DALAM MAHKAMAH TINGGI MALAYA DI KUALA LUMPUR DALAM WILAYAH PERSEKUTUAN, MALAYSIA GUAMAN SIVIL NO : S ANTARA

Transcription

1 DALAM MAHKAMAH TINGGI MALAYA DI KUALA LUMPUR DALAM WILAYAH PERSEKUTUAN, MALAYSIA GUAMAN SIVIL NO : S--- ANTARA LOGICAL OPERATIONS CONSORTIUM SDN BHD (No Syarikat : -X) PLAINTIF DAN 1. ABDUL RAHIM BIN ABDUL RAZAK (No K/P : 00-0-). SILVERLAKE SYSTEM SDN BHD (No Syarikat : -W) DEFENDAN-DEFENDAN TARIKH : 0.. MASA : :AM NOTA KETERANGAN Koram Hakim Yang Arif Siti Khadijah Bt S. Hassan Badjenid YA Peguam Plaintif S S Tieh SST Peguam Defendan Pertama Abdul Rashid Shahfrin ABR SHF Peguam Defendan H L Choon Ke- Elaine Siaw ELS 1

2 Saksi Saksi 0 1 SP-1 Singanallur Venkataraman Narayanan Jurubahasa - JRB Penterjemah - PTJ

3 0 1 MULA JRB Dengan izin Yang Arif. Kes untuk sambung bicara. S--, Logical Operations Consortium Sdn Bhd lawan Abdul Rahim Bin Abdul Razak dan satu lagi. SST Dengan izin Yang Arif, SS Tieh for the Plaintiff. My learned friends, Encik Abdul Rashid Ismail together with Cik Hanum for the First Defendant. My learned friends, Mr HL Choon together with Miss Elaine Siaw for the Second Defendant. Can I (00:00: inaudible) continue cross Plaintiff, PW-1 cross-examination by counsel of the Second Defendant. ABR My Lady, I just want to enquire, because on the last occasion, my learned friend put in a written reply to the issue of ID and ID. I m just wondering whether My Lady would like to deal with it now, or at some other stage. YA (00:01:0 inaudible). ABR Boleh, Yang Arif. YA I can do it now. ABR My Lady, may I refer My Lady to page. YA Are you going to repeat your submissions? ABR No. YA That you made on the first occasion. ABR I just want to address two issues that my learned friend has raised. Firstly, it says person. Basically, his contention is, any statement made by a person interested. I don t understand what they are trying to say, whether he is not a person, but under the Interpretation Act, it is quiet clear, a person includes individual. So, as far as that argument is

4 0 1 concerned, I think there is no merit to it. And the second issue that they have raised is that, it must be written. If we look at clause My Lady, it s quiet clear, that, it is not necessarily be handwritten, a document if they acknowledge it s theirs, then obviously it belongs to them, unless they say it s not their document, then it s not admissible anyway. That s my only submission. Yang Arif, may I address the court on this issue, as. YA Actually I do not want to waste time. Actually I have decided. I ve decided, it is, those documents will remain as ID. That is my decision. SST ID. YA ID. ABR Much obliged. Much obliged. YA This is just to avoid you know, since I ve made my decision, and if I were to hear you, you are also objecting to that document being tendered. Mr counsel. Yes. YA You are also objecting to that document. Yes. YA So, my decision is a, to remain, those documents are to remain as ID. So, I think it is a waste of time for you, unless you just want to put in your submission, if you have any. Yes. YA In case there is an appeal.

5 0 1 Yes, I do have, just, I mean also to prepare in this. YA I just have that. The basis of objection will be, of the reply is actually pretty similar to the First Defendant. YA So, we can proceed. SP1 Nama : Singanallur Venkataraman Narayanan Umur : Alamat: Pekerjaan: Bersumpah dan memberi keterangan dalam Bahasa Inggeris Masa: : AM Pemeriksaan Balas (Cross-Examination) Masa: : AM May it please you My Lady, I would like to continue with my cross examination of PW1. Dr Narayanan, again can you speak louder, because we have reviewed the recording from the past occasion, there were segments where we really have difficulty in trying to decipher what you say. So, can you speak louder. I certainly try, but beyond my physical ability, I don t know if I can. Yes. When you speak, I think you just speak to the mic, you don t speak to me, so that the mic can capture it clearer. Appreciated. Okay. Dr Narayanan, can you please look at your Witness Statement. Okay. Question. at page. Alright.

6 0 1 Yes, I am there. Okay. Firstly, I would like to know, in your answer you said that, Razak and Rahim were the ones who proposed. My question is, who, between Razak and Rahim, was the one who made the proposal? It goes back to the period between. No, just tell me who, Rahim or Razak? In this particular case, both of them did mention that. Yes. Did they mention it together, in a synchronise format or what? Oh my. I won t be able to say that because there were so many ad hoc meetings between the th of October and the sometimes. So, who was the one who made the proposal? Proposal? You are the one, who put in your answer, to say Razak and Rahim were the ones who proposed that the Plaintiff performed blah blah all these things. Right. So, I m asking you, who? Is it Razak or Rahim? From my memory, it was predominantly the First Defendant, because I don t remember him saying, we are all partners now, so we can go ahead and do this together. But then, since I had asked Razak specifically, why was asking us and not get it done internally. And he gave me a reason that, I thought was very valid. He did pursue that, but in terms of actual words that he used, I will not be able to recall. I m not sure even if, would I would recall, but he would know the gist of it too. So, I put it to you that, in respect of paragraph., it was Rahim and not Razak who made the proposal. Do you agree?

