By Dorcas Ting
KUCHING, Oct 11: In the defamation suit filed by Sarawak Federation of Chinese Associations Dato Richard Wee over a Facebook post by Democratic Action Party’s (DAP) Michael Kong’s on July 21, 2020, Kong denied that he had read the trial evidence of the seventh witness Wong King Wei and the eighth witness Ahmad Bakhtiar before taking the stand for this case.
He stressed that he was briefed and advised by his counsel on what had transpired in court.
Counsel for the plaintiff Shankar Ram Asnani then asked Kong if the latter had added new information to his revised witness statement, to which Kong affirmed that he had added a question among other things.
Shankar put forward that the new question-and-answer in Kong’s revised witness statement showed that Kong had read the trial evidence given by Ahmad Bakhtiar and thereafter gave his afterthought answer, Kong disagreed and stressed that he was briefed by his counsel on the development of the case and Ahmad Bakhtiar’s evidence was also published in the local press which made him aware of such development.
Defense counsel Chong Chieng Jen stood up and informed the court that obviously there was a first version of the witness statement before the trial and subsequently when there was evidence adduced by the plaintiff’s witness that need to be rebutted, then as a counsel for the defendant, he saw the need to rebut such evidence hence the revised witness statement was filed.
Meanwhile, in relation to Ecocerava Sdn Bhd where Kong is one of two directors and also a shareholder, Shankar referred Kong to Rule 7(b) of The Advocates (Practice and Etiquette) Rules 1988, which states: “No advocate may accept the position of an Executive Director of a Company without the express consent of the Chief Judge.”
Shankar questioned the defendant as to whether his appointment as a director of Ecocerava Sdn Bhd as of today, obtained the consent of the Chief Judge of Sabah and Sarawak pursuant to Rule 7(b) of The Advocates (Practice and Etiquette) Rules 1988. Kong replied he does not need the said consent because he is not the director exercising any executive power in a company.
Kong confirmed that he had in the past, signed the filed annual report and financial statement of Ecocerava Sdn Bhd as a director as required by law.
In referring to the defendant’s Facebook page “Michael Kong Feng Nian 江峰年”, Kong agreed that as at October 12, 2020, there were 735 profiles which liked the page and 764 profiles which followed the page.
Kong also confirmed his Facebook Page had a link to the Sarawak DAP website which occasionally publishes and/or posts articles which are written by himself, but the website does not contain all articles written by him.
Kong disagreed when it was put to him that the alleged defamatory Facebook post of July 21, 2020 regarding the plaintiff was posted on Sarawak DAP’s website by him. He said he does not know who actually posted his Facebook post to the website as he does not know who managed the DAP website. He said the post on the said website of DAP Sarawak was definitely not posted or published by him.
Kong also agreed that DAPSY Kuching Facebook page (DAP Youth) is tagged to be related to his page.
In relation to the alleged defamatory Facebook post by the defendant on July 21, 2020 which was also posted on the “Kempen Harapan” Facebook page on July 23, 2020 at about 8.29am, Kong said based on the document shown to him in Court, it would seem that the administrator of the Facebook page of “Kempen Harapan” had copied the contents of his original Facebook post dated July 21, 2020. However, he said he was not aware of that post until it was brought up and does not know who is the administrator of the Kempen Harapan page.
Wee is represented by counsels Shakar Ram, Yu Ying Ying and Russel Lim whereas Kong is represented by counsels Chong Siew Chiang, Chong Chieng Jen and Sim Kiat Leng. — DayakDaily
