The first five days of the public hearings of the Royal Commission of Inquiry into the Lingam Videotape should have been the first step to restore national pride and confidence in the excellence and integrity of national institutions, in particular the independence, integrity and quality of the judiciary which in the past 19 years had plunged from international esteem to become a global laughing stock.
However, this was not to be, and the first five days of the Royal Commission hearings were painful days for national pride and honour.
It had been a sad and a great ordeal to all Malaysians to see top national leaders like the longest-serving Prime Minister for 22 years, Tun Dr. Mahathir Mohamad and former Chief justice, Tun Eusuff Chin competing with each other in selective amnesia at the Royal Commission of Inquiry into the Lingam Tape.
A quick count showed that Mahathir said “I cannot remember” or its equivalent 14 times during his 90-minute testimony before the Royal Commission on Wednesday while Eusuff Chin said “I cannot remember” or its equivalent 18 times in his half-testimony yesterday – with the former Chief Justice testimony adjourned to next week to allow him to seek legal representation and engage legal counsel!
Malaysians still do not believe that Mahathir has become so forgetful that he had to invoke the “I cannot remember” mantra 14 times in his short testimony especially as Mahathir is still famed for his poem, Melayu Muda Lupa. Is Mahathir proving himself right with his sudden forgetfulness?
As a commentator on my blog has pointed out, the Malaysian public is aghast as Mahathir’s testimony because of the public perception that Mahathir has an elephant memory (that an elephant never forgets), especially as Mahathir has a reputation for remembering details others could scantly recall as illustrated by his mastery to recall effortlessly details of Rafidah Aziz’s excesses in the AP scandal without any prodding.
Questions have legitimately been raised that as Mahathir is still very active in public life, who continues to speak on domestic and international circuits and highly respected for his analytical skills, how could his many lapses in memory in his appearance before the Royal Commission of Inquiry be credible and convincing?
Furthermore, Tun M is reputedly writing his memoirs presently which may take volumes. This is no task for a man with an amnesiac memory.
Before these and many other questions are answered, Malaysians were presented with another spectacle of a “pillar” of Malaysian society also subject to protracted bouts of memory loss, out-forgetting Mahathir when the former Chief Justice was only half-way through his testimony.
Apart from his very questionable memory lapses, some of the things that he said raises question whether Eusoff Chin should have been appointed the highest judicial officer of the country in the previous decade.
It must be a one-in-a-billion case of coincidence for Eusoff Chin when he was Chief Justice and senior lawyer V.K. Lingam and their families to get into the same flight from Singapore to Auckland, and then from Auckland to Christchurch, and to visit the same places in Auckland and Christchurch as well as return on the same flight.
Yesterday, Eusoff Chin said he “bumped” into Lingam in Singapore but in 2000, the former Chief Justice was on public record as saying that he had “bumped” into Lingam “on the way to a NZ zoo”. Why the contradiction?
The Star report on Eusuff’s testimony at the Royal Commission of Inquiry yesterday, “’Normal to take pix with me’” said in para 3:
According to a 2000 news article tendered yesterday, the former Chief Justice had also reportedly said: “When the man puts his hand on your shoulder, you can’t simply shove it aside.”
However, anyone looking at the photograph of Eusuff holidaying in New Zealand with Lingam (front page New Straits Times) will see that it was Eusoff who put his hand on Lingam’s shoulder instead of the other way round.
A lot of reputations are being destroyed at the Royal Commission of Inquiry public hearings, not by any probing questions by the commissioners or the lawyers, but by the missteps and refusal to come clean and true by the important witnesses.
TDM not only had his heart bypassed but his brain too. That’s the reason why he couldn’t remember he had screwed up the nation during his 22 years in power.
On March 25, 1999, THE SUN, then still owned by Messrs Vincent Tan,VK Lingam et al reported:
Businessman Mirzan Mahathir is suing three Chinese dailies for damages totalling RM750 million for alleged defamation in articles they published about his business activities.
The suits are against China Press, Guang Ming Daily News, Sin Chew Jit Poh and Pemandangan Sinar Sdn Bhd which is the publisher and printer of Sin Chew and the printer for Guang Ming. In the suits filed by Messrs V.K. Lingam & Co in early February, Mirzan also sought injunctions to restrain all the defendants from further publishing the alleged defamatory words.
(Source:Mirzan sues Chinese papers. By N.Puspa Malar ,25 March 1999 The Sun)
“Who Is More Important in Bolehland: Crony or Sibling?” by MGG Pillai
It now becomes clear, in Bolehland, Cronies can be saved at the
expense of Siblings. A routine industrial relations case involving
a reporter and Tan Sri Vincent Tan’s Sun Media Group (hype being a byword of Cronies) has now turned into one involving a Sibling, Mr
Mokhzani Mahathir. The reporter, Ganesh Sahathevan, was sacked
after he quoted Mr Mokhzani for a story about the involvement of
parties involved in the change of ownership of the Pantai Hospital
group, including Tan Sri Vincent Tan himself, in a Hong Kong company called Kestrel Hong Kong.
A denial by the parties concerned, though not Mr Mokhzani himself, was seen as sufficient grounds for dismissal on the grounds he fabricated it. When the case came before the industrial court, the Sun engaged high-powered legal counsel in this case — Dato’ V.K. Lingam and his brother, Dato’ V. Sivaparanjothy — and the matter took on a strange unlegal appearance.
http://www.malaysia.net/lists/sangkancil/1999-03/msg00924.html
Also reported in 2001:
Deputy Prime Minister and Home Minister Datuk Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi said he has accepted the apology from The Sun and does not think any action will be taken against the newspaper for publishing a story on an alleged plot to kill him and the Prime Minister……Prime Minister Datuk Seri Dr Mahathir Mohamad said he was satisfied with the action of a few top level media practitioners of The Sun newspaper who resigned….”Well, I’m satisfied but it should not happen again… that is important,” Bernama quoted him as saying.
After conducting preliminary investigations, the Board of Directors were satisfied that there was no foundation or basis to warrant the publication of the said article. This paper carried a prominent front page apology to the Prime Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister and their respective families.
The board of directors had on Thursday appointed a very prominent lawyer Datuk V. Kanagalingam (also known as Datuk V.K. Lingam) as the deputy chairman of the company together with Mr Frankie Tay Thiam Siew as the executive director of the company.
Datuk Lingam is an expert in media and corporate law and has vast experience in the corporate sector.
Datuk Lingam and Frankie Tay will now guide The Sun in establishing itself as a responsible newspaper to the nation.
(Source:DPM accepts – The Sun’s apology – Action not likely for report – on alleged assassination plot. 30 December 2001
The Sun)
[deleted]
Sometime between 1994 and 1996 , a matter went before the Department of Industrial Relations for reconciliation.
The matter was brought by a lawyer said to be named Geetha Menon (GM), who had been dismissed from her position as legal assistant (LA) at VK Lingam and Co.
GM claimed that she was sacked for refusing to personally courier a quantity of cash to a then sitting judge.
Rozok Bogondo and his 2 accomplishes will now start saying “I cannot remember” to any questions levelled against them in the Altontoyo trial
I can’t remember…
http://malaysiancartoons.blogspot.com/2008/01/selective-memory-malaysiakini-selective.html
In any true democratic country, those 2 sicko hypocritic clowns would be charged with perjury and perverting the course of justice and sentenced accordingly
In reference to Tickler’s posting at 18: 05.37, public pressure must be brought to bear on the RC to subpoena Geetha Menon (GM) to give evidence. Equally in the case of Lawyer Wee Choo Keong’s client Thirunama Karasu whose desire testify has been stymied so far.
First – Irrelevant …Irrelevant …Irrelevant …
Second – Correct…Correct…Correct…
Now – Cannot remember …Cannot remember …Cannot remember …
Final verdict by the RCI— Uncle Lingam was drunk and talking to himself when taped. It was very fortunate that he did not wallop his wife when intoxicated. Case dismissed
Recommendations: Uncle Lingam should enroll in the Toddy Anonymous Association of KL
Generally, Bolehland leaders like to run away from responsibilty.
