Ak57\’s Weblog

Given that this Lingam video and subsequent events have taken up all my blogging time, I figured I might as well make the most of all the articles I have gathered. So I will be working on a spoof animation:

Just a few more days of reading to do about RC proceedings – hurrah!

Still swamped with work, figured I’d side track a bit and do a VK Lingam related comic Enjoy!

An outrageous lie, claims Lazar

KUALA LUMPUR: Calling it an attempt to discredit him, lawyer Robert Lazar hit out at Datuk V.K. Lingam for alleging that he had lobbied for a position as an appellate judge.

“It’s an outrageous lie,” the senior partner with Messrs Shearn Delamore & Co told the inquiry yesterday.

Lazar, 50, was given the chance to answer allegations made against him the previous day that he had sought Lingam’s help in arranging a meeting with former prime minister Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad’s son, Mirzan.

Lingam had told the inquiry that Lazar was “desperate” in wanting a seat at the Court of Appeal.

In his 20-minute testimony yesterday, a calm and collected Lazar said Lingam’s allegations were intended to discredit him during the inquiry.

“It was also an attempt to disqualify me as a representative of the Malaysian Bar in this inquiry. It was an attack on my credibility as a lawyer.”

Questioned by Malaysian Bar counsel Yeo Yang Poh, Lazar said he had no reason to abandon his career to seek a judicial post.

“At that time (in early 2000), I was 43 years old and had no reason to abandon my legal career of more than 20 years.”

He said the “request” to Lingam never arose in whatever manner.

Lingam had alleged he had a drink with Lazar when the latter allegedly asked him if he could ask Mirzan for the favour as Lingam was then representing the former premier’s son in a case.

“I categorically deny I had a drink with Lingam at any time,” said Lazar.

Lingam’s council, R. Thayalan, however, pressed on during cross-examination.

“I would suggest to you and based on Lingam’s sworn testimony that you had a drink at the Seng Nam Restaurant, here, where you asked him to speak to Dr Mahathir through Mirzan for the position.”

Lazar denied this, adding that the conversation did not take place.

- quoted from an article published in NST on 30th January 2008 (link)

Thayalan’s mention of Seng Nam Restaurant is interesting since it could mean that Lingam has some proof that the conversation took place. Somehow I don’t think this allegation against Lazar will come up again however, it was just an attack and nothing more. But wait, Lingam did achieve something with his slander:

1. Wasted the RC’s time (the more time spent being sidetracked the better, I suspect they have an internal cut-off date)
2. Wasted column inches in the newspapers
3. Wasted my time documenting this accusation + denial

Ahmad Fairuz was questioned again by lawyers at the RC yesterday, strangely enough it was mostly a repeat of what he had said the day before. The following articles were published on 30th January 2008:

NST (link)
The Star (link)

The Star’s article proved more interesting. Fairuz stated it was improper for a lawyer and judge to go on holiday together. Wee Choo Keong also got to confront Fairuz, I wonder how it feels to confront the man who prevented him from becoming MP?

Wee continued with his question on the election petition filed to nullify him as the MP for Bukit Bintang in 1995.

He pointed out that if Ahmad Fairuz had decided based on facts and law, why was it that he singularly elected a losing candidate – Dr Lee Chong Meng – to fill the vacancy left by him (Wee) when there were two other people listed as petitioners.

Wee: That’s why Lingam said you suffered so much.

Haidar: The question has been answered. He already said the decision was based on facts and law.

Wee: I’m asking a few questions. Why Tan Sri finds it so difficult? I’m going to ask him a few questions and then I’m going to sit down.

Haidar: Based on my experience sitting here for the last 10 days …

Wee (smiling): I thought we made up already, Tan Sri?

Haidar (also smiling): Be careful with your choice of words (amid laughter).

To Wee’s earlier question, Ahmad Fairuz said he could not remember whether there were two other petitioners besides Dr Lee.

Wee: I say that there are three candidates.

Ahmad Fairuz: If you say so.