7 0 1 I wouldn t agree, because my understanding was it was a joint proposal. But exactly the words that they used or who initiated the discussion, I wouldn t be able to recall. It s probably about years ago now. years ago. In your answer, you said this. Razak and Rahim were the ones who proposed that the Plaintiff performed all procurement services, in return for owning and running card operations for the Bank Rakyat project. Okay. Yes. Do you agree with me that, there was no agreement, intention or understanding, between the parties that you are providing this business procurement consulting services for cash reward, in terms of professional fees. Do you agree? You said this in your answer. So, I m putting it to you that, there was no intention, understanding or agreement between the parties that this business procurement services that you say you are providing, okay, is in return for cash payment in the form of professional fees. Do you agree? Just let us know, do you agree or not. I got to make sure I understand your question first. Right. Since you did say, whether there was an agreement, that there will be cash payment for the business procurement and so forth. Yes, I m saying that there is no agreement, understanding or intention between the parties, that this so called business procurement services that you are providing for was in return for cash payment in the form of professional fees. Do you agree? I think I do have to agree, but I m not sure if I m saying the right thing, because it was supposed to be. You don t need to explain, you just need to answer, agree or disagree, Dr.

8 0 1 Well, you are a lawyer, and I m not. That s why I have to give a. No, Dr, can we just focus. Can you just. I think the question is simple. You either agree or you disagree, or if you don t know, you say you don t know. I think at this stage, I will have to say I don t know, because I don t know the implication of that. Legal implication of that. You don t need to know the legal implication. It is a factual question, as to what happened, in your words, seven years ago, at that time. I am saying there was no understanding, agreement, or intention between the parties that you were providing this business procurement services in return for cash payment, in the form of professional fees. Do you agree? Considering the last part that you just mentioned, in return for cash. In the form of professional fees. In the form of professional services, for this. Do you agree? Yes, I do. Please look at Bundle B page. Do you have that? Page. Yes, I do. Can you look at the last bullet point. Do you agree with me that, it was IICSO s position that, without any agreement on the credit card operation, IICSO was not going to proceed any further with the project? Last bullet point. I got to read though, it s a bit.

9 0 1 Sure. It s the last bullet point I m looking at. I know. I think it says, lastly, IICSO operation, right? Yes. IICSO operation. My Lady, I just miss out something. Can I seek leave to allow my chambering pupil to sit in the open court, to record the notes. YA Are you referring to page or?, the last bullet point. YA The last bullet at. Not. I m sorry. last bullet point. There, IICS requires having this. Okay, thank you. The paragraph says, IICS requires having this agreement in place before it can commit. That paragraph. Okay. Have you read that? Yes. Since I read something else before, can I read this please. Yes. Yes. Okay. So, do you agree with me that, at that time, it was IICSO s position, that without having agreed on an agreement for the credit card operation, IICSO was not prepared to proceed any further. Yes. Yes. So, coming back to paragraph., of your Witness Statement. You see that,., the same paragraph that I read to you just now. Razak and Rahim were the ones who proposed that the Plaintiff performed all business procurement services in return for owning and running the card operations for the Bank Rakyat project. Okay.

10 0 1 Yes. So, when you say owning and running the card operations for the Bank Rakyat project, it is that particular agreement, that has not been agreed to as referred to at page. Am I correct? We are talking about the same operation. Just now at. Okay. I asked you that, without the agreement on the credit card operation in place, IICS would not commit any further. So, there is no agreement on the operation. So, now at., it also talk about owning and running the card operations for the Bank Rakyat project. So, my question is, we are talking about the same operation here, the same card operation. Am I correct? Yes, but there s a caveat here, because this one also refers to preoperations consultancy that wasn t being paid either. So, when you say, this also refers to, that means the. answer also refers to the pre-operations consultancy. No. The page.. [00::00]. In B refers to the contract that will enable the pre-operations consultancy which was eventually paid, as well as the post-operations ongoing. Okay. Post operation. Okay. So, at paragraph., this one is referring to the post-operation. Am I correct? Yes, but at that time, we weren t sure whether the pre-operations would also be included in that. Okay. With reference to paragraph., of your answer. Okay. I put it to you that, it was clear to all parties, right at the beginning, that, this

11 0 1 thing called owning and running the card operations for the Bank Rakyat project, okay. In your words, owning and running the card operations for the Bank Rakyat project, this thing is always subject to parties being able to agree on the post operation agreement. Do you agree with me? I don t agree. If you don t agree, why did IICSO or the Plaintiff or you or Uday, whoever, engage in such a prolong negotiations with the Second Defendant in trying to agree on the post operation agreement? It wasn t really our fault at all, in fact, we started it back in May of 0, and you can see for yourself that there were a lot of delay tactics involved. Every time I used, we used to remind Razak about it, he used to come back and say. When you say remind Razak, what do you remind? Just to clarify. About pursuing the finalisation of the contract. Then he would dump on us, a lot of request for continuing with the project management team as well as in facilitation of the negotiations. You can see that trend all throughout. Yes. So, but did you at any point in time, during that negotiations, okay. Did you at any point in time in the negotiation, tell the Second Defendant that, Hey, we should stop negotiating, because you have agreed to award the contract to me, right at the outset. Did you ever say that? No, as a matter of fact, we were discussing terms and. Did you ever say that? Can you repeat your question again?

