after I returned from New Zealand and started my legal practice and lived in Kota Kinabalu but I frequently went back to Kudat.

Hj Ansari: What is the racial composition of Kudat?
CKK: There are three main races-the Muslim, the Chinese and the Native of Kudat called Rungus. The composition is as far as I know almost one third respectively.

Hj Ansari: How would you describe the relationship between these three racial group in Kudat?
CKK: Very good.

Hj Ansari: Before 1976 was the part of the seafront reclaimed by the Alliance Government?
CKK: That is correct. In fact, the sea reclaimation started in the late 1960s by the theb Chief Minister, Tun Datuk Mustapha.

Hj Ansari: Are you of the purpose of the reclamation of the seafront?
CKK: I won't be able to say what to say what was the purpose then because at that time I was still relatively very young.

Haji Ansari: When did you become the State Assemblyman of Kudat?
CKK: I was first elected as the State Assemblyman in 1981.

Hj Ansari: How long did you remain in your first term as an Assemblyman?
CKK: From 1981 to 1985.

HJ Ansari: During your term as Assemblyman, did you serve the state Government in any capacity?
CKK: I was appointed as Assistant Minister to the then Chief Minister in year 1982.

Hj Ansari: During this period, what sort of development was carried out on the sea reclaimation area in 1981 to 1985?
CKK: At that time the whole reclaimed area was largely abandoned and actually no development.

Hj Ansari: What was your position in 1994 when the BN government took over from the then previous government?
CKK: In 1994 I was back in private practice. I went back to private practice from 1985 to 1995.

Haji Ansari: Anything happened after 1995?
CKK: I was appointed as a member of the Senate in August 1995, if I remember correctly. The following year I was appointed as one of the ministers in the Prime Minister Department.

Haji Ansari: During this time 1995 and 1996, how was the Kudat sea reclamation are being utilizes?
CKK: By then part of the reclaimed area was developed with State Government as well as Federal Government buildings, including the District Secretariat.

Haji Ansari: In 1996 did the State Government take any initiative on the balance of the sea reclamation that had not been developed?
CKK: Yes in 1996, the State Government attemped to turn the remaining sea reclaimed area totalling 147 acres into the KUdat Industrial Estate which they called KIE.

Haji Ansari: What happened to the rest of the land?
CKK: The rest of the land is now part of the Kudat Golf course.

Haji Ansari: Was there any change of plan in so far the undevek\loped part of sea front is concerned?
CKK: As I had said the remaining areas became a golf course. In 1999 when I came back to Sabah and became the State Minister for Tourism and the State Assemblyman for Kudat for the second term, I recommended to the Kudat District Council to consider changing the four areas which was the earmarked as KIE to be converted into tourism.

Haji Ansari: Does your proposal covered the site of the statue?
CKK: Yes, in fact it covers the whole 147 acres initially for industrial development.

Haji Ansari: Did the Kudat Town Board, the 4th defendant, agree with your proposal?
CKK: Yes, In fact, Kudat Town Board subsequently forwarded the proposal to the Town & Country Planning Central Board.

Haji Ansari: To your knowledge, did the Town & Country Planning Board agree with the proposal submitted by the Kudat Town Board?
CKK: Yes

Haji Ansari: What is the position of the 3rd defendant in the Central Town and Planning Board?
CKK: As the Permanent Secretary of the Ministry of Local Government and Housing, he is also the Chairman of the Central Town and Planning Board.

Haji Ansari: When did you serve as Chief Minister of Sabah?
CKK: I was the Chief Minister from March 25, 2001 to March 25, 2003.

Haji Ansari: Did you hold any position in the State Government after March 2003?
CKK: I was retained as a member of the State Cabinet by my successor as Deputy Chief Minister and remaining to hold the post of Minister of Tourism.

