Posted on by Kit

Will RCI get infamy of being a “It looks like me, it sounds like me” royal commission?

Senior lawyer V.K. Lingam has probably coined the quote of the century with his “It looks like me and it sounds like me” statement to the Royal Commission of Inquiry hearing yesterday.

What is even more serious, the Royal Commission of Inquiry into the Lingam Tape may forever be known as a “It looks like me and its sounds like me” Royal Commission unless it can shake off the infamy of being dismissed as a “cover-up” commission.

After the scandalous competition between former Prime Minister Tun Dr. Mahathir Mohamad and former Chief Justice, Tun Eusuff Chin to out-forget each other in their testimony before the Royal Commission of Inquiry last week, it would be hard-put for anyone to out-scandalise the public – but Lingam was clearly up to the task in putting the two Tuns in the shade!

Lingam has applied to expunge all evidence tendered at the Royal Commission of Inquiry on the New Zealand holiday in 1994 taken by him and then Chief Justice Eusoff Chin at last week’s Royal Commission of Inquiry on the ground that they were irrelevant to the scope of the inquiry.

The Royal Commission of Inquiry will decide tomorrow after hearing submissions by lawyers representing various concerned parties.

Whether Lingam’s application to expunge the evidence on his holidaying with Eusoff Chin in New Zealand in 1994 from the Royal Commission of Inquiry succeeds or otherwise, nothing can expunge Eusoff’s testimony from public mind and memory, for they are most pertinent to explain why the state of the judiciary is in such a sorry state, plunging from one crisis of confidence to another about its independence, integrity and competence in the past 19 years.

Even if Eusoff’s evidence before the Royal Commission of Inquiry is expunged from the Royal Commission proceedings, they cannot be expurgated from the public mind and Eusoff owes the nation a full responsibility to come forward to fully account for his integrity as Chief Justice during the period when he held the highest judicial post in the land.

In his testimony, for instance, Eusoff gave the most ridiculous and bizarre account of the chain of coincidences which caused his family and that of Lingam to take the same flight from Singapore to Auckland, from Auckland to Christchurch, from Christchurch to Queenstown and the return trips – as well lodging in the same hotels, visiting the same tourist sites and traveling in the same van!

In his appearance last Friday, when asked whether he stayed in the same hotel as Lingam, Eusoff said: “In Auckland there is only one good hotel.”

I have been informed that even way back in 1994, there were four or five five-star hotels in Auckland.

If Lingam succeeds in expunging Eusoff’s testimony from the Royal Commission of Inquiry, the Cabinet on Wednesday must institute a full public inquiry to get to the bottom of the scandalous stewardship of the highest judicial post by Eusoff Chin when he was Chief Justice of Malaysia.

(Speech 2 at a DAP ceramah in Tawau on Monday, 21st January 2008 at 9 pm)

CategoriesUncategorized

174 Replies to “Will RCI get infamy of being a “It looks like me, it sounds like me” royal commission?”

  1. Well, Malaysian are really taken for a ride here.
    That’s a true fact about living under dictatorship of The Done Master.
    So much so that they are drafting their own set of laws to continue protecting their wrong doings at all cost.
    Malaysian … NATO people will continue to be heard through out.

  2. “Senior lawyer V.K. Lingam has probably coined the quote of the century with his “It looks like me and it sounds like me” statement to the Royal Commission of Inquiry hearing yesterday.”

    When something looks like a duck, sounds like a duck and moves like a duck, it is a duck.

  3. What the Lingam tape revealed is a how extensive the collusion between high-powered parties can be. So its likely the collusion between the different parties had been set from the start starting with Najib and PM who knew it was a can or worms and the reluctance to appoint the RCI in the first place and when they had to, ‘terms of reference’ became the new excuse and Haidar to make sure the damage was limited.

    I am just wondering what Anwar has in his sleeves to win the right-wing vote with this issue. If Anwar can turn this into an unIslamic thing, Badawi is screwed. The key is to be able to say Badawi tipu rakyat, not Islamic.

  5. the committe members are “toothless tiger”…
    they need His Majesty Sultan of Perak to tame them…
    else everything they also accept…

    TDM = Tunship
    Vincent Tan = Tan Sri-ship
    Lingam = Datukship

    questioning them means breaking rank… :-)

    Malaysia Court = “Kangaroo” Court
    Malaysia RCI = Royal “Chickened” Inquiry….! Fingers Licking Good…!

  6. Many people are wondering holders of titles like TUNs,Tan Sris,Datuks and what not really befit the titles they carry.Maybe,they use the ‘pangkat’ as a cloak for their shameless wrongdoings.

  7. The ghost of Banquo enters and sits in Macbeth’s place. He saw the ghost and pointed

    Macbeth: Which of you have done this?
    Lords: What my good lord?
    Macbeth: Thous canst not say I did it; never shake Thy gory looks at me.

    Undergrad2, what do you think? Ghost of the past, of course.

  8. Lingam cannot admit to it as it will be so high a price to pay for the government and the judiciary.

    Lingam admission will result in all the past promotion of High Court judges and all the convicted and acquitted cases by the judges to be reviewed, lawsuits, prosecution of government officials dealing with top secret letters, the sacking of Ministers and international embarassment for the country.

    For this type of scandal, it can lead to a government downfall in other country but not in Malaysia.

  9. darn, he should you chewbacca defense – that’s does not make sense !!

    lingam: i’m a lawyer and i appoint a judge? – that’s does not make sense!

    lingam: i talk secrets and let ppl video me? – that’s does not make sense!

    lingam: eusoff and fairuz are my buddy – that’s does not make sense!

    lingam: i am corrupt and still wish for sake of pm and country – that’s does not make sense!

  12. usoffhin and Lingam’s staory are like children stories.
    My grandchildof5 years old could not even buy their stories.
    As Mr Lim had pointed out very rightly it is a chance in a billion to have the same travel itinerary in a travel overseas unless it is pre-arranged by the travel agent. You are quite generous in your assessment in that probability of 1 in a billion. I would equate the probability to finding a needle on the seabed of atlantic ocean!

    Lingam said the images looked and sounded like him. But in his next breath, he claimed he was drunk. As some one had pointed in MT’s blog, this is tantamount to admitting that he was and ndeed the guy talking in the recording.

    He claimed that he would only give the definite answer if the recording is original.
    Original tape or not, the fact remained that he is the one on the tape and speaking to one by the name of Ahmad Fairuz.

    Coming to moral values and calling God bless you
    I believe those people implicated will not give any blessing to them. As I know, My GOD will not bless cheats and crooks. I think the same applies to all other people’s gods.

  13. Haidar in particular, after committing what amount to treason to the country for what he did for Dr. M, is now repeating the same thing again. Someone is going to write about key traitors but not punished in our history and this guy is in the list.

  14. It looks like me and it sounds like me. May I add “it is not me but my evil twin brother.” Sounds like a line taken from a Hollywood horror movie. Maybe we can called it Royal Commission of Inquiry Horror.

  15. I find that Mahdeev is really of the first world mentality stuff! Looks like he is serious in getting to real business.
    Can’t we get the likes of him to do the job?

    Expunging Eusoff Chin trip to NZ would not absolve the sins from both of them. You can cheat man, but GOD is waitingfor you.

  16. Hello Kit, this is my first time registering here. I have been following the news here for sometime now. Just thought that its a good time to join in the conversation now.

    For the lingam denial syndrome..it reminds me of a song by Shaggy
    “it wasnt me”. Sounds familiar?. To quote the lyrics…

    But she caught me on the counter (It wasn’t me)
    Saw me baXXin’ on the sofa (It wasn’t me)
    I even had her in the shower (It wasn’t me)
    She even caught me on camera (It wasn’t me)

    She saw the marks on my shoulder (It wasn’t me)
    Heard the words that I told her (It wasn’t me)
    Heard the scream get louder (It wasn’t me)
    She stayed until it was over

  18. Wonder how lawyers, law professors, law students etc in other countries look at this case, if they learn something or they had good entertainment on this case!
    Then how would these legal ppl advise (on Msia judiciary) potential foreign investor to Msia!

  19. YB

    If some one comes up to you and accuse you of something that you have not done, would you answer that you could not remember or that it sounds like you or looks like you?

    If someone in the post of Chief Justice, followed by a lawyer whom had vested interest in his judgements, could not shake off the lawyer from following him, does he deserve to be in the post in the 1st place?

    Do a nation that place all the power in a Prime Minister’s hand to appoint even the Chief Justice deserve better answers?

    For the people who expose them + shaming them, they deserve a better election results, this time around. We the people build this rotten systems, it is time to repair it for a better future. The Inquiry will probably find that there is no wrong doing but we the Rakyat must find them wrong this coming election. Let’s do it for Malaysia.

  20. As I had said before, Lingam should have admitted to the authenticity of the clip from day one and the say he was drunk and boasting so as to impress his client Loh. Then there would be no inquiry and no RCI. What is wrong with just boasting? No too much evidence have come out whether he and ex CJ is punished or not is not so important as their credibility, morality, sense of justice have been exposed to the public.

  21. In the purported plot, Lingam allegedly played an influential role in fixing the court case involving Murad – who was charged for failure to declare his assets – with then chief justice Mohd Eusoff Chin.

    “Murad was forced to make an admission that I have RM3 billions overseas. I have obtained information from him (Murad) that he had to do it under instruction and the negotiation began in Tengku Adnan’s house and in the presence of Vincent Tan.

    “Lingam forced him (Murad) to make the admission, otherwise he would be threatened with a jail sentence… Of course, Lingam assured Murad that he had already made the arrangement with (then chief justice) Eusoff Chin (let him off easy),” Anwar claimed.
    http://justice4allkuantan.wordpress.com/2008/01/22/malaysiakinianwar-let-me-testify-ive-new-evidence/

    That would make Adnan`s earler testimony false, one reason why the RCI cannot afford to allow it. This gives new dimension to Adnan`s previous occupation as a carpet salesman.
    Now they are all engaged in `sweeping it under the carpet`.

  22. With no desire to cross check phone records, or perhaps with the phone records all erased by now, there’s nothing to tie Lingam to Fairuz. Case closed. Zaki Tun Azmi will continue to take care of UMNO’s interests.

    I say, let them steal until there is nothing left to steal. That’s the only way the system can reform itself. Don’t expect thieves to reform.

  23. When there’s nothing left to steal, what happens to the common folks? When there is no common folks around how to have a reform? The government better wake up from their slumber. Things are becoming gloomy.

    Unless there is a will to change, this country is doomed in the long run. The common folks also should wake up. all this drama about lingam is just distracting you from the big picture as to fight corruption. If needed be, vote for any opposition.

  25. BN politicians are where they are for a purpose only – to enrich themselves. When there is nothing left to steal, they will not stay on in politics and will instead retire to their ranches in Australia, to their holiday homes in the UK and the US. The common man will have to pick up the ruins of Bolehland, and hope that hard work can put humpty dumpty back together again.

  27. If Eusoff Chin’s testimony is expunged (with I doubt) then this Commission would be called the unroyal commission. It would be better to close shop and save their reputation from further ridicule.

  28. Compared to Minister Chua, Lingam is a “chicken” with no guts to admit his wrongdoings. Come on! Be a gentleman like Minister Chua and admit whatever boo-boos you have committed and save the nation the manpower and money in getting the truth out of you Lingam!

  31. I like the part YB said about Lingamspeak’s “It looks like me and its sounds like me” quote of the century putting the 2 Tun’s 14 and 18 “out-forgetting each other with “I don’t remember” “in the shade!”

    I also like the part Bar Council lawyer Robert Lazar also questioned Lingam :
    Based on transcript –
    Lazar: Are you prepared to say you’re not the person in the clip?
    Lingam: I’m not prepared to say that.
    Lazar: So it could be you? It’s probably you. You’ve already said it looks like you. Do you know of anyone who looks and sounds like you?
    Lingam: I do not know.

    Lingam has truly elevated denial of incontrovertible facts to the state of art. It makes us doubt our senses (of sight and hearing) – per Undergrad2, “when something looks like a duck, sounds like a duck and moves like a duck, it is a duck” – and that, being perception, they cannot be relied upon as the truth!

    This is an effrontery to the RC Commissioners and they should recognise the truth of what it is – that the RC hearing has been turned into a farcical circus with clownish witnesses!

    If the Commissioners cannot even rely on their sense of sight and hearing – and make a straight and firm present determination that Lingam’s testimony is incredulous – what business is there for them to sit there to investigate or judge probative value of testimonies based on what and the manner and body language by which witnesses give them?

    It is obvious that Lingam cannot refrain from admitting that he was the person in video footage when in same breath he testified “I don’t know who I was speaking to but certainly I wasn’t speaking to Tun Ahmad Fairuz because I never had his telephone number and he never had my telephone number either” – and also “I must have had one too many (drinks)”.

    In my opinion the RC should not – and also cannot without a loss of credibility – expunge Eusoffe’s testimony from the Royal Commission of Inquiry because the relationship of the Lingam with him then as head of Judiciary is pertinent and relevant to showing a pattern of a person’s conduct or a modus operandi in relation to certain terms of reference of the RC eg – “the identity of the person with whom Lingam, spoke on the phone, the persons mentioned in the conversation,the truth or otherwise of the content of the conversation in the video clip, whether any act of misbehaviour has been committed by person or persons identified or mentioned in the video clip and the appropriate course of action to be taken against the person or persons identified or mentioned in the video clip, should such person or persons be found to have committed any misbehaviour”. Tun Eusoffe Chin’s name is afterall mentioned in the video clip!

    My sense is that there is no need to BS one’s way out of scandal when evidence is incontrovertible of fingers in the pie.
    Look at the bright side of things.

    For Lingam, he should follow Dr Chuah Soi Lek’s example of turning a scandalous event into a shining example of Public Accountability.

    Admit to the Public that as a lawyer one takes things as they were: being well connected to powers-that-be, judges did leverage on his influence to get promotions; and he did put in a word to help, so what, since it paid to have ambitious judges or other officers indebted in his favour…

    No doubt it was a breach of professional ethics (for which Lingam would be taken to task by the Bar’s Disciplinary Commitee) but it is not a crime to put in a word, and Lingam took and made use of the system as he found it.

    As Mao Tse Tung once said, it was the right of everyman to leverage on his assets for his own benefit and that includes high-powered connections. It is naïve to pretend that connections don’t move things in the society : it is the main thing!

    I mean, if the former PM asked for an opinion from a senior lawyer regarding suitability of certain persons for certain high judicial posts, what’s wrong in expressing one’s opinion? Is it a crime? One can suggest but it is beyond one’s control whether the PM would follow. As TDM said in testimony, the prerogative was his alone to hold, and he did not have to account for the way he decided.

    For the present administration why protect the farce? This scandal was bequeathed as a legacy from the previous one, so don’t get dragged into the quagmire of trying to cover up something that could not be covered up. Let the chips fall where they lie.
    There is force in what Shiock said in posting at 10:16.02 above – “Lingam admission will result in all the past promotion of High Court judges and all the convicted and acquitted cases by the judges to be reviewed, lawsuits, prosecution of government officials dealing with top secret letters, the sacking of Ministers and international embarrassment for the country”.
    But I think if the present govt evinces a will to stop the rot, the above mentioned problems can be mitigated, and it will score points rather than face a down fall as Shiock opined. What could be worse than continuing a farce and mockery when even Grace’s grandchild of 5 years old could not even buy their stories???

  32. It looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, and even waddles like a duck…
    heck, it’s even waddling in his own duckpond!
    Do we need DNA analysis to compare with other ducks, before concluding that it is a duck?

    If the RCI agrees with the demand that camera (as Lingam does), which may have been junked after so many years, must be analysed before concluding that it is Lingam, then the credibility of the RCI will be totally and irrevocably lost.
    Lingam’s frivolous attempt to introduce abstruse arguments to deny something so obvious – that perhaps if there were no legal implications, even Lingam’s own mother might agree that it’s him – should be countered simply with the “duck test” ie if it looks like a duck, waddles like a duck, and quacks like a duck – it’s a duck.

    Is the RCI a criminal trial?
    Is it subject to the standards of proof of a criminal trial, where the burden of proof is “beyond all reasonable doubt?”
    Or is the standard of proof based on the “balance of probabilities?”
    Since the Terms of Reference (see NST report of 2008/01/13: “Lingam clip is true, says man”) do NOT include any authority to mete out punishment and sentences, it must therefore NOT be subject to criminal standards of proof.
    Instead, the standard of proof should be that of “balance of probabilities.”

  33. “It looks like me, it sounds like me…..”

    could mean “….it’s not QUITE me because previously I have a misai but now I don’t….”

    or

    “It’s ACTUALLY is me because nobody else can look like me or sound like me……but it MAY NOT be me because I can’t remember it’s me…..”

    You decide.

  34. Not that easy for Lingam to distance himself from the abuse of power that fixing of judicial appointments implies. He brokered for a reason i.e. influence over judges who benefited from his brokering.

  35. What a Royal Commission of Inquiry!

    I am completely overwhelmed with disgusts see how Linggam could do the summersaults so well after being caught in the video clip.

    I cannot help myself but pity Soi Lek for being so… “I am the person in the video tape!”

    Sorry, my mind cannot help it but to compare the two videos. I like to thank Soi Lek for setting a good precedence.

    Frankly, I do not expect much to come out of this Inquiry except learn the arts of how to cover up!

  37. Yeah but why is everyone’s picking on Lingam? (He just exploited the system as he found it – to his benefit). It is the judges. They should know what’s proper conduct rather than let ambition get better of them. Judge hold public office and has to be impartial and seen impartial. Lingam is just a lawyer trying to do well in court presided by friendly judges. playing badminton with a judge is enough for a senior Deputy Public ….

    I may stand corrected, but can anyone or any practising lawyer cite us a single rule under the Legal Profession Act (Practice & Etiquette Rules) that it is unethical to fraternise with a chief justice who wants to fraternise with him or for putting in a good word, in one’s capacity as a senior lawyer to the Prime Minister, if one has his ears, (and there is no professional ethic against a lawyer fraternising with or representing the Prime Minister, is there?) as to who, one thinks, on the basis of one’s extensive court experience, would be a suitable judicial candidate to be appointed to the highest office? Yes, the rule says a lawyer “shall maintain at all times a respecful attitude towards the court” so what if one goes further than courteous and maintain a very friendly and supportive atitude to any particular judge in the court, is that a crime? “Fixing of judicial appointments” by such influence (when one’s opinion is canvassed by the PM) is not the same as getting caught “fixing cases” which is a fit proper subject of ACA investigation. That’s a different kettle of fish : Nobody got caught or video taped in the latter is there?

    The 13000 lawyer in the country may condemn Lingam but many of them may covet to have his privileged access to power but they are not admitting it only. :)

  38. Dear Linggam,

    Come out and have a drink…. I wish you are drunk when u talk to me. Because u can predict things so real when they were actaully happenned. Why dont you set up a temple and get people to wish for 4d no… we could make big buck here.

    Come on… come out and have a drink… I make u filthy rich and ur friend will soon close don his toto business.
    (so sorry, when i said these or write these, dont know which one, I am dunk) Did I actually say these… I cant remember… Where am i now???

  39. Dear MMM….

    I wont buy your memoir? I already know what you are going to write… Everything I cant remember, may be… or if i remember correctly….

    So you memoir is full of forgetful stuff. how do know which is real. I think my money is better to save for goreng pisang ??

  40. “Senior lawyer V.K. Lingam has probably coined the quote of the century with his “It looks like me and it sounds like me” statement to the Royal Commission of Inquiry hearing yesterday.”

