MORE PICS - LINGAM insists on ORIGINAL Copy for Authenticity despite confirmation & was Tipsy with Drinks’; Clip Release Original Motive: For Revenge?
Go H E R E
MORE PICS & Video – Anti Vice Raid -26
Malaysiakini has the breaking stories on Day 6 but is still Blocking this Site and others in its MKINI in BLOGS, Goggle Blog Search. Bookmark this site for faster access.
ABOVE: Lingam arriving and with a forced smile posted for newsmen waiting
Reading one account of the Day 6 of the RCI would leave one short of details and wondering what is happening especially the foreign wired agencies ones as they would not include the details – what is important to them is the main gist of the day. By far, theSUN must be given credit for early detailed Q & A report of the Day’s proceedings and the Star would have a better account with more time at hand in the following morning edition. The Bar website reports do filled in the details in chronological order and has an excellent account on the questioning of the “original” memory card storing the “complete segment of the Video Clip” and details of the difference in the shirt in the photo and the video clip.
The defence of Lingam’s hinges on his demand of the “original” copy of the Video Clip. It was first recorded in a memory card and resided in the Sony 707 Digi camera. The purpose of the memory card is for recording purpose and has limited capacity and its full content must be transferred out for further use. So the “original” is lost forever and Lingam is now insisting that without the original he cannot get the clip verified as he had read literature and research that states “that authenticity cannot be established without the original recording and when he had the original recording, he would send it to his consultants to verify its authenticity”. In this he must have been grossly misled. A duplicate would faithfully reproduce the original otherwise how will the “original” CD and Cassettes be made for sale?
Bernama is now early with brief reports with follow up write-ups. Its report under “Loh Was Never His Client, Only A Social Friend, Says Lingam” gives an insight on the initial motive for the release of the Video Clip. It reveals that business man Loh Mui Fah’s “mother took a legal action against him (lingam)” and he was at Lingam house asking for “refund of fees”. Those who can remember Loh’s father is the Nissan King Loh Kim Fah who acquired his fortune selling the then popular car and Lingam has represented him in a big matrimony case then. The subsequent release of the Video Clip by Datuk Anwar Ibrahim is a different story altogether.
= == = == = == from the wired agencies with comments from Bar Chairwoman, Ambiga
'It looks like me', says lawyer in M'sian judicial scandal
'I do not know who I was talking to. But certainly I was not talking to Mr Ahmad Fairuz,' Mr Lingam told the inquiry. 'Until today I have not spoken to Mr Ahmad Fairuz over the telephone.' 'I can't recollect when this conversation took place,' he said.
Lingam: Not me
Mr Lingam refused to directly confirm that he was the man in the video, said to be made in December 2001, admitting only that 'it looks like me, the voice sounds like me'. 'You can ask me a hundred times, my answer will still be the same,' said the 57-year-old lawyer who refused to directly conform that he was the man in the video. Mr Ahmad Fairuz went on to be appointed to the number-two post and was then quickly elevated to the top position of chief justice. He completed his term and stood down last year. The maker of the video clip, 34-year-old businessman Loh Gwo Burne, also appeared before the inquiry and said it was recorded when he went to Lingam's house to discuss a legal matter.
'Yes, I recorded V.K. Lingam speaking on the telephone,' he said, dismissing suggestions that the lawyer was drunk at the time or that he could have been play-acting. -- AFP, REUTERS
= == = == = == =
M'sia's judiciary reputation in the dock
It's not about individuals really. It's about the whole system,' said Ambiga Sreenevasan, president of
Foreign investors, too, have shown little faith in the Malaysian system. Lawyers said more and more foreign firms prefer to seek legal redress in
Dr Mahathir told the commission last week he personally decided the appointment of top judges during his reign, discarding the advice of the chief justice on at least one occasion. The opposition has blasted the 82-year-old Dr Mahathir, who ruled with an iron grip before retiring in late 2003, as being 'evasive and uncharacteristically unforgetful' during the testimony. Dr Mahathir aside, another thorn on Mr Abdullah's side is de facto opposition leader Anwar Ibrahim, who leaked the video in September and quickly turned it into a major election issue. Dr Mahathir sacked his former deputy in 1998, then had him arrested and jailed before he was freed in 2004. Under the law, he cannot stand for office until April due to his conviction. Analysts said Mr Abdullah, who swept into power promising a cleaner overnment and less corruption, should seize the opportunity to silent his critics and reform the judiciary.