Haji Ansari: In your statement of Claim it was stated that the Kudat Thean Hou Foundation was set up, could you give the back ground of how it was set up?
CKK: The Foundation was set up primary to put up a statue of the Goddess of the Sea in Kudat.

Haji Ansari: Where was the site of this project?
CKK: It was within the 15 acres of land owned by the shipyard, Penuwasa Sdn.Bhd. It was sited within that 15 acress where an area of 2-3 acres was given to the Foundation to the site the statue. The statue site adjoins the resort hotel as well as the new Kudat Golf Course.

Haji Ansari: Who chose the selected site for this statue?
CKK: If I may go back a bit earlier. I did not initiate the construction of the statue. The statue was actuallt\y as a resukt of the divine instruction from the Goddess of the Sea. She specifically mentioned my name in the divine instruction in the form of written message. Eventually I myself located this area in question where the owner of the land agreed to donate to the Foundation. After that I went back to my societu, the Moral Uplifting Society, for the approval and I obtained the approval.

Haji Ansari: Referring to the page 30 of PBD (I), can you point out to the court where is teh site of the statue and the site of As-Syakirin Mosque in the picture?
CKK: The site of the statue is Marked X towards the lower right. The Mosque is at the far left marked Y.

Haji Ansari: Pray for this photograph to be marked as exhibit since it is part of agreed documents.
Court: Photograph at page 30 pf PBD (I): P1

Haji Ansari: What is your estimation of the distance between the Mosque and the site of the statue?
CKK: From the respective sites and measuring it through the roads, it is over 700 meters in distance.

Haji Ansari: What was the decision of the Foundation as to the size of the statue?
CKK: That was again through divine instruction by way of written message instructing that the height of the statue be 88 feet with a platform of 20 feet, making it a total from the ground 108 feet. The face of the statue facing directly across towards the west which is facing directly accross the golf course.

Haji Ansari: Was the statue to be constructed facing the mosque?
CKK: No

Haji Ansari: Was the statue in line with the direction of the prayers of the congregation in the mosque?
CKK: Both directions run parellel towards the west; it does not obstruct.

Haji Ansari: Referring to PBD (1) page 1, what documen is contained in page 1 to 4?
CKK: That is the land title where the statue is located within the said land.

Haji Ansari: Apply fir it to be marked as P2.
Court: Land Title at page 1-4 of PBD (I) P2 (a-d)

Haji Ansari: Look at 2 (b) which states, "The said lain is demised herein expressly and only for the purpose of industrial (shipyard)." According to the statesment of defence, in particular, paragraph 25 (a) that the project cannot be proceeded because it was in breach of the land use expressly stated in the land title of the asid land. What is your response to that line of defence?
CKK: That is not correct.

Haji Ansari: Why do you say it is not correct when the passage that I showed to you ststed the purpose of the land for industrial purpose?
CKK: The land use in respect of that title has been change from industrial to tourism in April 2001.

Haji Ansari: After you had chosen the site and so on, who did you engage to draw out the plan as consultant?
CKK: I or Foundation engaged a professional consultant TPM Konsultant Sdn.Bhd.

Haji Ansari: Referring to the page 5 of PBD (1). What is this document?
CKK: That is the Foundation's application to the Kudat Town Board, the 4th defendant.

Haji Ansari: Apply to have it marked, part of the agreed bundle.
Court: TPM Konsultant's letter: P3

Haji Ansari: In paragraph 9 of the statement of claim you mentioned that on 23.10.2005 you were informed that the 4th defendant had approved the plan. Who was the officer who informed you this of the plan being approved?
CKK: The Excutive Officer of the 4th defendant, Encik Ariff Abdullah.

Haji Ansari: You also stated in paragraph 10 of the statement of claim that the Foundation held a ground breaking ceremony on 29.12.2005. At that point in time did you receive any written approval to commence the project?
CKK: No. The projevct was not started yet.

Haji Ansari: Who was the person who chose this date 29.12.2005 for the ground breaking ceremony?
CKK: We got the elders from our Taoist Temple to give us a date just for the ground breaking.