    – Sickening, speaks volumnes about a person’s character! At least
    former Health Minister Chua Soi Lek was man enough, dare to come out crisp and clean to admit to his wrong doing and take full responsibility. Now we know who is man and who is not!

  41. Senior and even reputable lawyers may be routinely asked favours by judges to help the judges in research on cases, points of views as to how to decide cases, and in some cases help write judgements or excerpts of that for them as well. What to do – our milieu not exactly a Meritocracy! Now these lawyers (who sit in judgment of Lingam) are also ingratiating the judges, aren’t they? Wouldn’t there be favours in return from the judges – who knows? But if doing all these kind of favours (sometime buying them lunches or playing badminton) is not a capital crime warranting a Royal Commission on Judicial Independence, where does an extension of these favours – eg putting in a good word on judicial appointment to the PM whom one knows well – stand? (After all the former PM also admitted he listened to everyone here and there)!

  42. Dear jeffery:

    I can answer you why people pick on Linggam rather than mmm… because he is caught left, right, up and down to his face… an easy target.. why pick on someone when he or she cant remember things anymore.

    To a memory loss person who can still write his memoir, dont you agree he is amazing??

  46. Horsekiller, I cannot agree with you more that the real object of public ire is that (1) someone who can’t remember things anymore and yet write memoirs and get away from accountability and (2) the other one who wanted an extension of term after talking about doing away with Common Law or the preceding one in relation to Anwar’s trial!

    Lingam is just easy target because he was “caught left, right, up and down to his face…” on video and it is hilarious that he should try to squirm his way out of that by “It looks like me and it sounds like me” when the FIRST basic questions he should ask himself are “Is it wrong of me to recommend a judge to the PM to take the CJ post; as a senior lawyer am I not qualified to give a recommendation if asked whether directly or through corporate intermediary; should I apologise for the fact that Powers-that-be want to listen to me; or should I be punished just because a judge improperly tries to use my connections to vie for promotion? Is there a provision under our laws to say all these judicial brokering is a crime; is there anything in Legal Profession Act (Practice & Etiquette Rules) that says that ingratiating a judge, doing him favours is unethical?”

  47. undergrad2 Says:

    “Today at 09: 37.25 (3 hours agoWhen something looks like a duck, sounds like a duck and moves like a duck, it is a duck.”

    In Malaysia, even if it looks like a duck, sounds like a duck and moves like a duck……it can be a platypus! To paraphrase Lord Denning, judges can play ducks and drakes with justice by the slant and angles of their words. So, this RCI is exposed to the court of world opinion. It’ll be interesting how they perform eventually. It’s premature to ‘hang’ the RCI just yet because they’ve not yet concluded their findings or the flow of witnesses. Anwar, Thirunama etc. may still have their days in court. If they are denied and if this RCI continues to employ tactics that are suspiciously subnormal and substandard, then this RCI will smell like a pot of shit the world over.

    Can Malaysia afford to look like shit, smell like shit and squelch like shit because some idiots are trying to protect a small bunch of corrupt judges, politicians and one lone lawyer!

  49. Anwar: Let me testify, I’ve new evidence

    Beh Lih Yi | Jan 21, 08 8:43pm

    “PKR de facto leader Anwar Ibrahim said he can provide new evidence on the VK Lingam video-clip controversy should he be allowed to testify before the commission of inquiry tasked to probe the matter. ”

    http://www.malaysiakini.com/news/77289

    Will RCI get infamy of being a “It looks like me, it sounds like me” royal commission if it denies Anwar Ibrahim his day in court? YES, IT DEFINITELY WILL!

  50. the RC inquiry is now slowly turning into a laughstock… going out to the world too!

    i thought the tape had bee authenticated already and his voice too and yet he comes with his darndest quote of the year ‘it looks like me, it sounds like me but it is not ‘. so ridiculous!

    about his holiday with eusof chin in new zealand, wasn’t that proved via the bowman papers, where an investigation company based in UK had investigated with proof of the plane ticket counterfoil that they did plan the holiday together. the RC should check and use that proof!

  51. When this was first posted, I too wanted to say this RCI is ‘it look like me, it sound like me’ RCI but the problem is the RCI don’t sound look like a RCI. A RCI should at least have sounds of people are under pressure to answer and walk away glum NOT smiling all the time. None of the witness feel under pressure and too many smiling faces around!!!!

  52. Watchout PAS! BN is getting you from the public media and everyone is reading about you and you’d better explain because this is going to cost you a lot of votes:-

    http://asia.news.yahoo.com/080122/3/3dygt.html

    While BN is treating all of us to a gala RCI show in the “ZOO”, they are busy doing all the counter damage with whatever dirty tricks they can lay their hands on, like snatching body to create a deep fear & dislike against PAS.

  53. I’m not so convinced that Lingam is only doing “something that _other lawyers would also do_,” ie ingratiate themselves to judges, so that they will be rewarded favourably in court decisions.

    There is always the danger of a judge who is indebted to a party who would then be seen as biased, either actual or perceived, in court judgements involving the party.
    Thus a judge must not only be fair, but be seen to be so.

    Certainly, a judge cannot exist in society without friends and family or even acquaintances. But the onus should be upon him, to recuse himself, if there is the slightest suggestion that the relationship with the defendants or plaintiffs who appear in court before him, may cause his impartiality to be questioned.

    Where a lawyer (or any other individual or part of a group of individuals) is seen to be brokering appointments of judges (in this case, the entire upper heirarchy of judges), this would be surely be perceived as something extraordinary, and must be perceived to be actually intentionally subverting the cause of justice.
    Where the judgements delivered by the judges esp in high profile cases, are seen to be highly controversial, the perception of injustice is even greater.

    The same can also be said of people in other positions of power eg Ministers and Senior government officials. If they are in a position to decide in favour of someone whose applications esp where large contracts or concessions are involve – they should excuse themselves from the decision-making process. To accept gifts (whether monetary or in kind, from those giving gifts) with the expectation that favourable decisions will be granted to the giver, serves only to involve BOTH giver and taker as parties to graft.
    Graft must not only involve money, it may involve elevations to positions of power. (Ultimately, though, that elevation may well lead to monetary considerations, even if trivial – if nothing else, then in the form of a higher pension upon retirement! Or even prestige in the form of Federal awards.)

    In this Lingam case, the public perception is that of the Executive (TDM), being in cahoots with a billionaire businessman, and his lawyer, to arrange the appointments of the entire upper echelons of the judiciary, in the expectation of favourable court decisions for them.
    Perversion of justice, or not?
    Only the judges to be blamed?
    Or all those involved?

    The following appears on a webpage of Asian Human Rights Commission:
    http://www.hrsolidarity.net/mainfile.php/1999vol09no12/1960/

  56. Saudara Lim,
    The RCI is made to look like a kangaroo court in a banana republic. When prominent people like the TDM can resort to selective amnesia and prerogative of position to make a mockery of the RCI and make it impotent, what sort of justice can a layman expect?
    We have people like Eusoff Chin, Lingam and Adnan who are so sure that they can get away with anything that they choose to give frivolous answers and make the presiding Royal Commisson members look like legal imbeciles.
    When and where is this charade going to end? I won’t be surprised if all the evidences such as the incriminating Lingam tape and the photographs that expose the relationship of the main protogonists are expunged. RCI reccomendation to the cabinet: Tape not clear: photographs irrelevant to the tape and so no case for trial.

  60. Wonder how lawyers, law professors, law students etc in other countries look at this case, if they learn something or they had good entertainment on this case!- Cheng On soo

    They can learn from our leaders and some former judges and of course the infamous main figure in the recording how to tell lies without batting the eyelids.
    Oh yes, if you are a poker players, you can appoint any oneof them as your ‘si fu’ to train you how to lie without facial change!!!

  61. Probably more tourists will flock to Malaysia to see the circus and the clowns.One of the clowns is the minister of tourism and another one looks like a duck but not a duck and not excluded are the two greatest clowns in the history of the nation.Visit Malaysia and laugh until your pants drop.

  62. Pak Lah had given them too long a period to plan their tall stories. One of them accuse the other as drunkard and in this case all of them are ‘innocent’.
    Hearing the speech there is not a single sign of a person speaking. A drunkard would have slurred speech. Here the accused was speaking of confidently and coherantly. He can bullshit a small child.

  64. VKL just proven that Ketuanan is nothing after all. The entire VVIPs that were present in this RCI just blindly tell those Ketuanan that they are far more superior power than Ketuanan …
    This is what we called “Priceles”
    As for Ketuanan , NATO … gaya sahaja ada ..

  65. The terms of reference of the RCI is actually a wide net that can stretch as far as New Zealand. There is no doubt about that. If Eusoff’s testimony is expunged I suggest the RCI continue with the rest of the hearing at Zoo Negara. Let the monkeys clap at their performance.

  66. Badawi may have to get out of the kitchen soon. I don`t think he can handle the heat:

    A PROJECT to build South-east Asia’s longest bridge in Penang has stumbled over disputes between its Malaysian and Chinese contractors and a legal suit that could embarrass Prime Minister Abdullah Badawi’s government.
    http://elizabethwong.wordpress.com/2008/01/22/st-design-row-keeps-kl-beijing-a-bridge-apart/#more-834

    And:

    In case anyone noticed, right after the Prime Minister-cum-Finance Minister said last week’s rally was indicative of investors’ confidence in our economy, it’s been a bloodbath at the KLSE.

    Some joker even said our economy won’t be affected by the downturn in the US.

    “We’re in panic territory,” said Patrick Chang, who helps manage $4.5 billion at CIMB-Principal Asset Management Bhd. in Kuala Lumpur. (Quoted in Bloomberg News
    http://elizabethwong.wordpress.com/2008/01/22/epf-swoops-in-to-save-klci/#respond

  67. They allowed Lingam too much of freedom and clown around! He is imposing this and that and as commissioners they should put a stop to his nonsense.
    Why should his NZ holidays be expunged? It is relevant. Now it is reported he even went on holiday to Spain with Mokhtar Abdullah!
    Oh yes, he claimed that Longam also tagged along like a poodle just as he did to Eusoff Chin!
    Look at how many top judiciary he had as close buddies:
    Mokhtar Abdullah, Eusoff Chin and now Ahmad Fiaruz.
    Food for tought!!!

  68. “For Lingam, he should follow Dr Chuah Soi Lek’s example of turning a scandalous event into a shining example of Public Accountability.”

    There is still no accountability/transparency in CSL’s case.

    We are not interested in CSL’s private activities and whether he was pumping his personal friend or friends with or without the bleesings of his family members.

    But we want to know the DATE and TIME when that sexual escapade was filmed. Did he do it during office hours when he was supposed to be inspecting a clinic or hospital in Batu Pahat or a nearby town? We are interested in this kind of public accountability.

    VKL obviously prepares to drag the case to last as long as possible, until people have no more interest in the case, like the Altanuya case, or until another more juicy case springs up.

  69. Kid : Daddy, what is the difference between Lingam and Chua Soi Lek because these few days i’ve been seeing them in the newspaper and television..

    Daddy : Errrr..CSL is a chinese but Lingam is an indian..

    Kid : oh i see, my friend told me that CSL got balls and Lingam doesnt have ? Is that true?

    Daddy : @##@#@#@?…….

  71. all these guys are involved and now they are covering for each other. Tun Eusoff is the one most screwed than any other person at the moment. Should we go after the King Pin, yes off course. But if that is difficult, we should teach every other Lingam wannabe that you should not try this and every judge that they should toe the line and not carry favours and hell buy their own damn phones. Then the King Pin will not have much room to move to fix things.

    we need to ensure that we go back to the days where the Judiciary decides who is best to lead then or a commission but not one man who listens to every tan and lingam and makes a decision. the PM alone should not have the prerogative and I dun think other PMs had the same power that Dr.M had an acquired. Who knows fellow judges better, the judges and if you need outside advise go the bar. It worked till the 1980s why not now?

    No the PM alone should not decide by himself who goes to become CJ etc cos he could be in the same courts if sued.If there is one man can do it, than it is the King cos he is not subjected to the courts.

  72. THE strategy employed by Mahathir and co including Lingam is simple……..TAK TAU……it is clearly upon the plaintiff to proof his case……and this is where the RCI will collapse like a pack of cards…..Lingam is no dumbo…he sure the hell knows what he is doing……..with our current judiciary even Baginda and Najib will escape……this exercise is a waste of tax payers money…..because the executive has no will to nail the culprits……

  73. The present inquiry looks like a “Royal Commission of Inquiry.”
    The present inquiry sounds like a “Royal Commission of Inquiry.”
    BUT, is it REALLY a Royal Commission of Inquiry?

    OR is it just something that JUST LOOKS LIKE and SOUNDS LIKE a Royal Commission of Inquiry, BUT is in fact NOT a Royal Commission of Inquiry?

  74. In reference to boh-liao’s comments, what are we comparing here ultimately? A rodeo star caught on video for being human. He was victim of political conspiracy, filmed without his knowledge. He bit the bullet and publicly admitted he was the one without further ado – even though the CCTV footage possibly provided more room for technical challenge than the Lingam Video clip – and took the fall from grace, gracefully. He did not pussyfoot around with the public with “looked like me, sounded like me, moved like me but…..” like others, whose other variation to that theme is, “oh I don’t remember”, 14 or 18 times! That’s accountability and taking responsibility for one’s action. You ask yourself, whose conduct is more shameful?

  76. Hopefully we may see the light if we are near the end of the tunnel.Countless of people and almost a generation of humble rakyat have been taken for a ride and treated as fools.Everyone is watching at the conduct of the RCI now.

  77. We have an ex-pm who cannot remember things, whose famous words are “I can’t remember”.

    We have an ex-cj who lies and lies and travels on lies, whose famous words are “It happened that …”.

    We have a frighten minister who dumps his close friends like hot potatoes when they are in trouble, whose famous words are “I don’t know him”.

    We have so-called a prominent lawyer who doesn’t know how he himself looks or sounds like, whose famous words are “It looks and sounds like me, but I don’t know whether it’s me”.

    Also, we have an ex-railway gatesman who builds a palace just after a few years in politics, whose memtri besar thinks so highly of him that he has boasts that he will be fielded as a candicate for the next election again. His famous words are “I have done no wrong”.

    If such are the people in high places in our nation, it’s perhaps time for us to do something positive with our votes at the next general election.

  78. If such people behave like shameless morons……..let us all resign to the fate that our country has gone down to the dogs. If the populace do not have high regards for the courts and now the RCI-what else can we do and who can save this great country of ours?

    I do not know how you feel Uncle Lim having been to jail so many times knowing that the courts have not been fair- I salute you Uncle Lim for being the greatest Malaysian

  79. VKL’s “It looks like me and it sounds like me” statement just confirmed the belief that all Indians look and sound alike. Like this, how to catch an Indian crook based on sound and sight?

  80. scorpian6666
    The next time you guys get a speed ticket, ask for the photo and then just tell them
    “Look like my car, moves like my car & even the number is the same !”

    Also might as well remove all CCTVs in the banks, goldsmiths shop, carparks, etc etc.
    Cos anyone caught robbing, raping etc. can now sing the famous Lingam’s Bolehwood Song

    “..it looks llike me, it sounds like me, but I don’t remember it’s me.”

    I cry for Malaysia…….

  81. Some references were made with CSL’s response compared with this “sounds like me, looks like me” defence.

    I think the difference in the defences is that CSL was caught alone doing a private act that got caught on camera. With his confession, only his name and reputation gets destroyed.

    With this RCI, there is a litany of high profile figures being implicated and the best defence collectively is for all of them to suggest amnesia and the like.

    At the end of the hearings it would be good if the RCI would come out with a detailed evaluation of each witness and also the overall decision on the tapes.

    What is quite disappointing is that only one member of the Commission appears to do most of the probing and the rest appear dumbfounded by the goings on.

    We should use our votes wisely to register our happiness/unhappiness with this RCI.

  83. Can somebody please compile this RCI saga for the world to see.

    Mahathir: I don’t remember.

    Lingam : Look like me and sound like me.

    Adnan : He must be mabuk.

    So easy to deny and be free from the RCI.
    Malaysia,truly boleh!

    I repeat,somebody please compile this saga for the world to see.

  84. “The 13000 lawyer in the country may condemn Lingam but many of them may covet to have his privileged access to power but they are not admitting it only.” Jeffrey

    Harboring thoughts of stealing does not make one a thief.

  85. “Is there a provision under our laws to say all these judicial brokering is a crime..?”

    Prevention of Corruption Act? Judges are civil servants. Lingam acts a conduit and is therefore an accomplice.

  87. Lingam is key because without him you cannot prove the existence of a conspiracy to fix judicial appointments. The close relationship between Lingam and members of the bench is key. Again it is not per se a crime but if it leads or has led to court cases being settled in a manner which perverts the course of justice then it is.

    The abuse of power without more that a conspiracy implies involving senior members of the government is a crime.

  91. Yes, Judges’ Code of Conduct and for the lawyers, the Legal Profession Act, on ethics. But like Jeffrey and Dark Horse said earlier, it does not go down as a crime. But serious enough for cases involving both judge and lawyer be reviewed.

    Abuse of power leading to the corruption of the legal process is serious.

  92. What is being revealed by the present hearings is only the tip of the iceberg. There are other politically connected senior members of the legal profession and members of the bench involved in corrupting the legal process.

  93. Hey guys, looks like this “I can’t remember” thing is quite contagious and note too the statement about “did not give a good reflection on the Commission.” What the…

    Quote from Bernama

    // Wee Choo Keong, the counsel representing V.K. Thirunama, was warned by the Royal Commission of Inquiry today to be
    careful in making statements to the media. At the onset of the proceedings today, Commission Chairman Tan Sri Haidar Mohamed Noor criticised Wee who was said to have told the media that “the Commission was reluctant to call his (Wee’s) client” to give evidence in the Royal Commission of Inquiry into the controversial video clip showing lawyer Datuk V.K. Lingam allegedly brokering the
    appointment of judges. Wee’s statement was published in an article by a local English daily on Saturday.

    Wee replied: “There were so many people outside the court and there was a commotion there, I can’t remember making the statement as there were so many people out there”.

    Haidar then said he was not making a big issue out of it but added that Wee should take note of that matter.

    “We advise you to be careful on what you’re saying. We hope you have some respect for us and not simply make insinuations. Don’t
    force us to take action,” he said.

    Haidar said what was reported in the newspaper did not give a good reflection on the Commission.

    Wee then said there were also media reports saying that the Commission was quiet apprehensive.

    Haidar interjected questioning Wee on whether he had any evidence on that and requested him (Wee) to give proof to the
    Commission.

    Haidar said he hoped everybody would give their co-operation as the Commission had given a lot of leeway.

    “Please do not take the Commission for granted,” Haidar said. //

  94. Prevention of Corruption Act? Judges are civil servants. Lingam acts a conduit and is therefore an accomplice.
    darkhorse

    Judges are NOT civil servants. As for corruption, everyone can be charged under corruption, including those from the private sector.

  95. “What is being revealed by the present hearings is only the tip of the iceberg. There are other politically connected senior members of the legal profession and members of the bench involved in corrupting the legal process”. colonel in charge

    You really know a lot man! Would you want to share some names or positions who these senior members (both of the legal profession and the bench) are? Can’t wait to hear from you, seriously.

  96. “Judges are NOT civil servants. ” limkamput

    Excuse me! What are they members of then if not the judiciary – the armed forces?