12 0 1 Did you at that time when parties were negotiating on the contract, during that whole period, that you say there were a lot of delaying tactics, a long time and all those things, during the entire period. Did you at any time, during that period, tell the Second Defendant that. Tell. Or inform. Anything. Inform. Okay. Inform the Second Defendant that, Hey, we should stop negotiating, because you have agreed to award the contract to me, right from the outset. Did you inform the Second Defendant of this? No, as a matter of fact, we were discussing terms and conditions, not the contract itself. No. I know you were discussing terms and conditions. But I am asking you, did you at any time say that, Hey, you have agreed to award this contract to me, right from the outset, or something to this effect. No, as a matter of fact, if we believe they are also acting in good faith. No, I don t need to know what you believed. I just need to know, as a matter of fact, did you or did you not, inform this to the Second Defendant? No, we didn t. We trusted them, they were acting in good faith. I put it to you that, why this was never raised at all is because there were never such agreement from the outset, to start with. Do you agree? I totally disagree. Totally disagree.

13 0 1 I put it to you that, because the Plaintiff and IICSO knew that the owning and running of the card operations for the Bank Rakyat project was always subject to parties being able to agree on the post op agreement, that is why the Plaintiff and IICSO continued to engage in negotiation with the Second Defendant on the post op agreement. Do you agree? You have to repeat that again. Because it s a very long string. Okay. I put it to you that, because, okay. The Plaintiff and IICSO knew that, this thing called owning and running of the card operation for the Bank Rakyat project, that you mentioned in., okay. Because I say, the Plaintiff and IICSO knew that, owning and running the card operations for Bank Rakyat project was always subject to parties being able to agree on the post op agreement. I say this is the reason, and that is why the Plaintiff and IICSO continued to engage in negotiation with the Second Defendant on the post op agreement. Do you agree? I don t agree at all. I put it to you that, with reference to paragraph., okay. In reference to., I put it to you that, the Plaintiff was performing the so called business procurement. Can you repeat that, from the beginning. Somebody was coughing. No. I m just looking at.. I say. Please refer to.. Okay. I put it to you that, the Plaintiff was performing the so called business procurement services, in return for an opportunity to own and run the card operations for the Bank Rakyat project. Do you agree? I totally disagree, because the word opportunity. Can you show me any written correspondences between the parties, which says that, or which point to the fact that, there was an earlier

14 0 1 promise by the Second Defendant to award the post operation contract to IICSO. There was absolutely no written or any handwritten document in terms of this agreement, because we work on trust basis. Do you think that this so called promise or agreement was important to the Plaintiff or IICSO? Not in this case, because one of them was a person we trusted with everything for five years. No, I m asking you. Was this promise or agreement okay, that you say the Second Defendant would award the contract to you. Okay. This promise and agreement that you are contending. Okay. So, I m asking you, was this promise or agreement, was this important to the Plaintiff or IICSO? Yes. In that case, it was important because that s what we started working on, based on that, right, everything. Despite it s important, so for the period of well over two years, the Plaintiff and IICSO, you and Uday chose not to mention a single word on this important fact, that, in your words, that made you or made the Plaintiff do whatever they did. I put it to you that, what you say is not the truth. There was never such promise by the Second Defendant. Do you agree? I totally disagree. We didn t put anything in writing, because of request for not doing so. Sorry. Again. Because of? We did not put anything in , because we were asked not to use the to mention these things. In fact, even during our presentation to the senior management in Silverlake.

15 0 1 Who asked you to? Primarily it was the First Defendant who said don t use any on these things. And we avoided mentioning any commitment made by Rahim and Razak, in order to avoid the conflict. You had the chance to meet with Razak s superior. Yes. Am I correct? Yes. At various stages of this project. Am I correct? I don t know if it s his superior, but we spoke to Andy. Yes. How about Mr Goh? Mr Goh I didn t meet till April. Sure. But I m saying that you had the opportunities to meet with Razak s superior. Am I correct? Are you asking me, if I should have initiated a discussion with. No, not should have. You don t need to anticipate what s coming next. You just need to answer it as a matter of fact. So, I m saying. Repeat that question then. You had the opportunities to meet with Razak s superior. Am I correct? During these two years. I don t understand what you mean by saying opportunities. In other words.

16 0 1 You had in fact met with Razak s superior. At different occasion, during these two years. We had met with only Andy. I don t know if he s his superior. Okay. So, did you ask Andy whether the so called promise is indeed true? No. As a matter of fact, in all. Did you ask Andy whether the so called promise is indeed true? We gave a presentation. No, did you ask or not, Dr? Specifically? Yes. No. That s it. No. So, met with someone in the position of power and yet you did not even seek any verification or confirmation. So, I put it to you that, why that happened is because, again there was simply no such promise made. Do you agree? I totally disagree, because you said, position, person in position or power. That is a total assumption. We didn t even think it was a position or power. But you have met with Mr Goh Peng Ooi. Am I right?

