Justice For All Malaysia

The Lingam tape: The royal commission’s key findings

Posted on: May 17, 2008

May 16, 08 7:09pm
The following are some of the findings of the 191-page report of the Lingam Tape Royal Commission, part of it was made available to the media today. The full report will be on sale next week.


Is the video clip authentic?

In the final analysis, when all is said and done by the experts, both local and foreign, stripped off all the technical jargon that they used in their findings, when examined in the context of the
direct or primary evidence of the maker of the video clip, coupled with that of the eyewitnesses, a simple question confronting the commission can be posed in layman terms: Is the video clip
genuine, real, reliable or trustworthy and therefore authentic?

We have no hesitation in answering in the affirmative.

Who’s the person on the other end of the phone?

In our view, when the testimonies of senior lawyer VK Lingam and former chief justice Ahmad Fairuz Sheikh Abdul Halim, which consist essentially of bare denials, are examined against the direct evidence elicited from the phone conversation in the video clip as well as the evidence of two eyewitnesses and the circumstantial evidence alluded to above, an irresistible inference can reasonably be drawn, namely, that the person to whom Lingam was speaking on the other end of the phone was Ahmad Fairuz.

the lingam tape the six key individuals 160508In the circumstances, having heard the submissions before us and having regard to the totality of the evidence adduced in the enquiry, we are constrained to come to the conclusion that the identity of the other person concerned is none other than Ahmad Fairuz.

Was Lingam intoxicated during the phone conversation?

The evidence shows that he was not. This can be discernible from the following factors:

First, we have had the opportunity of viewing and hearing the video clip played before us no less than five times during the course of the enquiry. We are unable to detect both from his mannerisms and speech that the speaker (identified as Lingam) was intoxicated. He was able to recite accurately various facts and events in great detail. He seemed perfectly rational in every way.

Second, the witnesses, Loh Mui Fah and Loh Gwo-Burne who were present there at the material time testified that Lingam was not intoxicated. Indeed, they stated that they had gone to Lingam’s house to have dinner with him and also to discuss some legal matters. It is therefore implausible that Lingam would have allowed himself to get intoxicated.

Third, Lingam’s evidence that he could be intoxicated was not something that he recollected as a fact but which he arrived at by way of supposition and surmise based upon sight of a number
of bottles of alcohol shown in the two photographs taken at the time. In any case, he admitted that he would only drink during social occasions and was not a heavy drinker.

Was Lingam ‘bullshitting or bragging’?

Lingam had also maintained that he could be, as he said, “bullshitting or bragging”. Again, the evidence militates against this stand. In our view, this is implausible, given the details reflected in the conversation in the video clip; the flow of the dialogue and the fact that most of the statements contained therein have been established to be true in material particulars.

Was there a conspiracy?

In the final analysis, having regard to the totality of the evidence and for the reasons stated, we are of the view that there was, conceivably, an insidious movement by Lingam with the covert
assistance of his close friends, Vincent Tan and Tengku Adnan Tengku Mansor, to involve themselves actively in the appointment of judges, in particular, the appointment of Ahmad Fairuz
as the chief judge of Malaya and subsequently as Court of Appeal president.

In the process, Dr Mahathir Mohamad was also entangled. That possibility was ominous when examined against the factual circumstances surrounding the rejection of Malek Ahmad as chief judge of Malaya. Their ultimate aim or purpose could not be ascertained with exactitude, given the limitation under the (commission’s) terms of reference. It could be related to the fixing of cases, as submitted by counsel for the Bar and others. Certainly, it is reasonable to suggest that it could not be anything but self-serving.

Invoke laws against key individuals

It is sufficient for us to state here that the collective and cumulative actions of the main characters concerned, had the effect of seriously undermining and eroding the independence and integrity of the judiciary as a whole.