Hj Ansari: Tan Sri I am referring you to page 62 of PBD (I) letter dated September 2001. This letter I believe is also agreed. I would like to refer you to page 213 of PBD (II). Two documents. What are these letters?
CKK: The first letter dated 15 December 2005 was given to Kudat Resort Hotel by the District Surveyor giving permission to start work. The 2nd letter also dated 15 December 2005 to start work.

Hj Ansari: Since both letter are not objected may i have them marked.

Page 62 bundle PBD1- Exhibit P4 item 48.
Page 213 bundle PBD2- Exhibit P5.
Judge: Allowed and noted.

Haji Ansari: Please inform the court what are these letters(item)?
CKK: Letter from the consultant.

Haji Ansari: Can I have these marked.. pages 6 until 9 of PBD1.
Judge: Letter of approval Exhibit P6 a, b ,c and d.

Haji Ansari: Can you look at page 6: Can you find any department that objects to the project?
CKK: None.

Haji Ansari: Tan Sri, I would like to refer you to pages 10 to 11 of Exhibit. Can u inform the court what are these documents? These documents are also agreed My Lady.
CKK: These are the payments agreed by the local authority in respect of the approval given.

Haji Ansari: Asked for documents to be marked as P7- page 10 And P8 at page 11 accordingly. And the receipts as 8A and 8B respectively on both pages 10 and 11 of PBD1.
Judge: Noted.

Haji Ansari: Can you turn back to P7. Reads.. page 10. The third paragraph.. "kebenaran diberi untuk memulakan projek" and insurance pekerja? Is did the foundation took a policy insurance for the all the workers?
CKK: Yes

Haji Ansari: Was there any other condition imposed by the 4th Defendant before the foundation is to commence the work?
CKK: Yes.

Haji Ansari: It was stated at page 25 (b) of the statement of defence i.e the plaintiff had commence work prior to fulfilling all the conditions imposed to the foundation. What is your line of defence to this?
CKK: YA, those conditions as appeared in the letter of approval were not conditions for approval. There are no more conditions imposed by any local authority.

Haji Ansari: At the point of the making the payment and 4th defendant given the approval, 9th February 2006, did anyone inform u of any public disapproval?
CKK: None.


Court: Adjourned to 2 pm.
Haji Ansari Much obliged.


Afternoon sessions
2.10 pm 13th January 2009.


Haji Ansari: My last question was.... my 1st question for the evening. How would you describe your relationship with the first Defendant as of 1st February 2006.?
CKK: He took over as Chief Minister at 2003 our relationship was good. At the beginning of 2005 and 2006 the relationship start to turn sour. Because towards the end of 2005 I started to meet him to query the series of contracts and projects under the preview of my ministry. Whereby these projects were awarded by the State ministry of finance without tender and the courtesy to refer to me as the minister in charge.

Haji Ansari: Did anything out of the ordinary occurred in the mid of February 2006?.
CKK: That was the sipadan case incident involving a .. that Sipadan incident created attention not only nation wide but world wide due to the diving world. That was the incident which made me and 1st Defendant's relationship sour.

Haji Ansari: Item 54 to 57 of PBD2 i.e pages 87 can you tell the court what are these documents?
CKK: there were news and news items on the story of Sipadan. That result in the consequential sour relationship.

Haji Ansari: What was the reaction of the PM towards the batch Sipadan Incident?
CKK: To my regret very critical of the Chief Minister resulting in instruction to remove the director of the parks.

Haji Ansari: Did you follow the directive of the minister?
CKK: No. And I told him that the problem was actually caused by the finance ministry that caused the parks to go to Sipadan Island.

Haji Ansari: Can you refer to bundle PBD2 at page 77 to 78. The letter attributed to you from Bernama dated 18th May 2006.
CKK: It was my statement. Also reported in local paper.