Mahathir – I cannot remember
Pak Helah – Saya tak tau
It is so typical of gulity parties that when queried, their usual answers would be ,’I don’t remember’.
It reinded me of Japan Vice Defense Minister, Moriya Takemasa, who when he was testifying under oath to the House of Councilors Committee on Foreign Affairs and Defense, on allegations that he gave preferential treatment to one of the Defense Minstry arms supplier, Yamada Corp. in its business dealing with the Japan Defense Ministry.
At the same time, he often dodged many of the questions by saying. ‘I don’t remember’. Ultimately he was found gulity and the best part was when he resigned voluntarily.
Seems like we will definetely not live to see the day to hear him say, ‘What do you know? Now I remember!’ and there lies the huge difference between 2 cultures…….and what had we learned from the Look East Policy?
To the five wise people, “For wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it. But small is the gate and narrow is the road thats leads to life, and only a few finds it; Matthew 7;13”
It seems that statement made under oath ‘the whole truth, nothing but the truth’ has no value at all. My advice is that it is better to take the oath ‘truthfully’ in RCI instead of at ‘judgement day’.
So, VKL, the ball is at your feet now. Make sure you hit the right ‘GOAL’.
The old man is now teaching the kids to cheat. When you did something wrong, just answer I don’t remember. I thin this is what the lawyer tells you when you committed a crime. The titles of these two guys should be revoked
What a shame? Suppose to uphold the law of the country and yet giving such pathetic answers!!!
Admit it! How on earth can you bump into a friend while travelling abroad. then having the same flight itinerary! Want to dapat 4-d also is easier than the same flight itinerary all the way.
This convenient lapse in memory by the key players mentioned in the Video Clip is to save their own skins & what did Kit said more than 7 years ago?
“Either Mahathir genuinely does not understand or pretends not to understand that the controversy over Tun Eusoff Chin’s holiday and “socialising” with lawyer Datuk V. K. Lingam in New Zealand in December 1994 involves the important principle of judicial accountability, which is critical to the maintenance of public confidence in the independence, impartiality and integrity of the judiciary†More details at:
http://powerpresent.blogspot.com/2007/09/reactions-video-clip-sensational.html
plus details on
1. Vacation Photos Land Top Malaysia Judge in Hot Water
2. What did Rais Yatim said 7 years ago?
3. Reaction s7 years ago at the Bar Council Malaysia?
4. What did Anwar Ibrahim do 7ears ago? .. recuse Tun Eusoff Chin from his 2nd appeal
It’s a joke reading the transcript on how Eusoff responded:
Ranjit: You will note that you landed in Auckland on Dec 22 or 23 and left Christchurch on Dec 26. You have two to three days there. Did you and your family spend the three days in Auckland with Datuk Lingam and his family?
Eusoff: The thing is, he wanted to tag on and asked, “Can I come along?â€, that sort of thing.
Ranjit: You stayed in the same hotel as Datuk Lingam?
Eusoff: In Auckland, there is only one good hotel.
—————————————–
Eusoff: Yes, I took a van. One New Zealander drove the van. Datuk V.K. lingam and his family went along. He wanted to pay half of the costs.
Ranjit: You bumped into him accidentally. He followed you everywhere and wanted to share a van to Queenstown. In Malaysia, you were a judge and him, a lawyer. Wouldn’t Tun say “This is enough. I would not share a van with you. There must be a limit.†Why did you allow him to follow you to Queenstown.
Eusoff: You see, the van can accommodate nine people.
Assuming a witness is not otherwise admitting that he is suffering from amnesia or Alzheimer diseases or senility, the ‘I don’t remember’ response is the witness’s way of saying to the questioner that the details that he is being questioned are of a nature not significant enough to have made an impression that survives the effluxion of time for memory retrieval, especially in relation to the importance of his work and the many other relatively more important things and events to remember.
The technical term of such a tactic of ‘I don’t remember’ is called ‘avoidance resistance’ by the witness.
The witness in all probability has been coached by his lawyer on how to use this strategy, the advantage of which to a question that one does not want to answer truthfully is to be non committal about a “yes†or a “no†and having to subsequently elaborate on either of them, and if the answer was not the truth, to be subsequently accused of, caught or proven lying.
On the other hand, although ‘I don’t remember’ is not favoured as good testimony, yet it elicits a certain measure of benefit of doubt that maybe the witness truly does not remember and therefore such a response becomes grudgingly an acceptable response in any enquiry.
So for the on-going RC enquiry, if the ‘I don’t remember’ tactic is going to be widely resorted to, the all important question is what can be done about it – and what are the counter cross examination strategies to tackle an evasive witness who pleads ‘I don’t remember’ when he does remember everything with crystal clarity?
That’s the challenge!
The first thing is not to stop questioning and move on after the witness said ‘I don’t remember’.
Questioners should be more persistent and not let such a witness get away with it.
After a ‘I don’t remember’ response, keep circling around the matter and the line of questions from a new angle. Wear the witness down by refusing to give up. Make it clear that the questioning won’t end until the questioner gets full, truthful, and complete answers in what he could remember about other related matters. Make the witness volunteer other related information to be used later to prove inconsistency. I am sure Anwar’s lawyer Puraven, Dzaiddin’s lawyer CW Wong, Bar Council’s lawyers Christopher & Ranjit are seasoned court room cross examiners with a bag of cross examination strategies to counter such evasive answer as ‘I don’t remember’ or ‘I don’t know’. :) In the public’s interest, don’t give such an evasive witness an easy time. What is at stake here is accountability of executive actions and decisions in general and the criteria of selection of judges in particular bearing on the all important issue of Independence of the Judiciary.
Jeffry said ,
“After a ‘I don’t remember’ response, keep circling around the matter and the line of questions from a new angle. Wear the witness down by refusing to give up.”
This is a good strategy but there is a big snag – Haidar.
He might get impatient and probably say,” The witness has already given you an answer that he cannot remember.
“Can’t move to your next questions”.
I don’t trust this guy. He is crooked. He is hawkish and foxy.
Correction:
“Can’t you move on to your next questionsâ€.
Mahathir said “Melayu mudah lupa” knowing very well, that statement will never ever touch him perhaps! Being half Indian surely the above will not apply.
“Malaysians still do not believe that Mahathir has become so forgetful that he had to invoke the “I cannot remember ”
It is his constitutional to choose which to remember and which not to remember. That is not a crime.
Perhaps those asking the questions should find ways of asking questions that he cannot but remember.
Mahathir could blame the after effects of anesthesia as a result of his recent heart operation. But what about Eusoff Chin? Could voices be telling what to remember and not remember?
ooop constitutional right
My 2-cents on the art of cross-examination.
Never ask questions to which you do not know the answer.
Lead a witness through a series of propositions i.e. propositions he will have to agree with. Then when you have him in a corner ask that fatal question about which he will have to agree.
How much have we seen of the art of cross-examination during the hearing? Not much. Why? Because it is not a court hearing. We’ll see the full force of the art of cross-examination during trial i.e. assuming it goes to trial. I don’t think it will.
“It’s a joke reading the transcript on how Eusoff responded..” Chong Zhemin
That is because it is not a court hearing.
I don’t think Eusoff Chin a judge himself believes for one second that others would believe in the string of coincidences. But then what would you do if you were in his place? Admit to planing the trip together and who to pay for the trip??
Most SHAMEFUL demo of the pervasive corruptness of bolehland. Of course those who benefit obscenely from it, namely shameless BN politicians, will claim otherwise. But the rakyat knows better.
Even the judicairy or at least a significant portion of them are similarly corrupt; what hope is there of this bolehland? The sleepy PM must be damned proud that he has so much fellow politicians to share his vices.
wat about testifying them using the “telling lies indicator”device!
UNcle Kit,
Malaysians still do not believe that Mahathir has become so forgetful that he had to invoke the “I cannot remember†mantra 14 times in his short testimony especially as Mahathir is still famed for his poem, Melayu Muda Lupa. Is Mahathir proving himself right with his sudden forgetfulness?
It should read as Melayu Mudah Lupa. IF what you have written is also correct for Melayu Tua like TDM also Lupa.
Dont we all hope to see TDM coming out and ask for our forgiveness and then help the country back by kicking out AAB?
“….. the former Chief Justice … said: “When the man puts his hand on your shoulder, you can’t simply shove it aside.†However, anyone looking at the photograph of Eusuff holidaying in New Zealand with Lingam …. will see that it was Eusoff who put his hand on Lingam’s shoulder …” Kit
Yes. Except that when he said that he was referring to the scene at Singapore Airport. There he claimed Lingam put his hands on his shoulders and proposed a trip to N.Z. together. In N.Z. he is seen with his hand on Lingam’s shoulder as if to say “Thank you”.
What we would like to know is what is he thanking Lingam for??
History will record that in December 2004 a large earthquake under the sea west of Sumatra caused a huge tsunami claiming and devastating the lives of many in South and South-east Asia. In September 2007 there was an earthquake in Malaysia; this time the revelation of a videotape which had the potential to cause a tsunami because it could well be the ‘smoking gun’ of a perversion of the course of justice and compromising of judicial independence. Did this create a tsunami?
In the wake of the videotape revelation, the denial kerfuffle between former CJ Tun Ahmad Fairuz and Nazri was early indication of a desperate ‘damage control’ attempt. Of course many Malaysians began to lose patience when the government went dodging and ducking the real issue and harping instead on the authenticity of the tape. From the ‘lame-duck’ 3-man panel of inquiry to establish if the tape was indeed authentic to the formation of RCI whose panel composition was questionable and with limited terms of reference, the growing public consesus was that of a government resigned to only making feeble attempts to progress the investigations. And in Bolehland there is never a shortage of diversionary events, not the least of which is the speculation of GE, to take away and disperse the heat.
Predictably, the first five days of the RCI public hearing was disappointing, at best. Weak line of questioning, evasive answers and selective memory seem to be the main features of public perception of this inquiry. The prospect of explosive revelations from witnesses yet to come forward and the possibility of unsavoury aspects of the Judiciary emerging from witness testimonies may yet promise some positive outcomes to make public some extent of the rot. However, in the unlikely event the government does take action based upon the RCI’s recommendation resulting in some form of trial, it can only mean a first small step on a long road to recovery that will always be at the danger of derailment by the very cohort of characters who will, at some stage, be at the peril of such remedial actions.
The tsunami must come from the translation of public digust to votes against the ruling coalition now that this issue and a plethora of others have come to the fore. Of course no one should take lightly the uphill battle against obstacles like strong support in BN heartland, large swing of votes to the Opposition required in many target constituencies, massive disadvantages stacked in the Opposition’s election campaign and the dreaded unfair election practices. An electoral pact, even if only a ‘loose’ one is manageable, among opposition parties would magnify the voice of opposition votes. Somewhat superficial and naive as some might label this but this is about the only means left within the control of those who are vehemently rejecting the current state of affairs in the country.
If we do not make a tsunami ourselves to put the ruling coalition on its back foot, whatever remedial action recommended by this RCI will not see its fruition.
The Royal Commission hearing as everyone knows is a circus. The real purpose is to set up a road block so charges would not be filed for lack of evidence. However, in the event that charges are filed against certain individuals and it goes to trial, chances are we’ll then see the end of one circus and the beginning of another.
“this time the revelation of a videotape which had the potential to cause a tsunami because it could well be the ’smoking gun’ of a perversion of the course of justice…” AltPJK
How many ‘smoking guns’ do we need to convince us of the perverted course of justice? Maybe now what we need is the silver bullet.
I think we have forgotten that Malaysia is a bolehland. Everything also boleh in Malaysia. We are supposed to do the impossible here. If we can send a passenger to the space and called him an astronaut, how difficult can it be to tell a few lies here and there? Unless we are caught in tape like the former health minister, no one is going to admit anything. Even that, I think he did not seek Lingam’s advice first before admitting and resigning. If he has done so, he could still be a minister today, and there is not a damn thing we can do about it. This is Malaysia, the land of the boleh! I think no point keep analysing all the inconceivable lies and baloney that keep churning out from their soulless mouths.
“…//….This is a good strategy but there is a big snag – Haidar.
He might get impatient and probably say,†The witness has already given you an answer that he cannot remember. Can’t you move on to your next questions? – Libra2 said.
I would tell him “No†I can’t move on because there are 14 or 18 “I can’t remember†to my questions from the witness which implies that I have a public duty to redirect more questions to this witness from different angles to help refresh his memory …….And if he said, “No, I make the ruling that you should stop this line of questioning, then I’ll say “OK let me try another line of questioning†and go on and on for next 2 hours until the witness relents or has his memory refreshed, whichever the earlier, and if the Commissioner orders me to stop then I’d say I cannot because my line of questioning is still “relevant†and should be given the scope and latitude to continue for public interest; and if he threatens me with contempt of court I would retort that he is not the Court!
Actually Libra2, you have raised a very interesting issue.
I believe that lawyers/counsels like those representing independent witnesses like Anwar, Dzaiddin and the Bar Council have much latitude and scope to take evasive witnesses to task by relentless cross- examination.
They should do their duty as counsels fearlessly in the finest tradition of the Bar to ferret out the truth. Their client in this enquiry is the Malaysian public; the stake is the independence of judiciary!
If I were the lawyer, I wouldn’t be too concerned about doing my duty of questioning in more aggressive a manner.
I would argue with the Commissioners on why my questioning is relevant or ought to be allowed or continued.
If I were lawyer in continuous legal practice (as counsels for Anwar, Dzaiddin and the Bar Council invariably are) I have the advantage of being more in touch with the law on evidence and relevancy and the way of cross examination and therefore ought to have an edge in taking the Commissioners on and engaging them on these issues.
How far can the Commissioners take me on?
Besides Former Chief Judge of Malaya Tan Sri Haidar Mohamed Noor has been appointed chairman of the Royal Commission of Inquiry (“RCâ€) there are 5 other members : former Chief Judge of Sabah and Sarawak Tan Sri Amar Steve Shim Lip Kiong, former Court of Appeal Judge Datuk Mahadev Shankar, former Solicitor-General Puan Sri Zaitun Zawiyah Puteh, Academician-Historian Prof Emeritus Datuk Dr Khoo Kay Kim and Datuk Abdullah Sani Ab Hamid (director-general of the Legal Affairs Division in the Prime Minister’s Department) (as commission secretary).
One notes Khoo Kay Kim has no legal training.
Whilst the rest had, they are “out of practice†and in any case except for Haidar and Mahadev Shanker, the rest have not been active in the deliberations so far….(Aiyah can argue with and take Haidar on when it comes to law but one has to be more careful with Mahadev Shanker who is still very much in touch and pretty sharp judging from the way he questioned former chief secretary Samsudin). The saving grace is that Shanker is quite open and knows the game. From transcripts he appears to know clearer the difference between what is right or wrong, relevant or not relevant , and tends to give the cross examiners more latitude. My sense is that so far the other commissioners tend to take his lead as he seems the more capable in this field.
It is true that (under Commission of Enquiries Act), the commissioners can punish any one in “contempt†by a fine not exceeding RM100 (this is chicken feed!) or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding three months. (This is nothing lah, doesn’t mean they dare to sentence you to max 3 months! )
Section 14 of Commission of Enquiries Act defines an act of contempt as any act of disrespect or any insult or threat offered to the Commissioners or any of them while sitting in Commission or at any other time and place on account of his proceedings in his capacity as a Commissioner.
However, arguing (even vehemently) with the Commissioners on the relevancy of or more latitude for questioning is one’s duty as counsel and by no means constitute “insult or threat†offered to the Commissioners constituting contempt!
At the end of the day we cannot control what the Haidar led RC would recommend to govt based on RC’s findings; we also cannot control how the govt would act on RC’s recommendations.
No that is not our focus – what the RC or Govt decides because we cannot control their decision.
The main value of the highly publicised RC Hearing then is what skeletons the hearing could ferret out and expose to light of day from the closets of power for public knowledge, here and now!
I therefore call on all counsels to do their duty fearlessly. Don’t let the witnesses to be evasive and get away by “I can’t remember”. It makes a mockery of the RC : no point of having it when all crucial witness for 90% of their testimonies say “I can’t remember”!
No skeletons will come out and the closet remains close, so what’s the point of the RC at great public expense?
“I therefore call on all counsels to do their duty fearlessly. Don’t let the witnesses to be evasive and get away by “I can’t rememberâ€.Jeffrey
It is not a trial.
Lingam earlier had phoned TDM and TEC, told them to says “I do know, I leave it to GOD”…
but they forget the last words… and shorten up to “I dont know” and I forgot”…
how can a PM and CJ can forgot his words and activities… even blur-blur CSL can recognize his act on CCTV not even on HD video-cam pic… just admit it, you’ve appointed a senile CJ from your own camp on VKL advise with TVT endorsement… :-)
“When asked if he had a close relationship with a senior lawyer called VK Lingam who’s implicated in a controversial 14-minute video clip allegedly showing him brokering the appointment of judges, Mr Eusoff said it was none other than a normal judge-lawyer relationship.”
Who does he take us for?? Fools?
A normal judge-lawyer relationship? Gimme a break!
A normal judge-lawyer relationship takes a judge on an overseas trip to exotic places with family members? A judge is not supposed to be seen playing golf. Let alone spend time together in Pattaya playing golf or in Harrods or Champ Elysees shopping.
International Commercial Litigation Magazine (ICL), a London-based magazine did not defame lawyer Datuk V.K. Lingam in a 1995 article, about him having corrupted or attempting to corrupt the Malaysian judiciary, as the write-up was based on a Court of Appeal judgment.
High Court judge Justice Hishamudin Yunus’ main grounds for dismissing a RM100mil defamation suit Lingam filed against ICL staff writer David Samuels, editor Joff Wild, editorial publisher Robert Menzies Walker and owner Euromoney Publications PLC.
Hishamuddin said it was Lingam’s own wrongful conduct in the Ayer Molek case that had led to the publication of the article entitled “Malaysian Justice On Trial†in ICL’s November 1995 issue.
“There is the common law principle that a person cannot bring an action based on his own wrong,†he said in his written judgment.
“That the plaintiff (Lingam) is guilty of wrongdoings, namely, abusing and manipulating the process of court so as to cause injustice to the defendants before the High Court in the Ayer Molek Rubber Company Bhd case, is clear from the judgment of the Court of Appeal in the case, which is the main subject of the article.â€
http://maverickysm.blogspot.com/2006/09/federal-court-was-unconstitutional-in.html
“Mr Mahathir said he had consulted several people before deciding on an appointment, including civil servants, police and the Anti-Corruption Agency.
He also took into account views aired during other conversations, such as those during social events.
‘I have to make sure that I choose the right candidate in my opinion,’ Mr Mahathir said.
He also said he might even have consulted a business tycoon friend, Vincent Tan. Asked if Tan had been one of those from whom he sought advice on appointments, Mahathir replied: ‘Could be.’
A former Prime Minister of a country telling the world how he chooses judges and the top judge! He vetoes the recommendation of the top judge but considers the opinion of a businessman, and he reiterates that it his call to make and his alone?
The mark of a tin-pot dictator as the U.S. Department of State so rightly labeled him.
2nd Complaint:
4. In an article published by the Star newspaper dated 31.8.99, it was reported that Asian Wall Street Journal correspondent, Mr. Raphael Pura had alleged in his amended statement of defence that judgment by High Court Justice Mokhtar Sidin (as he then was) in the case of Tan Sri Vincent vs MGG Pillai and others was “written in part by the plaintiffs counsel Datuk V.K. Lingam” and initially typed by “Lingam’s secretaries one Jayanthi and Sumanthi.” It was further reported that Pura claimed that the final draft was “despatched to the said learned judge on floppy disk”. A copy of the said article is annexed hereto and marked “BC-5”.
The Bar Council is of the view that the Respondent has breached Rule 31 of the Legal Profession (Practice and Etiquette) Rules 1978 and that the Respondent’s actions amount to misconduct under Sections 94(3) (d), 94(3)(k) and 94(3)(o) of the said Act.
http://www.ipsofactoj.com/highcourt/2004/Part2/hct2004(2)-004.htm
So when is DAP/PKR/PAS going to petition the Agung to stop this circus? The ‘show’ is an insult to Agung and the members should be charged with contempt.
Those who know Lingam do not need convincing.
“It is not a trial” – Colonel.
Yes it is not an ordinary trial. It is the institution of Judiciary on trial.
“Those who know Lingam do not need convincing” -undergrad2 .
On the flip side of the coin, the other moral to be drawn by those who serve and benefit from Power, discretion is imperative esp in todays word of camera phone/recording, CCTV, Internet. It does not pay to be boastful even in the guise of marketing one self for being “well connected”. You’d notice 2 top Judicial men & even the PM were dragged into the enquiry because of one man.
“in todays WORLD…”
““I therefore call on all counsels to do their duty fearlessly. Don’t let the witnesses to be evasive and get away by “I can’t rememberâ€.Jeffrey
The Colonel and the others are right to point out that the hearing is to ascertain if there is a criminal wrong doing by certain individuals enough for it to go forward to trial. It is not a trial and no one has been charged. The Commission decides what is relevant. Strict rules of evidence and procedure do not apply.
If a witness says he does not recall, then he does not recall. If the matter goes to trial he cannot then plead he could recall.
I am aware RC is not a trial and their differences. In fact in a trial, where strict rules of evidence and procedure do apply, witnesses also try to be evasive by “I can’t remember” response and to keep on grilling him will expose thecs examiner to the charge of badgering witness. But thats precisely the point regarding the RC. Where strict rules of evidence and procedure do not apply in the RC unlike a trial, I take it that the cross-examiners have more latitude and scope to grill and question evasive witnesess for the sake of ferreting out the skeletons in the closet. When I ask counsels to do their duty fearlessly (I am not looking at the strict technical sense that their immediate duty is only to their respective clients eg Anwar, Dzaiddin etc and that RC is not a court room trial) but in the larger sense of doing it for the cause of restoring credibility/independence of judiuciary (which is itself “on trial” in this lose sense). This is specially directed the lawyers representing the Bar Council, a public watchdog and interest group for Rule of Law!
As I said earlier the RC, for whatever it is worth, hinges on what is exposed to the public in its proceedings. We can’t bank on what the RC eventually recommends; neither can we bank on what the govt would do on its receipt of RC’s recommendations. (Status of 125 recommendations by royal commission on police is an example of our problem). So whatever good or bad from the RC instituting such a public hearing is here and now. The time of accountability for these guys, albeit limited, of their past actions should begin now. Grill them properly.
The various counsel should not be in fear of Haidar. Any confrontation al stance by Haidar will only go to `expose` him and add to the discomfort of the other commissioners. Maybe he`ll learn something.
Changi Airport some years ago:
Lingam: Helllooo Usof, fancy meeting you here, I am on my way to India for a holiday, where are you going?
Usof: Aukland. Fancy meeting you here.
Lingam: New Zealand? wow that is a nice holiday destination much better than India, maybe I will tag along with you, is that OK?
Usof: Huh. How can you change at such short notice, How about tickets? Flight is rather full you know.