'We can change it very easily. Now the chief justice is so straight,' the Bar's Ambiga said. 'I can tell you confidence will come back very fast. But they must want to change.' Some analysts question whether the political will is there, despite Mr Abdullah's ability to ram through reforms, given his ruling coalition's overwhelming majority in parliament. 'At the end of the day, nothing will change. Everybody, from Anwar to the Bar Council, just wanted to settle scores at the expense of the judiciary,' said one political analyst. – REUTERS
= == = == =
Businessman fingers top lawyer in video of M'sian judiciary
Mr Loh said he was fiddling with his camera, trying to take a picture of a vase, when he realised it was set to record video rather than still images. He said he continued recording Mr Lingam when he began talking to someone on his phone. 'I was kind of bored and frankly I was fed up with him always on the phone. We were supposed to discuss our legal matters but he was constantly attending to other matters, talking on the phone,' Mr Loh said. Even before the opposition made the video public late last year,
Mr Lingam (ABOVE, positively identified) was not aware he was being recorded, Mr Loh said. Mr Lingam was brought into the courtroom for 20 seconds for Mr Loh to formally identify him as the man in the video. Mr Loh said he downloaded the video to his computer and made a CD copy. Subsequently, he met another lawyer, Mr Manjit Singh, who used to work for Mr Lingam. Mr Manjit has since died. Mr Loh said he and Mr Manjit were complaining to each other about Mr Lingam, who apparently had not paid Mr Manjit for his work. 'Manjit said, 'This guy, always politics, politics, politics.' I said, 'Maybe you should check this thing out?' So I gave him a copy (of the video),' he said.
Mr Loh said he made several backup copies on DVD and his laptop computers, some of which he took to China where he has since started working as a consultant, but that he didn't know how the opposition got hold of the recording.
In the video, Mr Lingam is heard telling the person whom he identifies as Mr Ahmad Fairuz that he has extremely close ties with Mr Eusoff Chin - the Chief Justice of Malaysia between 1994 and 2000 - and that he had cooperated with Mr Eusoff to ensure certain people became judges. He hinted that Mr Eusoff had helped him win cases. The inquiry has already heard that Mr Lingam took a family vacation in 1994 with Mr Eusoff, who has denied any wrongdoing. -- AP
= == = == = from local Media
Lingam: Looks like me, sounds like me
R.Surenthira Kumar and Llew-Ann Phang, the SUN
Lawyer V.K. Lingam testifies at Royal Commission of Inquiry
KUALA LUMPUR (Jan 21, 2008): Despite being identified by earlier witnesses, lawyer Datuk V.K. Lingam today insisted before the Royal Commission of Inquiry probing a controversial video-clip that the person featured in the clip "looks like me and sounds like me". "Irrespective of what others said, it looks like me and sounds like me," he told the commission. He then added: "I have conducted my own checks and the only way to verify its authenticity is to have the original equipment used to record it and the original recording is produced." On another crucial point, the 57-year-old who has been practising law for 20 years, said he had never telephoned the former Chief Justice Tun Ahmad Fairuz Sheikh Abdul Halim and neither had the judge contacted him on the phone. Lingam was the 13th witness to be called, and was summoned after Loh Gwo Burne had testified this morning that he was the person who recorded the video clip, and had passed a copy of it to lawyer Manjit Singh.
When questioned by Deputy Public Prosecutor (DPP) Datuk Nordin Hassan if he had watched the video clip, Lingam said the Anti-Corruption Agency (ACA) had showed it to him in the course of their investigation and he also watched it on the Internet while he was overseas. The video-clip was then replayed for the sixth time for Lingam to view it. Asked by Nordin if he had watched the video clip which was shown to him, he retorted by asking if it was the original clip.
Commission chairman Tan Sri Haidar Mohamed Noor told Lingam to just answer the question.
Lingam: Yes, I have seen it.
Nordin : Are you the man talking on the telephone in this video clip?
Lingam : It looks like me.
Nordin : I have to tell you about the facts established by the Commission following the testimonies of the previous witnesses.