Tan Sri Vincent Tan took the witness stand yesterday. The following related articles were published on 30th January 2008:

NST (link)
The Star (link)

Statements

1. First knew Lingam in the 1970s during his tenure as unit manager at American International Assurance
2. Lost touch with Lingam then renewed it when Lingam represented him in legal matters
3. Described Lingam as a diligent lawyer
4. His relationship with Lingam was not very close
5. Stated that the man in the video looks like Lingam and sounds like Lingam but not 100% sure it is him
6. Did not bother to lodge a police report over the clip as he was busy and it was pointless
7. Did not know if Lingam or Eusoff Chin had numbers registered with Digi
8. Denied influencing Tun Mahathir to appoint Tun Ahmad Fairuz as President of The Court of Appeal
9. First knew Dr Mahathir in the early 1980s when he brought McDonald’s to Malaysia
10. First met Tengku Adnan sometime in the 1980s or 1990s via a member of the Pahang royal family
11. Will be re-evaluating his professional relationship with Lingam

Ahmad Fairuz took the witness stand yesterday. The following related articles were published on 29 January 2008:

NSTP
It was not me talking to Lingam (link)

The Star
Former CJ: I did not call Lingam (link)

Video clip related statements

1. Viewed the video on his former secretary’s computer but it was not clear and kept breaking (most likely streaming – ak57)
2. Was given a copy of the news article and transcript of the video on the evening of 19 September 2007, by his former secretary
3. Felt it was defamatory but claimed it was a fabrication and the man speaking was trying to impress his listeners
4. Had written to the PM, DPM and Nazri on the allegation and his position.
5. Did not lodge a police report when the video clip was posted online last year because the news portal revealed that a report would be lodged with ACA and Bar Council
6. Did not want to file a defamation suit as newspaper articles did not name him as the person speaking to Lingam
7. Was not the man speaking to Lingam and the contents of the transcript were false, and just a monologue
8. Did not respond to reporters as he did not want to jeopardise ACA investigations
9. Did not know Lingam’s number and had never given his mobile number to him
10. Had not met or contacted Lingam after September 19, 2007
11. Could not identify Lingam in the video clip, but said the voice was similar

Corruption related statements

1. Knew Lingam, Vincent Tan and Tengku Adnan thru functions and official business
2. Had only met VK Lingam once or twice in court and once at the PM’s residence
3. Never had a meeting with Lingam, Vincent Tan and Tengku Adnan to secure his appointment as President of the Court of Appeal and Chief Justice
4. Never sought the help of Tengku Adnan and Vincent Tan through VK Lingam to confirm his position as President of the Court of Appeal
5. Never made a plan or pact between himself, Lingam, Vincent Tan and Tengku Adnan to secure his appointment as President of the Court of Appeal and Chief Justice at any time
6. Does not know if Dzaiddin ever recommended Abdul Malek Ahmad as CJ
7. Denied calling Lingam to thank him for his efforts in securing his job position

Nothing surprising to me here really, he gave ok answers explaining his silence to the public after the clip was released. Why did nobody ask about the day Nazri spoke on his behalf though? Fairuz could have released a statement saying he is maintaining his silence until the ACA investigation is completed, that seems safe enough whether he is guilty or innocent. Maybe Fairuz is just arrogant and doesn’t care about public view of the Chief Justice? *shrugs*

The ‘news portal’ is Malaysiakini by the way, NST has yet to acknowledge its existence directly. Reading NST and Star can be quite amusing as both are controlled by the government. If you read the Star article they mentioned Malaysiakini specifically. I’m not sure when they started though, I rarely read The Star as I have never read anything it that was not biased towards the government.

Eusoff: Lingam asked to tag along for fishing trip at Lake Wakatipu

KUALA LUMPUR: Lawyer Datuk V.K. Lingam had asked former Chief Justice Tun Eusoff Chin if he could tag along during a fishing trip in Lake Wakatipu in Queenstown, New Zealand.

Eusoff told the Royal Commission of Inquiry that Queenstown was a small place that was slightly bigger than a village and there was nothing much to do.