    “As for corruption, everyone can be charged under corruption, including those from the private sector.” limkamput

    I don’t remember suggesting that members of the private sector could not be prosecuted for corruption.

  97. “You really know a lot man! Would you want to share some names or positions who these senior members (both of the legal profession and the bench) are? Can’t wait to hear from you, seriously.” limkamput

    I do not think anyone here, perhaps with the exception of yours truly, wants to put YB Kit on the hot seat.

  98. “Certainly, a judge cannot exist in society without friends and family or even acquaintances.” dranony

    Who says they should?

    But judges are a different breed of men and women. Their profession makes them so. The only people they are not supposed to socialize with are members of the legal fraternity. It is almost cliche to say that justice must not only be done but be seen to be done. The same considerations apply when the judge knows personally the litigant in the case before him. He has to recuse himself.

  100. “Judges are NOT civil servants. ” limkamput

    They are judicial civil servants. Apparently the poster is using the word ‘civil servant’ not in its technical sense but in the broad meaning of the word ‘civil’. Civil servants, public servants, government servants, public officials etc are just different labels.

  101. “Is the RCI a criminal trial? Is it subject to the standards of proof of a criminal trial, where the burden of proof is “beyond all reasonable doubt? Or is the standard of proof based on the “balance of probabilities?” Dranony

    It is not a court proceeding. Only a public inquiry.

  102. In a criminal trial in court, th accused must put forward his version of the story during the prosecution’s case so soon as he has the opportunity to do so. If he keeps quiet about his line of defence or his version of the story and puts forth his version only after the prosecution’s case, when he is giving his evidence during the defence stage, then the law says that the judge is entitled to come to the conclusion that the accused has concocted a lie after hearing the evidence.

    Here, though it is not a court per se, common sense must also prevail. Lingam must make a stand whether the man in the video is him or not. If his stand is that the man is not him, then he sticks to that line of defence and not say that he did not say this or that or that he may have been drunk. His counsel should have put Lingam’s version so soon as practicable but he did not despite being asked to state Lingam’s stand early in the proceeding.

    If his stand is that the man is him, then he can have other lines of defence with that as the underlyIng premise. For example, he could say that he was only bragging to Loh and that there was in fact no one at the other end of the phone. He could even argue that the video has been cut, sliced and spliced together so much so that the truth has been distorted. Of course he has to have evidence of what he says, though the standard of proof may not be as high as that imposed on the prosecution.

    The point is that he is now not committing himself to a certain stand or a certain line of defence and he is even saying that he has to wait for the results of certain tests on the video that are now being carried out to even admit or not whether the man in the video is him. It is like he is saying – right now I do not know my story…I can only know or complete my story after I have obtained further evidence.

    He is clearly at a loss as to his stand and is waiting for some favourable evidence before he comes up with a story, his version of what had happened or his answer to the allegations. He is an unreliable witness, concocting a story along the way.

    The truth should be immediately clear to him – either it is him or it is not him. If it is not him, then be singlemindedly unwaveringly clear about his stand that ‘that was not me at all!’. If it is him, either the video depicts the truth or it has been compromised. If it is the truth, he can still say that he was showing off to Loh. But even if he was showing off, the question remains – how did he get such accurate official secrets? If it is compromised, then prove it.

    By being ambivalent in his stand, he has no creditability left as a witness and his evidence should be disregarded. In fact, if he is patently lying, the RC should stand firm with its powers to take punitive actions.

    So what happens now? Even a dog must be given his day. So, just let him carry on what he is doing now; the more he says, the more his creditability as a witness goes down the drain. At the end of the day, The RC’s decision should be to reject his evidence outright and not consider any of what he had said or testified.

    The RC has to come to a conclusion whether this man is in fact Lingam. The evidence of the Loh father and son team should be sufficient. Was he a man with knowledge of Official Secrets or was he a fortune teller of almost 100% accuracy in prediction? There is no evidence so far that he is a fortune teller. Hence, he had access to top secret information only ‘privy’ or available to TDM and the CJ then. Discredit Eusoffe Chin’s explanation / evidence of coincidence upon coincidence and of his lack of substance to be a judge for his inability to even brush off a pest of a lawyer, etc, the RC should be persuaded that Lingam has a close association with the top judges and by that the inference is clear that he was in a position to broker appointments and promotions of judges. With the kind of official secrets that Lingam was able to divulge and with his close association with judges etc, it is a fair inference to draw from the video and what Lingam said that he was in fact brokering the appointment and promotion of judges.

    There is no need to pinpoint any culprit. We need only a conclusion that the judiciary is not well and that appointments and promotions were being ‘fixed’ by people like Lingam.

    Then after that, perhaps the RC should recommend e.g. some changes in the appointment and promotions of judges, to rehabilitate or nurse back the judiciary back to what it should be.

    If that is the end result, the RC would have served its purpose of exposing what has all along being denied – that the Judiciary is filled by people not based on the merits, that the PM, at least TDM, did not bother to pick the best and most honourable legal mind to be the head of or to be in the Judiciary thus culminating in the present malaise of the Judiciary. Following on that finding, we would be able to argue for a change in the system of appointment and promotion of judges.

    The first thing or issue to tackle after this is the predicted appointment of Zaki to be the head of the Judiciary.

  103. I am really curious ..sorry for being naive .. Why didn’t they find out if the man in that video had the same shirts or pants, the same room with the same colour or even the same phone ?
    It’s might be his twin brother !

  105. “In a criminal trial in court, th accused must put forward his version of the story during the prosecution’s case so soon as he has the opportunity to do so. If he keeps quiet about his line of defence or his version of the story and puts forth his version only after the prosecution’s case, when he is giving his evidence during the defence stage, then the law says that the judge is entitled to come to the conclusion that the accused has concocted a lie after hearing the evidence.” HB Lim

    In a trial there is a structure that has to be followed. Briefly and very quickly this is how it goes. As the legal burden of proof is on the prosecution, it starts with the prosecution making its opening statement, outlining its case against the defendant. The prosecution in outlining its case presents just enough evidence the veracity of which if unrebutted would mean the defense has a prima facie case to answer. Counsel for the defense then makes its opening statement and submission of “No case to answer” without having to reveal too much of the evidence for strategic reasons. If the trial judge disagrees he would call for the defense to make its opening submission – and so it continues until closing arguments first by the prosecution, then the defense followed by rebuttal by the prosecution, and closing arguments by the defense.

    Since the RCI is what it says, with powers of subpoena etc and is not a court proceeding, there is no structure to follow. Witnesses could be called in any order. Discretion lies with the chairman. Hearsay is admissible. It is not a trial and no strict rules of evidence and procedure to follow. No one stands accused of any crime. Indeed the purpose is to find out if a crime has been committed – the issue raised by the authenticity of the tape.

    “There is no need to pinpoint any culprit. We need only a conclusion that the judiciary is not well and that appointments and promotions were being ‘fixed’ by people like Lingam.”

    The purpose of the public inquiry is to determine the authenticity of the video tape, and if there is enough evidence of criminal wrongdoing by person or persons so the matter could move to trial. Restricted though the terms of reference may be, the information disclosed during the hearings provides the AG with what he needs to know before he could decide whether to prosecute or not prosecute – and who to prosecute.

  106. This is just to go forward and clarify a little some of the issues raised by HB Lim in his earlier posting.

    As we all know, the Royal Commission (RC) hearing is not a criminal trial, though commissioners have powers of judges in such a trial to subpoena and grant immunity to witnesses, and to commit anyone with contempt for disrespect or insult to them.

    Procedures of trial & RC hearing vastly different, the former rather haphazardly without specific order, the latter with a defined set order.

    In a criminal trial, the prosecution will be first to call its witnesses to make out its case The accused through his counsel could cross examine/challenge these witnesses to discredit them. At the close of prosecution case, if prosecution fails to prove a prima facie case, then the Defence need not be called and the Charge is dismissed. Otherwise, the Defence will be called, ie accused tells his version by calling his witnesses (to be cross examined and challenged by prosecution).

    At the end of hearing both Prosecution/Defence cases, the accused is convicted only if overall the prosecution discharges its burden of proving beyond reasonable doubt the facts necessary to satisfy all ingredients of law relating to the crime/offence charged.

    RC hearing does not conform to the above procedures. Even here Lingam is not accused of any offence – yet. It is guided only by its limited terms of reference which are to determine the identity of the person in video clip, the person with whom he spoke on cell phone, the persons mentioned in the conversation, the truth or otherwise of the content of the conversation in the video clip, whether any act of misbehaviour has been committed by person or persons identified or mentioned in the video clip and the appropriate course of action to be taken against the person or persons identified or mentioned in the video clip, should such person or persons be found to have committed any misbehaviour.

    It does not per se relate to questions of independence or corruption of judiciary though its proceedings and findings may eventually be suggestive of it.

    If TDM, Tun Eusoffee or Lingam are considered ‘defence’ witnesses (in the loose/layman sense), and video-maker Loh Gwo Burne & his father Loh Mui Fah as well as senior digital computer forensic analyst Mohd Zabri Adil Talib, are considered (in the loose/layman sense) ‘prosecution’ witnesses, then they are and have been called in a mixed order…….unlike in criminal trial in which prosecution witnesses are called first, and those of Defence called only after prosecution made out a prima facie case.

    Talking about that whether the RC hearing establishes that the selection of members of Judiciary should be based on better methods and criteria, I think TDM’s testimony alone is already good enough to convince some of us that is so…..

    About the other point – that Lingam should make a stand first whether he was the man in video clip and following from that premise only, he should next set forth his positions, whether he was drunk or just staging a brag show to the Lohs, and not speaking to Fairuz – this is a point by HB Lim that is logical and commonsensical (to layman) but what was apparently put forward by Lingam, with blatant inconsistencies, is something that only convoluted legal minds are expected to be able to hold on balance and reconcile.