Lim Mui Fah (businessman) has confirmed it is you, so has Lim’s son, Lim Gwo Burne, and Datuk Seri Tengku Adnan. Cyber Security’s digital forensics expert Mohd Zabri Adil Talib said the voice in the video clip matched your voice sample. Tun Mohamed Eusoff Chin (former chief justice) also confirmed it sounds like you. The 17 photographs taken also have similar background to that found in your house.
I ask you again, whether the man in the video clip is you?
Lingam : Irrespective of what others said, it looks like me and sounds like me.
I have conducted my own checks and the only way to verify its authenticity is to have the original equipment used to record it and the original recording is produced.
Haidar: Are you making a submission here?
Lingam : No, I am only answering the question.
Nordin then showed Lingam the photographs of Loh Mui Fah seated with him on the sofa and asked the lawyer if he knew the person.
Lingam said the picture is not very clear, but it looked like Loh
Nordin : Who were you speaking to on the handphone in the video clip?
Lingam : I don’t know.
Haidar: You don’t know? (twice).
Lingam : But certainly I was not speaking to Ahmad Fairuz because I never had his phone number and neither did he have my umber. Until today, I have never spoken to him and neither has he talked to me.
Nordin : Do you know the man who is seated next to you in the photograph?
Lingam : It looks like Loh Mui Fah.
Nordin : Certainly you can identify him?
Lingam : You can ask me the same question a 100 times, my answer will be the same, with respect.
He also told the inquiry he could not recollect the occasion when Lim visited him on two to three occasions previously.
Lingam said Lim was a social friend and he had come to his house in Kelana Jaya with his son and mistress, Tong Meai Nah.
Asked if he knew who recorded the phone conversation on the clip, Lingam also replied in the negative.
Nordin then requested for an adjournment as he would be going through the transcript.
Commission member Datuk Mahadev Shankar then asked if the answer given by the witness is going to be in the negative, what effect the questions would have. Earlier, when Nordin said he wanted to call Lingam as the next witness, Malaysian Bar representative Robert Lazar said the Commission should wait for two previous witnesses to complete their testimonies before proceeding with Lingam. Lazar said the ACA’s investigating officer senior Supt Chuah Lay Choo and former Chief Justice Tun Eusoff Chin are half-way in giving evidence and the Commision should refrain from calling Lingam now.
Haidar took note of this viewpoint and proceeded to call Lingam as the next witness.
When he took the stand, Lingam said he was acquainted with businessman Tan Sri Vincent Tan in the course of him acting as a lawyer for Tan’s Berjaya Group of companies and also personal legal cases around the 90s.
As for Tengku Adnan Mansor, Lingam said he knew the present Tourism Minister when he was an executive director with the Berjaya Group.
Lingam also said Loh Mui Fah was never his client, but that his (Mui Fah's) father was.
Lingam was not drunk at that time, say video clip maker
= = == == == ==
Loh Gwo Burne
= = == == == ==
ABOVE: as a student in Oldham
KUALA LUMPUR (Jan 21, 2008): Loh Gwo Burne (ABOVE, arriving on Day 6), who produced the video clip which allegedly showed a lawyer brokering the appointment of judges, today identified lawyer Datuk V.K. Lingam as the one featured in the clip, and the person he was talking to on the handphone was a man. He said as Lingam walked up and down during his conversation, he could hear a male voice at the other end of the line. Loh, a 33-year-old consultant now based in
He said he made the recording with a Sony 707 digital camera he had bought about two weeks before the visit to Lingam's house. However, he said he did not know how the clip went public, but said he had given a copy of the clip to another lawyer, Manjit Singh, now deceased, before he left for
Gwo Burne is the son of businessman Loh Mui Fah (ABOVE, Right) who had testified earlier that the person depicted in the clip was Lingam. Questioned by Deputy Public Prosecutor Datuk Nordin Hassan, Gwo Burne, the 12 witness to appear before the inquiry, said he went to Lingam’s house in late December 2001 after he and his father were invited for dinner and to discuss legal matters.
He said he got Lingam’s permission to take photos in the latter’s house during the visit.When the photos showing Lingam, his sister, lawyer Manjit Singh and Mui Fah was shown to him, Gwo Burne positively identified them.The video clip was then replayed for the fifth time.
Nordin: Is the content the same as the one you recorded in Lingam’s house?
Gwo Burne: Yes, I believe so.
Nordin: Can you tell where in the house was the recording done?
