Ak57\’s Weblog

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

Archive for the ‘Lingam RC’ Category

Ahmad Fairuz Testifies to the RC

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.

Advertisements

Written by ak57

January 29, 2008 at 10:57 pm

Lingam Tagging and Fishing Along

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 :

Stalking Lingam

Written by ak57

January 29, 2008 at 10:55 pm

Posted in Lingam RC, Local News

Tagged with ,

Lingam Slanders Lazar

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)

Written by ak57

January 29, 2008 at 6:07 pm

Posted in Lingam RC, Local News

Tagged with ,

VK Lingam Video Part 3

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 😉

Written by ak57

January 28, 2008 at 10:03 pm

Foreign Experts Want Original, Not Pirated

What follows is a lot of silliness on the part of Lingam’s lawyer. Feel free to skip it, I’m just documenting it for reference on determining Lingam’s strategy.

Lingam wants to call own digital experts

Lingam’s counsel R. Thayalan said the foreign experts will allow the commission to compare the evidence with that of CyberSecurity Malaysia’s senior forensics analyst Mohd Zabri Adil Talib.

In his testimony on Jan 15, Zabri confirmed that it was Lingam in the video clip. He had said that audio tests confirmed this.

But Thayalan argued yesterday that the two London-based digital experts they consulted said it was not possible to conduct audio and video identification tests on a copy of a digital file.

Chairman Tan Sri Haidar Mohamed Noor at this point, shook his head.

“We already have two witnesses (Loh Mui Fah and his son Loh Gwo Burne) who gave direct evidence that it was Lingam who spoke on the video clip.

“Now we have to test the evidence of expert witnesses,” he remarked.

But Thayalan persisted: “The task for determining authenticity must be done from the original recording.”

(cut)

Thayalan then asked Zabri: Do you agree that you will need an original recording to determine the authenticity of the recording?

Zabri: No. The evidence provided was sufficient and authentic enough for analysis.

Thayalan: From the copy given to you, can you say for sure that its beginning and ending hadn’t been deleted?

Haidar at this point interjected: “So what?”

“The context will then be different,” said Thayalan.

“What difference does that make?” asked commissioner Datuk Mahadev Shankar.

Haidar: We are focusing on the 14 minutes that we have in the video clip. That is the only thing we are concerned with.

Thayalan: But before you is only a copy of the original.

Haidar: As far as the 14 minutes are concerned, why do we need to know whether it was longer or shorter? He (Zabri) has already given his view that authenticity can be ascertained.

Mahadev asked Thalayan for clarification when he finished his questions.

Mahadev: What I understand is that you are saying that if Zabri had used more sophisticated equipment, we would be more sure of the clip’s authenticity?

Thayalan: Yes.

Mahadev: And nowhere in your examination of Zabri have you suggested that his evidence is wrong.

Thayalan: No.

(cut)

Earlier, Thayalan asked Zabri whether, when he conducted the audio recognition tests, he knew that the ‘unknown voice’ was Lingam’s.

When Zabri said he didn’t know before conducting the tests that it was Lingam’s voice, Thayalan referred to the names of the audio files.

“The first file was named ‘VK to CJ’ while the other was named ‘Sample V.K. Lingam’. I’m suggesting that you knew that the unknown voice and sample were V.K. Lingam’s,” Thayalan said.

“I don’t agree. ‘V.K.’ can stand for many things,” responded Zabri.

Haidar then remarked: “That’s right. Just like, there are many Indian women called ‘Jeyanthi’,” to the laughter in the gallery.

– quoted from an article published in NST on 26th January 2008 (link)

The statement by the London experts that they must have the original memory card for authentication struck me as odd. I’m a bit behind on the inner workings of computer hardware so to be fair, I decided to do some reading on how flash memory storage based devices (such as the memory card used in Gwo Burne’s camera) work.

This led me to conclude that the original memory card is only relevant in determining the exact date and time the clip was recorded. It is not needed to prove whether the voice recorded belonged to VK Lingam or not. So most likely the London expert’s definition of authentication included confirming date+time+identity of the person.

Thayalan also tried to prove some psychological bias on Zabri’s part, by highlighting the names of the files given to him. That would make sense if the authentication work done was non-technical. What Zabri did was compare voice-prints (graphs) which is almost completely technical and free from bias.

Written by ak57

January 26, 2008 at 10:51 pm

Posted in Lingam RC, Local News

Tagged with

Lingam-Eusoff Working Closely

NZ trip shortly after mega win

KUALA LUMPUR: Datuk V.K. Lingam and former chief justice Tun Mohamed Eusoff Chin went for their New Zealand holiday shortly after the lawyer’s client Tan Sri Vincent Tan won RM10mil in damages in a libel case.

