Pendakwa Raya v Tengku Faris Bin Engku Bongsu (45A-24-11/2016)

Tertuduh telah dituduh di atas satu kesalahan mengedar dadah berbahaya iaitu methamphetamine seberat 109.1 gram, satu kesalahan dibawah Seksyen 39B(1)(a) Akta Dadah Berbahaya 1952 dan boleh dihukum dibawah Seksyen 39B(2) Akta yang sama. Dadah dijumpai di dalam raga motorsikal yang ditunggangnya.

Di akhir kes pembelaan tertuduh didapati bersalah dan disabitkan dan dihukum gantung sampai mati. 2

Tidak berpuas hati dengan keputusan tersebut tertuduh telah menfailkan rayuan kepada Mahkamah Rayuan.

Ini merupakan alasan-alasan terhadap keputusan tersebut.

Pertuduhan adalah seperti berikut: “Bahawa kamu pada 29/6/16 jam lebih kurang 1.00 pagi bertempat di hadapan kedai motor Ah Thong, Jalan Panji, di dalam daerah Kota Bharu, dalam Negeri Kelantan, telah mengedar dadah berbahaya iaitu methamphetamine seberat 109.1 gram. Oleh yang demikian kamu telah melakukan suatu kesalahan di bawah Seksyen 39B(1)(a) Akta Dadah Berbahaya 1952 yang boleh dihukum di bawah Seksyen 3B(2) Akta yang sama.” C. RINGKASAN FAKTA KES

Hasil maklumat diterima pada 28/6/2016 jam lebih kurang 11.30 malam, bertempat di Pejabat Narkotik IPK Kelantan, Insp. G/18595 Nor Badrol Hisham (SP5/Pengadu) telah memberi taklimat ringkas kepada anggota serbuan mengenai aktiviti pengedaran dadah di kawasan Panji, Kota Bharu, Kelantan. Pada jam lebih kurang 12.20 pagi esoknya iaitu pada 29/6/2016, Pengadu bersama dengan anggota serbuan telah membuat pemerhatian dan pemantauan di sekitar kawasan Panji, Kota Bharu, Kelantan. 3

Kira-kira pukul 1.00 pagi semasa menjalankan pemerhatian dan pemantauan tersebut, SP5/Pengadu telah ternampak sebuah motorsikal jenis Honda EX5 nombor pendaftaran DAX 7282 (Ekshibit P5) yang ditunggang oleh saspek dalam keadaan mencurigakan dimana saspek telah memberhentikan motosikalnya di hadapan kedai AH THONG MOTORS, Jalan Panji, Kota Bharu, Kelantan (tempat kejadian). Pemerhatian telah dibuat terhadap lelaki tersebut lebih kurang 5 hingga 10 minit. Dengan lampu jalan dan lampu kedai berhampiran yang agak terang OKT dilihat sedang berada di atas motosikal tersebut.

SP5/Pengadu menghampiri saspek dan memperkenalkan diri polis dengan menunjukkan kad kuasa polis bagi maksud membuat pemeriksaan. Tiba-tiba lelaki tersebut telah cuba melarikan diri namun berjaya ditahan setelah berlaku pergelutan.

Pemeriksaan telah dibuat ke atas tubuh saspek namun tidak menjumpai apa-apa barang salah. Pemeriksaan lanjut dibuat terhadap motorsikal saspek tersebut dan mendapati terdapat (1) beg plastik berwarna hitam di dalam raga motorsikal. Di dalam beg plastik hitam tersebut didapati terdapat tiga (3) bungkusan kertas berpita salotape berwarna kekuningan (Ekshibit P7A) yang mengandungi pil-pil dadah yang berwarna kemerahan dan kehijauan.

Saspek tersebut yang kemudiannya disahkan sebagai OKT/tertuduh telah ditangkap dan barang-barang tersebut dirampas dan dibawa balik ke IPK Kota Bharu. 4

Setelah perkiraan dibuat, didapati keseluruhan pil-pil kemerahan tersebut berjumlah 5940 biji manakala pil kehijauan berjumlah 60 biji. Hasil ujian makmal oleh Ahli Kimia, mendapati biji-biji pil warna kemerahan dan kehijauan tersebut disahkan sebagai dadah jenis Methamphetamine seberat 109.1 gram. D. PENGANALISAAN DAN DAPATAN MAHKAMAH

Beban pembuktian yang harus diguna pakai di akhir kes pendakwaan adalah “prima facie” setelah pindaan kepada Kanun Tatacara Jenayah (KTJ) pada 31 Januari 1997. Seksyen 180(1) KTJ memperuntukkan: “When the case for the prosecution is concluded, the Court shall consider whether the prosecution has made out a prima facie case against the accused.”