“My family and I were walking around and I suddenly saw this place, where there were many boats for hire at a reasonable fare.

“When I finished filling up the forms, I realised Lingam was behind me. He said ‘Where are you going? Can I come along? He then asked the boatman how many people can ride on the boat’,” he said.

At this juncture, Ranjit Singh, counsel for the Malaysian Bar, asked if Lingam and his family were walking around together with them.

“If Lingam was not walking with you, how did he tag along for the trip? Are you suggesting that it was another coincidence?” he asked.

Eusoff denied that Lingam and his family were walking with him. He said Lingam could have spotted him at the pier as Queenstown was a small place.

He also said he did not know why his holiday itinerary was sent to a person by the name of Jeyanthi instead of his own secretary.

(In his testimony, Lingam had confirmed that he had a secretary by that name).

Eusoff said it was a procedure for him to hand out a circular that he was going on a holiday to inform the judges of his replacement.

- quoted from an article published in The Star on 29th January 2008 (link)

Lingam suddenly appeared behind Eusoff? He really is a stalker! A comic I did previously :

Eusoff Chin’s counsel, Mohd Fozi Mat Zain, asked Lingam if anyone had ever asked him to see the chief justice to procure an appointment as a judicial commissioner or judge.”Someone did approach me for help, not to see Eusoff Chin but to see Dr Mahathir so that he could become a Court of Appeal judge,” Lingam replied.

Chairman Tan Sri Haidar Mohamed Noor then asked: “Was this during Eusoff Chin’s time?”

Lingam: Yes. He told me to see Dr Mahathir’s son Mirzan, whom I was acting for then. I told him Mirzan was a client, not a friend, so I couldn’t see him about that.

At this juncture, Ranjit took the floor and asked Lingam: “Were you close to this person who had sought your assistance to be a Court of Appeal judge?

Lingam: He was well known to me, but we were not very close.

Ranjit: Did you socialise with this person?

Lingam: No.

Ranjit: Why do you feel that this person was under the impression that you had connections to Dr Mahathir, that you would be able to procure his appointment?

Lingam: I guess this person really wanted to be on the Bench. He was desperate and wanted to go straight up to the Court of Appeal like Gopal Sri Ram.

Court of Appeal judge Datuk Gopal Sri Ram was a lawyer before he entered the judicial service.

He was appointed to the Court of Appeal without becoming a judicial commissioner or High Court judge.

Lingam: He believed that if he had asked me to see Eusoff Chin, he would become a judicial commissioner first. He was acting for the other side in a case I was involved in at the time.

Lingam then added: “His name is Robert Lazar and he is a partner in Shearn Delamore.”

Haidar then interjected that the question was never asked nor raised by the counsel in the enquiry.

When Ranjit asked Lingam when Lazar had allegedly made the request, he replied: “Early 2000.”

- quoted from an article published in NST on 29th January 2008 (link)

Nice bit of cooperation by Eusoff Chin’s lawyer, directing the questions so VK Lingam could slander Robert Lazar. Isn’t that risky though? Without photographs, an audio/video recording or a witness, how can Lingam prove that Lazar requested his help in becoming an appellate judge? Maybe Lingam is just lashing out at him after the grilling he got about the NZ trip. He wasn’t done though, he attacked his brother too (NST article link)

Anwar released another video of VK Lingam today, apparently given to him by Whistle Blower on 25 January 2008. I think it is safe to say that Gwo Burne is not Whistle Blower, though he never claimed or denied having unreleased videos of VK Lingam in his possession (no such direct question was asked). Here is the video:

Transcript

A lot of the dialogue is Lingam referring to how judicial appointments work in the Constitution. I found other snippets worth commenting on:

Lingam: But between you and me. We have taken Dzaiddin for dinner three times.

[Voice off-camera]: Three times already.

Lingam: And we have given him the most expensive gift. Don’t ask about it lah. I have given him and Vincent Tan has given him. So, he also cannot attack us. Tomorrow we go say we give you this this this. He cannot go and say you are a agent. Correct or not? So, he is neither here nor there lah. That’s all.