Gwo Burne: In the lounge area in Lingam’s house.
Nordin: Was there anybody else besides you and Lingam?
Gwo Burne: Yes, my father Loh Mui Fah.
Nordin: We are all very curious, why did you record the video clip?
Gwo Burne: I was trying to take a picture of the vase, (but) half-way through, the camera went into video mode. Frankly, I was fed-up with Lingam as he was always on the phone.
Nordin: Can you elaborate?
Gwo Burne: He was supposed to attend to our case, but he was constantly on the phone.
Gwo Burne said he (Lingam) was not aware of the recording and he too did not pay attention to Lingam's conversation on the phone as he was too engrossed fiddling with the camera.
He said he downloaded the pictures and the video recording from the camera’s memory stick into his personal computer and stored it into the hard disk before burning it into a CD.
Gwo Burne said he left for China in 2004 but before that, remembered handing over a copy of the CD to Manjit during a discussion where he had complained about Lingam not giving due attention to their case and after Manjit had complained that Lingam had not paid him for work done.
He said his father was not aware of the recording and he did not tell him about it.
Nordin: Can you tell us where the original CD is now?
Gwo Burne: I do not know where it is now, because it was a long time ago.
He said he had been to
Nordin: In transferring the data from the memory card to the personal computer, was the 14-minute video clip, at any time, tampered with or edited?
Gwo Burne: No.
Nordin: In your view was Lingam drunk or intoxicated?
Gwo Burne: Not much drink was had by them (including my father).
Lingam’s lawyer R.Thayalan then questioned Gwo Burne on whether he had recorded other images when he arrived at Lingam’s house.He said he had recorded the interior of Lingam’s house and also a dog, but the images captured were in a separate file.
Thayalan also asked Gwo Burne if he would be able to prove the person in the clip was Lingam by producing the original copy of the recording. He said he did not know where the original copy was as it had been a long time since the recording.
Salehuddin Saidin, one of the lawyers acting for former Chief Justice Tun Ahmad Fairuz Sheikh Abdul Halim, also asked Gwo Burne whether he could verify if the person speaking on the other side of the phone was a male or female.
He replied that it was a male as he could hear the voice on the other line.
Earlier, Haidar reprimanded lawyer Wee Choo Keong, who represents Lingam’s younger brother V.Thirunama Karasu, for speaking to the media and making insinuations.
Referring to a report in The Star, Haidar said Wee was quoted as saying the Commission was reluctant to hear his application to include Thirunama Karasu as a witness. "I would like to advise you to be careful of what you are saying. Give some respect to us. Don’t simply make insinuations."
= == ==
Don't Force Us To Take Action, Warns Haidar
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. Meanwhile, the Commission ordered all parties in the inquiry to submit on the relevancy of evidence relating to Lingam's trip with former Chief Justice Tun Eusoff Chin to
The order came about after Lingam's counsel R. Thayalan said the evidence was not within the scope of the Commission's terms of reference and was not relevant for the Commission to determine. Thayalan objected to the admissibility of that evidence after it was raised by the Malaysian Bar representative Robert Lazar. Thayalan said that evidence could not be linked to the appointment of judges as the trip was in 1994 while the conversation in the video clip took place in 2001. "The evidence of this is irrelevant, the Commission should exclude this matter and pray that the evidence be expunged from the proceedings.
= == = ==
Loh Was Never His Client, Only A Social Friend, Says Lingam
Lingam said to his best recollection, he never discussed any legal matter with Loh (Mui Fah) at his house when the latter came visiting. He said his (Mui Fah's) mother took a legal action against him and the case was heard before the then Ipoh High Court judge Datuk James Foong (now Court of Appeal judge).
Lingam said Loh (Mui Fah) was represented by another law firm, Messrs Sri Ram & Co, and that the counsel representing him (Loh) was the late Manjit Singh and Vijaya Kumar. Lingam also said he never engaged Manjit or Vijaya Kumar to represent Loh, adding that he (Loh) selected his own lawyers. "I make it absolutely clear that Loh Mui Fah was never my client and I have never acted for him. "Show me any court paper and the document if you have," he said.
