New fact revealed on Double Six air crash merit investigation: Sipaun

KOTA KINABALU, Nov 24, 2011: Former SUHAKAM vice chairman Tan Sri Simon Sipaun is of the view that the new fact revealed by Tengku Razaleigh Hamzah pertaining to the Double Six air crash, merits an investigation.

He told the High Court on Tuesday that based on the new fact he felt a re-investigation would help to determine the truth behind the tragedy.

Sipaun was speaking while under cross-examination by the defence counsel in the hearing of a RM50 million defamation suit brought by former Chief Minister, Tah Sri Harris Salleh against the Sabah Progressive Party (SAPP) and its president Datuk Yong Teck Lee.

Harris, 81, is suing SAPP and Yong for allegedly insinuating that he (Harris) was involved in causing the Double Six tragedy that killed Tun Fuad Stephens and all those on board the Nomad aircraft on June 6, 1976 in Sembulan.

Sipaun had chaired a forum on 2 April last year in which Tengku Razaleigh was a speaker.

According to Sipaun, to the best of his recollection, when Tengku Razaleigh spoke, he included some background and information leading to the formation of Petronas and the Petroleum Development Act 1974.

When asked whether there was anything that caught his attention in the course of Tengku Razaleigh's speech, Sipaun said: "Yes"

"lt was his first opening remarks in which he told the audience that every time he comes to Sabah he is reminded of the 6.6.1976 tragedy. However, what struck me most was when he said that he was already inside the plane together with the late Tun Fuad flying to Kota Kinabalu from Labuan when Datuk Harris came inside the plane and invited him to join him and go to Banggi Kudat instead and to him that's how his life was saved because of the invitation. Personally, I found this revelation by Tengku most significant because this was the first time that I heard that it happened that way," said Sipaun.

He also concurred with the defence counsel that the revelation of the information relating to the air crash by Tengku Razaleigh was a very important piece of information.

He agreed that the air crash of 6.6.1976 is an important historical event to sabah and that up to now he still does not know the real cause of the accident.

When Sipaun was referred to the two newspaper reports, he agreed with the first defendant's call for a re-investigation into the air crash and that as a member of public he agreed with the counsel that he wanted to know the truth behind the air crash.

When asked whether he agreed that the best way to find out the truth is to have a tribunal to investigate into the cause of the air crash, Sipaun ,answered: "Yes, I would agree if it is one of the possible means of knowing the truth."

When cross-examined by the plaintiff counsel, Sipaun was asked if he agreed that taken in ordinary context the revelation made by Tengku Razaleigh maintained the facts as to the cause of the tragedy, which he described as “kemalangan" or "nahas", and there was nothing suggesting new facts as to the cause of the incident.

Simon then replied that he was not sure what the plantiff's counsel meant by ordinary context.

“The fact that he mentioned "kemalangan" or "nahas" to me is not considered new facts. What is new development to the story is the fact that he was already inside the plane all strapped up ready to depart but invited at the last minute to go elsewhere. In my view this is the gist of the new development," he said.

Asked based on his answer that by inviting Tengku Razaleigh at the last moment to visit the cattle farm in Kudat, the plaintiff had a specific purpose to ask Tengku Razaleigh to leave the plane which later crashed, killing all its passengers, Sipaun said he was not in the position to ascertain the motive, if any, of the plaintiff.

Sipaun again said that he was not in the position to determine what actually went on in the mind of the plaintiff when the plaintiff counsel asked whether he agreed that the call to investigate the real cause of the incident based on Tengku Razaleigh's revelation, points to one and only one-that the plaintiff by inviting Tengku Razaleigh to leave the plane it the last moment, must have "known that something was going to happen to that plane later on.

When asked whether he agreed that since the new facts on the air crash was revealed by Tengku Razaleigh for the first time on 2 April 2010, it was prudent for anyone to ask him why he was only making the revelation that night, Sipaun said: "This question should be suitably answered by Tengku Razaleigh himself."

Further Sipaun said that he was not able to place himself in the shoes of Tengku Razaleigh, when asked by the counsel that if some one had asked Tengku Razaleigh why he was only making the revelation that night after 34 years, he would have given his explanation for doing so.

To another question, Sipaun said he was not in the position to agree or disagree when the counsel said that if anyone honestly believed that there was new information on the air crash revealed by Tengku Razaleigh, then the proper step to be taken is to make a formal police report asking for a new probe on the air crash and not to sensationalize it in the newspapers.

"I am not in the position to agree or disagree because i am not, familiar with the proper steps that need to be taken under the circumstances," he said.

Further the plaintiff's counsel asked; "Do you agree that you support the call for re-investigation on the incident because of Tengku Razaleigh's revelation that the Plaintiff last moment invitation to him to leave the plane saved his life?"

Sipaun answered that he was supportive of the case being revisited on 'the grounds that new information which had not been available before had become available.

Asked to be specific on what he meant by new information which had not been available before becoming available, Sipaun replied: “The fact that Tengku Razaleigh was already seated in the plane together with the late Tun Fuad Stephens and the rest and was asked to get off the plane at the last minute. This is something I have never heard of before."

Sipaun was also asked whether he agreed that all process of investigations were conducted "on the need to know basis" and that only the final outcome of the investigation shall be made public.

He said that he was not in the position to agree simply because he had naver been an investigator and he was not sure of the modus operandi for investigators to do their investigating.

He also said that he was not aware whether or not Tengku Razaleigh was interviewed by any investigating team concerning the facts he revealed on 2 April 2010.

To another question, Sipaun did not dispute when thd counsel said that other than the facts disclosed by Tengku Razaleigh that he was al ready seated behind the late Tun Fuad when the plaintiff invited him to leave the plane, there was nothing new about the incident he revealed.

The plaintiff's counsel then put it to Sipaun that both Tengku Razaleigh and the plantiff were, in the highest order of protocol, very disrespectful to the then Chief Minister if it was true that Tengku Razaleigh was already seated behind the late Tun Fuad when the plaintiff invited him to leave the plane to which he simply obliged; and therefore both Tengku Razaleigh and the plaintiff would not have done so.

Sipaun replied: "Prorocol is a matter of formal against informal behaviour of the people concerned. Some leaders are less protocolly conscious whereas other are more protocolly conscious, so in this incident it is very difficult for me to as certain whether this was a protocol breach of observance having regard to the fact that as far as I am awaie Tun Fuad, Tengku Razaleigh and Datuk Harris also happened to be very close friends," he said.

The trial was held before Hish Court judge Datuk Abdul Rahman Sebli. Counsels Yunof Maringking and Trevor Maringking acted for Tan Sri Harris Salleh while Datuk Yong Teck Lee was represented by counsels Datuk Simon Shim and Flora Dius.

The trial has been adjourned to Dec 5, 6, 21, and 22 this year.

NST