Ak57\’s Weblog

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

Archive for the ‘Lingam RC’ Category

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

Attempts to Confine and Expand

Stick to appointment of judges, says Ahmad Fairuz’s lawyer

KUALA LUMPUR: The inquiry into the Datuk V.K. Lingam video clip should be confined only to the appointment of judges as stated in its full title, the Royal Commission heard.

Kamarul Hisham Kamaruddin, counsel for former Chief Justice Tun Ahmad Fairuz Sheikh Abdul Halim, said the objective of setting up this commission was revealed in its title, as follows:

“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.”

As such, he submitted that the terms of reference for the inquiry could have meaning only by reference to the specific objective of the establishment of the commission.

“Conversely, the reading of the terms of reference without the focal point of the purpose of the commission’s establishment leaves the terms open-ended without a sense of boundary,” he submitted in support of an objection by Lingam on questions relating to his New Zealand trip in December 1994.

On Monday, Lingam’s counsel R. Thayalan objected to the line of questioning by the Malaysian Bar, saying Lingam’s holiday to New Zealand with Tun Eusoff Chin, who was Chief Justice then, was not relevant to the inquiry.

Thayalan submitted that the trip did not fall within the commission’s terms of reference and that the commission was set up only to look into matters regarding a video clip on the appointment of judges.

Kamarul Hisham also argued that the answers given by Lingam and Eusoff on their closeness, which had been alleged in the video, had no probative value in the inquiry because it was not relevant to the appointment of judges.

However, commissioner Datuk Mahadev Shankar told him the question of probative value should only be addressed at the end of the inquiry after all evidence had been adduced.

In their written submissions, leading officers DPPs Datuk Nordin Hassan and Datuk Azmi Ariffin submitted that the issue of closeness and any other issues that were not related to the appointment of judges did not come within the terms of reference.

They said the commission was only confined to the inquiry on the video clip with regard to the appointment of judges.

“Looking at the transcript, it is certainly not the purpose of the establishment of this commission to ascertain or determine the truth or otherwise of all matters mentioned in the transcript,” they submitted.

Several examples highlighted by the prosecutors to emphasise this point included the suggestions that Tun Mohamed Dzaiddin Abdullah wanted to hold office as Chief Justice until the age of 68, and that Tan Sri Robert Kuok was very brilliant and (the late) Tan Sri Lim Goh Tong was “already rich.”

– quoted from an article published in The Star on 23rd January 2008 (link)

All this talk about the confines of the RC was caused by the questioning regarding the NZ trip by Eusoff Chin and VK Lingam. But here’s the weird thing – who are the people bringing up this matter?

  • Ahmad Fairuz’s lawyer, Kamarul Hisham Kamaruddin
  • The DPP’s Datuk Nordin Hassan and Datuk Azmi Ariffin
  • VK Lingam’s lawyer, R.Thayalan (on Monday)

The NZ trip implies corruption on Eusoff Chin and VK Lingam’s part, so why is Ahmad Fairuz’s lawyer coming to their defense? Also, why the DPPs? Ahmad Fairuz stands to gain by defending them if he himself is corrupt or benefited from their corruption, but what is the DPP’s vested interest?

From the definition of the RC, i.e. 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, it seems it has the leeway to investigate anything directly related to the appointment of judges based on the transcript of the video clip. So given that, I do agree that items like ‘case fixing’ is outside their terms of reference.

That part with prosecutors stating that looking into whether Robert Kuok was brilliant or Lim Goh Tong was rich..I would have burst out laughing if I was there, they picked the most non-sensical statements to support their own 🙂

Further reading: Robert Lazar’s objection, published 23rd January 2008 (NST) (The Star)

Counsel: Leave out links to law firm and former king

KUALA LUMPUR: Former Chief Justice Tun Mohamed Dzaiddin Abdullah has objected to references made about his links with a law firm and a former Yang di-Pertuan Agong.

His counsel Khoo Guan Huat said Datuk V.K. Lingam should not use those facts about Dzaiddin and forcibly include it in the inquiry.

“My client finds it objectionable and mischievous for him to take an example that falls outside the spectrum of evidence to exclude evidence that may fall inside the spectrum,” he said.