Lingam: No problem, I can easily fix that..Tam Tam Tam just like that.
TDM said he might have consulted a Chinese business man on CJ selection.
This businessman is one of the biggest crooked businessmen in Malaysia. One can find out more about his scams from any businessmen in Malaysia.
You go ask him how many bodyguards he needs always when he moves around in KL.
He is a big running dog for UMO.
Chonjeming-Yes, I took a van. One New Zealander drove the van. Datuk V.K. lingam and his family went along. He wanted to pay half of the cost answered Eusoff Chin.
Why should Eusoff Chin rent a van when he is travelling with his two children. A can is cheaper and economical. More over it is suficeint to accomodate the four if them with the New Zealander as driver.
Betlu-betul pandai jawab!!!
Anyway I do hope thopse lawyers questioning him again tak usah kasi chance. The same goes to the rest
Has anyone ever considered engaging Polygraph Examiners for the purpose of seeking the truths and speeding up RCI and Court cases in Malaysia?
One of the favorite statements of our Malaysian lawyers is “Your allegations are baseless†even though the allegations are honest-to-goodness, and supported by solid documentary evidence. A corrupted and biased judge is inclined to take that statement as gospel truth.
Under cross examinations, witnesses invariably sacrifice their honesty on the altar of self-preservation.
And now, VK Lingam scandal RCI commissioners expressed their frustrations at Lingam for “making their lives difficult†in refusing to incriminate himself by making non-committal statements like “look like me, sound like meâ€, when the simple answer is either a “Yes†or a “Noâ€.
When come Lingam’s turn to testify before the RCI, it will be totally unexpected if he were to emulate CSL and say “I am the person in the tape”.
In China, culprits found guilty in a brutal murder case involving the use of explosive, which was reported after the Malaysian Altantuya case, were already executed, while the Malaysian case is trudging along at snail pace.
Is there a case for engaging polygraph examiners for the purpose of seeking the truths and speeding up RCI and court cases in Malaysia?
We have never heard of any polygraph examiners in Malaysia, whereas there are approximately 3,500 polygraph examiners in the United States.
The following article is extracted from the Internet for those who would like to know a bit more about polygraph examinations.
In a US case, for more than 15 years, Robert Hanssen led a double life. In one life he was a 25-year veteran with the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) who had access to some of the nation’s most-classified information. In his other life, he allegedly was spying for the Russian government. Hanssen’s deception was finally discovered, and in February 2001 he was arrested and later pled guilty to 15 espionage-related charges. Spies are probably the world’s best liars, because they have to be, but most of us practice deception on some level in our daily lives, even if it’s just telling a friend that his horrible haircut “doesn’t look that bad.”
People tell lies and deceive others for many reasons. Most often, lying is a defense mechanism used to avoid trouble with the law, bosses or authority figures. Sometimes, you can tell when someone’s lying, but other times it may not be so easy. Polygraphs, commonly called “lie detectors,” are instruments that monitor a person’s physiological reactions. These instruments do not, as their nickname suggests, detect lies. They can only detect whether deceptive behavior is being displayed.
A polygraph instrument is basically a combination of medical devices that are used to monitor changes occurring in the body. As a person is questioned about a certain event or incident, the examiner looks to see how the person’s heart rate, blood pressure, respiratory rate and electro-dermal activity (sweatiness, in this case of the fingers) change in comparison to normal levels. Fluctuations may indicate that person is being deceptive, but exam results are open to interpretation by the examiner.
How polygraph examinations are done
Lee, who has been performing polygraph exams for 18 years, agrees that polygraphs do not detect lies. “What has happened over the years is that the media has dubbed this lie detection, and that’s what’s clicked, but from a scientific perspective, absolutely not. There’s no such thing as lie detection. I couldn’t tell you what a lie looks like.”
He does assert that polygraphs can detect deceptive behavior even through the stress brought on by the exam itself. “If the (forensic psychophysiologist) is properly trained and has the experience, he can penetrate that. Through the specific procedure that the FP will employ, anxiety will not penetrate into it.”
There are only two people in the room during a polygraph exam — the person conducting the exam and the subject being tested.
Today, some polygraph examiners prefer to be called forensic psychophysiologists (FPs). Because polygraph examiners are alone in the room with a test subject, his or her behavior greatly influences the results of the exam.
“It’s a very serious factor when someone is being accused of a crime,” Lee said. “See, I don’t care about the deceptive person. I’m looking for the innocent person. I’m their advocate. I’m totally unbiased and neutral when that person comes walking in. But as soon as I make that assessment that there’s no deception indicated, I immediately become their advocate.”
The forensic psychophysiologist has several tasks in performing a polygraph exam:
• Setting up the polygraph and preparing the subject being tested
• Asking questions
• Profiling the test subject
• Analyzing and evaluating test data
How the question is presented can greatly affect the results of a polygraph exam. There are several variables that an FP has to take into consideration, such as cultural and religious beliefs. Some topics may, by their mere mention, cause a specific reaction in the test subject that could be misconstrued as deceptive behavior. The design of the question affects the way the person processes the information and how he or she responds.
There are still many questions that must be answered before polygraphs are accepted by the courts and the public at large. Of course, we may never see this broad acceptance. No matter if you agree or disagree with the use of polygraphs, thousands of people undergo these tests every year, and many people’s lives are changed forever by their results.
Admittedly, innocent people may look forward to such polygraph examinations to absolve themselves of wrongful charges, whereas those who have something to hide would not volunteer to subject themselves to such examinations, and would fight tooth and nail over any attempt to impose such examination on them.
Polygraph tests are not reliable as there are ways to get around it
http://www.instructables.com/id/How-to-Cheat-a-Polygraph-Test/
The public hearings of the Royal Commission of Inquiry into the Lingam Videotape just confirmed to all of us that Malaysia is a nation governed and ruled by a band of shameless cheats and people with no principle.
Our ex-PM, ex-CJ, and current minister are all liars and crooks, though they are supposed to be religious people and they pray multiple times a day.
They treat other people as fools who cannot see through their lies.
The evidence so far so clearly showed that EC, our ex-CJ, was having a special relationship with VKL and VT. He did not even know how to behave as a judge, let alone a CJ. Protocol between a lawyer and a judge – what protocol?
Very conveniently, EC and VKL (not only them but also members of the two families) shared many things – same flight, same business class, same holiday, same van, and whatever same same or sama sama. First we see VKL’s arm and hand on EC’s shoulder (as EC said: ‘When the man puts his hand on your shoulder, you can’t simply shove it aside.’ meaning What can I do if people want to do this or that?), and next we see EC’s hand and arm tenderly on VKL’s broad and strong shoulder. How charming and cosy!
OMG, how could EC have a clear conscience being our CJ?
I visualise EC being a water buffalo with a ring through its nose. The ring has a rope at one end and VKL is pulling the rope, leading the water buffalo. Sitting on top of the water buffalo is VT, VKL’s boss. What a pitiful and pathetic water buffalo! I suppose we can also visualise a dog (a running dog) in place of the water buffalo.
Our justice system was truly [deleted]by the very person who was supposed to protect it and to dispense justice to all, without fear and favour. We should reexamine all EC’s cases.
I hope EC’s children believe in what he told the entire world – that he did the right thing and he had nothing to hide.
To lie to the world and to lie to one’s own children – that’s not what we expect from a judge or minister, ex or current!
As if he has not [deleted] the country enough, on the eve of his retirement, he left us his most reprehensible and shallow decision in Bonsem Boonyamit’s case which greatly upset our land law and legal understanding relating to indefeasibility of land title and set in motion a large number of land frauds since then. This one man has done a lot of damage to the country. Truly reprehensible.
The IPCMC was the first instrument that the PM could have used to stamp his legacy as the leader that rescued Malaysia but he made poor use of it and instead offers us the insipid SCC.
This RCI is the second instrument that can be used but alas this time the tool seems to have little cutting edge with key witnesses all suffering convenient amnesia.
