The testimony by the 13th witness to the Royal Commission of Inquiry into Lingam Tape, Thirunama Karasu, the estranged brother of the “star” of the inquiry, senior lawyer V.K. Lingam, about bribery and corruption of judges including the then Chief Justice, of free gifts, handphones, cash and other goodies to judges in 1996 would have reminded political leaders, Parliamentarians, judges and lawyers of the notorious “Ides of March” speech in 1996, when the then Attorney-General Tan Sri Mohtar Abdullah shocked Malaysians with the revelation of a 33-page poison-pen letter which made 112 allegations of corruption, abuses of power and misconduct against 12 judges at the Conference of Judges in Kuching in March 1996.
Publicly issuing a directive to the police to launch investigations to “ferret out” and “bring to justice” the “conspirators” and “brutish beasts”, Mohtar Abdullah said:
“The investigation is aimed at striking at the venomous elements who are out to discredit the judiciary and subvert justice in our beloved country.
“As Attorney-General and Public Prosecutor, it is my duty and responsibility to ensure that the judiciary and the legal profession be cleansed of these treacherous elements who, by their vile, insidious, devious and scurrilous allegations in this pamphlet had sought to undermine the integrity of the judiciary and the administration of justice in this country.
“Today is the Ides of March. But unlike that fateful day in ancient Rome, when brutish beasts succeeded in killing Caesar, today we launch this pre-emptive strike at these conspirators and Insya Allah, we will ferret them out, whoever they are, and bring them to justice.”
Four months later, Mohtar Abdullah announced the close of the case when he revealed that a high court judge was the one behind the 33-page poison-pen letter against the judiciary and that the judge concerned had resigned.
The judge was then High Court Judge Datuk Syed Ahmad Idid Syed Abdullah Idid, who became a victim to a Malaysian “”system of justice which was completely divorced from the most rudimentary concept of justice.
Syed Ahmad Idid came out of the woodworks more than a decade later, to reveal in an interview last year that his allegations were never really investigated. This was confirmed by former Attorney-General Tan Sri Abu Talib who lamented that “on the other hand, the poor judge wrote it was investigated”.
I had raised Syed Ahmad Idid’s case in Parliament in 1996 and again more than a decade later in March last year calling for a re-opening of investigations into his serious allegations in view of their grave and adverse implications about judicial independence and integrity as well as to restore justice to the judge – but to no avail.
Now that the 1996 allegations of judicial bribery, corruption and abuse of power have surfaced at last week’s public hearing of the Royal Commission of Inquiry into the Lingam Tape, I call on the Royal Commission of Inquiry Chairman Tan Sri Haidar Mohd Noor and the other four Commissioners to subpoena Syed Ahmad Idid to testify on his 112 allegations against 12 judges about bribery, corruption and abuse of power in 1996.
Syed Ahmad Idid was the first judicial whistleblower who was victimized and punished instead of being rewarded for his act of supreme loyalty to his oath of office as a judge.
If Syed Ahmad Idid’s whistleblowing had been heeded, resulting in thorough investigations and root-and-branch reform of the judiciary 12 years ago, Malaysian judges, lawyers and citizens would have been able to stand tall in the world today because of a judiciary nationally and internationally respected for its independence, integrity and quality!
This has become an even greater challenge to the Royal Commission of Inquiry into Lingam Tape which, in the final analysis, must be fully conscious of its historic role and opportunity to end the rot in the judiciary.- and a subpoena of Syed Ahmad Idid is a necessary process to exorcise the rot and corruption of the judicial past for the Malaysian judiciary to turn over a new leaf.
The question is whether the Royal Commission of Inquiry into the Lingam Tape is bold, public-spirited and nationalistic enough to rise to the challenge or it will cower and back off from such a historic opportunity and challenge to right one of the fundamental wrongs of Malaysian national and institutional integrity.
VKL must be grateful to the CJ for giving him the chance to practise writing judgements on CJ’s behalf. Maybe that’s the reason he showered gifts to CJ.
Our judicial system is the same one they have back in Rwanda…..none….
Syed Ahmad might may have some evidence against the chairman of the RCI , so how will the commission call him to testify. That will be giving Syed Ahmad to noose to hang the chairman.
Mohtar has gone for good. If not he would have done more damage to the judiciary.