Haji Ansari: After Bernama there was another article- divers... Chong Kah Kiat acted angrily towards the damage.Is that your statement?
CKK:Yes. It was also reported in the local media.

Haji Ansari: How about the statement 22nd May? Tourism minister saying that the batch material was carrying tourist material to the area?
CKK: Not the whole article reported. Only the paragraph.

Haji Ansari: Finally page 82, does it record your statement as well?
CKK: It contains part of the statement that I made.

Haji Ansari: I would like to mark item 54 and 55 as exhibits. They are the disputed bundle.

Attorney General: I would like to dispute the admission of these items.

Haji Ansari: I am applying for the whole documents to be admitted under section 90 A of the Evidence A including those not attributed by the Plaintiff since they are relevant under section 6 of the Act as forming part of the transaction. Taking just the part of the Article would not give the whole picture. And the plaintiff had testified that this first article is the one is that had highlighted the matter (Sipadan Batch) to the world. Written by Reporter of Finns Magazine a diver known as.. Ferrari.

Judge: How would you like to section 6?

Haji Ansari: We are not depending on the truth of the statement but the fact that it was made. It comes under the exception to the rule of evidence.

Judge: under what?

Haji Ansari: With that i would like item 54 to 55 to be marked in so far as to the statement that were not made by the Plaintiff as exhibits pertaining to the fact that it were made but not as to the truth of its contents.

Judge: item 54 marked as Exhibit P9
Item 55 marked as Exhibit P10
Item marked as Exhibit P11
Pages 84 to 85 as exhibit P12.

Haji Ansari: Item 58 to 64.. as to the fact that the statement was made not as to the truth of its contents.
Item 58: Exhibit P13
Item 59: Ex P14
Item 60 : Ex P16
Item 61: Ex P17

Haji Ansari: Besides the instructions to remove Encik Ramli as head of the Sabah Parks, were there any other differences between you and the CM regarding the Sipadan incident?
CKK: Yes. There was. Concerning the project itself that was awarded by the state ministry of finance. Which the CM denied the knowledge and subsequently denied the amount that was awarded in this contract. In my public disclosure as to the actual amount that was awarded by the head ministry of finance, this is well reported in the local media.

Haji Ansari: Can you refer to page 90 of the PBD2. Is this the article that you were referring to?
CKK: Yes.

Haji Ansari: Can you read which portion?
CKK: YA. Paragraph 2 of the report. Clearly Musa also ordered the batch to......and further down.. paragraph 6.. according to Musa, he last heard about the project 2 years ago for RM 2 million.. The rest YA. as reported in the earlier statement in the local media the project was in fact worth 5 million as against the CM claim of 2.6 million.

Haji Ansari: At this point of time, what was the status of the development in mid May 2006 when this incident happened?
CKK: We have already completed the pilling and 20 feet platform and starting to mobilize the crafted statute in assembly.

Haji Ansari: What was the amount that had been spent by the foundation at mid may 2006?
CKK: YA we have 408 pieces of granite stones in 21 containers then already in Kota Kinabalu to be transported to Kudat for assembly. The cost of the granite pieces cost us in Remnibi: 2.5 million which is equivalent to RM1.5 million. The freight charges including the custom duties cost us RM365,000. And we spent just over RM1 million for the pilling works together with the platform. That is the item we spent so far.

Haji Ansari: Can u refer to pages 18 and 19 of PBD1. Letter dated 21 May 2006. This is the approval for visa. Question is: When was the date of assembly set for?
CKK: The 13 craftsmen that we employ from China had obtained their visa on the 23rd May 2006. The assembly is supposed to commence as soon as the craftsmen obtained their visa.

Haji Ansari: What is the relationship of the company key summit Sdn Bhd with the Foundation? Refer to page 18 and 19 of the bundle.
CKK: They are all local contractors. They are the contractors who did the pilling works.

