It was RTM that said ‘derhaka’, court told
Written by Chua Sue-Ann, The Edge
DAP National Chairman Karpal Singh’s sedition trial today heard that it was national broadcaster Radio Televisyen Malaysia (RTM), and not the veteran politician, which had used the contentious word “derhaka” (disloyal) in statements made during the Perak political impasse in February.
The Kuala Lumpur Criminal High Court saw several replays of RTM’s evening news broadcast on Karpal’s press conference on Feb 6, where he was alleged to have uttered seditious words when he said Perak ruler Sultan Azlan Shah could be sued for the latter’s role in the state’s political crisis.
RTM’s newscaster had read a news script saying, “If it wasn’t enough to defy the Sultan’s orders yesterday, the opposition today continued to derhaka against the institution of the Sultan [Tidak cukup mengingkari perintah Sultan semalam, pembangkang hari ini terus melakukan penderhakaan kepada institusi Sultan].”
Questioned by Karpal’s counsel Jagdeep Singh Deo, RTM’s chief reporter Roslan Ariffin agreed that Karpal never said he was being derhaka but was merely stating his legal opinion.
The journalist agreed that derhaka was “RTM’s word” but denied that the news report was incorrect, adding that it was a summary of Karpal’s entire press conference.
Roslan conceded that the news script was worded “very harsh[ly]” but maintained that it “depended on the situation” when asked if RTM’s statements were insensitive.
The prosecution’s fifth witness also answered “I don’t know” when Jagdeep repeatedly pressed him to state whether Karpal had stated that he would personally sue Sultan Azlan Shah.
Referring to a transcript of the press conference, Jagdeep noted that Karpal had said that then-Perak menteri besar Datuk Seri Mohammad Nizar Jamaluddin would be named as plaintiff in the suit while the first and second defendants would be the Sultan of Perak and the Barisan Nasional state government, respectively.
Jagdeep then went on a tirade against RTM, accusing the national broadcaster of not reporting the “real situation” thus causing chaos (kucar kacir) by creating the false impression that someone wanted to derhaka against Perak’s ruler.
The court then witnessed a heated exchange between deputy public prosecutor Datuk Kamaludin Md Said and Karpal, who was also representing himself in trial, when the latter referred to a New Straits Times article on April 2.
The article entitled “Counsel: Nizar’s application flawed” quoted Kamaludin’s submissions during Nizar’s leave application for judicial review against Perak Menteri Besar Datuk Seri Dr Zambry Abdul Kadir where Kamaludin was arguing for leave to be dismissed.
The article also quoted Kamaludin as saying that Nizar should have named Sultan Azlan Shah instead of Zambry.
A visibly upset Kamaludin objected to the news article on the grounds that his submissions before a different court could not be used in the present proceedings.
Kamaludin: Karpal cannot just bring the NST article and ask the witness for an opinion. We are not sure what is written is correct or not… It’s simply ridiculous, irrelevant and a waste of time.
Karpal: Let me warm you. I’ll subpoena you as a witness…
Karpal’s counsel Gobind Singh Deo then joined in on the frey and pressed Kamaludin to state whether he denied making that submission.
At this juncture, Judicial Commissioner Azman Abdullah interjected and allowed the article to be admitted to the trial.
The sedition trial resumes tomorrow with RTM producer Ahmad Zaki Mustafa to be recalled for questioning by deputy public prosecutor Noorin Badarudin and Karpal’s counsels.
Ahmad Zaki was summoned as a witness to give evidence on his role in preparing copies of the relevant camera footage and news reports filmed at the press conference in Karpal’s office in Jalan Pudu Lama on Feb 6 between 12pm and 12.30pm.
The veteran lawyer is facing a charge of sedition under Section 4(1)(b) of the Sedition Act 1948 for saying the allegedly seditious words when he stated that Sultan Azlan Shah could be sued for the latter’s role in the Perak political crisis.
If convicted, the Bukit Gelugor member of parliament faces a maximum fine of RM5,000, three years’ jail, or both.