17 0 1 No, I had not. You have never met with Mr Goh Peng Ooi? Till the, May of 0, I have not. Yes. So, after that, when you met Mr Goh Peng Ooi, did you ask him to verify the so called promise? No. As a matter of fact, when he is, when he told us. So, did you ask or not, Dr? I m sure that your lawyer, your counsel will ask you further question, if necessary. Can you just be specific. No. When he told us he cannot give us the project, we just walked out. So, you did. Did you mention that, Hey, there was an earlier promise given by the Second Defendant. Did you say that? No. I put it to you that, why you did not ask and why you did not say, is because there was no such thing right. There was no such promise made at all. Do you agree? I totally disagree, because you can look at the presentation we made, on th of December, and it mentioned clearly how the evolution took place. Sorry. Again. The last few words. The presentation that we used. Presentation material that we used on th of December, when we first met with Andy, and so, who was I thought from the finance side, which is why he was there. It does describe how this thing evolved, as two separate entities going jointly. And then, eventually had to be a single entity, because MBF was

18 0 1 proposing a single and comparatively speaking it would have paid off, to go as two separate entities. I put it to you that, the so called presentation was merely a proposal by the Plaintiff on behalf of IICSO. Do you agree? I totally disagree, because if you look at Razak s . He is the one who told us, present it as though you are a sub-contractor. We didn t ask for it. Show us that, please. Page. Bundle? B1. B1,. Yes. Where? Last sentence, says, Kindly submit to Silverlake on your proposal for Silverlake to outsource to you, on the credit card operation. So, did you see the word proposal? Wasn t that what I asked you just now? It was merely a proposal by the Plaintiff, Dr Narayanan. It was a presentation made to Silverlake, upon Razak asking us to put it as though we are asking to outsource the project. Yes. So, you refer us to. That s why, I m putting it to you, that the presentation was merely a chance for the Plaintiff to present the proposal to the Second Defendant s management. Do you agree? The word, proposal, in this case, may not be the same as what you are thinking. What we were asked to do is, give all the background in terms of, how this thing evolved, and what it is that, the Plaintiff is bringing to the table, and what it is that, Silverlake is bringing, in terms

19 0 1 of systems. And eventually, it turned out that, they asked for a days split, because the Plaintiff was going to make more money. Do you agree with me that at page 1. 1? Yes. Of the same Bundle. Yes. At that time, it, this financial projection is already based on the outsourcing model? It was based on a joint scenario with the prime vendor and the subcontractor. So, the operation is outsourced? [00:0:00] The alliance linked was that, in terms of using the word outsourced, I wouldn t even think about it. So, therefore, I m putting it to you that, 1 and are talking about the same thing, which is, the Plaintiff s proposal to have this outsourced to an operating company. Do you agree, which eventually become IICSO? You see counsellor, the word outsourced is used by Bank Rakyat when they are outsourcing to whoever the partner is, eventual partner. So, it s already being outsourced by Bank Rakyat to Silverlake, if Silverlake did win that project. So, do you understand the word outsourced at page? That s a.

20 0 1 Do you understand the word, or not? That s Razak s word. I don t know what it means. You don t know what it means. And yet you proceeded to do the presentation without seeking clarification. Is that correct? Well, he uses the word outsourced. Outsourced in this case is. No, Dr Narayanan. I already asked you. Do you know what it means by outsourced here? You already said, you don t know. This was the answer you gave to the court. So, I m asking you now, without seeking clarification on what is meant by outsourced, you, the Plaintiff nevertheless proceeded to give the presentation. Is that correct? If they are saying we go as partners, yes. No. You don t need to assume, because you already said you don t know. I asked you specifically. I m trying to explain the word outsourced and there are two stages of outsources here. No, that s why I asked you Dr. Okay. Once you ve answered, that is your answer. So, I m asking you. Do you know what is meant by outsourced? And then you told us just now, specifically, this is Razak s word, I don t know. I don t know what he means here. Yes. But I ll assume something here though. Right. So.

21 0 1 I ll assume. And what he s saying is, Silverlake is going to be the prime vendor. So, if we get it, then we outsourced that project to you. So, therefore, Dr Narayanan, I put it to you that, that can never be any common intention between the parties, when, number (1) you did not even understand what Razak meant. And number () you are only making your own assumption. Am I correct? No. You can agree or disagree. I totally disagree. Okay. I think that s a word question here. Please look at Question of your Witness Statement. Okay. If you look at first paragraph. You say that, a proposal with the Plaintiff providing operations support, okay. This part. Plaintiff providing operation support. If you look at paragraph, it says that, Plaintiff do agree to be the proposed partner to manage the operations of the outsourcing project. YA Question? Question of the Witness Statement. First paragraph. It says that, A proposal with the Plaintiff providing the operation support, and number () is, Proposed partner to manage the operations of the outsourcing project. Okay. Do you agree with me that, these two activities, if materialised, would become the business of the Plaintiff or IICSO? Let me make sure I understand. Now, you are looking at the first paragraph of Question.