I think we are all wasting time. We should just hire a producer to get all these “stars” to make a movie. At least we can then laugh att all the jokes and the humour that they have created over the past few weeks. Lets not waste any more tax payers money as the eventual end will be VK was drunk at that time and was bragging about the whole episode. At least we know that there will be no twist to this saga and eventually will end this way.
Aside to this our Executive is corrupted so is our Judiciary……so really, just vote wisely in this GE and dont get swayed with bags of rice and oranges! Vote with your head and not your heart!
God Bless Malaysia!
Aiyah…..!!!..They didn’t even want to see the balance of the video tape and you expect Idid to be called??! Even Anwar, who obviously recived the video from another source who could be in possession more info was not called. Not to mentioned got barred.
As a layman I want justice and the way the proceedings going on I cannot see justice being done. But then I am just a layman what I see not necessarily is the same what the learned justices see.
YB Kit,
“The testimony …..would have reminded political leaders, Parliamentarians, judges and lawyers of the notorious “Ides of March†speech in 1966…”
Is appears to be a typo error here. Should it not read ‘1996’ ?
I first met Syed Ahmad Idid when he was the Legal Manager of Public Bank in 1989.
[You are right. A typo. Thanks. Corrected. – kit]
“I call on the Royal Commission of Inquiry Chairman Tan Sri Haidar Mohd Noor and the other four Commissioners to subpoena Syed Ahmad Idid to testify…” KIT
“The question is whether the Royal Commission of Inquiry …is bold, public-spirited and nationalistic enough ….” KIT
The response is of course to be expected: The inquiry is not into the corruption of the judiciary but into the authenticity of the tape as per the terms of reference. We have heard it before. We will hear it again and again – and there’s nothing anyone can do if the Commission wants to offer itself as a tool to be made use of by the BN government to ‘cleanse’ itself of any wrongdoing.
Taxpayers’ money is better spent by putting an end to the charade, and vote for ‘change’ with our feet.
Whatever inquiry will come to nought!
They are some how connected to one another.
If Pak Lah really want to clean up the judiciary, he should appoint judges from Great Britain , Australia or NZ to investigate. They are definitlely impartial because judges there are not the half past six ones. They are firecely proud of their judgement and integrity.
Follow Musraff who asked Scotland Yard to investigate Bhutto murder. Why can’t we do the same for our inquiry?
Paragraph 6 , ” four months later Abdullah announced the case closed……”.
Is Abdullah = Abdullah Ahmad bin Badawi.
MCA claimed he (AAB)to be the ” pau Chin Tien”- Warrior of anti corruption during the last GE. Shame to BN, MCA
[Mohtar Abdullah – Kit]
The late AG had the gall to say InsyaAllah to get the whistleblower. I don’t think he was not aware of the goings-on in the judiciary during his tenure.
No doubt the RCI is only an eyewash that something is done. The RCI is no more confined to national. Besides wire services, foreign embassies are also taking note of the direction the RCI is taking cos it’s to their interest when their nationals appear in our courts.
It’s probably mean of me to say it but what went around came around as far as the late AG is concerned. This man perverted the course of justice in Malaysia which will take a long time to clean up, and this RCI, no matter how deep they dig, is only the tip of the iceberg.
Worse part is, when BN returns to rule with any kind of majority, the case will be closed for the majority of the players, except maybe Lingam and Eusoff Chin (because some heads will have to roll as show case), and the judiciary will remain corrupt, and subservient to the Executive.
Which in turn will result in non-Muslims being screwed because the civil court judges will have no courage to stop referring partial islamic cases to syariah courts.
And litigants will lose out to case fixing, and foreign investors will continue to shun this country, and our economic competitiveness will remain in the doldrums, resulting in less economic pie to share, and the people will suffer because UMNO continues to plunder taxpayers’ money for their personal Swiss accounts.
Farfetched, some of you may think? Just watch and see.
“… there’s nothing anyone can do if the Commission wants to offer itself as a tool to be made use of by the BN government to ‘cleanse’ itself of any wrongdoing.†Undergrad2
———————————————————
A tool has no life and therefore can not offer itself. The Commission is a tool invented by the BN government to cleanse itself of any wrongdoing. You can equate the Commission with a piece of soap. What is the purpose of a piece of soap?
