KUALA LUMPUR: Which political party is Karpal Singh from? Defence counsel Jagdeep Singh Deo posed this question to a witness during the veteran lawyer's sedition trial today, only to receive a shocking answer.

"I don't know," replied RTM reporter Eliani Mazlan, which drew laughter in court.

Jagdeep then told Eliani that Karpal was the DAP chairman and that the veteran lawyer, together with opposition leader Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim, were in the opposition pact called Pakatan Rakyat (PR).

Pressed by the defence, a rather lost Eliani told the court that Anwar was a former deputy prime minister some time ago and that his current position was president of Parti Keadilan Rakyat (PKR). The current president of PKR is Datuk Seri Dr Wan Azizah Ismail.

The defence counsel then asked the 26-year-old reporter to name the political parties in PR to which she kept mum and forced an irritated Jagdeep to provide her the answers.

"Do you know that five states were won by PR in the March 8 political tsunami? Did you vote in the last general election?" questioned Jagdeep.

At this stage lead DPP Datuk Kamaludin Md Said stood up to ask the relevance of such political tuition to which Judicial Commissioner Azman Abdullah asked the defence to explain the purpose.

Jagdeep said it was paramount to determine whether the witness could comprehend relevant political figures in this case as Karpal in the Feb 6 media conference as per the RTM recording also mentioned that Anwar was wrong to start a campaign to take power on the strength of crossovers.

As such, Jagdeep explained that the veteran lawyer's opinion expressed during the media conference was not only confined to the Sultan of Perak and the political impasse but other matters as well.

Earlier, Eliani had a tough time during cross examination to a question whether Karpal uttered the words he would sue the Sultan.

"Are you sure YB Karpal said he would sue? Are you absolutely sure?" Jagdeep questioned Eliani after segments of the RTM recording were played.

The soft spoken reporter initially answered "yes" but later changed her mind and asked that the particular segment be replayed as suggested by the judicial commissioner to assist her during such intense questioning.

Following the replay, Eliani then confirmed Karpal said "we will sue the Sultan" which seemed to have agitated Jagdeep. This led Jagdeep to ask her whether she understood the meaning of "we", to which she explained it meant "kami" in Bahasa Malaysia.

"'We' can mean 'I'?" Jagdeep exclaimed as the witness had initially agreed that Karpal had uttered the words he would sue the Sultan.

The defence counsel then ticked off the witness for changing her answer and pointed out that she was in court to assist the trial.

"I don't know," she replied when asked by Jagdeep if her misunderstanding in the replies was in fact a complete misunderstanding of the term "We" and "I".

The Bukit Gelugor MP is charged under Section 4(1)(b) of the Sedition Act for saying that a ruler could be sued for his role in removing a menteri besar.

On the meaning of ultra vires, the reporter said it meant actions that were above the law, but seemed double-minded when Jagdeep asked if she agreed with first witness Mohd Nizam Mohd Yatim’s definition that ultra vires meant to insult.
 
“It may be right. It may be wrong,” Eliani replied after Jagdeep pressed on whether the first witness’ ultra vires definition was correct.
 
The defence counsel also told the court that based on the recording and written transcript, Karpal was merely giving his view on the Perak political impasse, adding that the veteran lawyer stated the Sultan of Perak had the option to refer to the Federal Court under Article 64 of the Constitution for a judicial review on whether the three “frogs” were still assemblypersons.
 
When court resumed in the afternoon, Jagdeep continued to barrage the reporter with questions on the RTM recording including whether she agreed there were gaps in the recording that was played in court.
 
“I don’t agree,” she replied to a question whether she agreed the recording had been edited.
 
Eliani explained that what appeared to be gaps were “jump shots” and were normal when doing visual recording, stressing that it was best for the cameraman Adial Singh to give a clearer picture.

The explanation got Jagdeep all worked up as he remarked: “If you are not sure then don’t answer. You are wasting the court’s time.”
 
The lead DPP interjected and told the judicial commissioner that there was no need for the defence to shout at the witness. The judicial commissioner concurred and told Jagdeep not to shout as this could be Eliani’s first time in court as a witness.
 
Later, in re-examination of Eliani, Kamaludin asked whether she considered herself an experienced reporter when at the time of Feb 6 media conference, the reporter only had two months working experience in RTM.
 
“I’m just starting to get experience,” said the arts degree holder from UiTM with a major in broadcasting.
 
The reporter also told the court that she had an average understanding of English and that she had not studied any law subjects while in university.
 
“I’m not sure,” she replied to Kamaludin’s question of whether she understood Article 16(6) of the Perak constitution.
 
Eliani also told the court that she did not understand the legal provisions mentioned by Karpal in his Feb 6 media conference, stressing that she did take down notes during that assignment but had forgotten any of them.
 
The reporter added that she did not ask Karpal any questions during the media conference.
 
Judicial Commissioner adjourned the case to 9.30am Tuesday where cameraman Asdial Singh, who is the third prosecution witness ,is expected to be cross examined. Eliana, the second prosecution witness, is still subjected to be recalled.