Di dalam kes Mahkamah Persekutuan PP v Mohd Radzi bin Abu Bakar (2006) 1 CLJ 457 Mahkamah Persekutuan telah memberi panduan kepada seseorang Hakim atau Majistret di dalam memutuskan kes prima facie seperti berikut: “(i) At the close of the prosecution's case, subject the evidence led by the prosecution in its totality to a maximum evaluation. Carefully scrutinise the credibility of each of the prosecution's 5 witnesses. Take into account all reasonable inferences that may be drawn from that evidence. If the evidence admits of two or more inferences, then draw the inference that is most favourable to the accused;

(ii) ask yourself the question: If I now call upon the accused to make his defence and he elects to remain silent am I prepared to convict him on the evidence now before me? If the answer to that question is "Yes", then a prima facie case has been made out and the defence should be called. If the answer is "No" then, a prima facie case has not been made out and the accused should be acquitted;

(iii) after the defence is called, if the accused elects to remain silent, then convict;

(iv) after defence is called, the accused elects to give evidence, then go through the steps set out in Mat v. Public Prosecutor [1963] 1 LNS 82; [1963] MLJ 263.” [14] Di dalam erti kata lain, maksudnya ialah kekuatan keterangan itu jika tidak disanggah adalah memadai untuk Mahkamah mempertimbangkan kewujudan fakta-fakta sepertimana di dalam pertuduhan, seperti mana diputuskan di dalam kes PP v Anwar Ibrahim (No. 3) (1999) 2 MLJ 1, di mana Augustine Paul (Hakim Mahkamah Tinggi ketika itu) telah menyatakan di muka surat 63-64 seperti berikut: 6 “A prima facie case arises when the evidence in favour of a party is sufficiently strong for the opposing party to be called on to answer. The evidence adduced must be such that it can be overthrown only by rebutting evidence by the other side. Taken in its totality, the force of the evidence must be such that if unrebutted, it is sufficient to include the court to believe in the existence of the facts stated in the charge or to consider its existence so probable that a prudent man ought to act upon the supposition that those facts existed or did happen. As this exercise cannot be postponed to the end of the trial, a maximum evaluation of the credibility of witnesses must be done at the close of the case for the prosecution before the court can rule that a prima facie case has been made out in order to call for the defence.” [15] Ini juga bermakna di akhir kes pendakwaan, di atas penilaian maksima, mahkamah perlu berpuas hati bahawa gabungan kesemua keterangan yang secara totaliti telah berjaya menghasilkan satu fakta kejadian yang cukup lengkap yang mana semuanya menjurus kepada kebersalahan OKT di dalam melakukan kesalahan tersebut. Di dalam ertikata lain, Mahkamah perlu berpuas hati bahawa Pendakwa Raya telah berjaya membuktikan intipati-intipati kesalahan. Intipati Kesalahan [16] Intipati yang perlu dibuktikan ialah: i. Dadah tersebut adalah di dalam milikan dan pengetahuan OKT. 7 ii. Dadah tersebut adalah dadah berbahaya seperti disenaraikan di dalam Akta Dadah Berbahaya 1952. iii. OKT mengedar dadah tersebut – (seksyen 37(da)). Prima Facie

