Saya tidak pasti adakah anda semua mengikuti perkembangan perbicaraan Datuk Harris Salleh (Ketua Menteri Sabah selepas kematian Tun Fuad Stephens pada 6.6.76) melawan Datuk Yong Teck Lee (juga bekas Ketua Menteri Sabah) berkenaan Tragedi Double Six.
Hari Selasa (6 December) yang lepas merupakan kali yang ke tiga perbicaraan ini dibawa ke muka pengadilan, di mana Harris memfailkan kes saman fitnah RM50 juta kepada Yong Teck Lee sebagai defenden pertama dan SAPP (parti politiknya) sebagai defenden ke-2.
Saman terhadap Yong Teck Lee tersebut difailkan oleh peguam Harris Tetuan Maringking and Co. setelah membaca siaran akhbar Yong Teck Lee yang menyeru siasatan semula bencana tersebut.
Hal itu ditimbulkan oleh Yong Teck Lee setelah mendengar penerangan Tengku Razaleigh Hamzah (Ku Li), Ahli Parlimen Gua Musang dan juga Mantan Menteri Kewangan Malaysia yang diberi jolokan sebagai Pengasas Petronas, ketika ceramah perdana bertajuk ‘Minyak Sabah Untuk Siapa?’, pada bulan April 2010.
Pada masa itu, Ku Li yang sepatutnya menaiki pesawat yang sama telah dibawa ke dalam pesawat lain oleh Harris yang juga Timbalan Ketua Menteri Sabah ketika itu, untuk melawat ladang sapi di Pulau Banggi.
Harris menggantikan Tun Fuad sebagai Ketua Menteri Sabah kelima. Di sinilah bermulanya kes ini, di mana Harris tidak berpuas hati dengan ‘statement’ Yong teck Lee yang seakan-akan menunding jari ke arahnya.
Beberapa perbicaraan lepas juga sangat menarik, namun mari kita berkongsi perbicaraan pada hari Selasa.
Ketika itu, pengerusi UBF, Datuk Dr Jeffrey Kitingan juga dipanggil sebagai saksi. Katanya, Tragedi Double Six bukan sekadar sejarah tetapi ianya lebih dari itu.
Dalam perbicaraan dalam Bahasa Inggeris tersebut, Jeffrey bilang kejadian tersebut bukan sahaja membawa kesan kepada keluarga mangsa sehingga ke hari ini tetapi juga kepada masa depan negeri ini kerana terlalu banyak persoalan yang tidak dijawab dengan jelas.
Antara jawapan Jeffrey dalam mahkamah:
I really would like to know what happened before that as it might have significant implications after the event. From what I read, they talked about possibilities such as overloading, pilot error, maybe technical defect. These are being speculated upon at that time and when you think about it, this speculation raises more questions than answers.
This is a big tragedy involving half of the cabinet ministers and they were supposed to be in Labuan to sign an oil agreement and from what we know, the agreement was not signed and there was a crash including the Chief Minister (CM) who was supposed to sign the agreement.
And then one week later it was signed by the next CM who took over who was not in that plane and who invited the Petronas chief, the other party to the agreement, out of the plane to another plane.
So won’t you want to know? Would that not raise so many questions? Would that not lead to so many speculations? Some may even speculate that this incident might have been planned, otherwise why did this tragedy happen? Why was the agreement not signed? Why some people went out of the plane? Why was the agreement rushed when the State and the families were still in mourning?”
He (Ku Li) said he was very sad whenever he comes to Sabah because he was being reminded of this incident and he described that particular happening in which he said he was seated in the plane and was already strapped with his safety belt when Datuk Harris came and invited him out and another person to join him in another plane. He said Datuk Harris invited him to visit his cattle farm in Banggi.
It seems to me that there are so many unanswered questions, so many doubts that lead me to believe that if you put together this doubt and this question, you begin to wonder why the oil agreement was not signed in Labuan; why some people left the plane against the protocol; why the plane mysteriously crashed; why certain people left the plane just to see a cattle farm; why these said people survive to sign the agreement; why the agreement was rushed to be signed given the tragedy of such magnitude; why didn’t the state government take the opportunity to bring this to the State Legislative Assembly or the Cabinet before it was signed.
It seems to me that when you look at the whole scenario before, in between and after the incident, it gives you the feeling that something is at play here, meaning, could the state government be under pressure to succumb to the demand of the federal government?
Why would any state government or leader want to surrender or give away fundamental state resource at five per cent?
Don’t you think this is ridiculous; where is the negotiation? I have not heard of any negotiation about the oil agreement between the state and the federal governments.
As I said before, it would be stupid of the state to simply agree to give away this fundamental state resource called oil and gas at merely a payment of five per cent. And not only that – why should the state government in this agreement that they signed even waive the five per cent royalty, meaning you not only give away the oil resources but you also give away a royalty of five per cent and accepted a cash payment of five per cent when you could have 10 per cent even if you have given away the oil for five per cent cash payment.
So because of this, I tend to believe that there is coercion and pressure from the federal government that leads me to say that this agreement is invalid.
*** Menarik untuk follow-up kes ini kan? Mari ke mahkamah pada 22 December untuk perbicaraan seterusnya.