    Lingam basically does not expect anyone least of all the commissioners to believe that the one shown in the clip was NOT him. He actually does not expect others to believe his testimony; credibility is not his concern, his main concern being to preserve his right, as he sees it, not to incriminate himself by an admission on record and to require everyone else to prove to the hilt everything that is alleged against him or others with whom he is associated, whether or not it is reasonable for him to expect so and regardless that he may not have such right in either law or logic.

    His main concern is not to admit notwithstanding overwhelming evidence to the contray that he was the one in the clip. [That’s why he came out with this original – looked and sounded like him (perception) without confirming whether the perception is true or false unless the original video or equipment (which made the video clip) itself was produced to him, which he is also fully aware is well nigh impossible, nor is it necessary…. .

    Whilst not conceding an iota on the above stance, he proceeded to testify that the person he spoke to was not Fairuz or he could be drunk at that time as if and on the ASSUMPTION that original video or equipment (which made the video clip) itself was already produced to him and supposing that it was really him talking on the phone.

    It is not his concern that reasonable inferences will be drawn by impartial arbiters/judges against him on such “double talk” or legal speak (*dubed by NST as Lingam-Speak) ; that he is prevaricating or lying, not a truthful or credible witness or anything else as long as he is not on record admitting even to the obvious!

    His rarefied distinctions based on inconsistent what ifs (ie “first I am not admitting anything, you prove that I was the one in clip beyond what is apparent, that a duck that looks, quacks, waddles like a duck is inductively a duck, and second/alternatively, supposing I had admitted that it was me, then….” ) – this attempt to hold two apparent opposite contradictions in balance – is something of a legal speak that only the convoluted minds refined by ultra legalese training can grasp.

    To practical minds, this is absurd. But it suffices in keeping out an admission on record that he was the one in clip that may in future be used against him and yet allows him, without forgoing that right not to admit, to go forward to refute allegations implicating himself or Fairuz (on supposition that he has admitted).

    This is something like having one’s cake and eat it at the same time that in real life – other than in the ethereal world of legal speak – cannot happen or be allowed to happen but to him notwithstanding, so be it! What else can he do or say if he’s not prepared to be Dr CSL?

  112. Jeff, I wonder if you are a lawyer. You awed me with your comments which I have been following. You have a very incisive mind and I hope to be able to meet you in person. There should be more Malaysians like you.

    Jeffery and Darkhorse, I am fully that the proceedings before the RC is unlike a criminal trial. What I am saying is that Lingam should have taken a stand and the RC should make him take a stand or else he would have the liberty to concoct and manipulate his evidence through time to fit his agenda and his story.

    The other thing I am saying is that since the RC has been formed and has started its task, though we all have our reservations about its intent and objectives, we have to make the best out of it. After all, it is the first of its kind to look into the malaise gaining momentum in the Judiciary.

    So, at least, if for nothing else, it starts an enquiry of the mind as to the source of the rot, the whole exercise is not wasted.

    Mahathir has told us how cavalier a way important and high ranking judges were chosen. It was all his prerogative.

    Eusoffe Chin has informed what kind of or quality of a Chief Justice Mahathir had selected as the head of the Judiciary. A judge who cannot even rid himself of a lawyer who wanted to tag along with him on a family trip overseas.

    Lingam tells us what kind of lack to reverence for the truth can a person of such stature show. He can go before a RC and contends that the person in the video looks like me and acts like me but I am not admitting it is me. Of course, I agree with Jeff that he has to cover himself from possible criminal prosecution and therefore we have to understand why he is not a bravura like CSL. But I was indirectly expressing my dismay and disappointment about how his way of testimony may set further backwards the state of the country – the culture of deceit and denial.

    A Minister can go to the witness stand and say someone else must be drunk and sweep everything under the carpet and say that his floor is clean. Everything and everyone high up in the Malaysian society seems to have a way out of scandals and dishonourable conduct.

    I am very, very flabbergasted but still with a still mind, I am asking what good can come out of all this wayang kulit?

    At least to tell the common people that not all is well. In fact, most things are not well at all in Malaysia! At the same time, it is not going to help if all are shouting about the unwellness without some sober guys explaining that despite all the shallowness in the display of gallantry and despite all our disappointment, some good has been produced. Some forward motion has been initiated.

    I am concerned about the possible appointment of Zaki as the head of the Judiciary. Even if nothing of significance happens to Lingam or the other people mentioned in his telephone conversation, I am thinking that if the RC concludes that there is a rot or irregularity in the system of appointment and promotion of judges, and proposes or recommends that the whole machinery and machination of appointment and promotion to high judicial offices ought to be overhauled for the sake of the wellness of our nation, not all would have been lost in this RC charade.

    And I am saying it is a charade not because I doubt the sincerity or integrity of the Commisioners but more in respect of the RC’s restricted or limited frame of reference. And what does Badawi prove to me all this while when the RC is in progress? Nothing. I think his mind is all engaged in winning the next GE. Same for people like Ong Tee Kiat, Samy Vello, Nazri etc. Are they watching the progress of the RC proceedings? Are they concerned about the rot in the Judiciary which hits at the mind and soul of Malaysians and Malaysia? Are they concerned that the evidence so far elicited from Mahathir and Eusoff Chin which tends to show that lack of regularity and seriousness in or shown to the Judiciary which is the material for lack of confidence in and the ingredient for jokes about our Judiciary?

    I am hoping that the RC would conclude that Lingam is an unreliable witness for not having taken a stand as he would have to if he had been before a criminal court. I am saying that the RC should adopt the common sense approach accepted in a criminal court since time immemorial.

    I am hoping against all hope that this RC would initiate something positive to rehabilitate and nurse back the Judiciary to the days of Suffian, Azlan Shah and Salleh Abas. I am hoping that the RC would stop the trend of political appointments of half-baked Chief Justices who rules on and strikes out cases based on the inadequacies of margins in a pleadings or who messes up the land law in Malaysia in the tail-end of his judicial career by such absurdity as Bonsem’s case, or who talks in the air about a Malaysian common law based on Islamic law or sends delegates to study about implementing the civil law system to replace our common law or who has no qualms sitting in a Tribunal to sack his immediate superior.

    I am passionately against the political biasness of judges just because they are beholden to politicians who appoint or support their elevations. I am against the appointments and elevation of judges based on any criteria other than that of merits, integrity, ability and legal prowess and a strong sense of justice, fair-play, fairness and impartiality. I am against any attempts to cow judges to submission to and dependence on and gratitude to the powers of the Executive.

    I am against half-baked, half-committed, cheap and “tidak apa” judges.

    But I am sober enough to know that all these reversals take time and effort and I am hoping that this RC for what it is worth is able to contribute to the reversal.

  113. Royal Commission of Inquiry should set the ‘Lingam tape’ with subtitle on and than allow Lingam to read. One test without liquor and another with liquor. By listening to the test we can Know his soberness. If he’s drunk he won’t be able to read.

  114. “What is quite disappointing is that only one member of the Commission appears to do most of the probing and the rest appear dumbfounded by the goings on.” – HJ Angus

    ————————————————————–
    The job of the other commissioners is to look for any loophole to exonerate Lingam and all those implicated in the tape of any wrongdoings.

    Don’t be surprised if the report of the RCI looks like this: The person speaking on the phone looks like Lingam and sounds like Lingam, but we no evidence to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the person was Lingam.

  118. “I am concerned about the possible appointment of Zaki as the head of the Judiciary.” HB Lim

    Zaki Tun Azmi is done chasing skirts and has acquired his own pot of gold with a little help from UMNO. He is now ready to give back to the country that has made him into what he is today – a skirt chaser with his own pot of gold.

  119. If you are a crook,you are one no matter how cunningly you argue.You can deny,you can lie, you can pretend to lose your memory or you can cheat yourself.You may even get off scot-free although you have committed untold crime.But your conscience will prick you until you die.

  123. From the initial video which I had viewed and heard, I was never under the impression that Lingam was drunk, unless one meant “drunk with power.”
    And I have seen my share of people who are drunk.
    I wonder though, for someone like Tengku Adnan, who being Muslim is unlikely to drink and would therefore also be unlikely to associate with drunks during drinking sessions – WHY did he even suggest that Lingam was drunk?
    It was later borne out that Lingam, who testified subsequently, also suggested during later testimony that he was drunk!
    Would one be forgiven for thinking that the “Lingam was drunk” testimony was rehearsed? Otherwise, it would seem very “fortuitous” that Tengku Adnan was “correct” in “diagnosing” that Lingam was drunk, as Lingam later suggested, even before Lingam first said it.

    It is very interesting though, that Lingam was VERY insistent that Loh DID bring alcohol to his house! Now, if Lingam was so drunk, how could he be so insistent on that fact that Loh DID bring alcohol that particular evening?
    Or, was Lingam’s state of drunkenness very selective, just as the selective amnaesia demonstrated by Mahathir?
    In any case, the contents of the conversation included “forecasts” that were later borne true, concerning elevation of judges and awarding of titleship awards – Lingam must be a phenomenal prophet when he is drunk!

  124. QC is an abbreviation for Queen Counsel. In UK and some commonwealth jurisdictions, QC title is conferred to senior legal practitioners in court, acknowledged by their peers as leading counsels who are of good integrity and character, exceptionally gifted and excellent in their specialized field of practice.

    So Kanthanboy, thanks for the very kind reference. My answer to your question is – irrespective of what others have said – the writing looks and sounds like a QC’s but….. :)

    On a more serious note, and in reference to various legitimate concerns raised by HB Lim, the following thoughts occur to me:

    · Our hopes are pinned, to a significant extent, on how vigorous the independent Bar Council’s lawyers fight the Public Cause of Judicial Independence and how persuasive they are to get the RC address the alleged rot within the judiciary – the first battle is the present fight by them to resist attempts by Lingam/Eusoff to expunge from RC’s records evidence of their personal relationship on grounds that they are outside RC’s terms of reference.