Haji Ansari: May i apply for pages 18 and 19 to be marked as Exhibit.

Judge: No Objection.
Exhibit P20 page 18.

Haji Ansari: Refer to page 20. When did you receive this letter?
CKK: This letter was first faxed to my house by the executive officer of the 4th Defendant on the same day.

Haji Ansari: What was your reaction when you receive this letter from the Defendant?
CKK:I was shocked. Taken aback.

Haji Ansari: I read the Letter. Did you call the minister of local housing or meet the minister of housing to verify the letter?
CKK: I did not call or meet the minister of local Housing. What I did was to see the CM himself a few days after I received this letter in the CM's office.

Haji Ansari: When you went to see the chief minister, what transpired during the meeting?
CKK: I remember YA. He was in his temporary office. I showed him the letter and asked him how could this happened? What have I done wrong?

Haji Ansari: What was his reply?
CKK: He said Perhubungan Umno objected.

Haji Ansari: Did you try to reason out with him?
CKK: I did YA. I told him that this is a private project on a private land and funded by donation and it was properly approved by the local authority. I told him that as the chief minister and the Head of Sabah that they had no right to object and interfere in a private project. Subsequently I found out that the Umno Perhubungan had never objected to my project.

Haji Ansari: May I apply for the item 8 at page 20 to be marked as Exhibit.

Judge: Item 8 at page 20 to be marked as Ex P21.

Haji Ansari: Can you refer to documents at page 12 to 17 of PBD1 i.e items 5 and 6. what does it show?
CKK: The location of the Statue project. The container which contained the granite stone, the face of the goddess of the sea as well as the hand.

Haji Ansari: May I apply for item 5 and item 6 to be marked as exhibits.

Judge: Are these agreed bundle?

Haji Ansari: Yes. Not disputed bundle. Item 5 is Exhibit P22 and Item 6 Exhibit 23.

Haji Ansari: When was this letter first brought to your attention?
CKK: By Mr Arif Abudullah who consequently fax the letter to me?

Haji Ansari : What was your reaction:
CKK: Disbelief. I was taken aback.

Haji Ansari: This letter stated that the subject was in malay "pembinaan patung Buddha berdekatan dengan Masjid As-Syakirin? Was the statue correctly describe as a buddist statue?
CKK: Not correct.

Haji Ansari: The heading also said that it was near masjid Asy-Shkirin. Between the Statute and the mosque?
CKK:I disagree. As i said earlier. It was more than half a kilometer away. I.e 700 meters.

Haji Ansari: Were you concerned b4 construction of the project started about the proximity to the mosque?
CKK: YA. In fact not only me but members of the foundation of the existence of the Asy-Syakirin Mosque.

Haji Ansari: Yes Tan Sri. The second paragraph.. "beberapa pihak telah mengemukakan beberapa bantahan agar pembinaan patung diletakkan ke tempat lain". When you read this letter. Do you know who are these people? The identity of this people?
CKK: At that time I was still the assembly man of Kudat and the deputy chief minister. And when the foundation work was in progress that year, I frequent few times a week and there have never been any indication of anyone in Kudat to my project.

Haji Ansari: May I apply as this document PBD1 page 21 as Exhibit P24.
Judge: What is the marking?
Interpreter: Ex P24.

Haji Ansari: Tan Sri in your experience was there any incident where any public safety was affected due to this project in Kudat.
CKK: YA, not just in Kudat but in the whole country there has not been a question of proximity. We always pride ourselves in Malaysia.

Hj: Can you refer to PBD1 item 20 page 33.....what is this?
CKK: The photo shows the Chinese Temple right to the mosque in Kudat known as the kg Air mosque. Which was for many years the principle mosque of Kudat town. The proximity between the temple and the mosque is less than 100 years and we did not have any problem over the last 50 years.

Haji Ansari: May I apply for this photo to be marked as exhibit. Item 20, page 33 PBD(I)?