Testifying on Day 8 of the inquiry, Lingam said the defendants appealed right up to the Federal Court but lost their case.

He said he acted as Tan’s lawyer in the appeal up to that stage while Eusoff chaired the panel, which threw out the appeal. Neither he nor Eusoff declared that they had gone on holiday together.

Lingam said this in response to questions by Robert Lazar, counsel for the Malaysian Bar.

Lazar: When the appeal was heard, did Eusoff inform the parties that he and you had been on a holiday together?

Lingam: To my knowledge, he did not.

Lazar: Did you inform the counsel for the appellants that you had been on a holiday with Eusoff?

Lingam: No I did not.

Lazar: I now move on to another case even more controversial. In 1995, you appeared for two parties in the High Court – Insas Bhd and Megapolitan Nominees Sdn Bhd?

Lingam: Yes. I was instructed by Michael Lim, a senior partner of Shearn Delamore (Lazar is a partner in the same firm) to appear in this case. He asked me to act for them as he was a director of Insas.

Lazar: And this case involved Ayer Molek Rubber Company Bhd?

Lingam: Yes, shares of Ayer Molek Rubber Company.

Lazar: This was another case that was very high profile?

Lingam: Yes, it became high profile.

This line of questioning then prompted Commission chairman Tan Sri Haidar Mohd Noor to ask Lazar where he was getting to.

Lazar explained that he wanted to show that soon after the New Zealand holiday in 1994, Lingam had appeared before Eusoff in court.

Lazar added that he also wanted to show that some people “had acted out of the norm” in the Ayer Molek shares matter.

“We are saying there are features in this case serious enough to lend support to ascertain Lingam’s assertion that when Tun Eusoff was in power, I can straight get,” Lazar said, before Commissioner Datuk Mahadev Shankar interjected:

“So, we have come to the pom, pom, pom, pom part.”

Earlier, Lingam admitted that he had prior to the New Zealand holiday, appeared before Eusoff who was a judge in the High Court.

Lazar: And how often did you appear before Tun Eusoff in the High Court?

Lingam: I have appeared mostly in the Cooperative Central Bank (CCB) case for the employees who are retrenched and a case involving those dismissed by the Income Tax department.

Lazar: Roughly how many appearances?

Lingam: I can’t recall. You are talking about 14 years ago. To the best of my recollection, maybe there was a worker’s case involving certiorari.

Lazar: Any other?

Lingam: None whatsoever.

Lazar: But when you went for this trip, Tun Eusoff was already the Chief Justice?

Lingam: I think so.

Lazar: On May 21, 1994, he was appointed Chief Justice. Your holiday was in December 1994. Just prior to this holiday – a well deserved break no doubt – you did a matter that had a very high profile, a libel suit involving Tan Sri Vincent Tan?

Lingam: That’s correct.

Lazar: That was a suit filed in 1994?

Lingam: That is correct.

Lazar: This is the suit that Vincent Tan sued among others, the late MGG Pillai?

Lingam: That is correct.

Lazar: This was a case that started in 1994 and ended in 1994. Judgment was entered on Oct 22, 1994.

Lingam: That’s right.

Lazar: That is after a full trial, and not a summary trial?

Lingam: That’s right.

Lazar: Damages of RM10mil was awarded against Pillai?

Lingam: Total damages against all defendants was RM10mil. Against Pillai, if I recollect clearly, was only RM2mil.

Lazar: The case attracted a large amount of publicity in the local newspapers?

Lingam: Yes.

Lazar: It was a much talked-about case?

Lingam: It attracted publicity but I don’t know about much talked-about.

Lazar: It attracted publicity because it was a ground-breaking case?

Lingam: Yes, that is one view you could look at.

Lazar: Would you say that that case started the trend of mega damages?

Lingam: Possible.

Later in the afternoon, Ranjit Singh, another lawyer representing the Bar, tendered eight photographs taken of Lingam, Eusoff and their families during their New Zealand holiday in December 1994.

When asked if he remembered where the photos were taken, Lingam said he could not remember as they were taken over 13 years ago.

“It must be New Zealand but I don’t know which part,” he said.

When Ranjit Singh asked if he could confirm that several photos of the holiday taken on a boat was at Lake Wakatipu near Queenstown, New Zealand, Lingam replied: “I don’t recollect this lake. It looks like Papua New Guinea.”

To this, Ranjit Singh responded: Are you suggesting that you’ve also gone to Papua New Guinea with Tun Eusoff?

Lingam shook his head.

He later confirmed that both his and Eusoff’s families were the only people on the boat apart from the crew.

He also told the commission that the then Chief Justice had rented the entire boat to himself.

Asked how he and his family ended up on the same boat, Lingam said: “I spoke to him and asked if we could go along with him and he said okay.”