[Voice off-camera]: But… Chief Justice..

Lingam: But in the court when I argue with him. He said, Datuk Lingam you said you will take one hour. I said, my Lord, it is only 50 minutes, I got another 10 minutes. But…I appreciate. Thank you, thank you… He is very nice with me, very polite with me. I have been sending cakes every hari raya. Vincent has been sending. He can’t go and say he is very clean, correct or not?

[Voice off-camera]: But then he is…

Lingam: But he is playing his game lah. He got the job, that’s it. Now, September he is finished that’s all. Make sure he is not extended.

[Voice off-camera]: But, he may ask for extension.

Lingam: He is hoping… he told somebody that he likes the job very much. Then he likes…Let him dream lah.

In short, Chief Justice Dzaiddin Abdullah who was Chief Justice from 2000 – 2003 had been receiving gifts from VK Lingam and Vincent Tan. VK Lingam also implied that due to these gifts prevent Dzaiddin from rejecting his proposals. That’s clearly bribery. Unfortunately like the original video, it can also be explained away as boasting.

It appears that Lingam is saying that next September Dzaiddin would be stepping down unless he got an extension. A CJ can get 6 month’s extension only, yet Dzaiddin was CJ from 2000 – 2003. Does that mean this video was recorded in 2002? Lingam does appear to be wearing the same shirt as in the 2001 video though.

Nobody should know I know you. Then you can help more. But people, see you know more, like Eusoff Chin, because I met him in New Zealand, became a problem. But if I didn’t meet him in New Zealand, it’s a… no problem. Correct or not? Unfortunate.

[Voice off-camera]: Then, in your…then they said you have taken photograph with him holidaying in…huh…huh…

Lingam: But unfortunately, I didn’t know. The worst thing I didn’t know Eusoff Chin put his hand like that! Alamak…so…I also didn’t know about it. What to do?

This portion of the conversation actually supports Lingam’s and Eusoff’s statements to the RC that they just happened to meet up in NZ. Also that Eusoff Chin was a bit touchy feely

I know their NZ trip was publicised in 2000 and there was ACA investigation etc. So the ‘we bumped into each other’ story could have been cooked up before 2000. But to maintain that lie in the privacy of his own home, while spewing out lots of other things which should remain secret forever … VK Lingam, you are indeed an impressive liar sir.

The two of you know you can’t be seen together, yet Eusoff is inviting Lingam for Raya open house? Such good friends

I believe the person VK Lingam was speaking to is Loh Mui Fah (looks like him), also since Lingam used his name as an example while explaining the recommendation of judges’ names for promotion. There is something interesting about the fact that this separate video exists though:

1. Gwo Burne testified that he had accidentally left the camera actively recording video, sat down on the chair/couch while reading a book
2. He also testified that the video was a single recording from start to finish, implying that he had pressed the stop button or the recording ended on its own after the memory card was full

Now we have a separate video, in the same room. Did Gwo Burne just happen to press the start button again later? He does appear to be sitting in the same spot as the previous video, with a good view of Lingam. The camera was very steady, and even turned to keep Lingam in view when he stood up and walked to the other man. I reviewed the previously released video again and Gwo Burne zoomed in and out while accidentally recording. Isn’t that is a bit suspicious? Gwo Burne and his father Loh Mui Fah should testify again to confirm whether this new video was taken before the previously released one, or after, and how it came to be recorded in the first place.

The previous video had a Panel set up to confirm it before a Royal Commission could be formed, whose title focused entirely on said video. Are we to go through that process all over again? Somehow I feel that the RC will reject this video and reprimand Anwar (as Whistle Blower is still unknown) since they have previously referred to their title to escape responsibility – Commission of Inquiry of the Video Clip Recording of Images of a Person Purported to be an Advocate and Solicitor Speaking on the Telephone on Matters Regarding the Appointment of Judges Under The Commissions of Inquiry Act 1950.

There was no image of a telephone in this video