Judge: No objection. Hang on item 20 of PBD (I) item 20 marked as Exhibit P25.

Haji Ansari: Apply for the marking of item 24, item 25, item 26, item 27 and item 28 on the same subject on the proximity of other mosque with the places of other worships.

JUDGE: P26- item 24, P31

Haji Ansari: Refer to item 19 of the same bundle- PBD1 page 32. What does it show and how did it come to be taken?
CKK: YA. When I was the assemblyman for Kudat, I always joined the local muslim leaders in Kudat for 'Buka Puasa'. This muslim leaders were mostly from the local Umno leadership together with the head village. The picture was taken before buka puasa 2007 where these leaders were very close to me and very concerned as to when I was able to continue to mm statute project. I invited them to the site b4 we had our buka puasa dinner next door.

Haji Ansari: May we marked the Exhibit 31 at page 32 of PBD1 ie item 19. I refer you now to pages 22 to 23 of the same bundle.. this are also agreed bundles. One is a letter from the 2nd Defendant and one is from the 3rd Defendant. My question is on page 22 PBD1.

Haji Ansari: Were you still the member of the sabah state cabinet? (Date: 2006).
CKK:yes.

Haji Ansari: Are you aware of any decision albeit resolution being made by the state assembly for the project to be stopped.
CKK: This statue project was never raised in any of the state cabinet meeting for the simple reason that it was a private project.

Haji Ansari: What was your reaction when u first saw the letter?
CKK: The same reaction i felt for the two letters.

Haji Ansari: May I have the letter sent by KY Mustpha i.e item 10 page 22 marked as an Exhibit P32.

Haji Ansari: The letter regarding the buddist statue... do you at this point of time know of any objection based on religious beliefs to the construction of the statute? Were u aware?
CKK: I was not aware of any objection based on that ground.

Haji Ansari: On the ground of religious beliefs?
CKK: Yes.

Haji Ansari: Can You refer to the next page: Did you receive this letter?
CKK: Yes. Enclose a letter from the state secretary P32.

Haji Ansari: May I apply for Exhibit PBD1 at page to be marked as Exhibit 33

Judge: Allowed

Haji Ansari: Please refer to page 44 to 45 at PBD(I). Was your attention drawn to these two letters?
CKK: Yes. YA I received these two letters. It concerned my station.

Haji Ansari: What was your reaction when u received these two letters from the 4Th Defendant?
CKK: Disbelief.

Haji Ansari: Why?
CKK: I was shocked and questioning that my private project has to concern the state mufti.

Haji Ansari: Anything else?
CKK: I took both letters to Kuala Lumpur and showed it to some of my friends in the UMno Leadership at the Federal?

Haji Ansari: What was your motive?
CKK: To ask why my project has anything to do with the state mufti?

Haji Ansari: What did they say to you?
CKK: It cannot be fatwa because fatwa only concern muslims and that my project is of no concern to anyone.

Haji Ansari :May I apply for these letters to be marked as Exhibit?

Judge: any objection?

Attorney General: No objection. Only as to the contents.

Judge: Item 12 and 13 of PBD(I).

Haji Ansari: Yes My Lady. Ex P34 item 12 and Ex P35 for item 13 respectively. To your knowledge are there any patung or statute found in Sabah especially those built near public roads?
CKK: YA there are plenty. I have given the 1st Defendant an album when i met him.

Haji Ansari: Im showing the witness item 21, 22 and 23 of PBD1. Can you conform that these are part of the patung built near the roads in Sabah?
CKK: That's correct.

Haji Ansari: How far is the Patung Tunku Abdul Rahman located next to Sabah State mosque?
CKK: Along the main road of Jalan Penanmpang.

Haji Ansari: May I apply for item 21 to 23 at pages 24 to 26 to be marked as exhibits.

Judge: Ex P36 P37 And P8 accordingly.
Judge: Its 5 pm I thought we should stop.
Judge: Adjourned till 9.00 am tomorrow.