He said “as a tool”. Purpose of a piece of soap? To wash out your mouth?
My intention is not to scoff at undergrad2. I regard him as a friendly fellow participant of this blog. I was using the word “tool’ to equate the Commission with a piece of soap. I hope you are not defending the Commission.
“….about bribery and corruption of judges including the then Chief Justice, of free gifts, handphones, cash and other goodies to judges in 1966 would have reminded political leaders….”
Dear YB Kit, please correct the above year 1966 to 1996. Thank you.
I hope you have recovered fully from your back pain. I wish you and DAP well for the coming
general elections.
[Mine, mine, three mistakes in one short piece. Effect of continuing back pain? Was rushing from Ipoh to Penang and did not have the time to have proper check. Many thanks. And do feel free to point out any mistakes or typocs. Greatly appreciated. – Kit}
It is absolutely clear now that the reason why a real full RCI could not be convened and Bar Council ignored for so long is because it goes to the heart of UMNO. It would be no different than Harun Idris investigation that took down 2 PM, Tunku and Hussein Onn.
Badawi would not survive a real full RCI on judicial inquiry. It would split the party and lead to his downfall.
This is why UMNO and Badawi plan cannot and will never work. That is why he let it slipped that his plans will take 30 years and even then, its not guaranteed.
The fact of the matter is that reforms should have happened 20 years ago and Dr. M tenure should have been cut short or we would not be in this mess.
The fact of the matter is that there is no choice but for the voters to carry all the burden of checking the government.
The sitution of this country is critical. It is not 1 judge who has been alleged to be corrupt, but almost the total judiciary is in shabbles. This is what happens if unqualified people are made to run the organization.
The situation is we have racist who use religion to mask their motives, we have pure religious fanatics, we have business cronies who use race and religion to be benefit them, we have an ethnic leader who sells his own race to safeguard him and his families from legal proceeding.
How to solve this issue? Do we need a French Revolution in Malaysia?
If top judges could be corrupted as exposed by testimonies in RCI, I dread to think of magistrates in the lower court. By simple extension, I believe there exists certain degree of corruption.
In short, we need to RCI really need to get to the core of the problem. Not only on Lingam tape.
Here we find one man could do so much damages to the judiciary. What aboutothers?
Anyway, this Mokhtar fellow had gone for holidays in Spain withLingam already as shown on a photo!
Lingam must be hell of a lucky guy. Can holiday with top guns!!!
Syed Ahmad might may have some evidence against the chairman of the RCI , so how will the commission call him to testify. That will be giving Syed Ahmad to noose to hang the chairman.
Mohtar has gone for good. If not he would have done more damage to the judiciary-Libra2
You are very correct,correct,correct!!!
I believe some of those under investigation have stranglehold on some of the commissioners and thus go slow sedikit
YB Lim,
On the 8th Feb, Prime Minister made a startling statement that he was offered bribe, but refused it on the ground that as a prime minister he is well paid.
The implications of this statement are multi-fold. First is the impression of the offer. We cannot ascertain the outcome of the offer other than believing his words: he refused it. But what is a prime minister where public perception of him is so low down to that level? Is that perception the result of past incidences? Is the perception the result of what “his†subordinates do? As an analogy, YB Lim, ‘would I make any offer to Lim Kit Siang knowing his reputation?’
The second implication is the level of corruption that reaches to the very top of the legislature cum executive. If the offer reaches the office of the Prime Minister, what about the offices below it? Does it mean corruption is so rampant that even the PM himself had been offered bribes? If you pursue this question further, there are myriad of departments in Malaysia. Are the personnel there participants?
The prime minister’s reason for rejecting the offer was that “Malaysia takes care of its prime minister well.†Of course, free mansion, servants, jets, etc, etc, but what about those that are “not well taken care of�
I began to think this bribery as not only the culture ingrained in our system, but it is culture protected. Syed Ahmad Idid’s revelation is in the judiciary, the supposedly independent arm of the government. The Prime Minister’s revelation represents what happens in the executives cum legislature. Are we sure the MPs are not acting based on incentives? Why are they prepared to spend millions of ringgit just for the pay of a member of parliament? When had UMNO asked for membership fees? (They pay you if you stay in the same hotel during the delegates meeting!!)