For the moment, we would state that there is sufficient cause to invoke the Sedition Act 1948, the Prevention of Corruption 1961, the Legal Profession Act 1976, the Official Secrets Act 1972 and the Penal Code against some of the principal individuals involved. We do not discount the possibility of other laws being contravened. In any case, the findings have, at the very least, provided the catalyst for further investigations so that, hopefully, there would be complete transparency and full accountability.

This is absolutely essential if we are to wipe out, once and for all, the stain of that remark once made by justice NH Chan, in reference to the judiciary, that “something is rotten in the state
of Denmark”.

SPECIAL REPORT: The Lingam tape


1 Response to "The Lingam tape: The royal commission’s key findings"

[…] christian wrote an interesting post today onHere’s a quick excerpt […]

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

Must Attend Program

Please go to this link: https://justice4allkuantan.wordpress.com/2008/10/25/invitation-public-forum-the-isa-and-the-police-reform-process-whats-next-after-pak-lah/
To sin by silence when we should protest makes cowards of people - Emily Cox

Siphoning EPF money

On 'Why should Valuecap borrow from EPF?' Syed Shahir Syed Mohamud: MTUC condemns the government's move to bail out Valuecap to support the local stock market using RM5 billion from EPF, as the provident fund is the custodian of the workers' money and not some sort of ‘automated teller machine' for the government.
If at all the EPF were to lend its money to the government, it has to be under the condition that there be transparency and accountability in the activities for which the money has been purposed. We want to know who is doing what with the money that belongs to the workers. This is the hard-earned money of the workers, their retirement plan. How is this bailout plan going to benefit the workers? We also question the reason for this bailout. If the economic fundamentals in Malaysia are strong and reserves sufficient as has been stated several times by the government, then why is there a need to offer so much money to the GLCs? Second Finance Minister Nor Mohamed Yakcop should prove how the EPF would profit from this loan. Bernama had reported that Nor had given the assurance that the loan given out by EPF would reap profits for the fund judging from Valuecap's past performance. But where is the paperwork and calculations to show that this move will benefit the EPF? MTUC is concerned that the loan might be mismanaged or misused and this, in turn, would affect the returns for the contributors. Mere assurances are not enough. We want to proof that this RM5 billion will not go down the drain. (The writer is president, MTUC). Sharyn: The government wants to use our pension money to prop up the Malaysian stock market which is the playing field of the rich people. If so, the government must ensure that the EPF account holders - who are predominantly the poor to average citizens of Malaysia - be guaranteed all of our pension money with a compound 8% growth (interest). It's so selfish and sick of the government to use the poor's pension money to help the rich to make more money with all the risks taken by the poor/average citizen. We can better use the RM% billion loans to Valuecap for our children's education, shelter, medical bills etc. Why not get those rich people to prop up the share market instead? Why should they park their money overseas and gamble with our EPF money instead? Kumar14: Who is behind this Valuecap organisation? Why suddenly, this separate entity is allowed to access funds from the EPF? Are they capable enough to handle it or is it just another desperate and blind move? It has been a very infamous trend where the people's funds are channeled to a company for investment purposes and suddenly POP! the funds disappear and there is nobody to be held responsible but a RM2 shell company. Charge who? Sue whom? The RM2 company (just a registered name)? We have seen this many times. People in power and with connections allow such things to go through and reap/rob the people's wealth and then blame it on organisations which actually don't exist. What if a lot of EPF funds are looted via such scams and nobody is to be pointed at? Where will the government get the funds to replenish the EPF? The people are very bored, disappointed, angry and frustrated at seeing all these dumb and unaccounted for measures being allowed by the government with lame excuses. Please, somebody verify the true purpose, integrity and capability of anybody attempting to use the people's fund.

Raja Petra

Photobucket Ihsan dari blog Go!Malaysian http://gomalaysian.blogspot.com/


A prosperous future is indivisible from a firm commitment to the principles of distributive justice, the rule of law and a profound respect for human rights.

Email Address:



May 2008
« Apr   Jun »

Blog Stats

  • 117,878 hits
%d bloggers like this: