The Malaysian Insider

UPDATED

KUALA LUMPUR, Aug 14 — RTM reporter Eliana Mazlan admitted that she does not know which party Karpal Singh belongs to during his sedition trial in the High Court today.

She also does not know who Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim is and only described him as the president of Parti Keadilan Rakyat (PKR).

Eliana, the prosecution’s second witness, was subjected to a rigorous cross-examination by defence counsel Jagdeep Singh, and appeared rattled by the lawyer’s questions on the third day of Karpal‘s sedition trial.

She could not identify the component parties of Pakatan Rakyat and was taught a history lesson by Jagdeep on what transpired in the 2008 general election.

Eliana was also unable to show a clear understanding of Jagdeep’s questions on the transcript of the tape recording during Karpal’s press conference on Feb 6 this year.

The 26-year-old reporter had only been on the job for two months on the day of the press conference and her testimony is crucial to the introduction of an RTM video recording of Karpal’s statement to the press.

By questioning her understanding of what transpired during Karpal's press conference, the defence is attempting to prove she is an unreliable witness.

The DAP chairman and Bukit Gelugor MP was charged on March 17 with sedition, under Section 4(1)(b) of the Sedition Act 1948, for saying that Datuk Seri Nizar Jamaluddin's removal as Perak mentri besar by Sultan Azlan Shah could be questioned in a court of law.

Karpal is further accused of several other seditious statements related to the entire Perak constitutional crisis which began two months ago.

He is accused of committing the offence during a press conference at his law firm here on Feb 6.

During cross-examination, Jagdeep decided to use the video after Eliana failed to answer several questions based on the transcript.

Jagdeep: Do you understand the meaning of ultra vires?

Eliana: I am not sure.

Jagdeep: So you don’t understand or not sure?

Eliana replied that she understood and the defence counsel asked the reporter to define the term.

Eliana: Actions that are above the law.

The defence counsel then asked her if she believes that definition provided by her colleague was correct.

Eliana: I am not sure.

Jagdeep: So it might be right?

Eliana: It might be right, it might be wrong.

On Wednesday, Utusan Malaysia reporter Mohd Nizam Mohd Yatim told the High Court that he thought the phrase “ultra vires” contained in a press release issued by Karpal meant the DAP man was insulting the Perak Sultan.

The defence counsel then referred to the video and asked the reporter if she understood what was shown on the clip.

Eliana: Karpal said that he will sue the Sultan of Perak because the Sultan is not qualified to interfere.

Jagdeep then asked her if she really believed what she said until the reporter finally admitted that she was not sure and asked for the clip to be replayed.

“So you are not sure. This is serious, you cannot just give answers like that,” Jagdeep scolded.

Judicial Commissioner Azman Abdullah then accepted the reporter’s request for the clip to be replayed.

Jagdeep: So do you agree that in the clip Karpal Singh said that we will sue the Sultan together with the new state government as defendants if they persist.

Eliana: We could mean I.

Jagdeep: So what is we? Do you understand English? What is we? So do you agree that we is not I?

The reporter kept quiet.

Jagdeep: So do you agree that your understanding (of the word we) was a complete misunderstanding?

Eliana: I don’t know.

The defence counsel continued to argue that based on the video and its transcript, Karpal did not force his opinion and was only giving his view.

Karpal also explained in the transcript that if the Sultan does not agree with his opinion then the Sultan can refer to the Federal Court under Article 64 of the constitution for a judicial review on whether the three assemblymen were still members of the state assembly.

Jagdeep: Do you agree that Karpal repeated three times in the transcript that the Sultan can refer to Article 64?

Eliana: Agree.

During the prosecution's re-examination of the witness, the lead deputy public prosecutor Datuk Kamaludin Md Said asked if the reporter understood the supplementary case studies provided with the press release during the press conference.

Eliana: No, I didn’t read.

Kamaludin: Do you understand law?

Eliana: No, I do not understand.

The DPP began to read the case studies and asked the reporter if she agreed that what he read was part of the law.

Eliana: I am not sure.

The DPP then asked the reporter if Karpal read the case studies handouts during the press conference and she replied no.

The trial was then adjourned to Tuesday morning.

Comments (99)

Show/Hide comments

Show/Hide comment form