Ak57\’s Weblog

Thoughts and opinions on Malaysian news, its people and its culture

Signs of ACA Incompetence

Lawyer wants details on Lingam’s ties with ex-CJ

KUALA LUMPUR: The lawyer representing Datuk V.K. Lingam’s brother raised the issue of close association between Lingam and former chief justice Tun Eusoff Chin, which according to him, was very important to ascertain the truth about the contents of the controversial Lingam video clip.

(cut)

Wee said he wanted the commission’s permission to ask Chuah whether the ACA had established the close association between Eusoff Chin and Lingam and whether she was aware of this in order to ascertain the truth of the contents of the video clip.

Asked by commissioner Datuk Mahadev Shankar whether she knew of the close association between Lingam and Eusoff Chin, Chuah replied, “No”.

However, Chuah said she was aware that there was an investigation on the matter when it came out in the newspapers.

Wee then asked Chuah whether she checked statements made by Thirunama to the ACA on March 8 and 12, 1998 and the fact that Thirunama was detained until March 17, 1998 pertaining to the issue of close association between Lingam and Eusoff Chin.

At this stage, commission chairman Tan Sri Haidar Mohamed Nor interjected and said whatever Wee said was the subject matter of another investigation.

Wee then asked Chuah whether she had checked Thirunama’s statement about Eusoff Chin and Lingam going on a trip together in 1980. Chuah replied, “No”.

Wee: Did you not think it was important for you to go into the statement of Thirunama on March 8, 1988 recorded by the ACA to ascertain the truth of remarks made by the man in the video clip that he was close to Eusoff Chin?

Chuah: My investigation is to ascertain whether there was corrupt practice or abuse of power and I didn’t record statements from all individuals mentioned in the transcript.

– quoted from an article published in NST on 17th January 2008 (link)

No probe on allegations

KUALA LUMPUR: The Anti-Corruption Agency did not investigate the allegations by Datuk V.K. Lingam’s estranged brother that the lawyer was very close to former Chief Justice Tun Eusoff Chin.

Senior superintendent Chuah Lay Choo, the investigating officer assisting the Royal Commission of Inquiry, said she did not check on allegations contained in V. Thirunama Karasu’s statements to the agency in 1998 because it was the subject matter of another investigation.

“In this case, I merely focused on whether there was corruption or abuse of power,” she replied to questions by counsel Wee Choo Keong who represented Thirunama in the inquiry.

Wee said he had raised the issue because the investigation was very important to ascertain the truth of the contents of the video clip.

Wee also asked whether Chuah had checked with Mutiara Telecommunications Sdn Bhd to trace former Chief Justice Tun Ahmad Fairuz’s call records in December 2001 – the time the video clip was filmed.

Chuah replied that she did not because she was not aware of the existence of the company.

(cut)

Wee, who was granted leave to appear on his client’s behalf throughout the inquiry, said Thirunama had driven Lingam to Eusoff’s house and delivered mobile phone applications and bags to judges’ houses at night.

“My client can assist the Commission in that he can show how close Lingam was to judges and Eusoff Chin,” said Wee, adding that being a witness would guarantee his client the protection under the Commission of Inquiry Act.

The panel then told him that they would consider the relevance of such evidence “when the time comes”.

In her testimony yesterday, Chuah said she could not complete her investigations because she had yet to get the number of the mobile phone Lingam was using in December 2001. Lingam told her he was using prepaid numbers.

– quoted from an article published in The Star on 17th January 2008 (link)

Forgive me for saying this, but Chuah is starting to come across as rather incompetent. In investigating (in her own words): “whether there was corrupt practice or abuse of power” she ignored information/sources related to that.

1. Prior statements by Thirunama to the ACA in 1998 related to the relationship between Eusoff Chin and VK Lingam
Ok, this may be because it is an ongoing investigation and therefore the contents of that investigation have to remain secret, as per the Anti Corruption Act. Why not take a statement from Thirunama in the present day then?

2. Unaware of existence of Mutiara Telecommunications
She did realise she was looking back at 2001 right? Nobody at the office aware of telcos? What if the number belonged to an overseas operator..where do you go to find out then?

Frankly speaking I’m not that interested in overseas trips by Eusoff Chin and VK Lingam… its only useful to help nail Lingam on the cross and let the bigger fish get away.

Advertisements

Written by ak57

January 17, 2008 at 11:15 pm

%d bloggers like this: