Posted on by Kit

Lingam Tape – “Unbecoming, irregular, improper” characterise latest developments

“Unbecoming, irregular and improper” are three adjectives which best characterize government and Independent Panel responses in the latest developments on the Lingam Tape scandal.

It was the Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department, Datuk Seri Nazri Aziz who was doubly “unbecoming” in launching a tirade against the Bar Council and Malaysian lawyers for their historic march for justice yesterday from the Palace of Justice to the Prime Minister’s Department in Putrajaya despite unwarranted police obstructions and in dismissing the Bar Council’s memorandum to the Prime Minister calling for a Judicial Appointment Commission.

Nazri had alleged that the lawyers’ march in Putrajaya yesterday was “unbecoming” while proclaiming: “There is no crisis in our judiciary. No crisis, no problems. I don’t seen any scandal.”

What makes Nazri think it is beneath the station of lawyers to be involved in a march for justice?

The 2,000 lawyers and supporters of the cause of justice have done themselves and the nation and the 50th Merdeka anniversary proud in the March for Justice in Putrajaya yesterday, in the true tradition of the great marches in the struggle of humanity for justice and freedom, like Gandhi’s Salt March in 1930 to help free India from British colonial rule and Martin Luther King’s March on Washington for Freedom in 1963 which culminated in his electrifying speech “I Have A Dream”.

Gandhi and Martin Luther King are now recognized by history and mankind for their great marches while their detractors, the Nazris of their era, have been forgotten!

It is also most unbecoming of Nazri to arrogate to himself the powers of the Prime Minister to dismiss offhand the Bar Council’s memorandum to the Prime Minister calling for a Judicial Appointments Commission or has Nazri been authorized to usurp the powers of the Prime Minister?

Nazri has also shown utter contempt for the other Cabinet Ministers who are treated as utterly irrelevant, incompetent and unfit to give any input on the Bar Council’s memorandum to the Prime Minister.

A lot of irregular things are happening in Malaysia today. It is irregular for the Deputy Prime Minister, Datuk Seri Najib Razak to announce on Tuesday before the Cabinet meeting yesterday the decision to set up a three-man Independent Panel to investigate into the authenticity of the Lingam Tape.

Such a decision should be taken by the Cabinet or has the Cabinet been reduced to just a rubber-stamp for the Prime Minister and Deputy Prime Minister despite all the talk about a functioning Cabinet where there is genuine power-sharing among the Ministers?

It is also most irregular for Tan Sri Haidar Mohamed Noor, Datuk Mahadev Shankar and Tan Sri Lee Lam Thye to meet informally yesterday in their prospective capacities as members of the three-man Independent Panel to investigate into the authenticity of the Lingam Tape when they had not received their letters of appointment and nobody, including the trio, knew about the actual terms of reference of the panel! They are expected to receive their letters of appointment and be informed of the panel’s terms of reference later today.

Haidar said yesterday that the panel would need help from third parties.

He said: “The panel’s job is to determine whether the clip is authentic or not.

“Being laymen, we will need people to come forward and assist us on this point.”

It is not a question of asking technical people to “assist” the panel but to do the entire job of the panel to determine its authenticity, which would have been the first task of a Royal Commission of Inquiry into the Lingam Tape scandal.

Is the three-man panel just going to adjourn and close shop and report accordingly to the government, ignoring all the explosive revelations about the perversion of the course of justice such as fixing of judicial appointments and manipulating court judgments?

Isn’t this reducing a very grave issue about the independence, impartiality and integrity of the judiciary into pure farce?

There is also gross impropriety — particularly with Haidar, as Chief Registrar of Supreme Court at the time who played a major role in the 1988 Judicial Crisis resulting in the arbitrary and unconstitutional sacking of Tun Salleh Abas as Lord President and Datuk George Seah and the late Tan Sri Wan Suleiman Pawanteh as Supreme Court judges now heading an Independent Panel concerning the independence, impartiality and integrity of the judiciary.

It is no exaggeration to say that if Haidar in 1988 had not been a party to the “mother” of all judicial crisis in 1988, the high international reputation and esteem of the Malaysian judiciary would have probably remained intact as the arbitrary and unconstitutional sacking of Tun Salleh as Lord President and Datuk George Seah and the late Tan Sri Wan Suleiman as Supreme Court judges might have been averted and the country saved from a generation of seismic shocks caused by one judicial crisis after another.

Lim Kit Siang

52 Replies to “Lingam Tape – “Unbecoming, irregular, improper” characterise latest developments”

  1. This Nazri fellow becoming more like Sami … Minister of Law can any how talk nonsense taking things so easy. The way it goes any Tom, D*** & ‘Hairy’ also can become Minister of Law!

    Any man on the street knows this is a serious national issue! Integrity of judiciary of the nation has been shaken and collapsing. Here we have BN ministers trying to sweep things under the carpet again and again. All these black records some day going to cause an avalanche that pull down the whole administration. Fortunately/unfortunate AAB still ‘tak dak apa’.

    What a disgrace to the nation! tsk tsk tsk … no word to describe the state of the nation under the ruling party, so sad.

  3. Nazri had alleged that the lawyers’ march in Putrajaya yesterday was “unbecoming” while proclaiming: “There is no crisis in our judiciary. No crisis, no problems. I don’t seen any scandal.”
    ________________________________

    That quote is so going to be included in Malaysian Politicians Say the Darndest Things Volume 2.

  6. TRUTH WILL FINALLY PREVAIL.

    i wouldnt bother too much of nazri comments. it likens to a chicken clucking away,while the rooster is away.

    anyway, the premier is too busy travelling and he has left the country to 2n. najib and nazri.

    premier was busy opening his brother’s nasi kandar shop in australia while the country was flooded.

    SO WHAT IS NEW !

  7. Libra2 Says:

    September 27th, 2007 at 16: 39.14
    Why have none of the MCA, MIC and Gerakan leaders said anyhting about the Lingam video?
    —————————-
    All of us knew about the “fixing game” for too long now but only without proof.
    We are now given a rare treat to a glimpse of the scandalous “judiciary fix” and you will see how they wiggle out this if without our Agong stepping in to call for a Royal Commission.
    Any reasonable fair minded person would conclude that if they can fix up the judiciary system of Malaysia, then, MCA, MIC & Gerakan leaders & every other governmental machinery are just too easy “fix”,right?
    There you have it, like so many people have commented here, its rotting all the way from top to bottom.
    God help Malaysia!

  8. “There is no crisis in our judiciary. No crisis, no problems. I don’t see any scandal.”
    ————————————

    Nazri has practically placed himself above the law. Wah lau!

    Now I understand the comment “Malaysia – the bolehland”
    Sigh!

  10. Is Nazri a qualified lawyer? If he were, the Bar Council should remove him from the bar. Nazri is a disgrace …. (run out of words to decribe this guy – his presence as an MP and a Cabinet Minister shows how intelligent Malaysians are in casting their votes for this low IQ creature).

    The three ‘wise’ men had already declared that they are laymen. They should do the honorable thing – decline the appointment or resign, if already appointed.

  11. Guys, there is no law in this country except Law of the Jungle … KJ is right. We, the rakyat are the monkeys end of the day. Ministers are kings & queens that rule this land. This is Malaysia … Malaysians’ way, Malaysia Boleh, apa pun boleh!

  12. whether one believe or dont believe in karma, King Yama will come and claim life of those corrupted and done injustice to others sooner than they expected. he will take all their wealth and condemn their descendant to suffer an ill fated low and immoral life.

    this is no joke. it already happened to a minister who like to wave dagger in front of the crowd.

    no more hope for bolehland except by divine intervention.

    shake head………

  14. Why the need to use FRU standing by with water cannon trucks and helicopter circling around the peaceful march by lawyers? Another copycat from Myanmar junta on the peaceful march by the monks. All these was started during Mahathir time using FRU against peaceful march.

    You may wonder is Malaysia peaceful to stay as you can see many bodyguards around PM and DPM since Mahathir times and practised by Pak Lah and Najib as if Malaysia is not safe and someone trying to harm them. Mahathir has left a lot of shit things and now he want to make noise on the present govt…it’s YOU who started all these and so pay for it for the consequences.

    At one time, Singapore leader said Johor like cowboy town and drew protests from UMNO and our leaders. If these UMNO stooges felt Johor is safe, why the need of so many bodyguards and UTK o protect PM and DPM? All these bodyguards and UTK are using our taxpayers fund to protect PM and DPM but not protecting the rakyat and that is why so many crimes happening….and FRU being used in wrong way against innocent rakyat like the lawyers and pig farmers in Melaka….

  15. If the early pioneer Malay leaders like Dato Onn Jaafar had not led the Malay mass to march for Merdeka, where would we be today?

    Thank, members of the Bar and various NGOs and political parties for marching on our behalf.

    Justice must not only be done, but seen to be done. A march for justice is a very vocal demonstrative action of struggling for justice to be done.

    Just ignore the uncouth minister who talks nonsense all the time. I sometimes wonder how such people can become political leaders, when they don’t even understand basic demoncratic practices.

  17. What can MCA, MIC or any other political party in BN say? They too are supporters of such corrupt practices. Would they “break their own rice bowls”? The Minister of Law not knowing law is nothing new in Malaysia. I doubt the Minister of Defence knows how to handle ammunition and don’t be suprise the Minister of Transport does not know how to drive!

  18. The fact remains that Nazri is so effectively trained by TDM to lie that he just continues to shoot his mouth. On the other hand he could be giving us a hint as to the terms of reference to the three man panel. Close the door on the autencity of the tape…. That’s why a tainted Haider is nominated to lead the panel. He is very effective in taking administrative orders as displayed in the 1988 fiasco. This is boleh land …. Bodowi’s vision of Malaysia KU Gemilang

  19. I support these lawyers’ march for justice because if any Tam, Tick and Hari can be promoted out of intense lobbying and not because he or she is true, tested and genuinely capable for his or her post, then I can kiss all Fridays’, Saturdays’ and Sundays’ preachings adieu.

  21. The fact that someone of Nazri calibre being the de facto law minister is a testament to how low the judiciary has sunk. The guy has no class, no brain and no common sense. Maybe he fancies himself after Bagdad’s Comical Ali.

  22. What is a crisis involving our judiciary when compared to the crisis affecting the whole country?

    It is safe to assume that Abdullah Badawi has jumped ship! The ship has been without a captain for a long time now. We are close to having a mutiny. The only reason why there is yet to be a full blown mutinty is that the crew still see the advantage in maintaining the course for a while longer until the de facto captain steps up to the plate. But absent a captain de facto captain can only mean one thing – which is what we are seeing i.e. NCOs coming out of the woodwork to show their ‘leadership’ skills.

  23. “Is Nazri a qualified lawyer? If he were, the Bar Council should remove him from the bar..”

    I suppose the Minister is legally trained and qualified to practice law but since he is not practicing law he is not a member of the Bar. You cannot remove somebody from the room for ‘unruly’ behavior when he is not in the room.

  24. Hey, the forest is on fire!!!!!

    Why are we focusing on finding out whether the person(s) who started the fire did it legally or not?

    And why is Nazri blindfolding himself, burying his head in the sand and claiming there’s no fire, no need to call for the firefighters, no need for alarm? Is he such a gundu?

  25. Nazri had alleged that the lawyers’ march in Putrajaya yesterday was “unbecoming” while proclaiming: “There is no crisis in our judiciary. No crisis, no problems. I don’t seen any scandal.”

    Nazri,

    I will use your quote and tell the Tanjung Rambutan adminstrators to reserve a VIP place for you.

  30. He said: “I am his minister. I am the minister in charge of legal affairs. He is clever enough to know that the reporters will ask me for a response.”

    who does the CJ report to? Nazri can play PM for all he wants. But does the CJ report to him? Or the King? Who is the King of Malaysia?
    Al-Wathiqu Billah Tuanku Mizan Zainal Abidin Ibni Al-Marhum Sultan Mahmud Al-Muktafi Billah Shah. Daulat Tuanku!!!

    So is Nazri stepping way beyond his roles and responsibility?

  32. It is acutely unbecoming of the law minister to utter such controversial remarks at a time when there is a crisis above our head. Whom is he trying to bluff when the whole nation knows what type of judiciary we are having even way before the video taping.
    He must be off his mind to say that the few thousand lawyers and probably a few more thousand ordinary citizen are wrong in marching to the palace of justice.
    We know he is trying to damage control and probably to protect the present judiciary so that in return UMNO can continue to enjoy the protection from the judiciary. We really have a very ironical democracy (the most crazy) system of government.

  33. In the matter of VK Lingam’s clip, the government is not managing the damage control well so far, which may be attributed to the PM having not been wisely advised by competent courtiers.

    After all, the whole object of appointing the 3 member panel is to enquire into the authenticity of the clip/table and assuage public opinion, especially that of civil society, that there is, in spite of there being Royal Commission established, an independent probe of the incident. If that were the object, the members of the panel should be above suspicion of bias and conflicts of interest.

    Already the choice of former Chief Judge of Malaya Haidar Mohd Noor to chair the panel is controversial. There are all kinds of allegations especially from Parti KeAdilan Rakyat’s side (not to mention fraternity of lawyers) that Haidar was implicated in 1988 scandal of the sacking of former Lord President Salleh Abas. According to Malaysiakinui’s report of 27th Sept under caption “Haidar’s appointment to panel, objected”, “Haidar, who was then the Chief Registrar of the Supreme Court, had allegedly played a key role in preventing an emergency Supreme Court sitting to hear an interim stay by Salleh against the tribunal …..” that eventually sacked Salleh.

    If true, this means that Haidah himself is a fit and proper subject, in the eyes of civil society, of an independent probe in relation to what role, if any, he had played in the infamous sacking of Salleh Abas in the 1988 judicial crisis, making it a ludicrous practical joke to now appoint him head to investigate a matter related to a judicial crisis continuing since 1988 in which he was alleged to have played an ignominious, if supporting role!

    So what’s hope is there in appointing a 3 member panel, as a solution to investigate, address and mitigate public concerns of the problem of alleged abuse of judicial system when member of the panel themselves are alleged the problem?

    What’s the point of appointing a so called 3 member panel whose findings, should they eventually be in favour of Lingam or the CJ, be rejected by public opinion on grounds of being a whitewash of the scandal? This is not solving a public relation problem but aggravating and compounding it – and therefore basically not an intelligent approach.

    Being a person trained in law – and thus presumed to know about the importance of judicial independence – our Minister in the PM’s Dept., Datuk Seri Nazri Aziz should know better than to be so quick as to adjudge and publicly label his fellow brothers at law march as “unbecoming, irregular and improper” as to invite the same adjectives to be redirected against him for his overzealousness to play down the gravity of the issue, first by saying that he was the minister for the CJ, second, that there was no judicial crisis, and the latest, the 3.5 kilometre march of 2000 lawyers from the Palace of Justice to the Prime Minister’s Department to present their memorandums to the PM on the setting up of the Royal Commission relating to the clip and a Judicial Commission on appointment of judges.

  34. Sorry typo omission in 2nd para from above where it should read: “…///..After all, the whole object of appointing the 3 member panel is to enquire into the authenticity of the CLIP and assuage public opinion, especially that of civil society, that there is, in spite of there being NO Royal Commission established, an independent probe of the incident…//…”

  35. I am totally disappointed with the stand taken by the Bar Council in regard to the 3-men panel. Ambiga Sreenevasan was reported to have said “the three-men independent panel to determine the authenticity of the “Lingam tape” should be given a chance to conduct its probe.” Independent panel? are you kidding? Look at the ACA, Police, Election Commission, Speaker of the Dewan Rakyat, are they not supposed to be independent? What’s the reality? Only fools will believe they are independent?
    By agreeing to accept the three-men panel the Bar Council has fallen into a trap set up by the BN. The BN government now has complete control over the timing and scope of the probe. This is exactly what the BN has hoped for. The three-men panel will drag their feet for as long as the government wants. They will take 3 months, 6 months, 12 months or years before coming out with a report. The investigation is only confined to the authenticity of the tape. While every Malaysians wait for the report from the panel, the government is justified to say that nothing can be done until they receive a report from the panel and urge everyone to be patient. When everything is quiet down, the CJ retired, general election is over, then the panel will release its report. The report will be somethig like this: the tape has been edited, therefore the panel is unable to find conclusive evidence as to authenticity of the tape. Case closed. May be the Bar Council still has full confidence in the BN government. For me the credibility of the BN government is ZERO.

  38. People should just stop criticizing Nazri and everytime he opens his mouth, should just direct the criticism to Badawi. Its time to stop separating the two. Lets just face it, Badawi finds it convenient to have him do his dirty work – plausible deniability.

    The crux of it is that we don’t hold Badawi to a higher standards of leadership, we will have the lowest form of leadership in his ranks..

    The fool is not Nazri, the fool is Badawi and its long pass he can use the likes of Nazri, Samy Vellu and Rafidah as excuses…

  40. At least we now know that VK Lingam was not taping himself talking to an imaginary person supposedly the current Chief Justice making him a fit and proper person to seek psychiatric help.