Khoo added that Lingam’s lawyer R. Thayalan had alluded to Dzaiddin’s relationship with a Yang di-Pertuan Agong and the law firm Skrine.

“If for some reason during the course of this inquiry the behaviour of Tun Dzaiddin is relevant, then he can be examined by the counsel,” Khoo argued.

On Monday, Datuk V.K. Lingam’s counsel R. Thayalan argued that the commission of inquiry could not be open-ended in nature. Otherwise, the commission would be entitled to look into any misbehaviour of all persons whose names were mentioned in the video clip.

In objecting to questions relating to his client’s New Zealand trip in 1994, the lawyer gave several examples that the commission would have to consider in the event that it admitted evidence on the trip.

Among others, he said the question of whether Dzaiddin had misbehaved when he joined Skrine immediately after his retirement had to be considered by the commission.

– quoted from an article published in The Star on January 23rd 2008 (link)

Is mischievous a legal term? Thayalan almost sounds like he’s making a threat along the lines of, if you come after my client’s personal NZ trip with Eusoff Chin, you have to look into the misbehaviour of Tengku Adnan, Ahmad Fairuz, Tun Mahathir, Eusoff Chin and so on. But does the RC have any evidence to encourage them to investigate these people?

  1. VK Lingam was the man in the video clip
  2. Ahmad Fairuz was allegedly the man on the other end of the phone

VK Lingam’s personal involvement with Fairuz and the others needs to be investigated assuming there is other evidence (official decisions? documents?) to indicate that Lingam’s personal relationship with these person(s) offered him some control on their professional behaviour. The personal lives of these other men is not relevant if it can’t be directly tied to Lingam, correct? Honestly if the RC was that open ended it would never end, picking apart the lives of these men and highlighting every act of corruption they can find.

Maybe Dzaiddin’s involvement with a prior Agong and Skrine is linked to corrupt judicial appointment making on his part, I don’t know. But as no mention of this was made by VK Lingam in the video, it is not relevant because it is outside the RC’s power to investigate.

Written by ak57

January 23, 2008 at 11:20 pm

Posted in Legal Matters, Lingam RC

Tagged with

VK Lingam Testifies to the RC

VK Lingam took the witness stand yesterday. The following related articles were published on 22nd January 2008:

NSTP
Lingam: Man in clip looks and sounds like me (link)
‘I did not have Ahmad Fairuz’s phone number’ (link)

The Star
Lingam: ‘It was not Ahmad Fairuz’ (link)
I never represented Mui Fah, says Lingam (link)
Lingam: ‘I talk rubbish when I drink’ (link)
Lawyer: Don’t bring NZ holiday into the picture (link)
Vacation photo taken sometime in 1995 or 1996, says Lingam (link)

Sun’s article (including summary of Gwo Burne’s testimony) published on 22nd January 2008 (link)

Factual statements

  1. Loh Mui Fah and Gwo Burne were merely social friends who visited his home 3-4 times
  2. Knew Tan Sri Mohtar Abdullah as they were neighbourhood friends
  3. Had gone on a holiday with Vincent Tan and Mohtar Abdullah to Spain and Morocco in 1995/1996
  4. Loh Mui Fah had visited (on the night in question?) as a social friend, as he often did in the past with either his son, mistress or second wife
  5. Loh Mui Fah used to visit Lingam at his office 3-4 times a year
  6. Loh Mui Fah would usually bring 3-6 bottles of wine whenever visiting Lingam in his home
  7. Had only been to Mahathir’s house in September 2005 when acting as counsel in a defamation suit against Mahathir by Anwar Ibrahim
  8. First knew Tengku Adnan when the latter was a director in one of the Berjaya Group of companies
  9. Described Vincent Tan as a good friend
  10. Described his relationship with Tun Eusoff Chin as “not extremely close”

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

  1. Having spoken to Tun Mahathir, Vincent Tan or influencing anyone else to appoint Ahmad Fairuz as Chief Judge of Malaya, Court of Appeal president or chief justice
  2. Representing Loh Mui Fah or Loh Gwo Burne at any time, however Lingam did represent Mui Fah’s father, Kim Foh
  3. Ever speaking to Fairuz on the phone
  4. That Loh Mui Fah came to his house empty handed on the night of the recording