As concerned Malaysians when we cast our votes in the coming elections, we need to send a powerful reminder to the leaders that they are put there in trust and not for their own petty agendas.
http://malaysiawatch3.blogspot.com/2008/01/royal-commission-and-general-elections.html
EARNEST, apart from other considerations there is still the issue of errors.
Two types of errors:-
a) subject tells truth but LD says FAIL
b) subject tells lies but LD says PASS
Seasoned LIARS like some in the inquiry might just blitz through and pass i.e Error type (b).
So no guarantee….correct, correct, correct…ya..correct, correct!!
Polygraph test is an investigative tool and the results are not evidence. I’m not sure if even the refusal to take the test is admissible to prove an issue. Because it is more prejudicial than probative.
“Where strict rules of evidence and procedure do not apply in the RC unlike a trial, I take it that the cross-examiners have more latitude and scope to grill and question evasive witnesess for the sake of ferreting out the skeletons in the closet.” Jeffrey
Commission can stop the line of questioning saying that this is not a trial but just an inquiry without giving reasons.
In a trial, counsel would request permission to approach the bench to convince the judge why he needs to pursue his line of questioning and the judge will rule accordingly in compliance with the rules of evidence and procedure.
“but in the larger sense of doing it for the cause of restoring credibility/independence of judiuciary (which is itself “on trial†in this lose sense). This is specially directed the lawyers representing the Bar Council, a public watchdog and interest group for Rule of Law!” Jeffrey
This certainly is not within their terms of reference!
“Unless we are caught in tape like the former health minister, no one is going to admit anything.” limkamput
Try doing that in a court of law, under oath and find out for yourself if a tape is needed to prove that you lied! You don’t expect liars to admit they’re lying!
This is the grand scam to whack so many birds with one stone. There were so many heads on this silver platter from Anwar to Bodohlah. Hope the real plot would be out in the open before the final curtain fall. Dr.M has been silenced. Tengku Adnan paving way to others. Maybe KJ for Putrajaya, a surer win than Rembau. CJ have been kicked out. V Tan out of favour to let some crony slit in. Anwar is a judicidial hero but yet could not stand in the election. How is Pak Lah rewarding him??? Maybe a royal pardon later on?? See the plot?? It was just a grand wayang kulit by Lingam and Loh to silenced the old man. Has the tape been just manufactured recently, long after all the events have happened to make it looked real and Dr M to look bad??? Lingam’s brother going against him is real??? Why Anwar and not Kit Siang, to expose the tape??? Anwar’s relationship with V Tan is not good????It was not as simple as that. Guess how they would be rewarded.
EARNEST Says:
Yesterday at 15: 15.25
“In China, culprits found guilty in a brutal murder case involving the use of explosive, which was reported after the Malaysian Altantuya case, were already executed, while the Malaysian case is trudging along at snail pace”.
Friend,
I really share your profound knowledge in “lie-detector-test” and other matters you elucidated, however not with the extract above.
It is true that China has the fastest velocity in executing justice but selectively prejudicial as the country is marred with rampant corruptions and misuse of power and humanrights abuses. As of the Altantuya alleged murderers should it happended in China-
The de-facto/ tacit China’s law/judicial system, visually intangible, but will be read to a criminal by a designated government officials-“Leniency for the one who confess (whether they have committed crime(s) or not) and severity of the one who resist (whether they have committed crime(s) or not).
Only when one is really connected or protected by the powers-that-be, trust me, you really don’t want to be there.
————————-
The O.J. Simpson case, having even all evidence tendered was nailing him to the murderer of his wife and her lover, were negated
by the craftiness of the team of his defence lawyers that successfully exonerated him of the capital punishment but later in a civil “class-action-suit” brought by the families of the victims with
the same standard of evidence as of the previous murder case that failed to convict O.J., O.J. simpson was found liable for the murder
in the civil trial.
This was the instances when Rafidah Aziz made hay of counter-criticisms using the O.J. trial when former US Vice President, Al Gore, on his official visit to Malaysia, slammed the Malaysian Goverment for Anwar Ibrahim’s high profile criminal trial which is a travesty.
In every court-of-law, almost nobody is willing to tell the truth but their truth but if anyone is saying that the Malaysian government has little respect for emancipation, double standard police force marred with corruptions and abuse of power, the blatant NEP system, one party press in a multiparty country, lowest level of public confidence of the judical systems, etc then YEAH, I would agree with you.
“Has anyone ever considered engaging Polygraph Examiners for the purpose of seeking the truths and speeding up RCI and Court cases in Malaysia?” Earnest
The lie detector test as it is commonly referred is an investigative tool used by law enforcement agents. The results are not admissible evidence in a court of law. No reference could be made in court as to the offer or refusal to take one.
If it is admissible don’t you think it would be widely in use and the results would be admitted into evidence? We’re not talking Malaysia here. The same applies to all other countries.
Your admiration for the judicial system in China is misplaced. You don’t want to be in China if you’re facing a charge for murder.
“And now, VK Lingam scandal RCI commissioners expressed their frustrations at Lingam for “making their lives difficult†in refusing to incriminate himself by making non-committal statements like “look like me, sound like meâ€, when the simple answer is either a “Yes†or a “Noâ€.” EARNEST
So if you were on the stand charged for rape, and when asked if you had stalked the victim at any time in the past, you’d say “yes”? If so then you should have your head examined.
Hello Earnie aka Daftnee,
What is your point? Are you suggesting we strap Mahathir, Eusoff Chin and Lingam to a chair and have them undergo a lie detector test, and then show that they lied under oath? Better still, have a truth serum injected into their veins. A hypnosis maybe?
In China, defrauding the people is also a capital offence. Stealing public money is also a capital offence. Abuse of power could also be made a capital offence. In Bolehland, the prosecutors can’t prosecute even if their lives depend on it.
Was our ex-CJ so poorly paid that he had to share his and his family’s holiday expenses with a lawyer? He so readily accepted financial offers from a generous benefactor or angel.
After having bumped into VKL and his family several times in all directions (N, S, E and W) and shared great times together, EC now has amnesia (or selective amnesia) – ‘I cannot remember’.
EC only remembered that VKL placed his arm over his shoulder. As EC said: If he insists, I shall not resist. EC did not remember that he himself placed his arm over VKL’s shoulder. Or, did his arm involuntarily land there without him knowing it? What else did he not remember? Did VKL place his hand in EC’s pant pocket or vice versa?
[deleted]
Our nations’ hope is with Tan Sri Haidar. If he leads this RCI in such a way as to expose all the filth in our judiciary, then public opinion will require the PM to put them (EC,DM,VKL,TA,VT, etc) on trial, also to allow Anwar Ibrahim’s defamation case against Dr M to be retried and any other case that is relevant … Maybe in the UK by their judicial system or something…
Or it could be that Haidar, through no fault of his own, is going to be made the UMNO scapegoat??
Also…
Why couldn’t the RCI be conducted in the national stadium or on camera so that the public can see and hear for themselves…??? Don’t we, the public have a right to know? Where is the transparency??
Calling all politician and lawyer who still have pride and integrity or not to be sinful.
If Malaysia lawyer do not want to be termed as HP6 or stupid, please bring these obvious hyprocrites to justice with trial between a trial.
Anyone sober can send see these hyprocrites are lying.
This TM, Tengku Adnan, CJ are just insult people’s intelligence.
What a lawmen of the 5 RCI’s panel if they accept ” I don’t remember” in a trial ?
The Malaysian context:
“The court should be impartial, says who!!”
When asked whether he was the man in the video, Malaysiakini reported VK Lingam said: “It looks like me, it sounds like me.” He said he would not go beyond this until the original video clip was produced. Why is he pussyfooting around like this? He could not even say “yes” or “no” looking at the video. Reminds me of Clinton saying that fellatio was not sex!