    · The other significant player is the panel of the RC Commissioners, how committed they are or otherwise in respect to the Common Public Cause.

    · One has to watch closely Mahadev Shanker : he is sharpest of them all and by virtue of competence tends to lead the way for others. Where he leans is important – something one adjudges along the way and could see with greater clarity only with further deliberations and proceedings of the RC, it being premature at this moment.

    · Generally speaking (with no particular reference to any one or body), perception is not necessarily reality, and competence and sharpness does not necessarily indicate to which side one ultimately leans or that one would necessarily would use the competence and brilliance for the right ends! And even if one leans on the right side, the majority who lean the wrong side can overrule and outvote one in the final decisions.

    · We would have to wait and observe developments as they unfold.

    · As I said before, it is a ‘here and now’ thing to get through this hearing all ‘skeletons’ hidden in judicial closets exposed to the public (since we cannot control what RC eventually recommends or how Govt will act on their recommendations).

  125. And of course HL Lim like others (eg Rocky, Godfather etc) are right in recognising that ultimately the most important thing is independence – courage and merits of judiciary.

    Every issue of any significance affecting rakyat hinges on rights and obligations, legal or constitutional, and it depends on judges, the arbiters of all disputes : are they competent in interpreting and adjudicating complexities of issues, are they fair in deciding, do they uphold the laws/rules for justice or beholden or susceptible to Power or Corruption etc? If this prerequisite is not met, no change for the better within framework of law can happen, and it will drive the young and impatient to think of othermore radical means to effect change than evolution via negotiation with framework of laws.

  126. Bro Kit,

    The responsible guys out there are all trying to prove the RAKYAT
    wrong and are BLOODY FOOLS

    Remember the P.RAMLEE MOVIE , “MUSANG BERJANGKUT” where P.Ramlee is FAKE BOMOH who dupes the ROYAL COURT MINISTERS with an bowl of water, with a few swirls of his fingers and mantras etc and tells them that there is and image appearing in the water and he sees it clearly and asks them whether they too saw it.

    When they said they do not see anything, he says to them that whoever does not see it is ONE WHO IS BORN OUT OF WEDLOCK and they all quickly agree with him that there is an image appearing.

    That movie was probably in the 60’s or 70’s

    LEAVE YOU ALL TO DRAW YOUR OWN CONCLUSIONS

  127. “are they competent in interpreting and adjudicating complexities of issues, are they fair in deciding, do they uphold the laws/rules for justice or beholden or susceptible to Power or Corruption etc?”

    What if the laws/rules the judges try to upholdare inherently unfair and unjust? What avenue has the judges got, no matter how profeessional, competent and independent the judges are?

    “no change for the better within framework of law can happen, and it will drive the young and impatient to think of othermore radical means to effect change than evolution via negotiation within framework of laws”.

    well said.

  129. Royal Commission of Inquiry

    YB Kit’s said it is being, ha ………………IFAMY
    Lingam’s, ha, just 2 drinks and drunk …….SILLY
    What about the Tenku ? Many said were COCKY
    Eusof’s holidaying was part of the ………STORY
    Dr M …eh…many believed hijack the JUDICIARY
    Ah ……..That was sometime in the late EIGHTY
    Causing every aspects of ……..INCOMPETENCY
    and
    Leaving this nation with question of INTEGRITY
    Selected ……. TRANSPARENCY
    Much talked about …….. DEMOCRACY
    Top political posts…….. HERIDITARY
    Many have no ………. ACCOUNTABILITY
    Voted in without much ……… ABILITY
    Screaming they meant it for …..UNITY
    Care not for this ……. COUNTRY
    Robbed and rape with …… IMPUNITY
    Some behave with …….. IDIOCY
    Other commit ……. ADULTERY

    No APOLOGY from me when we choosed to be
    governed by people from half past six MINISTRY!!!!
    Vote WISELY and not commit ourselves to more charade
    of drama from the Royal Commision of INQUIRY
    where many have escaped …….eh PERJURY.

    Malaysia Boleh; Semua Boleh & Macam, macam Boleh !

  130. RCI should get Linggam to drink before he testify so all the ” rubbish ” will come out. They should use the same bomoh from the Ikatan Bomoh Malaysia to justify if TDM is telling the truth and give E Chin some estasy so they can party together in court.

  131. Shim: I’m rather concerned about the scope of the terms of reference. Including the evidence has widened the scope to almost infinity.

    Lazar: It’s not just fixing of judges but fixing of cases. What other consequences would come later, I cannot say at this juncture.

    Hey Shim, If you want to clean the judiciary, make sure that you do not leave any stone unturned. Holidaying with CJ and AG is not normal for lawyers you know. Case fixing is more serious than football match fixing. Do not be a spoil sport!

    If testimonies of TDM, Lingam and Eusoff Chin can be accepted, we can use this type as defence in future court cases.
    Funny thing is that those people giving such flimsy evidencecome from learned and officers of the court. If my Grandma gives such evidence it is reasonable because she can read or write.

  133. To: limkamput

    “What if the laws/rules the judges try to upholdare inherently unfair and unjust? What avenue has the judges got, no matter how profeessional, competent and independent the judges are?”

    I suggest we shoot the judges. Then you and I can sit and write new laws and send judges (those not shot) back to law school. Why wait for Parliament to do that since it is BN controlled though they may have lost their 2/3 majority.

    I think this is a brilliant idea.

  134. ““no change for the better within framework of law can happen, and it will drive the young and impatient to think of othermore radical means to effect change than evolution via negotiation within framework of laws”. Jeffrey

    Yes, I propose limkamput to lead the mob. Hope he’s old and experienced enough to lead. Mob rule makes more sense than the rule of law especially when we never wrote that law, and judges are always abusing it. To begin with these laws are unfair and unjust.

  137. Then you and I can sit and write new laws and send judges (those not shot) back to law school. BlackEye

    BlackEye,
    No no no, you shoot them and then appoint yourself or ask Jeffrey, Undergrad2 or Darkhorse to be the judges to interpret the archaic laws and constitution we have. I am sure they will find a way to do justice to this country without the Parliament. You are so clever, I salute you.

    DarkHorse, Ok, very very very well said.

  138. From the proceedings of the RCI in action last week and 2 days so far this week, we have seen witnesses’s testimonies that have earned stunned reaction and remarks like incredulous and even contemptuous from our posters here. While many deride the evasive nature of the answers there are others who make prognosis of the future utility of such tack.

    When we watch the video clip and read about the NZ trip we may, in all probability, be getting a glimpse of skeletons in the closets of many a so-and-so.

    Especially since this RCI is conducted just after the DVD scandal, it would be quite hard now not to imagine many other so-and-sos high in political circles, not necessarily involved in this Lingamgate but perhaps in some others yet to surface, having ‘makan cabai,
    terasa pedas’ going through a spring-cleaning. Not that they haven’t done anything about it earlier but only now with greater intensity and detail and probably more frantic in disposing, disguising or ‘spin’ing their skeleton.

    Taking a step further, just as someone had been practising this to an art form not too long ago, those who may have knowledge or have evidence about someone else’s skeleton-in-the-closet will use their leverage to dictate the balance of power among rivals.
    The only difference this time is the multi-partite nature of such tussle. Not only because of the impending GE but also the scramble for the pinnacle post amidst what may appear to be an ‘uninspired’ leadership that we can expect more skeletons falling out or at least some closets opening to offer us a glimpse of other hidden skeletons. Chances are it’s more probable than that of
    bumping into my ‘buddy’ at KLIA or Changi Airport.

  139. “No no no, you shoot them and then appoint yourself or ask Jeffrey, Undergrad2 or Darkhorse to be the judges to interpret the archaic laws and constitution we have.”

    Archaic laws? What archaic laws?

    You mean our Constitution is archaic because it is about five decades old? The the U.S. Constitution is more than 200 years old and has, I believe, only 27 amendments. Our Federal Constitution of 1957 has been amended some 600 plus times (the last time I counted) and has evolved through a short period of some fifty years, and faster than the U.S. Constitution.

  140. The robustness of a constitution is not dependent on how times that constitution is amended. It is also not dependent on how old that constitution has been. The constitution of Malaysia is amended more times than the US’s but that is not a measure whether a constitution has withstood the test of time or is relevant. Do you know why US constitution is amended fewer times (but I am not telling you because you people are not worth educating)? You see, I read this same old story you people put up over and over again. A little knowledge is a dangerous thing!

  141. “When we watch the video clip and read about the NZ trip we may, in all probability, be getting a glimpse of skeletons in the closets of many a so-and-so.” ALtPJK

    It is not the fact that there appears to be a very friendly relationship between a member of the bench and that of a practicing lawyer that is the ‘skeleton in the closet’ but the underlying issue of corruption of the legal process that it seems to point to.

    The video clip may not be evidence of anything more than a drunken sailor with a credit card. But when the drunken sailor is a practicing lawyer talking to someone about elevating him and in his friends, all members of the bench, and that someone is third in line for the job, then common sense tells us that it deserves investigation.

  148. “Haidar said what was reported in the newspaper did not give a good reflection on the Commission.”

    Public opinion is like a mirror. If your reflection in the mirror is ugly, the problem is not the mirror. It is because you are ugly.

  150. The RCI must be serious and firm to the accused in answering. They should ask the accuse to answer in ‘YES’ or ‘NO’. And not like V.K. Lingam who is giving ‘uncertain’ answers which is a waste of time.

  151. Colonel, is this the first time you see the word robustness? If so, don’t be despair and feel small about yourself. Be humble, go check dictionary. If you still cannot find the context after checking the dictionary, that means you are not fit to be here.

    BlackEyes @ laifong, what got deleted is between me and the moderator. I guess what is mundane, predictable, conventional, uncontroversial or conformist will stand.

    DarkHorse, come on, you don’t know which one? You are smarter than that, unless you want me to put you in colonel’s and BlackEye’s category.

    Undergrad2, I know it is not nice, the intention is intentional. But seriously, there are too many parroting here (but I am not referring to you).

  152. sharibomar,

    It is not a court proceeding and so witnesses are allowed to say what they feel need to be said – except make a speech. In a court hearing, some questions call for a “yes” or “no” answer, others do not.

    Not a matter of being serious and firm. It is a public inquiry and panel members have a lot of discretion.

  153. “BlackEyes @ laifong, what got deleted is between me and the moderator. I guess what is mundane, predictable, conventional, uncontroversial or conformist will stand.”

    Now you go from insulting some posters to insulting all posters!

  154. V.K.L show can be a good case study for all aspiring law graduates that the malaysian legal system can be compromised and if caught all one need to remember is the 3 magical words..”It looks like me, sounds like me but is wasn’t me”. VKL should be voted Malaysian Man of the Year!!

  155. Seriously, I don’t think anyone should, even in jest, suggest shooting anyone. Especially not in the light of what had happend in M.I.C.Johor recently.
    If someone was actually deranged enough to actually do what had been suggested here in jest, even if that nut had NOT been reading this blog, the moderator might land into hot water.
    Else, the moderator might be hauled up for not moderating calls to violence left on this blog.
    Alternatively, other bloggers may leave hate messages on other blogs calling for violence against others they don’t like.
    After what had happened to jeffooi and rockybru, I think we should be more careful.
    No malice intended.

  159. Does this qualify as a hate message?

    “I suggest we shoot the judges. Then you and I can sit and write new laws and send judges (those not shot) back to law school. Why wait for Parliament to do that since it is BN controlled though they may have lost their 2/3 majority.” BlackEye

  161. “Haidar said what was reported in the newspaper did not give a good reflection on the Commission.”

    Public opinion is like a mirror. If your reflection in the mirror is ugly, the problem is not the mirror. It is because you are ugly. – kanthanboy

    Spot on! :D

  163. The case is well known – involving I believe Jeff Ooi?

    “The Sun and Nexnews Group Executive Editor P. Gunasegaram yesterday lodged a complaint against an internet website for carrying a posting inciting people to do bodily harm to Gunasegaram over an article he wrote.”

    That involved a named individual over what he did.

    “Freedom of expression does not extend to inciting people to cause harm to someone else,” Ho said. “Indeed, the threat to Gunasegaram was clearly meant to shut him up. Those of us who cherish freedom of expression…”

    “Shoot all politicians and lawyers” certainly is not in the same category. Furthermore, it is a common expression of disgust for members of the profession who fail to live up to expectations. It hardly qualifies as “incitement”. If it involves a named individual, then it is entirely a different matter.

    So like undergrad2 said, gimme a break!

  165. “Colonel, is this the first time you see the word robustness? If so, don’t be despair and feel small about yourself. Be humble, go check dictionary. If you still cannot find the context after checking the dictionary, that means you are not fit to be here.” limkamput

    I’m shocked to read this! We are here to debate on the issues and here we have a recalcitrant poster telling another he’s not fit to be here!

  166. VK Lingam is brazen in denying what to most reasonable persons is undeniable, turning the RC hearing to something of a circus.

    After the “it looks like me and sounds like me” quote of the century, he gave further testimonies as ingenious as they are conflicting & hilarious – on one hand he said “I don’t want to say it’s 100 percent me because the authenticity of the clip has to be established by my two experts first”; on the other, when Commissioner Mahadev Shanker then asked him : “So how many percent looks like you?” (Laughter around the room) he said “I don’t want to get into a mathematical debate with my learned commissioner. My experts said the report by the local experts is fundamentally flawed and it’s defective. Let my experts first be called. I am not denying it’s me. If my experts said it’s 100 percent me, I will be the first one to say it….”

    Equally astounding was his further statements that it was up to him to ‘pretend’ to talk to whomever he wanted to. “I can choose whatever topic I like. I can even pretend to talk to President Bush if I like….That (conversation) was in my house. That was in the privacy of my room. My house is my castle. I am the king there. I can talk whatever rubbish in my house as long as I don’t get drunk outside and misbehave…Even if I did say it (ie mention Fairuz to Loh) and I am sorry to use this word but I was bullshitting and bragging,” he said, denying that he talked to ex CJ Ahmad Fairuz Sheikh Abdul Halim.

    On his trip with Eusoff Chin, he said everything was coincidental – ie their meeting in Changi airport in Singapore, the same travel agency (Holiday Tours and Travel) that issued both Lingam’s and Eusoff’s itinerary, same dates of flight and same flight from S’pore to Auckland, the same places in Auckland that they visited – including the zoo and bird park – where they took photographs together, the same van they shared to same destination Queenstown….

    The best part was Eusoff’s travel itinerary, shown as evidence, which was addressed to Rohani/Jeyanthi. (Rohani was/is Eusoff’s secretary, and Jeyanthi, Lingam’s secretary).

    Asked whether he could think of a reason Eusoff’s travel itinerary should mention Jeyanthi’s name, Lingam said, “I can’t think of any reason, there are so many Indian women by that name Jeyanthi”. :)

  167. V.K. Linggam is irrefutably one of the greatest stonewalling artist in the history of this so-called “Bolehland”.

    1st he obfuscated the Royal Commission with “looks like me, sounds like me” of what can be the catchphrase of any directors of an upcoming movies and can easily be inherited to a National catchphrase by anyone who were captured on audio-visual for any misdeeds.

    BUT DON’t EVER TRY THESE. V.K. Linggam is no ragtag. He is neither an ordinary lawyer but his ability to manipulate events is comparable to a master con-artist.

    In later part, he averred that “he never claimed that he never said that the man appeared to be like him was not him.

    His pre-meditated contiguency plans was, if he is to confess it is him, or by the dialectics and ruthless grilling could proves that it is him, now he made the whole episode of his chat with the suspected ex-CJ looks comical with his creative claims of being booze-up and talking rubbish himself.

    Victor Lustig may be considered one of the greatest con man ever,
    I am wondering has Guiness Book of Records (Malaysia) has any category for conmen?

  168. Jeffrey,

    Like I said earlier his defense has to be: accept nothing and deny everything. He’s doing very well so far.

    But I must say after these ‘outbursts’ his credibility as a lawyer is close to zilch. His alma mater University of Buckingham would have to put his mug shot in their Hall of Shame, and Lincoln’s Inn (I believe) would have to consider striking him off the roll.

  169. “//…..But I must say after these ‘outbursts’ his credibility as a lawyer is close to zilch…//” – Undergrad2

    I am sure he knows that. I am sure he knows he won’t be believed. Even people who want to help him would shake head when they read the transcripts. Frankly he is not concerned with “credibility close to zilch”; I don’t think he is even concerned with his cerdibility as a legal practitioner any more; he is concerned with only but one issue – not admitting, which means deny and deny even in the face of overwhelming evidence and the obvious.

    There is a method in such kind of madness that I can imagine if I were in similar position. First denial means no self-incrimination, no walk over to the probers and investigators, because one never knows where such a hearing on fixing of judicial appointments and its findings may lead to – for enquiry into for eg. fixing of cases and its comparatively more serious implications; second, it is ‘mafia honour’ that those who benefited from Powers-that-be ought not, on their own accord, spill the beans on those with whom they had collaborated and benefited by an admission that gives no opportunity or room for subsequent spinning even if that were intended.

    So he says to RC and lawyers of interested parties, “I admit nothing, you prove everything” knowing fully well that had this been a civil court using the standard of ‘balance of probabilities’ or even a criminal court using the standard of ‘beyond reasonable doubt’, he would not be believed by application of both standards, if the persons adjudicating and deciding are reasonable and impartial.

    What he is saying to Powers-that-be is something (hypothetically) along these imaginary lines – “that if you want to protect your own credibility, then make sure your arbiters/judges/decision makers whoever in whatsoever forums will decide in my favour and give me benefit of doubt, no matter how incredible my testimony may sound. If you can’t, well that’s just too bad. However, I have kept to the minimum part of the bargain, expected of a person who has benefited from the support of Powers-that-be in the past : that even under the most extenuating circumstances of being caught on tape, I keep to my bargain of not implicating anyone from whom I have benefited. I rather publicly blame myself for being drunk or boastful and even a laughed at by my incredible testimony. What happens after this, is taken out of my hands, and up to you, the ball is in your court, and how you handle the Malaysian public, the commissioners, lawyers, whatever…..If you get further into trouble, let it not be said that I have done anything to compound my first indiscretion and recklessness of getting caught in video clip and photographs”.

    In the face of absence of alternatives, he has no other course except to deny and deny that there is anything in the room even if an African elephant occupies ¾ of it.

  170. “I am sure he knows that. I am sure he knows he won’t be believed. Even people who want to help him would shake head when they read the transcripts.”

    Yes, even if God were sitting at the corner of the room laughing just listening to him!

    He is seen to be taking no chances with the ‘system.’ So admit nothing, deny everything how ridiculous it may appear. In this country respect comes with wealth. With the loss of freedom what is wealth? He has accumulated millions in the short period of some 10 plus years after having made a midlife career change – something most of us could only dream of, putting to shame many politicians whose only purpose of entering politics is to enrich themselves.

    I can’t help but burst out laughing when he said his home is his castle and he can do whatever he pleases, be drunk and brag and bullshit – or talk to imaginary persons.

    My home is my castle! In typical Englishman style! LOL.

  171. He could at least have shown more respect to his mentors and say instead “My home is my istana” instead of my home is my castle. I cannot imagine former U.S. President Bill Clinton wagging his finger at the camera and saying that the White House is his castle.

  172. “It looks like me and it sounds like me” . Lingam, its not you. If I am not mistaken it was your long forgotten Siamese Twin :))!!> Huh!!..are we living in the real world? Mahathir created the illusion, Badawi is losing in delusion. What a fantastic Malaysian politics.

Leave a Reply