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

  1. Saying what is in the transcript of the video to Ahmad Fairuz (basically did not remember making any recorded statement)

Ambiguous statements

  1. Would not confirm or deny if the person in the video clip was him, rather saying “it looks like me and sounds like me”
  2. Would not confirm if Loh Mui Fah was the man in a photograph taken that night (“looks like him”)
  3. Said he may have been intoxicated as the footage showed wine and whisky bottles
  4. Despite refusing to identify the person in the video clip as himself, Lingam stated:
  • That he did not know who he was speaking to and it was definitely not Ahmad Fairuz as he did not have his number nor did Fairuz have his
  • He did not know when the recorded conversation took place
  • Must have had too much to drink
  • Learned about the official secrets (regarding Zainuddin and Dr Andrew’s recommendation and subsequent rejection for judicial appointments) from gossip by the legal fraternity

Additional statements

  1. Insisted on getting his own experts to verify the authenticity of the video clip – whether it really was VK Lingam
  2. Thayalan stated that evidence related to the 1994 trip with Eusoff Chin was not relevant as the issue of ‘closeness’ being brought up by Bar Council was looked into and closed by the ACA

Either VK Lingam did not rehearse what he was going to say, or he was dead set on making a mockery out of the hearing. We know he can’t confirm that he is the man in the video clip because of the official secrets mentioned, however the ‘gossip excuse’ isn’t too bad an attempt at explaining how he knew. Better than saying he doesn’t remember or doesn’t know how he came to know official secrets. Alberto Gonzales (former USA AG) did a better job, as he consistently did not recall anything 😉 I haven’t figured out what Lingam’s strategy is yet, other than doing everything he can to throw doubt on whether the person in the video recording is really him. He’s mainly in trouble for the official secrets you see, other than that the only evidence shown so far has been a monologue on video (since it can’t be proven whether there was someone on the other end of the line), and some photos of him on holiday with Eusoff Chin, Vincent Tan and Tan Sri Mohtar.

Its not me but I may be drunk? Its not me but I wasn’t talking to Fairuz? Why didn’t the RC members press further? Only Datuk Mahadev Shanker and DPP Nordin picked on this obviously flawed testimony, as shown in the following article excerpts:

Commission member Datuk Mahadev Shanker told Lingam that his reply to Nordin could give an inference that he (Lingam) had made such statements, only that he could not remember now.

– NST

However, the lawyer denied that it was Ahmad Fairuz when asked whom it was that he was allegedly speaking to in the video clip.

“I don’t know (who it was). But certainly, I was not speaking to Tun Ahmad Fairuz because I don’t have his phone number and he doesn’t have mine.

“I’ve never spoken to him on the phone and he’s never spoken to me on the phone.”

When DPP Nordin pointed out that by replying in such a way, he was admitting to being the person in the video clip, Lingam replied: “It looks like me. You can ask me a hundred times, I’ll give you the same answer.”

– The Star

DPP Nordin asked Lingam who the person in the video was referring to when he said: “But you know the old man, at 76 years old, he gets whispers from everywhere and then you don’t whisper, he… he get… aa… aa taken away by the other side.”

“I don’t know who it was,” Lingam replied.

At this juncture, commissioner Datuk Mahadev Shankar pointed out that there were two aspects of this question – whether he had made the statement and if he did, whom was it referring to.

“I do not know whom I was referring to. I can’t remember having said this,” Lingam replied.

From this point onwards, the senior lawyer’s response to the portions of the transcript read to him was “I can’t remember having said this.”

Later, Mahadev again remarked that the inference drawn from his answer was that he had in fact made the statements but could not remember doing so.

– The Star

Written by ak57

January 22, 2008 at 11:18 pm

Gwo Burne Testifies to the RC

Loh Gwo Burne (the recorder of the Lingam video clip and son of Loh Mui Fah) took the witness stand yesterday.

  1. Summary and partial transcript of Gwo Burne’s testimony published in NST on 22nd January 2008 (link)
  2. Summary (less details) published in The Star on 22nd January 2008 (link)

Factual statements (night of the recording)

  1. Was unable to remember the exact date of his visit to Lingam’s house, but confirmed it was late December 2001
  2. (NST) Was in Lingam’s house with his father that night
  3. (Star) Arrived at 6pm, shortly after that Lingam left to buy wine
  4. Lingam had not drunk much when the conversation was recorded
  5. By the end of the night, Lingam was not that drunk
  6. Had purchased a Sony 707 camera two weeks earlier, which he brought and took pictures with, with Lingam’s permission
  7. While taking a picture of a vase in the lounge he realised the camera was on video recording mode, but didn’t bother changing it as he was bored
  8. Felt bored because Lingam was too busy taking phone calls that kept coming in
  9. The recorded phone conversation took place between 7.30pm – 8.30pm
  10. Heard what Lingam said on the phone, and the subsequent conversation with his father
  11. Could make out a (what appeared to be male) voice at the other end of the line while Lingam was on the phone whenever Lingam was near, as Lingam moved about the room during the conversation
  12. Camera was hung around his neck which was why it appeared to be hidden behind a book (that he was reading)
  13. Did not believe Lingam was play-acting
  14. Believed that Lingam was definitely sober (contradicts his previous statement of ‘he was not that drunk’)
  15. Did not inform Loh Mui Fah about the recording
  16. Lingam had spilt curry on his shirt during dinner and changed to a clean shirt at 9pm, which was then tucked in
  17. Manjit Singh arrived after the video recording was made
  18. Left the house at 11pm with his father

Factual statements (what happened to the video after that)

  1. Copied the contents of the camera to his PC, gave the photographs (not video) to his father
  2. A month after that (Jan 2002?) he copied the contents to a CD
  3. In 2002, made a copy on CD which was given to Manjit Singh, because Manjit was complaining that Lingam was always busy with political matters
  4. Before leaving to work in China in 2004, he copied the contents of his PC (including the camera footage) onto DVDs to take with him
  5. Does not know who released the clip to the public
  6. Left copies of the files in the various towns where he worked in China
  7. Agreed with Thayalan that it was not impossible that others had edited the clip, as he was not the one who released it

Additional statements

  1. Identified Lingam in the court room as the man speaking on the video clip
  2. Did not understand the contents of the recorded conversation (was unware of the context)
  3. Did not edit, tamper or interfere with the video clip
  4. Cleared the memory card after copying out the files
  5. The video clip recorded was a complete segment from start to finish, no pauses

First of all, I think nobody is in the capacity to judge whether another person is drunk, unless they know the person very, very well which both Loh Mui Fah and Gwo Burne do not in this case. Drunk is a relative term, from what I have observed symptoms could be any mix of the following:

  • Possesses a more cheerful/jovial mood, bright eyes
  • Becomes talkative
  • Talks loudly
  • Makes incoherent/illogical statements
  • Goes very quiet and distant
  • Crying
  • Impaired balance
  • Red eyes
  • Flushed face
  • Gets very emotional (mood swings)
  • Starts doing really crazy things like licking people, stripping, dancing on the table

If you have seen the video, wouldn’t you agree that VK Lingam looks really jovial? I have a friend who gets extremely drunk  after drinking less than a can of beer (hitting on women, blathering and other unpleasant behaviour). I have friends who can drink several glasses of wine and still behave exactly the same as they do when sober. According to NST Gwo Burne stated that Lingam was ‘not that drunk’ but because we do not know Gwo Burne’s definition of what drunk and not drunk is, what is he really saying?

You could take a broad definition of ‘drunk’ as being:

A person is drunk when they engage in behaviour they would not normally do otherwise when they are sober

Sounds reasonable right? Normal people I would think don’t pretend to phone people and go on talking for 14 minutes to ‘put on a show’. VK Lingam’s behaviour however does appear to be someone who likes showing off his connections – look at what has been revealed in the RC hearings:

  • Asked to take many photos with Eusoff Chin and his family during their NZ trip
  • Wanted to frame up a photo and put it in his house where anyone can see it, but Thirunama convinced him that was a bad idea
  • Asked Gwo Burne to take photos during the night of the video recording
  • The transcript of the video recording itself shows a boastful attitude

I’ve seen this kind of behaviour before by a former business acquantaince who would often take pictures at meetings and also record phone conversations. To use as ‘ammunition’ if he didn’t get his way during the course of business – I’m talking about black mail of course. We’ll never really know the extent of VK Lingam’s power unless his alleged co-conspirators e.g. Tengku Adnan and Vincent Tan go public, which will never happen.