    According to news report (The Sun Sept 28th page 2) Parti Keadilan Rakyat vice president, Sivarasa Rasiah gave to the ACA an edited 8 minute out of the 14 minute video clip/transcript of Lingam’s telephone conversation.

    The unedited part was not given yet to protect identity of whistle blower, but according to Sivarasa, “the other part of the recording partly shows Datuk VK lingam telling the people in the room, after the telephone conversation, that he was speaking to (Chief Justice) Datuk Ahmad Fairuz”.

    Now there can only be two possibilities when the CJ said that he was not the one on the other side of the line : either (1) the CJ was lying or (2) VK Lingam was play acting and lying to the people in the room just to impress them.

    Now if it were between (1) or (2), then it is obvious that, as a matter of damage control, (2) is preferable to (1) because in (2) there is no proof of judiciary being comprised by executive interference – its just proof that Lingam misrepresented the situation to his audience in his room, which the lawyer could well explain that the misrepresentation was either just a prank on his audience or those around him were such a bunch of useless flatterers and hanger-ons that thay just deserved being lied to and deceived.

    All these means that subject forensic verification of the clip being authentic, the key arbiter that is objective and conclusive will be what the phone records of both the lawyer and the CJ show at the time of the alleged conversation sometime in 2002 – do they match to show the connection between the two at that time?

    Nothing can be proven if the records could not be obtained. Is it right then to impute cover up on the government if telephone records are not available?

    It is not so easy. Where to get these records? One has to go back to the records of the Telco providers but which one? People have more than one hand phone one with Maxis, the other with Celcom etc. We’re talking about records 5 years ago and it is so easy (for the relevant Telco) to have misplaced or lost or obliterated the records without the government implicated in having a hand in their not being available.

    On the other part about ACA taking a different view from Sivarasa on the position of the person taping the clip, the point is whatever a whistle blower did in videotaping (including breach of privacy where the one caught on candid camera was unaware) ought to be excused and even justified if what is blown or disclosed is necessary in support of overarching public interest and/or to avert or expose unethical or unlawful activities.

  42. Watch ot for a repeat of 1988
    http://malaysia-today.net/blog2006/letters.php?itemid=8604
    Immediately after the removable of Lord President Tun Salleh Abas and senior Supreme Court Judges Tan Sri Suleiman and Datuk George Seah in 1988, Tan Sri Haidar was appointed a Judge of the High Court in Borneo. He returned to the High Court in Malaysia and was elevated to the Court of Appeal and subsequently to the Federal Court before his appointment as Chief Judge of the High Court in Malaysia.

  44. Watch out :

    Minister : Under OSA, destroy all evidence.
    CJ : National interest, give me all evidence before anyone.
    Lingam : RM 1 Billion reward for anyone in telecomm. co. can destroy phone call records.

  48. Nazri had alleged that the lawyers’ march in Putrajaya yesterday was “unbecoming” while proclaiming: “There is no crisis in our judiciary. No crisis, no problems. I don’t seen any scandal.”

    All I can say is “Nazri, stupid! stupid! stupid!”

  49. Jeffrey’s ideas on telco’s records are quite realistic.

    Remember it was only last year that all particulars had to be recorded? So one good reason as to be unable to trace records would be that the phone being used in the tape was not registered.

    Still the person in the tape can be summoned for creating a “mischief to tarnish the Judiciary” at least?

    Can someone be charged for talking aloud to oneself about a murder plan?

  50. Another consideration:

    Why not enlist the help of the US FBI to determine the technical authenticity of the Lingam tape?

    Apparently, the FBI is willing to assist in the Nurin’s case with the CCTV photos, so, why not the Lingam tape? I’m sure technically, the FBI is more than sufficiently competent.

    See – http://www.mstar.com.my/cms/content.jsp?id=com.tms.cms.article.Article_45c83f31-c0a85062-a8f58d00-66a5b9b7

    Old observer

  51. In one important sense Nazri is right to say “there is no crisis”! We don’t see judges and magistrates and judicial officers resigning or refusing to attend court – or lawyers refusing to attend court or litigants refusing to attend in court. It is business as usual. Mana ada crisis??

  52. “Can someone be charged for talking aloud to oneself about a murder plan?”

    I looked up the Penal Code. If talking aloud to oneself is an offense under the country’s Penal Code, then we would have to charge Abdullah Badawi for talking in his sleep.

Leave a Reply