Failure of AAB in taking action against those making the offer now comes into serious question. AAB did not utilise this as an opportunity into a clean government. His actions would have an effect on the judiciary.
(I’ve shortened this rather lengthy comment. Maybe someone can add to it.)
Syed Ahmad Idid must be smiling away. At last the truth is out and he has been more than been vindicated. The truth will finally come out.
This is the Malaysia Boleh system that BN beats they chest and says it is great under Dr.M and Pak Lah leadership. The system where the innocent is victimised and punished while the corrupt are free to roam around as long as they kow tow to the BN leadership.
Malaysia Boleh!!!! BN Boleh!!!
Gemilang, Cemerlang dan Terbilang!!!!
Semuanya Temberang.
Where is big mouth Nazri? why is he so quiet? Seems there is problem with the judiciary Nazri…where are you? we need to hear your ‘wisdom’…come on balachi…you are a Jantan ma!!!!
“The late AG had the gall to say InsyaAllah to get the whistleblower. I don’t think he was not aware of the goings-on in the judiciary during his tenure” – humanly
How could he not know? He was holidaying with Lingam and Vincent Tan in Spain.
“If top judges could be corrupted as exposed by testimonies in RCI, I dread to think of magistrates in the lower court.”
Some years ago, a magistrate was jailed for accepting bribe from a Chinaman in a sting operation. No entrapment said the court, and he was ‘called to the bar’ and spent several years. Interestingly, this convicted felon and Lingam shared the same alma mater.
Mr Lim,
Why not conduct a no-holds-barred question and answer with Syed Ahmad Idid.
Now the rot in the judiciary is exposed, I believe he has more than meet the eyes.
To Syed Ahmad Idid, you are really an unsung hero! At least now you are vindicated.
I believe that you are one of the few judges who is fit to call the name of God with a very clear conscience. God bless you always!
If you were fortunate enough to have met Tuan Syed Ahmad Idid whilst he was the Legal Manager of Public Bank in 1988/89 you’d not fail to be struck first by his appearance (he sported a flowing white beard which gave him the appearance of a cleric from PAS) and secondly, his straight talking, his honesty and integrity. It wasn’t long before we started discussing the massive forex losses suffered by BNM.
I’m not surprised to learn years later when he became judge, he chose the way of the whistle blower. What I find difficult to understand is the way he ‘chose’ to do it. How did he come to trust the ‘Magnificent 7’ one of whom chose to blow away the whistle blower so to speak.
“The question is whether the Royal Commission of Inquiry into the Lingam Tape is bold, public-spirited and nationalistic enough to rise to the challenge or it will cower and back off from such a historic opportunity and challenge to right one of the fundamental wrongs of Malaysian national and institutional integrity.”
By voluntarily and so readily and willingly restricting themselves by a narrow interpretation of their terms of reference, it is obvious they are not going to seize the day or opportunity to right any wrongs. It is obvious that they are not going to rock the boat.
They will delay their findings until after the GE is over. They will find nothing wrong with the appointment of judges although they will agree that Eusoffe Chin had somehow misbehaved by holidaying with and probably telling Lingam matters which should have been official secrets and which Lingam had later bragged about to a third party while in a state of stupor induced by alcohol.
Nothing is going to change if the opposition is not successful in denying the BN the two-third majority. Zaki will become the Chief Justice and we will still be having half-past-six judges and the rot will continue. We will still have judges asking to be and can be gratified by just gifts of handphones or leather bags. Judges with typical and cheap government servant mentality and little if not zero ‘judiciary’ substance. Judges who make noise because of their hollowness and dispense justice like they are in a kampong.
“They will delay their findings until after the GE is over. They will find nothing wrong with the appointment of judges although they will agree that Eusoffe Chin had somehow misbehaved by holidaying with and probably telling Lingam matters which should have been official secrets and which Lingam had later bragged about to a third party while in a state of stupor induced by alcohol.”
I thought they were limited to the terms of reference which was to determine the authenticity of the tape? Admittedly the examination and cross-examination of the witnesses may reveal the tip of a large iceberg which could sink the Titanic, but this would not be anything like the focus of their deliberations.