Written by ak57

January 22, 2008 at 8:18 pm

Thirunama Applies to Give Testimony

Lawyer’s brother offers to be witness to assist inquiry

KUALA LUMPUR: V.K. Thirunama has offered to be a witness to assist the Royal Commission of Inquiry looking into the video clip linking his brother, Datuk V.K. Lingam.

(cut)

In the application, Wee said events which Thirunama would testify on include:

– In December 1994, Lingam, Eusoff and their families went on holiday together in New Zealand.

– In 1995, Lingam threw a dinner party in his presence in Kelana Jaya for Eusoff and his wife and former Court of Appeal president Tan Sri Lamin Yunus and his wife.

– In May 1996, Eusoff and his wife went to Lingam’s house to bid farewell to Lingam before both of them left for the United States where Lingam’s wife was undergoing medical treatment.

Replying to a question by commission chairman Tan Sri Haidar Mohamed Noor, Wee said his client’s testimony was within the scope of the commission’s terms of reference.

Inquiry officer Datuk Nordin Hassan said Thirunama had told the Anti-Corruption Agency earlier that he had nothing to do with the video clip when he was questioned.

“Thirunama will be able to disclose ‘the closeness of Lingam and Eusoff’ because he had personally sent his brother to Eusoff’s house,” Wee said.

“Lingam used to ask my client to deliver bags and handphones at night to Eusoff’s house.”

– quoted from an article published in NST on 19th January 2008 (link)

Related articles from The Star on 19th January 2008:

Brother wants to testify
Lingam was advised against framing photo

The focus of the investigation at this point seems entirely on Tun Eusoff Chin. Not that that’s a bad thing of course, nobody wants only VK Lingam to get into hot soup. Wives going off together for one’s medical procedure in USA? That’s really buddy buddy stuff indeed.

Written by ak57

January 19, 2008 at 9:38 pm

Eusoff Chin Testifies to the RC

Tun Eusoff Chin (former Chief Justice from 1994-2000) took the witness stand yesterday.

  1. Transcript of Eusoff Chin’s testimony published in NST on 19th January 2008 (link)
  2. (More descriptive) transcript of Eusoff Chin’s testimony published in The Star on 19th January 2008 (link)

Well this was quite a comedy, reading Eusoff Chin’s attempts to dismiss the NZ trip as nothing inappropriate. First he gets in trouble in 2000 (or was it 1999?) when the photos were exposed to the public, and now the same photos come back to haunt the old chap. The NST transcript highlighted answers where Eusoff spoke in a barely audible voice, as though he did not want to admit what he was saying.

After reading the testimony I can see why the lawyers are asking so many questions about the NZ trip alone, because they want to illustrate that Eusoff Chin’s integrity was compromised by VK Lingam due to their close relationship. Plus there is a wealth of evidence to show, its not like there is any similar evidence (yet) against Vincent Tan, Mahathir or Fairuz. Will Eusoff Chin join VK Lingam on the fire? Hmm…

My summary of his statements:

List of denials (i.e. Tun Eusoff Chin denied …)

  1. Knowing VK Lingam as a close friend, he was merely an ordinary acquantaince
  2. Knowing Vincent Tan personally but has met him at formal functions
  3. Discussing the appointment of five judges with Lingam
  4. Knowing that Dzaiddin hated him
  5. Being involved in the appointment of Tun Ahmad Fairuz as President of the Court of Appeal and as Chief Justice
  6. Meeting Lingam to discuss Tun Ahmad Fairuz’s appointment as President of the Court of Appeal and Chief Justice
  7. Discussing with Tengku Adnan or Tan Sri Vincent Tan the appointment of Tun Ahmad Fairuz as President of the Court of Appeal and as Chief Justice
  8. Having anything more than a normal lawyer-judge relationship with Lingam

NZ Trip related statements (i.e. Tun Eusoff Chin …)