22 0 1 Yes. And then, you are also looking at the third paragraph of the same Question. Alright. Where it says, what the Plaintiff needs to do. Suggested to the Plaintiff that, a proposal with the Plaintiff providing operations support. That s number (1). Okay. Hold on. Are you looking at first paragraph or the third paragraph? No, first paragraph, you see, okay. At the end of second line. Suggested to the Plaintiff that a proposal with the Plaintiff providing the operations support. Okay? Yes. Point number (1). Then, you zoom in to paragraph number (). Okay. You see there, the Plaintiff do agree to be the proposed partner to manage the operations of the outsourcing project for Bank Rakyat. Do you see that? Yes. Okay. So, there are two points that I m pointing out now. So, my question to you is that. Do you agree with me that these two activities or these two task or work, whichever word you want to use, okay, are, will if it materialise that way. I m sorry, I. Start from the beginning of the sentence, please. Okay, there are two points that I pointed out. Providing operations support and manage the operations. See that? Providing operations support and managing the operations. Yes. Okay. These two activities, if materialise.

23 0 1 If they materialise. Okay. It would be the business activity of the Plaintiff and IICSO. Do you agree? Yes. Okay. And the Plaintiff or IICSO, would be able to generate income or revenue from these activities. Am I correct? Yes. So, therefore, I m putting it to you that, all these are actually procured business for the Plaintiff and not for the Second Defendant. Do you agree? Totally disagree. In the last paragraph, can I confirm with you. Just to confirm that. Last paragraph of? Question, sorry. Same question, Question. Okay. Can I confirm with you that, Rahim was the one who asked for high level financial projections and not Razak. Since in this particular meeting, most of the talking was done by. Yes, of course, it s only this meeting, because that is your answer. Can I complete the sentence? Yes. It s very specific. I m just trying to paraphrase it, right. Since in this meeting, it was mostly.

24 0 1 No, Dr, you can leave that for re-examination. Let s move faster. Okay, and just focus. My question to you is specific. It was Rahim who asked you to develop this high level business case and not Razak? My recollections, yes. I put it to you that, since you know that Rahim did not represent the Second Defendant, what Rahim was doing was merely making a suggestion to the Plaintiff, of how the Plaintiff could proceed with the project. Do you agree? I don t agree at all. At that time, do you agree with me that, the Plaintiff had not submitted any proposal at all? At the time of Question, of course. Proposal to where? Submitted any proposal to any of the parties in this action. I m sorry. Can you repeat that question, because I m really lost in what you are asking. At that time, the time. On.0.0. Yes. The Plaintiff had not submitted any proposal to any of the parties in this action. Which parties are you talking about? There are only three parties in this action Plaintiff, First Defendant, Second Defendant. As of /.

25 0 1 Yes. We have not submitted anything, because that was the first time they were talking about it. No, just. You see Dr, just answer the question. I m saying that, you have not submitted any proposals to either the First Defendant or the Second Defendant. Is that correct? At that time. Correct. Yes. In view of that, I also further put it to you that, at that time, the Plaintiff was merely considering whether or not to participate in this project. Do you agree? I don t agree, because based on what Rahim and Razak had kind of mentioned, we saw an opportunity. Please look at Question.1. Yes. Okay. Can you confirm that you have never met with the representative from Bank Rakyat during the negotiation process? Me? Yes. I have not met anybody from Bank Rakyat. Sorry, during the negotiation process? Yes. Can you describe that period for me please?

26 0 1 No, until the main contract was signed, with the Bank Rakyat. There was no main contract. November. One of the persons who used to work in Bank Islam, took over Bank Rakyat Card center. His name is Khairul. Khairul had asked us to develop a draft operations manual for Bank Rakyat to get the licence, for this card, Credit card business. Okay. So, is that. So, if you are saying whether we have met with anybody from Bank Rakyat, technically, it turned out that he was with Bank Rakyat, later on. Yes. Later on. But, at that time when he made that request to you, was he with Bank Rakyat? I think he was, but he didn t make that request. It came through Rahim. Okay. So, am I right to say that, you did not know, or you do not have personal knowledge of what the Second Defendant had submitted to the Bank Rakyat. At what time? During the entire negotiations between the Second Defendant and Bank Rakyat, okay. I m saying that, you do not have personal knowledge, of what was submitted by the Second Defendant to Bank Rakyat. I totally disagree, because there are some s that Razak sent for us to provide feedback on, and that clearly indicates that, whatever scope of services that the Plaintiff was offering was put together with Silverlakes on, and he asked for feedback and additional help on filling in some gaps over there.

27 0 1 So, did you ask Razak or did you enquire from Razak, what actually did the Second Defendant submit to Bank Rakyat? No. As a matter of fact, the understanding was they ll be the prime vendor. No, did you ask or not? You don t need to tell us the rest of the thing. No, I didn t. So, I put it to you that, you are merely guessing what the Second Defendant had submitted to Bank Rakyat, but you do not have actual or personal knowledge of what was actually submitted. Do you agree? I don t have any idea about the actual document that was submitted to Bank Rakyat, but I do have a good understanding of that, because of all the discussions and some s. Do you agree with me that, okay. Now. Sorry. Earlier I asked you that, the two activities that you are talking about, one, is to manage the card operations and the, and you also to provide the support service. Remember? And the Question. I m sorry. Now, I don t mean to be rude, but your volume drop a bit low. Could you repeat the same thing? Okay. At Question. Remember just now I asked you about the two activities. Yes. Providing operations support and also to manage the operation. Yes.