How is this reconcilable with what is next reported of what he said : “Lingam also denied that it was Ahmad Fairuz – who later became chief justice and retired two months ago – was the person on the other end of the telephone line. “I don’t know WHO I WAS SPEAKING TO but certainly I WASN’T speaking to Ahmad Fairuz because I never had his mobile number and he didn’t have mine either.†Isn’t this an admission that he was the one in video clip?
Real loyar buruk’s talk! Think everyone is an idiot or what!
So Chua Soi Lek (bless him for his forthrightness and courageous accountability in the face of public shame) should have appointed V K Lingam to be his lawyer for advice. CSL could also say that “well the man having sex in the DVD Clip looked like me, sounded like me, made the sex moves just like me but I could would not go beyond this to confirm anything until the original CCTV was produced and its original maker/installer brought in to confirm that he planted the CCTV, otherwise its all hearsay!” :)
Great & plausible Defence!
This reported VK Lingam’s claim of “… looks like me, sounds like me….I would not go beyond this until the original video clip was produced..” can only be described as an intellectual [deleted] more pathetic than that of a limp [deleted]
Jeffrey QC,
I understand why you, like most of us, are incensed by the response given by Lingam. But you gotta understand what other defense is left to him except to deny it was him. He is not pussyfooting round anything. By denying that it was him on that video, he is preventing the Commission from getting to the transcript of his conversation. The incriminating nature of the contents of his conversation is so serious that he may not be able to provide an explanation without incriminating others and as to the existence of a conspiracy.
You are only as guilty as the evidence shows that you are. We know it is him but that is not good enough.
Would it be fair (realistic) to assume (hope) that RCI would have to weigh the aggregate of testimonies from, ACA’s conclusion that it was indeed VKL’s house and perhaps from future witnesses say Loh’s testimony against such denials?
The purpose in having this Royal Commission hearings is to find if there is enough evidence for a charge or charges to be framed and filed against an individual or group of individuals. The Commission in doing so of course will have to consider the totality of the evidence and not just a single shred of evidence. Otherwise allegations will just remain allegations. There must be something more than just allegations for the matter to go to trial.
The issue is that of identity. The authenticity of the video is central to the issue of identity.
harrisonbinhansome, Undegrad2, and others
Actually, I was trying to point out the great contrast in the pace of court proceedings of a very specific trial of a criminal case, involving probably the cruellest mode of murder during peaceful times in Malaysian history vis-a vis a very similar trial in China, and nothing more than that.
Contrary to what you inferred, I do not admire the overall judiciary and legal system in China. In fact I am worried about their human rights records and I guess there may be some truth in “RED CORNER” starring Richard Gere, which portrayed the judiciary and the legal system in China in a negative light. That movie has been banned in China.
*****
On another matter…
If Lingam and cohort could get away lightly, a very dangerous precedence may be set. Rapists and murderers may thenceforth have no qualms about committing perjuries and may be encouraged to do so to get away.
The full text of the article on Lingam’s denial that it was not the ex-CJ on the other end of the line may be found here and reproduced below:
http://news.my.msn.com/regional/article.aspx?cp-documentid=1199840
Malaysian lawyer denies chat in sensational video
The lawyer at the centre of a Malaysian inquiry into judicial corruption on Monday denied having a conversation with a former chief justice purportedly captured on video.
The taped conversation of judicial appointments apparently being brokered over the telephone, released by dissident former premier Anwar Ibrahim last year, triggered a furore in Malaysia.
But lawyer V.K. Lingam, who has been identified as the man in the video, said he had never spoken on the phone to Ahmad Fairuz Sheikh Abdul Halim, who then held the nation’s number-three legal post.
In the video, Lingam is allegedly heard assuring Ahmad Fairuz that he would push him forward for the number-two legal position, with the help of a prominent businessman and a politician.
“I do not know who I was talking to. But certainly I was not talking to Ahmad Fairuz,” Lingam told the inquiry.
“Until today I have not spoken to Ahmad Fairuz over the telephone.
“I can’t recollect when this conversation took place,” he said.
Lingam refused to directly confirm that he was the man in the video, said to be made in December 2001, admitting only that “it looks like me, the voice sounds like me”.
Ahmad Fairuz went on to be appointed to the number-two post and was then quickly elevated to the top position of chief justice. He completed his term and stood down last year.
The maker of the video clip, 34-year-old businessman Loh Gwo Burne, also appeared before the inquiry and said it was recorded when he went to Lingam’s house to discuss a legal matter.
“Yes, I recorded V.K. Lingam speaking on the telephone,” he said, dismissing suggestions that the lawyer was drunk at the time or that he could have been play-acting.
“And now, VK Lingam scandal RCI commissioners expressed their frustrations at Lingam for “making their lives difficult†in refusing to incriminate himself by making non-committal statements like “look like me, sound like meâ€, when the simple answer is either a “Yes†or a “Noâ€.” EARNEST
You do understand now that a witness cannot be forced to incriminate himself or herself. Since you seem to be a movie buff, I’m sure you are familiar with this statement: “I’m taking the Fifth” referring to the U.S. Fifth Amendment in the U.S. Constitution “No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime…”
If as a witness in court you’re asked a question you’ll have to answer. If by answering you incriminate yourself, then you may refuse to do so. If you lie and since you’re under oath, you’re committing perjury which is a crime.
When Lingam is shown the video, what do you expect him to say? That it is him in the video?! Between the image and the conversation is the issue of authenticity of the tape. By denying it is him, Lingam raises the issue of authenticity of the video and the objective of the RCI is to determine its authenticity or lack thereof.
If it is shown to be authentic and not doctored, then Lingam will need to disclose when asked, the identity of the person he was seen and heard talking to. That person will then be called to testify.
Get the picture?
“Rapists and murderers may thenceforth have no qualms about committing perjuries and may be encouraged to do so to get away.” EARNEST
You’re shockingly naive to say that!
You mean to say if you’re charged with rape and assuming you did it, you’re worried about perjuring yourself?? If you didn’t do it then you should be careful to avoid perjuring yourself.
“The lawyer at the centre of the Lingam tape scandal said he was too drunk to remember the conversation captured on video where he appears to broker judicial appointments.” MALAYSIAKINI
In the years that I know Lingam, he has never been drunk even once. He doesn’t drink that much. This is an outright lie.
He definitely does not appear drunk in the video. He’s very coherent. It does not need an expert witness to testify to that.
//But you gotta understand what other defense is left to him except to deny it was him…. The incriminating nature of the contents of his conversation is so serious that he may not be able to provide an explanation without incriminating others and as to the existence of a conspiracy// – Undergrad2. //The issue is that of identity. The authenticity of the video is central to the issue of identity// – BlackEye.
I agree that that he has no other defense except to question the authenticity of the video, central to the issue of identity – and the case against him.
Many within the profession already knew the close relationship he had with judicial top guns.
Though that may be irrelevant and unproven, even commissioners appear skeptical at the bare faced denial of the undeniable. Based on transcripts Mahadev Shankar already gave cue that the commission would save a lot of time if Lingam could provide direct answers.
Shankar said he “was perplexed†because Thayalan had suggested on Monday that the clip and transcript could have been doctored.
On issue of authenticity, Mohd Zabri Adil Talib, a senior digital computer forensic analyst with Cybersecurity Malaysia, charged by ACA to analyse the video frames as to whether there were tampering or editing, already gave scientific evidence that the clip contained no sign of editing. Voice identification conducted in Madrid, Spain last week also confirmed that it matched his voice.
Businessman Loh Mui Fah gave direct evidence that he was the one talking on the mobile phone. Loh’s son Loh Gwo Burne gave evidence that he too was present and was the person who videotaped a telephone conversation by Lingam. It is not hearsay. Their testimonies were not shaken at all when cross examined by Thayalan, Ligam’s lawyer.