KES MA TZU, ANSARI MULAKAN PENCAK!

KEHEBATAN Peguam Kanan Haji Ansari Abdullah berpencak silat di Mahkamah Tinggi Kota Kinabalu telah terbukti pada 1999 apabila berjaya menumpaskan Mantan Ketua Menteri, Datuk Yong Teck Lee dalam Petisyen Pilihanraya 1999.

Sepuluh tahun kemudian, iaitu pada 13 Januari 2009, sekali lagi diuji di Mahkamah Tinggi Kota Kinabalu dan kali ini melibatkan seorang Mantan Ketua Menteri menentang Ketua Menteri yang berkuasa.

Berikut teks penuh ucapan pembukaan Ansari di hadapan Hakim Mahkamah Tinggi Kota Kinabalu, Yang Arif Yew Jen Kie. Defenden pertama, Datuk Seri Panglima Musa Haji Aman diwakili oleh Peguam Negeri, Datuk Roderick Fernando dan dibantu oleh Hanafiah Kassim.

My Lady,

In a nutshell, the Plaintiff is using as Chairman of the Kudat Thean Hou Charitable Foundation.

2.He is seeking for four(4) declarations as mentioned under the statement of claim, apart from damages wits and other consequential relief that this court deems fit and just,. The four declarations are:

a) Letter of approval dated 8th February 2006 issued by the 4th Defendant is valid;

b) Letter of withdrawal dated 15 November 2007 issued by the 4th Defendant is null and void;

c)'Fatwa'issued by the state Mufi is an infringement of upon Article 11 of the Federal Constitution; and

d)1st Defendant had in giving the various orders and directions to the other 3 Defendants had acted mala fide, in abuse of power as the Chief Minister of Sabah and Ultra vires the Town and Country Planning Ordinance and Local Government Ordinance.

3.The Plaintiff shall be bound by Your Lady's ruling in the motion on the issue of validity of the first two prayers, that is, the validity as to the letter of approval dated 8.2.2006 and letter of withdrawal dated 15.11.2007. However this position is without prejudice to the appeal filed by the 4th Defendant and the Town and Country Planning Central Board to the Court Of Appeal on the issue of jurisdiction. In other words, our concession is confined only on the decision of the validity of the two letters and not on jurisdiction.


4. The Plaintiff shall call at least 10 witnesses including the Plaintiff himself and 7 witnesses under subpoena. We shall prove that:

a) The various orders and the directives made by the 1st Defendant in relation to the project were made malafide, i.e malicious expression of power on the part of the 1st Defendant as it was motivated by personal animosity towards the Plaintiff and out of ill spite.

b) The orders and the directives by the 1st Defendant are made ultra vires the Local Government ordinance and Town Country and Planning Ordinance (cap 141) since there was an improper motive, that is to satisfy a personal grudge and to wreck vengeance on the plaintiff; and

c)Finally that the constitutional guarantee to the freedom of religion under Article 11 of the federal Court had been infringed

5. The Plaintiff will show that in his haste and anger, the 1st Defendant had abused the Govt and Umno machineries in Sabah to incite ill will and hatred towards the Plaintiff and members of the Foundation by using false and non existing basis as justification including:-

i) Approval was for a 200 feet Buddist Statue: as stated in Umno circular

ii) The statue was near the mosque as stated in the 2nd, 3rd and 4th Defendants letters.

The State govt, the Umno liason committee together with its youth, Wanita, Puteri wings, the Mufti, the 2nd, 3rd and 4th Defendants were all like mices following the pipe piper, who was in this case, the 1st Defendant without knowing that the statue was not that of Buddha but a Taoist diety without rectifying the height of the statute, that it, that it was not 200 feet but only 80 feet and it was more than half kilometer away from the mosque.

Counsel for the Plaintiff


(Haji Ansari Abdullah Ali)

13th January 2009.