28 0 1 Okay. These two activities, and we have established that, if the Plaintiff does that, it would be a business activity for the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff will receive revenue from that. Correct? Repeat the last part again. I m sorry. Just now, I already asked you that, there are two activities, if it materialise, would actually become the Plaintiff s business activity and the Plaintiff would generate revenue from those activities. Okay. Now, my question to you is that, in order for those business activities to materialise and to be able to generate revenue for the Plaintiff, it is important for the Plaintiff to ensure that the Second Defendant is awarded the Bank Rakyat project. Do you agree? Since, it s a long one, I m going to agree in parts and not agree in parts. No, you don t need. My question is. In order for you to get those type of revenue that we were talking about just now, it is important for the Plaintiff to ensure that the Bank Rakyat, the Second Defendant would get the Bank Rakyat project. [00::00] I agree, because they are the prime vendor. If they don t get the project, then neither one gets it. Alright. And, therefore, I further put it to you that, for all the so called facilitation that you mentioned at.1 of your Witness Statement. Okay..1 of your Witness Statement, you say, no, but we assisted in facilitating the Second Defendant s discussions with Bank Rakyat. Okay. So, my question is, I put it to you that, those assistance or facilitation that you mentioned under question, answer to Question.1, was actually done in order to get business for the Plaintiff. Do you agree?

29 0 1 I totally disagree. It is to get the project for the partnership of Silverlake and Plaintiff. Yes. But not. So, at that time, has there been a partnership established between the Second Defendant and the Plaintiff? In principle yes. Right from.0.0. So, can you show us the documents, which document, what type of partnership are we talking about? You are going back to the written document, there is nothing. It s a verbal agreement and a request for partnership. And what, request for partnership? I m sorry? The last few words that you say. It was verbal agreement and. And the request for working together in a partnership. Yes. Who made that request? Again, Rahim on the first meeting, most of the time. I don t know what exactly Razak said because it was all in Malay, but I think Uday can discuss that better. In view of that. In view of your last answer, I put it to you that, there was never any such request or proposal for partnership that came from the Second Defendant. Do you agree? Since, I just said that I don t know what exactly was said in Malay. I m going to disagree, because I don t know that it s true.

30 0 1 Okay. So, at paragraph. of your Witness Statement. Okay. When you say, among others. What do you mean, by among others? Can you tell us, all those others, that are relevant to our present case? To our what? To the present case. In this court case. Okay. Good. We had actually developed initial scope of services for the Plaintiff, as well as some high level financials that were requested on the first meeting, which is the.0.0. So, we met and concur I think in the second meeting, I m not sure about that, the location now. But, we went through that, but somewhere along that line, Razak started speaking more and more, and to me also, in English. So, I asked him specifically, why is it Silverlake asking, asked to do the operations. Right. Can you speak louder? Sorry. Speak louder. My question was, why Silverlake asking, because I ve gone through some of these things in the past, where somebody from a large organisation comes and ask me for, responding to RFB or something like that. And then, we find that the person was individually trying to get some project for himself within the company, and there was not full support of the company behind it, and we would eventually have wasted all that effort. Dr, I m asking you. You see, when you say among others, I have personally asked, and blah blah and all these things. So, you already said one part, that, why you think that, or why Razak could not get his people to do the work for him. So, I m asking you, when you say, among others, what are those others. You don t need to repeat what you already said in the statement. 0

31 0 1 We went through the materials that we had prepared, the scope of services, and the template, financial template. Because we have to develop the Excel spread sheet. Right. And we went through them. So, at that time, the Plaintiff had already developed the financial projection. Is that correct? Financial projections are evolved. You start from a certain. So, what have you prepared? Don t need to give us another lecture on that. Just help us. Then, what have you prepared? The first set of high level financial that Rahim had requested for. Okay. That means, at that time, the Plaintiff had already prepared the high level financials. This is what you have just said. Initial, I would say. Initial. This is what you just said. Initial high level. Yes. Okay. So, is that high level financials that you said, had already been prepared at that time. Is it found in the Bundle? Yes. Which one? Which one is it? I refer you to. in my Witness Statement. Page. No. So, where is the financial? Go to Bundle. 1

32 0 1 Okay. Page to. Okay. And then? This one was reviewed with both Rahim and Razak on that day, in Concorde. So was to page of CBD. Actually it goes from CBD all the way to CBD. Okay. That s all? Okay. Hold on. On that day, these were the two files that were given. Okay. Now, looking back at paragraph. of your Witness Statement. At that time, okay. In the same parapragh, at paragraph., you mentioned two things. Business case and financial projections. You see that? Okay. Now, so this business case and financial projections, at that time, at the 01..0, has it been prepared? Has it been what? Has it been prepared? Has it been done, this business case and financial projection? Those were the two files, I was just talking about. So, the two files that you were talking about, is actually the so called business case and financial projections, referred to at paragraph.. Am I right? Yes. I put it to you that, you are not telling the truth because at., you said that you did not want to waste time, but the fact of the matter is that, you had already spent time doing that. Do you agree?