  1. Went on a trip to NZ with his family
  2. Bumped into VK Lingam in Singapore
  3. Flew to Auckland with VK Lingam (and their families) on Dec 22nd 2004 from Singapore
  4. Flew to Christchurch from Auckland on Dec 26th 2004 with VK Lingam and his family
  5. Insisted that VK Lingam kept wanting to tag along the entire time in Auckland
  6. Does not remember exactly what they did in Auckland, had to rely on the planned itinerary
  7. Flew back to Auckland from Christchurch on Dec 30th 7am with VK Lingam and his family
  8. Flew back to Singapore on Dec 30th with his family, does not remember if VK Lingam accompanied him on that flight too
  9. Claims not to be able to control Lingam’s following of him wherever he went
  10. Took a van with VK Lingam and his family from Christchurch to Queenstown
  11. Does not remember if a man by the name of Tan Chong Paw was in the van
  12. Flew from Queenstown to Christchurch with VK Lingam and his family
  13. Explained that VK Lingam booked the tickets for the Queenstown to Christchurch flight
  14. Claims 5-10 photographs were taken with him and VK Lingam

Factual statements

  1. Eusoff first got to know VK Lingam when he was handling a case in his court, around 1990
  2. Eusoff identified the man in the video clip as sounding like VK Lingam

Ambiguous statements
Did not understand parts of the transcript read out to him
– “problems faced by Eusoff while he was in office”
– “All these people, Tun Eusoff Chin, Datuk Ahmad Fairuz, Tan Sri Zainon all fought for us”
– “I know how much you have suffered for Tun Eusoff Chin”
– “Eusoff Chin, I can straight get Pom, Pom, Pom, Pom”

Noteworthy evidence presented

  1. A newspaper article from The Sun dated 2000 where Eusoff Chin said he coincidentally bumped into Lingam while on an overseas trip
  2. A travel itinerary with the names Rohani (Eusoff Chin’s secretary) and Jeyanthi (VK Lingam’s secretary)
  3. A stack of photos taken of VK Lingam and Eusoff Chin while on holiday

The questioning was brought to an end by Haidar and Nordin when Ranjit started asking very detailed questions about the photographs taken on the NZ trip (I guess this is just to verify/authenticate the evidence). Both viewed that this line of questioning was outside the terms of reference of the inquiry. Mahadev was inclined to let Ranjit continue. However upon the suggestion of Steve Shim the testimony was postponed to next Monday in order for Eusoff Chin to get legal representation.

What’s interesting about this testimony to me is that Eusoff Chin can be proven right if VK Lingam has a history of stalking 🙂 Honestly, based on the transcript he sounds like the guy who never gets invited to parties yet always shows up uninvited, and everyone is too weak to kick him out so they just tolerate him. Know what I mean?

Stalking Lingam

Written by ak57

January 19, 2008 at 8:09 pm

Tengku Adnan Testifies to the RC

I had nothing to do with it, says Tengku Adnan

KUALA LUMPUR: Tourism Minister Datuk Seri Tengku Adnan Tengku Mansor said yesterday that he had nothing to do with the appointment of judges, although lawyer Datuk V.K. Lingam mentioned his name 11 times in a video clip.”I think the person who is engaged in a conversation in the clip is drunk,” he said in dismissing one of the statements read out from a written transcript by Datuk Azmi Ariffin, who is assisting the hearing by the Royal Commission of Inquiry.

(cut)

Tengku Adnan said he knew Lingam and tycoon Tan Sri Vincent Tan, the other person Lingam kept referring to in the conversation.

“I knew them when I was in business. I had little contact with them after I joined the government,” said Tengku Adnan, who was a deputy minister and later minister in the Prime Minster’s Department between 2001 and 2002.

During that period, he was in charge of legal affairs which included the judiciary.

Azmi: Do you know Lingam?

Tengku Adnan: Yes, I know Lingam in the course of my business dealings.

Azmi: What was your relationship with Tan?

Tengku Adnan: I knew him since the 1990s when I was in business.

(cut)

He identified the man in the clip as Lingam. Azmi then showed Tengku Adnan the transcript on Lingam’s conversation in the 14-minute clip and proceeded to question him on the statements where Lingam mentioned his name on 11 occasions.

It was during the ninth question by Azmi that Tengku Adnan said Lingam could have been in a state of intoxication.