Dadah tersebut adalah di dalam milikan dan pengetahuan OKT (mens rea possession). [17] Keterangan Pengadu (SP5) menunjukkan bahawa beliau dan pasukan telah berada di tempat kejadian pada pukul 1.00 pagi (depan kedai Ah Thong Motors). Pemerhatian anggota serbuan selama hampir 10 minit mendapati OKT dilihat menunggu seseorang sambil memerhati ke kiri dan ke kanan berseorangan di atas motosikal tersebut. [18] Sebelum ditangkap pada malam itu, OKT telah meminta kebenaran SP6 (Ahmad Sauqi) untuk meminjamkan motosikalnya kepada OKT, dengan alasan motorsikalnya kehabisan minyak. SP6 bekerja setempat dengan OKT di sebuah restoran. SP6 menyatakan, “lebih kurang jam 12 malam dia cakap dia mahu pinjam motorsikal saya. Mula-mula saya tak bagi kerana motor tersebut adalah milik bapa saudara saya (SP7). Oleh kerana kesian saya pinjamkan motor tersebut kepadanya.” [19] Keterangan SP6 selanjutnya menunjukkan semasa beliau meminjamkan motorsikal kepada OKT, beliau tidak meletakkan apa-apa barang dalam raga motorsikal tersebut.” 8 [20] SP7 (Ahmad Rizal) adalah tuan punya motorsikal tersebut. SP7 mengesahkan semasa anak saudaranya iaitu SP6 meminjam motorsikalnya pada malam itu, beliau tidak meletakkan apa-apa barang dalam raga motorsikalnya. SP7 juga tidak melihat apa-apa barang dalam raga motorsikal itu. [21] Berdasarkan keterangan di atas, mahkamah berpuas hati bahawa intipati “mens rea possession” telah berjaya dibuktikan terhadap OKT kerana dadah tersebut telah dibuktikan sebagai milikan eksklusif OKT dan bukan kepunyaan SP6 dan juga bukan kepunyaan SP7. Sebaliknya keterangan kukuh menunjukkan bahawa OKT ditangkap semasa berada di atas motorsikal dan barang kes dijumpai berhampiran dengannya (close proximity) di dalam raga motorsikal yang ditunggangnya. Tidak terdapat mana-mana orang lain bersamanya ketika itu. Ini bermakna OKT mempunyai “physical custody and control” dan juga pengetahuan (yang boleh di infer berdasarkan “conduct” OKT dan fakta matrik kes) terhadap dadah tersebut. [22] Dapatan mahkamah ini disokong oleh 2 otoriti tersohor. [23] Di dalam kes PP V Abdul Rahman Akif (2007) 5 MLJ 1, di mana kes melibatkan dadah yang dijumpai di dalam kereta dan Mahkamah Persekutuan memutuskan: “Therefore, the presence of the 3 packages in the car without a plausible explanation from the respondent could give rise to a strong inference that he had knowledge that the packages contained drug or things of 9 similar nature. (see also Lim Beng Soon v. Public Prosecutor (2000) 4 SLR 589). We further agree with the prosecution that the fact that the drug was found wrapped in newspaper is no ground for saying that an inference could not be drawn against the respondent that he had the requisite knowledge. In this regard it is pertinent to refer to the observation of the Singapore Court of Appeal in Zulfikar bin Mustaffah v. PP (2001) 1 SLR 633, at p.693: …………………………………………