Against all this, even he admitted that the person in the clip looked like him and sounded like him. Lingam himself testified that “I don’t know WHO I WAS SPEAKING TO but certainly I WASN’T speaking to Ahmad Fairuz because I never had his mobile number and he didn’t have mine either.†This is an indirect admission that he was the one on the phone in the clip.
Politician and lawyer Wee Choo Keong has already applied for Lingam’s brother, V. Thirunama Karasu, to appear as a witness. Wee told Royal Commission that “Karasu’s testimony is relevant to show the close relationship between V.K. Lingam and (former chief justice) Tun Eusoff Chin.” Probability is that RC would not deny Karasu his day in the hearing to implicate his brother.
There are many other lawyers representing parties independent of govt waiting in the wings to grill him. For examples Parti Keadilan Rakyat and Anwars Lawyers (M. Puravalen, Oh Choong Ghee, Ravindra Nekoo and Yusmadi Yusoff}, former chief justice Tun Mohamed Dzaiddin Abdullah’s lawyers Wong Chong Wah and Khoo Guan Huat, Loh’s lawyer Americk Singh Sidhu, and Robert Lazar, Yeo Yang Poh, Christopher Leong, Ranjit Singh and Razlan Hadri.
representing the Malaysian Bar. Then there are lawyers Chan Weng Keng, Haris Ibrahim and Lim Fang Say appearing for three non-governmental organisations yesterday — Aliran Kesedaran Negara (Aliran), the National Human Rights Society (Hakam) and Suara Rakyat Malaysia (Suaram). Is he going to survive cross examination and appear credible in the end?
As a legally trained person, I can understand that he would use every technical rule in the book to try get off the hook.
At the same time a man like him should also know when the evidence is overwhelming, when to cut loss, and when further effort to save ones skin along the lines of challenging authenticity/identity is denying the undeniable and defending the undefensible, and its just not going to work, and that being the case he must weigh the options to evaluate whether it is worthwhile to take a different track than the course presently pursued that makes the hearing a compounded farce and invite nothing but further ridicule and public calumny unto oneself.
If you accept he’s drunk and talking to some imaginary person, you cannot then ask him for the identity of that person because his answer would be “I don’t know. I don’t remember talking to anyone”.
But how many persons in different stages of drunkenness or intoxication stayed on the phone for that long?
Of course I can’t speak for him, and he’s not me.
Speaking of what different track (mentioned in preceding posting), if I, hypothetically, were placed in similar position, evaluating the evidence arrayed against me, I would just own up, salvage whatever left of the tattered honour left in the name of Accountability along the course of Dr Chua Soi Lek.
I ask: What’s the worse that can happen? What crime have I committed?
The only thing is a severe breach of professional ethics and the worse that can happen is disbarrment and being struck off the rolls.
But by now I should be wealthy enough not to depend on law practice for a living. I would even challenge the Bar Council if I were struck off the Rolls. I would argue a suspension, fine would be proportionate punishment to such a severe breach.
Afetr all, the breach of ethics here is not one like cheating clients or absconding with their monies where the dishonesty requires that I be imediately struck off the Rolls as a lawyer.
Yes to be friendly with judges and help them get their promotions through influence, is professionally unethical by lawyers’ standards but, besides lawyers standards being often hypocritical (eg no discount rule), the act of fraternising judges is not morally reprehensible by normal human standards of people, trying to do well for themselves by ingratiating judges. The peers who judge me harshly are the very ones who may not have qualms to ingratiate themselves with judges if they had an iota of chance. Let’s not be hypocritical about that.
I would think it is normal for a practising lawyer – except for those with the highest of professional honour – not to turn down opportunities to be close to Judiciary or Powers-that-be.
It is for the Judge and the Powers-that-be to keep the distance and if that were not possible, at least not to be compromised by such closeness. The onus is more on those holding public office to maintain propriety.
Be that as it may, if the lawyer is found in breach of professional ethics (which is distinct from and not to be compared with other acts of moral turpitude and criminal nature like committing CBT of one’s clients funds), so be it, be a man to face the music especially when weighing pros and cons of evidence there is no way to wiggle out of the tight spot and the tightening nose of evidence. At least try to capitalise on Accountability, a precedent set by Dr. CSL. As often said, the offence is not in the doing but in getting caught.
My only concern is “corruption” under ACA for judicial fixing. his is serious. But is this easy to prove?
Now supposing I favour a certain a judge. If Powers-that-be canvass for my opinion who should be promoted, and I state I think so and so is capable. Is it a crime of corruption that the Powers-that-be respects my opinion and happens to decide according to my recomendation?
There is no corruption involved unless there’s evidence in another direction – that there is conspiracy to fix outcome of hearings before court. But that’s another story.
“This is serious” – 3rd para from below.
My earlier posting is awaitinmg moderation and hence has not appeared.
//In the years that I know Lingam, he has never been drunk even once. He doesn’t drink that much. This is an outright lie. He definitely does not appear drunk in the video. He’s very coherent. It does not need an expert witness to testify to that// – Undergrad2.
This is what V K Lingam tesified : “Looking at the video, there’s a bottle of wine, bottle of whisky, bottle of brandy, and a bottle of 7-Up. That was a drinking session, a celebration, a party. I must have had one too many (and) it is more than six years ago. I cannot remember.”
Equally Lingam could not testify that “I had one too many” and yet inconsistently refused to admit that he was the one in video clip with a ” he looked like me and sounded like me” spin….as if the authenticity of the video clip was really in question.
If Lingam had said this:
“Looking at the video, there’s a bottle of wine, bottle of whisky, bottle of brandy, and a bottle of 7-Up. That was a drinking session, a celebration, a party. I must have had one too many (and) it is more than six years ago. I cannot remember.â€
I cannot help but laugh as it is so out of character. Others around him may drink, but Lingam himself is never known to be a drinker. The bottle of wine is probably for him – wine drinking a habit acquired as a result of the many dinners he had when dining at the Inn of Court, London when port is served. Chinese prefer brandy, and Malays more often take to whisky.
Of course, he wasn’t drunk.
“As a legally trained person, I can understand that he would use every technical rule in the book to try get off the hook.” Jeffrey QC
My apologies for putting you in the category of persons “without formal legal training but is nevertheless able to understand law”.
Thanks, Jeffery for the update. No report anywhere that I could read apart from what is published on this blog.
goggle to NST Online, it should update every day.
“As a legally trained person, I can understand that he would use every technical rule in the book to try get off the hook†is, in the context, intended by me to mean, V K Lingam is a “legally trained person” and in that capacity, I can understand that “he would use every technical rule in the book to try get off the hook.†:)
“Speaking …. if I, hypothetically, were placed in similar position, evaluating the evidence arrayed against me, I would just own up, salvage whatever left of the tattered honour left…”
“… What’s the worse that can happen? What crime have I committed? ”
If you were to do that then you’d be making it easy for the ‘prosecution’ to do its task. If I were your attorney I would not advise you to do that. Admit nothing. Deny everything.
If Lingam is charged for a crime he committed, and if I were his attorney, I would not advise him to take the stand in his own witness.
Duly noted, Jeffery QC.
//If I were your attorney I would not advise you to do that. Admit nothing. Deny everything//.
As has been said, this not a trial yet, neither can I see what offence I can be prosecuted for in future based on RC’s findings/frame of reference, and the worst fate, as I said, that could befall is punishment for breach of professional ethics : what could it be, struck off the rolls for something like this (that involves no dishonesty like embezzlement)?
My opinion about Lingam as a drinker is confirmed when I later read what is published on this blog. The guy has not changed much. I cannot say he is a drinker. He drinks wine occasionally, yes. Among drinkers, we know it is not easy to get drunk on wine unless you consume by the bottles. The guy does not know how to drink. A few glasses would make him tipsy, yes. But then he’d stop.
http://powerpresent.blogspot.com/2008/01/more-pics-lingam-insists-on-original.html
This shows how good a judge eusoff was! Had the witnesses in the cases before him those days done the same thing, what would his response be?