Tengku Adnan dismissed a suggestion by Azmi that he had influenced former prime minister Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad in appointing Ahmad Fairuz as chief judge of Malaya and Court of Appeal president between 2001 and 2002.

He also said it was not true that he had discussed with Lingam and Tan on the appointment of judges.

Azmi: Do you think what Lingam said in the clip was true after viewing the clip?

Tengku Adnan: No.

To a question by Bar Council lawyer Christopher Leong, the minister said he had no access to classified documents that were tendered in court on Wednesday through former chief secretary to the government Tan Sri Samsudin Osman.

The letters were correspondence between Dr Mahathir and former Chief Justice Tun Dzaiddin Abdullah from 2001 and 2002 on the appointment of judicial officers.

Leong: Would it be correct to say that you knew Tan because you were a shareholder in companies that belonged to him?

Tengku Adnan: Yes, because I was a shareholder in the Berjaya Group of companies.

Leong: Were you a director in some of the companies?

Tengku Adnan: Yes, but I cannot remember which companies.

Leong proceeded to ask Tengku Adnan of his past business connections in other companies, but commission chairman Tan Sri Haidar Mohamed Noor stopped him.

“Why ask this question? The minister has already admitted to being a shareholder and a director when he was in business,” he said.

Leong replied that this line of questioning was to show that Tengku Adnan and Tan were close associates.

Tengku Adnan said he only met Tan at public functions now. He said he knew Lingam was one of the panel lawyers of Berjaya and described his contact with the man as “extremely limited”.

Leong: There was a letter between Dr Mahathir and Dzaiddin to reject two names recommended for judicial appointment. The speaker (Lingam) states that his source of information came from you. What have you got to say?

Tengku Adnan: It’s strange but it did not come from me.

Leong: Would you have any objection to making your telephone numbers available to the commission?

Tengku Adnan: No problem.

M. Puravelan, counsel for Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim, asked the witness whether he had met Tan and Tan Sri Abdul Murad Khalid at his home in Jalan Duta in August 1995.

When Tengku Adnan said he did not meet the two men, Puravelan claimed he had documents to show that he did. Haidar stopped counsel from pursuing the matter, saying it was irrelevant.

– quoted from an article published in NST on 18th January 2008 (link)

Christopher Leong, who represented the Bar Council, had asked why he thought Lingam would “of all names, pick out your name when you hardly know him?”

Tengku Adnan replied: “My name is not only dropped here, not only by V.K. Lingam. People who want to build mosques, seek donations also use my name.

– quoted from an article published in The Star on 18th January 2008 (link)

Tengku Adnan sure helped Lingam by putting forward a ‘he might be drunk’ defense 😉 Its a pretty good defense because it can’t be disproved, plus the bottles of liquor and (I’m certain) upcoming testimonies of those present to say alcohol was consumed…well that just helps strengthen the argument.

I’m a bit curious with Leong’s interest in trying to establish that Tengku Adnan and Vincent Tan were best of friends or the equivalent. Honestly speaking, they could be BFF (Best Friends Forever) but that does not help prove corruption at all – tie that in with official decisions by Tengku Adnan that were always favourable to Vincent Tan and then you might have something. Though that would probably be outside the terms of reference for the RC.

Perhaps the Bar Council strategy is to establish friendly relations between Lingam-Fairuz-Mahathir-Vincent Tan-Tengku Adnan first, then follow up with those ‘overly favorable’ official decisions?

Leong’s question of why did VK Lingam mention Tengku Adnan’s name seems to imply that the mere mention of a person’s name is enough to imply guilt. Tengku Adnan’s reply that the practice of name-dropping his name is not restricted to VK Lingam was pretty good 🙂

Again Puravelan asked about the meeting with Tan Sri Abdul Murad Khalid, similar to the question he posed to Tun Mahathir, to which Tengku Adnan replied no. I am glad that Haidar stopped Puravelan from continuing though because that would be an attempt to broaden the search for corruption beyond the current scope, which is ‘corruption in the process of appointment of positions in the judiciary’.

Since Murad was not mentioned in the video clip that prompted the creation of the RC, trying to fish for corruption from all these famous chaps is not something I approve of anyway. You want to fish, get evidence.

Written by ak57

January 18, 2008 at 11:00 pm

Posted in Lingam RC, Local News

Tagged with ,