We were unable to accede to this request. While the fact that the contents of the bundles were hidden from view may have been relevant in determining whether the requisite knowledge was absent, this factor should still not be given too much weight. Otherwise, drug peddlars could escape liability simply by ensuring that any drugs coming into their possession are first securely sealed in opaque wrappings. Rather, the court must appraise the entire facts of the case to see if the accused's claim to ignorance is credible. [24] Di dalam kes Ramis a/l Muniandy v Public Prosecutor (2001) 3 SLR 534, di mana fakta kes adalah sama yang melibatkan dadah dijumpai di dalam raga motorsikal, Mahkamah Singapura memutuskan: “An accused's repeated denials do not have any evidentiary value where he does not adduce any other evidence whatsoever to support his account. In the present instance, the self-serving denials and protestations of innocence emanated from only one source, namely, Ramis himself The whole matrix of facts here led to the irresistible 10 conclusion that Ramis had the bag of drugs on his motorcycle when he arrived in the vicinity of Block 7. Therefore Ramis was in physical control of the 'Puma' bag and the drugs contained in it. In the absence of any reasonable explanation by Ramis, the fact that Ramis had physical control of the drugs led to a strong inference that Ramis knew that the 'Puma' bag contained drugs. This strong inference was not rebutted by Ramis. Since the drugs had already been on his motorcycle when he arrived in the vicinity, he had ample opportunity to examine the contents of the bag.” [25] Tindakan OKT yang terkejut, takut dan cuba melarikan diri dan bergelut dengan pasukan polis setelah pasukan serbuan mengenalkan diri mereka menunjukkan satu “conduct” yang menunjukkan OKT mempunyai pengetahuan mengenai kandungan dadah di dalam raga motorsikal tersebut. Di dalam kes Parlan Dadeh v PP (2008) 6 MLJ 19, Mahkamah Persekutuan memutuskan: “In this case the reaction of the appellant in looking stunned or shocked upon being approached by the police is clearly admissible under s 8 since it has a direct bearing on the fact in issue as the drugs found were tucked away in the front of the jeans worn by him.” [26] Keterangan mengenai pemilikan dadah tersebut sebagai milikan OKT dikuatkan lagi apabila keterangan SP5 dan SP8 yang mengesahkan bahawa tidak ada sesiapa lagi yang berada dengan OKT sebelum dan 11 sewaktu serbuan berlaku. SP5 dan SP8 adalah konsisten di dalam keterangan mereka dan tidak goyah apabila disoal balas dengan bertubi-tubi oleh pihak pembelaan. Justeru Mahkamah memutuskan bahawa SP5 dan SP8 adalah saksi yang kredibel. [27] Pihak pembelaan cuba menimbulkan watak “Mat Yo” yang kononnya berada dengan OKT untuk menerima barang tersebut. Mahkamah mendapati “Mat Yo” adalah satu watak rekaan OKT sahaja dan ianya tidak wujud. Elemen 2: Dadah tersebut adalah dadah berbahaya mengikut ADB 1952 [28] Mahkamah juga berpuas hati bahawa intipati bahawa dadah tersebut adalah dadah berbahaya yang tersenarai di dalam Seskyen 2 ADB 1952 telah berjaya dibuktikan. Ahli Kimia (SP3) telah memberi keterangan sedemikian dan mengesahkan bahawa hasil penganalisaan beliau mendapati bahawa dadah-dadah yang dirampas tersebut adalah methamphetamine seberat 109.1 gram. Laporan kimia P12 juga disediakan dan telah dikemukakan sebagai keterangan. Elemen 3: OKT mengedar dadah-dadah tersebut [29] Dengan pembuktian intipati-intipati di atas, maka anggapan bahawa OKT mengedar dadah tersebut terpakai berdasarkan seksyen 37(da) ADB 1952 dan OKT hendaklah menyangkalnya. 12 [30] Di akhir kes Pendakwaan, setelah membuat penilaian maksima, mahkamah memutuskan bahawa satu kes Prima Facie telah berjaya dibuktikan setelah Pendakwaan berjaya membuktikan intipati-intipati pertuduhan, maka OKT telah diperintahkan untuk membela diri. Kes Pembelaan [31] Pihak pembelaan hanya mengemukakan seorang saksi sahaja iaitu OKT/SD1 sendiri. OKT memilih untuk memberi keterangan secara bersumpah. [32] OKT/SD1 di dalam keterangan bersumpahnya menafikan bahawa dadah-dadah tersebut adalah milikannya dan menafikan mempunyai pengetahuan mengenainya. OKT mendakwa bahawa pada hari kejadian iaitu pada 28/6/16 ketika sedang bekerja di kedai makan, OKT menerima panggilan telefon dari seorang bernama "Pejo Buta". [33] Menurut OKT, "Pejo Buta" telah sebelum itu mengarahkan OKT menemuinya di Kedai Lalat berdekatan dengan tempat pembuangan sampah. OKT seterusnya telah pergi ke tempat yang diarahkan oleh "Pejo Buta" dan apabila sampai di sana OKT terlihat "Pejo Buta" telah berada dalam sebuah kereta. Setibanya OKT di sana, "Pejo Buta" memberinya satu (1) bungkusan plastik hitam kepadanya. "Pejo Buta" telah memesan kepada OKT agar menghantar bungkusan tersebut kepada seorang yang bernama "Mat Yo" di Lorong Ah Thong Motor, Panji. OKT menyatakan tidak mengetahui nama penuh "Mat Yo" tetapi mendakwa mengenali "Mat Yo". 13 [34] Ketika OKT diberikan bungkusan plastik hitam tersebut "Pejo Buta" telah mengingatkan kepada OKT agar tidak membuka bungkusan tersebut dan sekiranya bungkusan itu hilang "Pejo Buta" akan menembaknya. "Pejo Buta" telah meletakkan bungkusan plastik hitam tersebut ke dalam raga motorsikal OKT dan seterusnya meninggalkan tempat itu. Menurut OKT, apabila OKT sampai ke tempat yang dinyatakan, iaitu tempat kejadian, OKT melihat "Mat Yo" telah berada di situ di atas motosikal. Jarak antara OKT dengan "Mat Yo" adalah lebih kurang 13 meter dan tempat tersebut adalah gelap. [35] Menurut OKT, OKT telah terlihat isyarat lampu oleh "Mat Yo" menggunakan telefon bimbitnya. OKT kemudiannya dengan menaiki motorsikal tersebut (P19) melintas jalan menuju ke arah "Mat Yo" yang juga berada di atas motorsikal dan mereka dalam keadaan berselisih.