33 0 1 I m sorry, but in terms of percentage, that work. Do you agree? Because. I am asking you. That work compared to all the things we did, it s about less than %. Dr Narayanan, I m asking you. I m saying that, you are not telling the truth. So, it s very simple. Do you agree? I totally disagree. So, since you already spent the time, by preparing the documents that you referred us just now, why would you still need to ask that question, and why your answer at. suggest that you were trying to avoid spending time. I just didn t want to spend six months of effort. If it was going to be a suspicious, I would have knocked it out. Then why didn t you ask this right at the first meeting? First meeting, Rahim told us and we believed him. Even now, I believed him. I see, okay. So, ultimately, at paragraph., you say that you do not want to spend time on meaningless proposal. So, I put it to you that, at that stage, it was very clear to all parties that the Plaintiff was merely making proposals. Do you agree? No, not at all. We are responding to a request for partnership here. And again, the so called request for partnership is the same request that you ve mentioned earlier in your answer. Yes.

34 0 1 By looking at your answer to.,., and., of your Witness Statement. I put it to you that, it was your view at that time, that the Second Defendant was in a position to prepare its own business case and financial projection. Do you agree? I don t agree, because I don t know exactly what all they are capable of doing. But they were much bigger entity than we were. Yes. At paragraph of your Witness Statement. Okay. You said that, see that, paragraph? Yes, I do. You said that, The Second Defendant identified and referred to Uday and me of the Plaintiff, as the card operations team in various presentations and meetings with Bank Rakyat. I put it to you that, since you were not involved in the meeting with Bank Rakyat and since you were not, you did not know what the Second Defendant submitted to Bank Rakyat, you were not in the position to know whether you and Uday were identified and referred to. Do you agree? Repeat that last part again, because this is very important. Okay. I say that, because you were not involved in the negotiation with Bank Rakyat, you did not meet with Bank Rakyat and you did not know what was submitted to Bank Rakyat, so therefore, I put it to you that, you are not in a position to say that, Uday and you have been identified and referred to. [01:00:00] There was so many s there asking us and delegating us to be the card operations from, to the. No, through the, to Bank Rakyat.

35 0 1 The main presentation that was given in Awana Genting on the kickoff was done by me. So, that was after the contract was awarded. Yes. But that was, that was the end of this one. So, that was after. Officially, officially, we did not meet with anybody in Bank Rakyat because Silverlake didn t want us to meet. Please look at Question.1. Okay. Yes. This you are referring to an dated The earlier that we are talking about is 1 st October, so now is rd October. Then, you put in the attachment, initial proposal from the Plaintiff to Bank Rakyat. When you say, it s a proposal from the Plaintiff to Bank Rakyat, and then you further say that, Understand that this proposal was to be presented to Bank Rakyat by Razak together with Second Defendant s own proposal. Are you saying that, you expected both proposals, that means, the Plaintiff s proposal and the Second Defendant s proposal, both will be submitted to Bank Rakyat. I don t know how it was going to work out, but we were asked to give a certain proposal, giving a background as well as pricing, as well as the scope of services. And when we get. Again, you talked about, you were being asked, where is that request? For the th time, there was no written agreement. So, who asked you? Rahim and or Razak. Again.

36 0 1 There is no such thing as and or when giving evidence, as a matter of fact. Most of the talking was done by Rahim. And I don t know what Razak said, in Malay, but it was a joint request. It was what? It was a joint request. If you don t even know what Razak was saying in Malay, how did you know that it was a joint request? I do talk after that, for de-briefing session, you know, with my partner. So, therefore, you do not have any personal knowledge whether or not, it was indeed a joint request. Am I correct? Well, if my partner says. No, you do not have personal knowledge, because you did not hear it from Razak yourself. Well, Razak then speak too much, but whatever he spoke was in Malay. So, I don t know. Yes. Just say you don t know. So, therefore, I put it to you that, when you say, you were given to understand, okay, this did not involve Razak. Do you agree? I don t agree to that at all. Do you agree with me that, if you look at page of Bundle B1. Okay. This is the slide prepared by the Plaintiff. Do you agree with me that, this is considered as a pre-ops services?

37 0 1 At that time, there was no pre-op or post-op. These are the scope of services that the Plaintiff was going to provide. And this is up to the stage before, until the stage of user acceptance testing. Am I correct? In order to get the operations going. Yes. Okay. So, do you agree with me that, for this scope of services, the pricing of the Plaintiff is found at pages to. Is that correct? Hold on a second. Sorry. Hold on a second, please. I think at that stage, Uday s thinking was that these are the services that we need to provide. No. I m just talking about and, is the pay, is the payment that you proposed for those services. At that time, yes. Okay. So, the amount is 00,000. Is that correct? For these two, yes. Yes. Please look at page 1. Still the same proposal. 1. 1? Yes. Okay.