Can this PKR chap defeat ‘Hairy the Horrible in Rembau?
http://rockybru.blogspot.com/2008/02/man-who-will-take-on-khairy.html
Honestly to determine the authenticity is just a waste of time.
Recording of video is different from a masterpiece of art like ‘Mona Lisa’.
In the case of Mona Lisa it is obvious to establish its authenticity, it must be proved that it is not a copy.
Whereas in video revording, thousands of copies could be made. But as said by the expert in RCI, its data does not change. Here in this case , all they have to do is established that ‘handsome’ guy is lingam and is his voice and there is no doctoring on the recording.
I think that there is no doubt that the IT expert had done a good job in establishing the authenticity.
Asking Lingam to identify himself on the recording is rather foolish! Will a thief identify himself on CCTV? Fools will only do that!!!
HB Lim, I share your conclusion. I am not a lawyer (didn’t complete due a series of eye operations), and I do not understand the working of the judiciary. But if the judiciary is expected to perform better with the present RCI, we would be completely disappointed. I don’t think it is capable of internal cleansing too.
Undergrad2, the manner of Syed Ahmad Idid’s revelation is consistent with the Malay’s non-confrontational culture. Unfortunately Syed’s failure is his continual belief in the operation of Malay’s justice; it had been subjugated by greed of power and position. And that is exactly where our dilemma lies. The Malays, as illustrated by Syed Ahmad, are not our adversary – it is the greed that UMNO protected. As I said above, our PM had an opportunity to set this right, in fact silly me, he had many, many opportunities to set this right and didn’t.
If you are in the legal circle long enough you see the gradual disappearance of Chinese and Indian judges, am I right HB Lim, Jeffrey? Don’t tell me there are no qualified people other than Malays? Yet among the Malays, if they don’t follow the UMNO scripts, they are removed. Didn’t Mohtar do that to Syed Ahmad? Again what protects and perpetuates this? The answer is still UMNO. Which comes back to UMNO and its President, who happens to be the PM himself.
As Bigjoe mentioned, the parameter of the RCI clearly defined investigation that will not touch on the PM and UMNO. Wasn’t the former PM said , “Saya sudah lupa†in his selective amnesia? That is/was his office. AAB is only sitting there on his turn. After AAB, another will do exactly the same thing. HB Lim is right; the ballot box could be our only way to stop this rot.
The late AG checking on corruption is like asking the fox to look after the chicken coop…he was part of the holidaying trip and now we know why he reached such a conclusion and went after the innocent guy…this is the BN/UMNO way…lead by Dr.M!!!
Dr.M did it for the love of the country?…My two left foot!!!! it was for him to control the power…..
Never before in the history has so much damage been done on the judiciary by yet only a single person!
Ha!Ha!Ha!
This guy must be inducted in the hall of fame !
“Undergrad2, the manner of Syed Ahmad Idid’s revelation is consistent with the Malay’s non-confrontational culture.” oknyua
True. About the non-confrontational nature, I mean. And that’s reflective of Asian values generally and not just Malay. Western values require a more direct approach. I believe the chosen approach to problem solving cannot be divorced completely from who you are – culturally, and your training. But why would he want to reduce such inflammatory material to writing? Unless he believed it could not be traced to him. It suggests more sinister forces at work here.
(A small correction to what I said earlier. When I met him he was heading the Legal Affairs Department of PBB. The Legal Manager was one demure Indian lass. Apologies if you’re reading this Tuan Syed!).
Undergrad2; good morning.
The crucial question, would RCI call our friend Syed? If they do, would they depart from the line of question prescribed by their term of reference?
Frankly I don’t know how my/yr comments help YB Lim KS. Some of the things we say are quite obvious. All road on corruption leads of Wisma UMNO.
“The crucial question, would RCI call our friend Syed? ” oknyua
Not a chance! Would you call him as a witness if you’re the Commission adhering the way it does to the strict terms of reference? I believe YB Kit knows that too well but this is his way of ridiculing the Commission – and the hearing which is nothing more than a charade.
To be armchair critics and nothing more is the choice of those without the power to influence events as they unfold. To be a bystander to the same and but have the power to change is a crime.
Good evening to you, Sir!