In our assessment, looking at the evidence in totality, the respondent could not exculpate herself from her involvement in the trafficking of the seized drugs by saying that she had no knowledge or that she was an 'innocent carrier' in this transaction. In our view, she could not be 'innocent' when she voluntarily agreed to hand over the boxes to a third party that she hardly knew in another country without enquiring further as to the contents of the said boxes. The respondent, without any such inquiry, which she wound have been reasonably expected to make in any event, had agreed to give the boxes to someone just as a favour for her friend Vivian. The respondent should have refused to carry out such an assignment if no satisfactory explanation as to their contents was 23 forthcoming from Vivian whom she was in contact with. Her failure to do so makes her guilty of willful blindness.

Willful blindness necessarily entails an element of deliberate action. If the person concerned has a clear reason to be suspicious that something is amiss but then embarks on a deliberate decision not to make further inquiries in order to avoid confirming what the actual situation is, then such a decision is necessarily a deliberate one. The key threshold element in the doctrine of willful blindness itself is that of suspicion followed by (and coupled with) a deliberate decision not to make further investigations. Whether the doctrine of willful blindness should be applied to any particular case would be dependent on the relevant inferences to be drawn by the trial judge. From all the facts and circumstances of the particular case, giving due weight, where necessary, to the credibility of the witnesses (see Public Prosecutor v Tan Kok An [19961 1 MLJ 89: [19951 4 MLRH 256).

The concept of 'willful blindness' had been discussed in a number of local cases but it seems to have had its genesis in the dissenting judgment of Yong Pung How CJ (Singapore) in the case of Public Prosecutor v HlaWin [1995] 2 SLR 424. The doctrine of `willful blindness' can be summarised to be applicable to a situation where the circumstances are such as to raise suspicion sufficient for a reasonable person to be put on inquiry as to the legitimacy of a particular transaction. To put it another way, if the circumstances are such as to arouse suspicion, then it is incumbent on a person to 24 make the necessary inquiries in order to satisfy himself as to the genuineness of what was informed to him. Should he fail to embark upon this course of action, then he will be guilty of 'willful blindness'. In other words he is then taken to know the true situation. He then cannot be said to have either rebutted the presumption of knowledge or have raised a reasonable doubt as to his knowledge of the situation.

Most of the cases where the concept was held to apply concerned cases in which the accused was asked to carry certain articles, or a package, or a bag, or to swallow certain items. In these circumstances, where the request to do any of those things mentioned would be such as would arouse the suspicion of a reasonable person as to the contents, it was upon the accused to make sufficient inquiries so as to dispel or to set straight such suspicions. Should the accused not make any or any sufficient inquiries under those circumstances, the concept of willful blindness would apply so as to fasten upon him or her the necessary knowledge as to the nature of those contents. In other words, if he deliberately 'shuts his eyes' to the obvious, because he 'doesn't want to know', he is taken to know.

In the present case, based on the evidence, it is our view that the respondent is not an innocent carrier but a trafficker. As we have alluded to earlier, in essence the defence of innocent carrier raised by the respondent has no merit because the respondent had every opportunity to check for herself what she was carrying. In our 25 judgment any reasonable person similarly circumstanced would have asked what were in those boxes. The respondent here is not a helpless victim caught in the web of inevitable circumstances beyond her control. We find no ring of truth in her story”. [57] Di dalam kes MAHKAMAH RAYUAN PUBLIC PROSECUTOR V JAGADISH SIDDALINGAPPA ARJUNAGI [2017] 5 MLJ 99 yang merujuk kepada keputusan kes Herlina Purnama Sari (supra) sebelum ini pula diputuskan seperti berikut: “[31J As stated earlier, the respond'ent's defence was that he was an innocent carrier and he had no knowledge of the impugned drugs that were found in the two boxes he was carrying. Whether the respondent was an innocent carrier without knowledge or otherwise is a question of facts. Having considered the totality of the evidence before us, with respect, we disagreed with the finding of the learned trial judge that the respondent was an innocent carrier. We found that the respondent's story to be highly improbable. The respondent had met Venkatesh only once in Malaysia in 2010. Suddenly, in January 2012 the respondent received a call from Venkatesh asking him to bring glass items from India to Malaysia. The respondent did not know what was Venkatesh doing in Malaysia, they never met after 2010 and Venkatesh was a total stranger to the respondent. How could then Venkatesh so easily paid the air tickets and gave the respondent cash to bring the glass frame from India to Malaysia which is more costly compared to sending the items by courier. After all, the respondent was at that time working with a company involved in courier services.” 26 [58] Mahkamah dirujuk oleh Timbalan Pendakwa Raya sekali lagi kepada satu kes MAHKAMAH RAYUAN iaitu LAN YI LING V PUBLIC

MLJU 115 dimana Mahkamah Rayuan memutuskan seperti berikut: “[36] The appellant did not dispute that she was in physical custody and control of P10(c) at the time of her arrest. In our assessment, looking at the evidence in totality. the appellant could not exculpate her involvement in the trafficking of the seized drugs by saying that she had absolutely no knowledge. The appellant had voluntarily agreed to deliver P10(c) to a person she does not know in another country without enquiring further as to the contents of the said P10(c) that she had to carry and deliver. [37] The appellant was given the P10(c) by Clitiin's friend in Ghungzhou and she herself had carried it to Hong Kong and then to Kota Kinabalu. She was therefore in the position to inspect and examine P10(c) but made no attempt to do so. According to the appellant she was doing a favour for a friend, a friend whom she knew for just three months through a dating website. [38] In the light of the above, we found no reason to disturb the findings of the learned trial judge. The learned high Court judge considered the defence case in its entirety and from all angles before her Ladyship decided that the defence had not raised a reasonable doubt in the prosecution's case. On our part, we are satisfied that at 27 the conclusion of the trial, after considering all the evidence adduced, the prosecution had proved its case beyond reasonable doubt and the accused was rightly convicted for trafficking in the dangerous drugs as per the charge [59] Sama di dalam kes di hadapan Mahkamah, OKT tidak membuat apa-apa usaha untuk membuat inkuiri daripada “Pejo Buta” apakah kandungan beg yang “Pejo Buta” arahkannya menyerahkan kepada “Mat Yo”. [60] Berdasarkan keterangan-keterangan kukuh yang ada dan juga dari alasan-alasan di atas, mahkamah memutuskan bahawa pembelaan OKT tidak probabel langsung dan tidak boleh diterima oleh Mahkamah. Justeru itu, OKT telah gagal menimbulkan apa-apa keraguan yang munasabah ke atas kes Pendakwa dan juga mematahkan anggapan pengedaran di bawah seksyen 37(da) Akta Dadah Berbahaya 1952 yang dikenakan terhadapnya. F. KESIMPULAN [61] Berdasarkan alasan-alasan di atas, OKT didapati bersalah, disabitkan dan dihukum gantung sampai mati. Mahkamah berpendapat dapatan ini adalah betul dan selamat berdasarkan keterangan-keterangan yang kukuh dan fakta (factual matrix) dan keprobabelan kes. 28 Tarikh: 25 April 2018 t.t. (DATO’ AHMAD BIN BACHE) Pesuruhjaya Kehakiman Mahkamah Tinggi Malaya Kota Bharu, Kelantan. Pendakwa Raya/Responden: TPR Puan Shaharaliza Binti Ab Razak Pejabat Penasihat Undang-Undang Negeri Kelantan, Blok 5, Tingkat Bawah, Kota Darulnaim, 15050 Kota Bharu, Kelantan Peguamcara/Perayu : En. Cheang Chu Yong, Benedict Tetuan Benedict Cheang Naziruddin & Co., Lot 717, Tingkat 2, Seksyen 9, Jalan Sultanah Zainab, 15000 Kota Bharu, Kelantan.