At one point, Lingam demanded that the negatives of the photographs be tendered to court to clear doubts about them being doctored or tampered with.

To this, Ranjit Singh replied that the negatives were with another lawyer, Datuk Muhammad Shafee Abdullah, who had also provided the Bar with ticket stubs from the New Zealand trip.

Among these ticket stubs, which were tendered to court, were two bearing the names of Lingam’s wife and Eusoff’s daughter stapled together.

Asked about this, Lingam replied that anyone could have stapled them together.

When it was pointed out that it came with a cover bearing both names, Lingam replied: “I’ve never seen this before. You have to call the maker of this.”

– quoted from an article published in The Star on 25th January 2008 (link)

I’m surprised that NST did not mention this at all, given that they were pro-exposing Lingam since September whereas Star revealed precious little until the RC was formed. Kudos to Robert Lazar for trying to get ‘case fixing’ heard in the RC despite being told before it was not in their scope.

NZ Trip related facts

  1. Lingam had gone on the NZ trip shortly after winning a 1994 libel case for Vincent Tan
  2. The case was from May 21 1994 – Oct 22 1994
  3. Damages of RM10 million was awarded against the defendants, 2 million of which was against MGG Pillai
  4. Eusoff Chin chaired the panel that threw out the defendants’ appeal
  5. Neither Eusoff or Lingam informed involved parties of the case about the NZ trip
  6. Lingam could not remember in which parts of NZ the additional 8 photographs shown were taken
  7. Eusoff had rented the boat that their families took at Lake Wakatipu (near Queenstown)
  8. Lingam had asked Eusoff whether it would be ok to go along on the boat trip

Other facts

  1. Lingam had appeared before Eusoff during his tenure as a High Court judge
  2. In 1995 Lingam appeared for Insas Bhd and Megapolitan Nominees Sdn Bhd in High Court
  3. Michael Lim, director of Insas and senior partner of Shearn Delamore (of which Lazar is a partner) instructed Lingam to appear for those two companies
  4. This high profile case involved shares of Ayer Molek Rubber Company Bhd

Noteworthy evidence presented

  1. Eight photographs take of Lingam, Eusoff and their families during the NZ trip
  2. Two ticket stubs bearing Eusoff’s daughter’s name and Lingam’s wife’s name stapled together, along with a cover with both their names

Finally I hear evidence of professional misconduct being presented before the RC 🙂 Given the cheque presented previously, the NZ trip might even have been a reward? The ticket stubs help prove the trip was planned together and testimony from Lingam’s or Eusoff’s secretary should prove the planning beyond doubt.

Five months for a case with a damages award of RM10 million is remarkably short. I hope to hear more evidence like this, but given Haidar and Mahadev’s putting a stop to that line of questioning maybe I won’t be so lucky.

Written by ak57

January 25, 2008 at 11:05 pm

VK Lingam Testifies to the RC Part 2

VK Lingam took the witness stand again yesterday. As the commission ruled that the Malaysian Bar could continue questioning Lingam on the trip, it was quite a comedy! The following related articles were published on 25th January 2008:

NSTP

  1. I booked my holiday separately, says Lingam (link)

The Star

  1. Lingam was bragging (link)
  2. Lawyer insists he and Eusoff Chin planned their NZ trip separately (link)

Factual statements

  1. His flights were booked by Holiday Tours & Travel (same as Eusoff Chin), only confirmed after being confronted with evidence
  2. His family and Eusoff Chin’s stayed at separate hotels
  3. Met Eusoff Chin in Auckland at the zoo, then at a bird park
  4. Shared a van with Eusoff to journey from christchurch to Queenstown
  5. There was a discussion with Eusoff on sharing the cost of the Queenstown trip

List of denials (i.e. VK Lingam denied …)

  1. That his secretary’s name being on Eusoff Chin’s itinerary was because it was planned by himself and Eusoff
  2. That his ticket was issued by Holiday Tours & Travel until confronted with evidence (the cheque)
  3. That the 15 minute time difference between the KL-Singapore flights was planned to avoid being seen with Eusoff Chin in KL
  4. Tagging along with Eusoff Chin the whole time his family was in Auckland
  5. Spending most of his time in Auckland with Eusoff Chin
  6. Staying in the same accommodation as Eusoff while in Auckland

List of “I don’t remembers” (i.e. VK Lingam does not remember …)

  1. When his family decided to go on the NZ trip
  2. Which travel agency he used, claimed it was Udara Travel & Tours Sdn Bhd
  3. If his family spent the night in Queenstown

Ambiguous statements

  1. Insisted that it was a coincidence that his trip was booked through the same travel agent as Tun Eusoff Chin’s
  2. Did not know why his secretary’s name was written on Eusoff Chin’s itinerary (quote, “There are many Indian women called Jeyanthi”)