“The lawyer’s former secretary reveals that Lingam dictated to her a judgment which was later delivered by a High Court judge. GN Jayanthi also says she planned the itinerary for Lingam’s holiday with former CJ Eusoff Chin” Malaysiakini
I believe this is the end of the line for VK Lingam. The only defence Lingam’s counsel has against this damaging testimony is to destroy the credibility of this witness.
..//To be a bystander to the same and but have the power to change is a crime// – Undergrad2. There’s a word for that – I learned it from the Wesley Snipes movie “Murder at 1600†– it is ‘dereliction of duty bordering on criminality!
On what DarkHorse said, it’s all over front pages of mainstream newspapers. The Star of 13th Feb for example highlighted 4 points brought up by Lingam’s 45 year old former secretary G Jayanti:-
· “Lingam wrote judgment in Vincent Tan’s caseâ€;
· Jayanti gave statements to ACA 3 times but ACA closed case on grounds that as it involved many high ranking people in government…and ACA gave her RM3000â€â€¦
· She arranged the Lingam Eusoffe Chin’s NZ trip
· She left Lingam’s employ as she was accused of making off with RM1 million Berjaya Group Shares.
Amazingly, The Star has these bold caption : the “Amazing talesâ€!
Meanwhile Eusoff Chin’s lawyer applied to recuse RC commissioner Shanker; Lingam’s counsel, for Prof Khoo Kay Kim to b recused – aginst backdrop of Anwar’s lawyer Karpal Singh, for Haidar to go.
The RC is becoming a circus….In light of the several revelations (not just by Jayanti but the so called “mad†brother of Lingam and others lobbying to testify but not permitted), the narrow terms of reference of RC confined to authenticity of tape is a farcical joke missing the woods for the trees…. In further light of these allegations – if true – it is not just Judiciary but the ACA and the whole administration of justice and by extension the govt are inching to the spot where they will be on public trial. We do live in interesting times.
HB Lim says, “they (RC) will delay their findings until after the GE is over†– the implication being all these findings if disclosed earlier would affect elections results. The question is whether this is the case.
Many Malaysians had suspected what’s going on in corridors of power – and judiciary – way before RC had its first sitting, and the RC proceedings only confirmed everything no matter ‘the looks like sounds like me’ spin! But surprise surprise do you think many care about such things? Many would still vote the BN come what may, just have to give ang pows, school donations, federal grants to this association or that etc during campaigning and everything “kow timâ€.
That’s why they the people or at least the majority voting section thereof deserve the govt they get, and TDM said that the voters would be bribed. Well I am sure he knew what he was talking about.
Just wondering what would it take and what apocalyptic event has to happen before large swathes of Malaysian public will be galvanized to turn against the present govt in a general election.
The inquiry so far points to the fact that a former CJ is a liar and he lied under oath when he said he “bumped into Lingam” at Changi. So what action will be taken against non other than a former highest ranking arbiter of justice and truth if it is subsequently proven that he had perjured?
If this “lin gan†is caught naked with another woman in bed by his wife, he would say, “honey, this is not what you think. We are just having a conversation here. RCI would believe what “lin gan†said because we just have to destroy the “credibility” of his wife. Very simple only. All the witnesses have no credibility, only “lin gan” and former CJs got. Are we inquiring the witnesses or those being inquired?
Destroying the credibility of a witness means his or her entire testimony has to be thrown out and not just part of it. If the only incriminating evidence against an accused is based on the very damaging testimony of this witness, it would be logical to try and destroy his or her credibility.
But of course, only a fool would suggest that to want to destroy the credibility of a witness is the same as destroying it or winning the case. Win or lose it depends on the totality of the evidence.
Jeffrey,
“She left Lingam’s employ as she was accused of making off with RM1 million Berjaya Group Shares.”
This witness Jayanti apparently has a reason to lie. Her credibility is therefore an issue. Could she also have been pressured to testify against her former boss?
There is nothing new about the revelation that Lingam has written judgment for Eusoff Chin. This is common knowledge among members of the legal fraternity for some time before they were caught holidaying together! Now we have a former employee coming out in the open to provide testimony. But she has reason to lie. Would her credibility remain intact after cross-examination by Lingam’s counsel? Or would she be reduced to a witness who could not be believed?
Samy Vellu may have lost his marbles. Abdullah Badawi may have lost his credibility. But limkamput has neither to begin with. No marbles to play with and no credibility.
DarkHorse – for your reading pleasure, this link on testimony of G. Jayanti, a former secretary of Lingam, on NST today:
http://www.nst.com.my/Current_News/NST/Wednesday/Frontpage/2156344/Article/index_html
and
http://www.nst.com.my/Current_News/NST/Wednesday/Frontpage/2156346/Article/index_html
:)
Darkhorse, maybe just a small correction here. Its 1 million shares (not RM1.0 m worth of shares).
Back in 1990 I was a AGM in a broking house. It is almost impossible to run away with that quantity of shares. Every single shares had to go through the register. If you do get away, you can’t sell them, the shares particulars would have been either cancelled or marked.
This commission is a waste of everyones time. The decision has been made in favor of Lingam long before the commission was formed. BN is corrupted to the core!
“Jayanti: Yes. I used to deliver (the share certificates) to the securities company, it was two floors below in the same building. They went missing for a while.Then he called me two weeks later and said they had been recovered. He asked me if I wanted to come back. I said I wanted to leave.” – on her leaving LIngam’s employ.
Upon his return, Lingam handed her three rolls of film to be developed.
“I developed all three rolls, which were about the New Zealand holidays of the two families but Lingam collected only two rolls of negatives and photographs. One of the rolls remained with me. He also handed some of the ticket stubs of the trip.”Jayanti also testified that former Industrial Court chairman W. Satchithanandan had told her to keep the holiday itineraries, the photographs and negatives and the ticket stubs “for future use” – on the fact that Jayanti kept physical records & evidence of Lingam/Eusoff relationship.
“Jayanti, 45, testified that some time between November and early December 1994, Lingam had asked her and two other secretaries, Sumanti Jaaman and Jamilah Abdul Rahman, to do some “confidential typing” – on the fact that Jayanti has corroboration from Sumanti Jaaman and Jamilah Abdul Rahman tro cobnfirm that Lingam dictated and composed the judgment in which he was involved as lawyer for one of the parties.
Information – from NST 13th Feb
Thanks Jeffrey.
Judging from the statements made by this witness, I don’t see how Lingam could hope to wiggle himself out of this tight situation. There is the damaging testimony of a key witness. Then there is the corroboration though not by entirely independent witnesses. They are all former employees and may have some private scores of their own to settle with their former boss. Be that as it may, it does not mean they are lying.
Then there is the documentary evidence to prove what is being alleged.
This looks like the end of the road for the holidaying duo!
You are welcome. So a foreign (S’porean) investment banker was talking to me on the matter over lunch. Now maybe average voter esp in Kampungs in coming election might not be bothered but would it affect his evaluation of sovereign risks relating to Malaysia. He said might be not yet though he said that what’s disclosed in RC proceedings was real bad for image of country, and undermined confidence of foreign investors. (eg the Ayer Molek case). He said investors would be worried if opposite litigant could get to the judge. He asked what’s going to happen to the Pak Lah’s four “corridors†and how were they going to get the critical mass with help of foreign investment to make these viable.
I bantered and asked whether it would be so bad if investor could also play the same game against the opposite side. In any case, I commented that we should keep open mind about RC…. see what happens. Jayanti’s testimony was expected damaging but RC commissioners allowed her to come in as witness. They didn’t find means to exclude her based on limited scope of its terms of reference. Attempts to recuse some of RC commissioners were made even by Lingam’s & Eusoff’s lawyers, so the RC commissioners are not that bad as originally perceived to be rubber stamp by powers-that-be. And are the Powers united on this issue of RC & exposure of these things and effect? I’m not sure that they are. I think PM should just let the RC do its work to conclude and recommend based on what evidence discloses. Why bother to damage control that which is very difficult to do so in light of what has been disclosed so far to the public – and why protect the previous administration whose legacy the state of Judiciary presently is the munificent bequest? At least try to show investors that we’re having some political will to turn the corner. We’re not some real third world African or Middle East countries where people in control have not heard of a word like Royal Commission.
To cut the long story short, why don’t we just go to the travel agency to find out whether the holidays were booked jointly and tickets issued jointly. What about payment for those tickets, surely not in cash i supposed. May be cheque records, credit cards etc. More fees for lawyers i guess, the longer the story goes.