The hearing into the RM83 million 'Apcet II' civil suit filed by a group of local activists and journalists continued in the Kuala Lumpur High Court today with somewhat heated exchanges between counsel representing both parties.

The proceedings before Justice Wan Adnan Muhamad went into cross-examination of the plaintiffs' fourth witness Tian Chua, 43, ( photo ) by Federal Counsel Morhaji Selamat and ended with his re-examination by plaintiffs' counsel, Abdul Rashid Ismail.

Chua was at the time an organising committee member tasked to oversee security at the conference on East Timor. He is now information bureau chief of opposition Parti Keadilan Rakyat.

Towards the end of today's hearing, the temperature in the courtroom rose when Morhaji consecutively opposed several questions posed by Abdul Rashid to his client under re-examination.

It began when Abdul Rashid asked Chua whether the police had granted permission for two participants attending the Apcet II to leave the conference hall -after an Umno Youth-led mob had stormed in earlier.

Morhaji objected, arguing it was a "leading question" and that Chua had earlier told the court at cross-examination stage that he did not know how the two participants managed to leave the hall.

When the judge sustained the objection, Abdul Rashid rephrased his question but Morhaji continued to oppose it. The federal counsel claimed the plaintiffs' counsel was attempting to "establish new facts".

However, the judge asked Chua to answer the rephrased question.

"They (the duo) tried to leave via the front door but couldn't (as they were police at the door). How they 'sneaked out' of the hall later, I don't know," explained Chua.

Series of objections

Continuing with the re-examination, Abdul Rashid asked how the witness felt as the police arrived at the scene, while a number of the mob members were still present in the room.

Morhaji : I have to object to this question again, I have never cross-examined the witness on this.

Abdul Rashid : My learned friend earlier suggested that the situation was calm after the police arrived, it gives an impression that everything was okay then. However, I would like the witness to tell the court that, despite the situation was calm, whether he felt his safety was threatened.

(Justice Wan Adnan did not made any ruling, but Chua proceeded to answer): I still felt threatened due to the presence of a small group of mob members (who refused to leave the hall), although they were not doing anything in the hall.

Abdul Rashid : What did you expect the police should have done at the time?

Morhaji : Objection! This question should have been asked during the examination-in-chief.

Abdul Rashid : This question arises from what the witness just told the court that he felt threatened...

Morhaji : I object, this (question) is not asked in accordance to the Evidence Act.

Abdul Rashid then agreed to proceed with other questions.

'Same question asked'

Earlier today during the cross-examination by Morhaji on Chua, Abdul Rashid raised objections several times to a question being repeatedly asked.

"I don't understand why the federal counsel has to ask the same question for four, five times. Please be specific in the questions," remarked Abdul Rashid, to which Morhaji agreed to rephrase his question.

At one juncture, the judge also told the federal counsel that the latter's questions asked in the lengthy cross-examination were berbelah-belah (breaking up).

As Chua has completed testifying, the hearing was adjourned to June 20 and 21 next year.

Apart from Abdul Rashid, the plaintiffs are represented by M Moganambal and Ang Hean Leng today. Five more witnesses are expected to be called by the plaintiffs, while the number of the defendants' witness cannot be ascertained as yet.

On Nov 9, 1996, over 100 people - including 10 journalists - were arrested on the opening day of the Second Asia Pacific Conference on East Timor (Apcet II), held to discuss human rights abuses in East Timor and its struggle for independence from Indonesia.

As the conference was about to begin, 400 members from the Umno Youth-led Barisan Bertindak Rakyat Malaysia, or Malaysia's People's Action Front, broke down the doors to he conference halls, threw chairs and verbally and physically abused the participants.

Police then moved in to arrest the participants who were detained between one and six days, while 40 foreign participants were deported. The activists filed their suit to claim damages for wrongful detention and police negligence in discharging statutory duties to disperse the mob.

Among the high-profile plaintiffs are Malaysian Trades Union Congress president Syed Shahir Syed Mohammad, PKR deputy president Dr Syed Husin Ali, vice-president R Sivarasa, Parti Sosialis Malaysia pro-tem president Dr Nasir Hashim and New Era College principal Dr Kua Kia Soong.

Online daily malaysiakini chief executive officer Premesh Chandran and editor-in-chief Steven Gan, both then journalists at The Sun , are also among the plaintiffs.

The plaintiffs have named the government, then Inspector General of Police Abdul Rahim Mohd Noor and two senior police officers - then Kuala Lumpur chief police officer Ismail Che Rose and then Dang Wangi OCPD Zainal Abidin Ali - as respondents.

Special report: The Apcet II trial