38 0 1 This is part of the proposal. It says that, letter for intent for appointment of LOC as insourcing vendor. Who did you expect to issue the letter of intent for LOC? At this stage, it was going to be Bank Rakyat that s addressing to the separate partners. Okay. So, at that time, the expectation was that, the Bank Rakyat will appoint LOC directly. Is that correct? Based on what was told to us, by Rahim and Razak, yes. Even in the next proposal, at page to, okay, that position was still the same. Is that correct? Last part again, please. Even at page, the position is still the same as in, the Bank Rakyat would appoint LOC directly. October th, yes. Therefore, what the Plaintiff was doing, was actually trying to convince Bank Rakyat to enter into a contract with the Plaintiff. Why is then the Plaintiff charging the Second Defendant, okay, for this preparation, preparing this proposal as part of the business procurement services? The first part, whatever you said, I totally disagree. Because he said that, at that time, we were trying to get Bank Rakyat to approve this. We were responding to a request by Rahim and Razak to give a proposal from the Plaintiff for operations. That s what we were doing. And if that was being presented to Bank Rakyat, as a separate entity, so be it, but I don t think it went that way at all. Yes. But the intention was to get a contract directly from Bank Rakyat. Is that correct?

39 0 1 If they say. No. That it was the intention. The intention of the Plaintiff at that time, was to get a contract directly from Bank Rakyat. Is that correct? The intention of the Plaintiff was to respond to a request by Rahim and Razak to provide the Plaintiff s proposal. But you put it in here. Letter of intent for appointment of LOC as insourcing vendor. Down payment for process design and operation manual. Who will receive this down payment? Well, we will receive it. Who will receive the down payment? We will receive it, but if, unless Rahim actually presented it that way, we will not going to receive anything. Dr Narayanan, when you say, down payment for process design and operation manual, and all these things, would this down payment be paid to, or any part of this down payment, would it be paid to the Second Defendant? No. As a matter of fact, at that time, we were going as separate partners, right. Exactly. So, the Plaintiff was trying to get business for themselves and not the Second Defendant. Therefore, I put it to you that, the Plaintiff was not providing any business procurement services to the Second Defendant. Do you agree? I totally disagree, because the first part you said, we were seeking a business from Bank Rakyat. No, we were responding to a request by Rahim and Razak to give our proposal, which they said, they would present jointly with us, at this stage. What they did with that, I m sure you know.

40 0 1 You said that, this is what they asked you to prepare. Yes, everything at this stage was in response to their request. Okay. Do you agree with me that, at this stage when you prepared this proposal, the IICSO did not come into play? No. As a matter of fact, the IICSO s evolutionary process that started after this one, when they said, there should be a single company established for Islamic card. If you say that, Rahim and Razak asked you to prepare this, and this did not involve IICSO, I put it to you that, this concept or this idea of IICSO actually came from the Plaintiff and not the First or Second Defendant. Do you agree? I totally disagree, because when you expand the word IICSO, you will know what it is. Did Rahim or Razak, okay. You said that they told you to set up IICSO and all these things. Okay. So, did Rahim or Razak tell you, why was there such a need? Yes. There were a few ad hoc meetings between the th of November. I m sorry, 0..0 and sometime in November, when this whole idea of setting up a separate company that specialises in Islamic card and how it could evolve into the region Thailand and Indonesia. Dr, I just ask you, did Rahim or Razak tell you why was there such a need? Can you be specific. You don t need to go round the world and answer all those things. Just be specific. Specific reason that it started with was, MBF was giving a single proposal that took care of both the operations and the system. And in order to be comparative, Silverlake had to do the same. 0

41 0 1 So, you said that, but if having IICSO, then they are not single entity anyway. It is single entity from Bank Rakyat s point of view. IICSO was going to be under the umbrella of Silverlake. So, therefore, whether with or without IICSO, as far as Bank Rakyat is concerned, it is still single entity. So, I put it to you that, there was absolutely no reason why the Second Defendant would want IICSO to be set up. Do you agree? I don t know about the reason, but those were the discussions that took place. In view of the absence of a valid reason, I put it to you that this, whatever you said just now simply did not take place and this concept of IICSO actually came from the Plaintiff. Do you agree? I totally, totally disagree as you will see later. I put it to you that, the Plaintiff wanted to have a new entity to undertake the operation because the Plaintiff would like to concentrate only on consultancy services. Do you agree? That s. I totally disagree, because you can always change the name of the company. That s not a problem at all. Silverlake, your client has done that, you know. They started with Silverlake System and right now, they are doing this. Dr, I don t think we need those, okay. So, leave it for your counsel, I m sure that he will do his job, okay. So, just cut that. As far as the Second Defendant is concerned, whether is it LOC as in the Plaintiff, or whether is it IICSO, it makes no difference. Do you agree with that? As far as the Second Defendant? Yes. 1

42 0 1 Not based on what I heard in that period of. Then, what difference is it? If you said they are not based on what you have heard? Then, what are the difference, between the Plaintiff and IICSO? [01::00] They wanted us to set up a separate company that specialises in Islamic card operations that can expand to the region, under the same scenario prime vendor and sub-contractor. Is this again, documented anywhere? It s a thing called trust. No, is this documented anywhere? No, it is not. I put it to you that, such request, so called request by the Second Defendant simply did not happen. Do you agree? Again, I totally disagree. In your proposals, at pages to 1 and to of Bundle 1, who would do the operations? At this stage, LOC. No, just based on this proposal. Okay. Who would do the operations? The Plaintiff. Can you show us the relevant portions of the slides to show that.