Additional statements by Lingam

  1. It was a coincidence that Lingam and Tun Eusoff used the same travel agent, the itinerary covered the same locations and the flights were on the same dates
  2. Their meeting at Changi Airport was a coincidence

Misc. events

  1. Eusoff’s counsel Zamani Ibrahim aligned himself with Thayalan and Ahmad Fairuz’s lawyer on their submissions regarding the relevance of the NZ trip

Noteworthy evidence presented

  1. A Bank of Nova Scotia cheque dated Dec 21, 1994 for RM24,912 signed by Lingam and made out to Holiday Tours & Travel Sdn Bhd.
  2. Eight photographs of Lingam and Eusoff and their families during their NZ trip (negatives with Datuk Muhammad Shafee Abdullah)

I am reminded of a saying that goes something like this, “Two coincidences might be just that, but three coincidences is a conspiracy”. It appears that VK Lingam has not learned any lessons from his previous testimony and subsequent newspaper reports on it. Either that or he’s determined to make a public mockery of the RC hearings.

So the poor answers continued, e.g. this explanation of why Jeyanthi’s name was on Eusoff’s itinerary, “There are many Indian women called Jeyanthi“. He could have added, “I do not know why Eusoff Chin has my secretary’s name written on his itinerary, perhaps you should ask the two of them“.

I’m a bit curious why Shafee Abdullah has the negatives to photographs that both Lingam and Eusoff Chin wouldn’t want spread around. What’s his involvement?

The next part of the questioning focused on the video clip:

‘I can talk rubbish in my house’

KUALA LUMPUR: “My house is my castle. I am the king in my house. I can choose to talk rubbish even if I am drunk,” lawyer Datuk V.K. Lingam said yesterday.

He was replying to a question by Ranjit Singh who appeared for the Bar Council at the hearing by the Royal Commission of Inquiry on a controversial video clip.

Ranjit had asked Lingam why he discussed the appointment of judges when he was drunk.

(cut)

Ranjit: Why talk of judicial appointments in the presence of Loh Mui Fah and his son Gwo Burne?

Lingam: I can even pretend to talk to President Bush if I like.

Ranjit: Why specifically say that?

Lingam: I don’t remember saying that. If I had referred to then chief judge of Malaya Datuk Ahmad Fairuz’s (Sheikh Abdul Halim) name, then I am sorry. But I was bull****ting and bragging.

Ranjit: Are you suggesting that you were bull****ting and bragging?

Lingam: Yes, I could be bull****ting and bragging.

Ranjit then referred to the clip which showed several wine, whisky and 7-Up bottles.

He asked Lingam whether the lawyer was now claiming to be tipsy after seeing the bottles in the clip.

“That is quite a lot for people to drink and get drunk,” Lingam said.

Commission chairman Tan Sri Haidar Mohamed Noor asked Lingam why Mui Fah and Gwo Burne, who claimed to be social friends, would go against him.

Lingam: If they believe that I was involved in fixing judges, they should have gone to the ACA or the police and made a report. They should have said, “Charge this fellow” but they kept the clip for over six years.

Commission member Datuk Mahadev Shankar also asked Lingam whether he was disputing that the person in the photograph taken in New Zealand was him (Lingam).

Lingam said he was not disputing it.

Mahadev: Why is it that when it comes to the clip, you are now saying that it might not be you? How many per cent of that is you?

Lingam: I only said that the man in the clip looks and sounds like me. I did not say he was 100 per cent like me. I do not want to enter into a mathematical debate.

He added that the expert findings by Mohd Zabri Adil Talib on the identity and the voice of the man in the clip was fundamentally flawed.

“I will be the first to admit if my experts say so.

“Until then, I will not confirm without the report,” he said.

Haidar then interjected that Mui Fah and Gwo Burne had positively identified that he was the man in the clip.

“You will have my evidence.

“Fairness demands that I be given the opportunity. I think I have made myself clear about the matter,” Lingam said.

– quoted from an article published in NST on 25th January 2008 (link)

I agree with Lingam somewhat on one thing – that a person should be free to say what he/she likes in the privacy of their home, without the expectation that what they say will be recorded and spread around in the public domain. Especially if they are drunk, a state that can’t be proved or disproved in this case. You don’t believe politicians speak on camera the same way the speak at home right?

Other than that the rest of his statements were nonsensical, though I am curious how the RC will resolve conflicting evidence once Lingam’s experts return with a report saying the video clip could have been manufactured. Remember Lingam won’t send the video to be analysed by anyone unless they can confirm or throw serious doubt on it authenticity, due to the official secrets mentioned.

Written by ak57

January 25, 2008 at 10:33 pm