Catamaran had no life jackets on board — witness

KOTA KINABALU: The Sessions Court here yesterday heard that the catamaran involved in the tragedy in January had no life jackets and flares kept in the boat.

Salim Kansung, 56, who testified before judge Noor Hafizah Mohd Salim, said he did the checking on the catamaran which belonged to a tour company at the Jesselton Point jetty here on January 17.

He said he had made a report on the checking that was done together with officers from the Sabah Ports and Harbours Department and a photographer.

“I started (checking) for the boat’s cleanliness, inside and outside of the boat. I noticed that it was very dirty and messy.

“It should have 14 life jackets (in the boat) but there was not even one life jacket present during the checking. For lifebuoys, it should have six units of lifebuoys but there were only two units and another emergency safety item that was not present during the checking, were flares,” he said.

Salim, who was the eighth witness to testify in the trial of three persons involved in the catamaran tragedy on its way to Mengalum Island in January, is the operational supervisor of Jesselton Point Jetty Ferry Terminal.

Sharezza Salian, 23, Leong Vin Jee, 44, and Chung Ket Siew @ Chung Siaw Ping, 64, who are facing up to 10 charges, pleaded not guilty to each of their charges which were read to them on March 16.

Sharezza, who was the skipper, Leong, the operation manager of the travel company, and Chung, who was the owner of the travel company were each charged with causing hurt to 20 passengers, all from China aged between 17 and 50, by taking the boat to sea so negligently as to endanger human life or the personal safety of others.

The offence was framed under Section 337 of the Penal Code, which carries a jail term of up to six months or a maximum fine of RM1,000 or both, upon conviction.

Sharezza, Leong and Chung were also alleged to have negligently caused the death of four China nationals, including two women, aged 27 and 49, but not amounting to culpable homicide, which was framed under Section 304A of the Penal Code.

The indictment provides for a jail term of up to two years, or a fine, or both, on conviction.

Sharezza and Leong also face two joint charges under the Ports and Harbours Regulations 2008 for failure to keep on the passenger boat the appropriate safety equipment at all times and for embarking the passengers at Kampung Tanjung Aru Lama Jetty here, which was not a designated landing point.

The offences were framed under Regulation 16 of the Ports and Harbours (Sabah Licensed Small Ships) Regulations 2008 and Regulation 13 of the Ports and Harbours (Ports, Harbours and Dues) Regulations 2008, respectively.

The indictment carries a maximum fine of RM500,000 or a jail term of up to two years, or both, on conviction.

Meanwhile, Leong and his mother Chung, were jointly accused of failing to keep the boat licence on the passenger boat at all times, which was charged under Regulation 9 of the Ports and Harbours (Sabah Licensed Small Ships) Regulations 2008.

Chung was also alleged to have employed Sharezza as the skipper of the boat without altering and reporting the particulars of the skipper to the nearest licensing authority, an offence framed under Regulation 13 of the Ports and Harbours (Sabah Licensed Small Ships) Regulations 2008.

All of the alleged offences were committed at Kampung Tanjung Aru Lama Jetty, at a travel company in Asia City and in the waters off the coast of Mengalum Island here between 9.15am and 11am on January 28.

To a question by Deputy Public Prosecutor Nartiah F Mirchelle Sambatan, the eighth witness said he had also put some remarks on the report that the boat needed to be checked again to ensure that it would comply with its licence and safe for use.

Nartiah: Was there any date given for the repeat checking?

Salim: I did inform the boatman that the repeat checking of the boat will be on January 21.

Nartiah: It was informed verbally or written? Salim: Verbally Nartiah: When was this matter informed to the boatman?

Salim: On the same day after the examination of the boat.

Nartiah: Did the boat come back for re-examination on January 21? Salim: No. During cross-examination by counsel Edward Paul, representing Leong and Chung, the eighth witness agreed that a written letter should have been given to the tour company to inform about the re-examination. However, he was not sure whether there was any formal letter sent to the tour company.

During cross-examination by counsel Hamid Ismail, who represented Sharezza, Salim agreed that the scope of examination on the boat was very limited and he had no authority to examine the condition of the boat.

To another question by Hamid, Salim also said a check on the boat after the catamaran tragedy was not done because the boat was gone.

He also said he did not remember Sharezza’s face.

Meanwhile, another two witnesses, who were court magistrates, were called to testify on notes of proceeding (NOP) for a previous case involving Leong and Sharezza, who were initially charged at the Magistrate’s Court.

Magistrates Jessica Ombou Kakayun and Cindy Mc Juce Balitus, who were PW9 and PW10 respectively, made deposition records on witnesses, who were the victims in the catamaran tragedy.

Deposition records were taken from 13 witnesses, who were all from China, on February 5.

Nartiah applied for the NOP to be tendered to the court as exhibits. However Edward and Hamid objected.

Edward told the court that his client, Chung was never involved in the proceeding of the deposition. Therefore, she (Chung) never had the chance to cross-examine the witnesses in the proceeding, he said.

Edward further contended that Leong, who currently has seven charges, is dealing with different issues compared to the charge at the lower court.

Hamid in his objection, submitted that his client was not in the court during the proceeding of the deposition record and was only called inside for identification.

Therefore, Sharezza was not given the opportunity to crossexamine the witnesses, he said.

He also said the witnesses in the proceeding of deposition record should also give evidence that they could not attend the current trial in the Sessions Court.

The court fixed August 28 for decision on the admissibility of the NOP.