= == = == == = == == = == ===
Lingam: Rejection Of Two Lawyers Was Common Gossip
Testifying on the sixth day of the Royal Commission of Inquiry, Lingam said he had picked up rumours relating to appointment of judges when he was waiting for his case to be called up by the court in Oct 2001. He said lawyers who were also waiting for their turn, had discussed amongst one another, over the promotion and rejection of candidates appointed as judges. "It is common gossip among lawyers," Lingam said, adding that he could not remember the names of lawyers gossiping on that issue because he had talked to many of them.
"The gossip was that Zainuddin and Andrew were recommended to be High Court judges in Oct 2001. "But in late Dec 2001, I heard that they were rejected. I don't know why PM (Dr Mahathir) rejected them," he said. Meanwhile, Lingam said the allegations contained in the transcript of the 14-minute video clip were not entirely true. "Not true, I do not know who it was, I do not know what it means, I don't remember having said these." These were the answers given by Lingam when questioned by conducting officer Datuk Nordin n Hassan on each of the allegations.
Questioned by commissioner Datuk Mahadev Shankar on whether his answer,
"I don't remember having said this" inferred that he might have said it but could not remember it now, Lingam said:
"It is possible I've said this but I can't remember because it happened six or seven years ago."
Referring to one paragraph in the transcript which stated that he (Lingam) had arranged a meeting between Dr Mahathir and the person he
(Lingam) was speaking to on the telephone, Lingam said it was "not true".
= == = == ==
Lingam Says Friends Tell Him He Talks Rubbish When He Drinks Wine
He also told the Royal Commission of Inquiry on the video clip that looking at the clip, it would be "quite a couple of drinks" to consume since there were two bottles of wine, a bottle of whisky and some (other) liquor. "Normally, I can hold up to two and a half glasses of wine. Then I get tipsy and high," he said.
Lingam said he doesn't go to the pubs. "If I want to drink, I drink at home, If ever I go for a function, I don't drink too much," Lingam said.
= == = == = ==
"You (Nordin) can ask me a hundred questions (on the same matter), I will tell you the same answer. It looks like me," he reiterated. Asked whether he knew the person who recorded the video clip, Lingam said he did not.
= == = ==
Lingam Was Not Drunk When He Spoke On The Phone, Says Witness
Loh Gwo Burne (ABOVE, with his Father on Day 6) a 34-year-old consultant, said there were "drinks" taken but he was of the opinion that not much drinks were consumed on that evening in late December 2001 in Lingam's house in Kelana Jaya. "I don't think that even by the end of the night, Lingam was drunk," the 12th witness said in the inquiry which entered its 6th day today. To a question by his counsel, Alex De Silva, on whether Lingam was "staging" it, Gwo Burne said: "No, sometimes I could hear a male voice on the other side (of the telephone)" but he could not hear what the person on the other end was saying.
The video clip was played once again in the proceedings. After watching the video clip, conducting officer Datuk Nordin Hassan asked Gwo Burne whether the contents of the clip were the same as the one he had recorded, to which he said: "Yes I believe so". To a question by De Silva, Gwo Burne said he did not interfere with, edit or doctor the contents of the 14-minute video recording when transferring the data from the memory card to the computer and from the computer to his laptop."In my memory, the video clip is the recording that I took in 2001," he said. Gwo Burne earlier told the inquiry that he and his father, Loh Mui Fah went to Lingam's house that night as they were invited for dinner and also to discuss some of their legal matters with Lingam, who was their counsel. He said he took his Sony 707 camera along because he wanted to try it out as it was a new camera with a recording function.
Gwo Burne admitted that the recording of Lingam's conversation as well as the conversation between his (gwo Burne's) father and Lingam after Lingam finished speaking on the telephone was made by him at Lingam's house without his father's knowledge. He said that initially he was taking photographs of a vase but half-way through, it was switched to the video recording mode. He then decided to continue recording because he was bored and fed up with Lingam because Lingam was always talking on the phone. Gwo Burne said Lingam was constantly attending to other matters and talking on the telephone. Lingam went out to buy wine, talked to his (Lingam's ) sister who was also present during the dinner and when Lingam finally had the time to sit down to discuss their legal matters with them, he was on the telephone again, he said. To a question by Nordin on whether Lingam was aware that he was recording the telephone conversation, he said: "I do not believe so". Lingam made a brief appearance at the hearing today when he was called for identification by the witness. Gwo Burne identified him as the man who was speaking on the telephone in 2001.
= == = = ==from Malaysian Bar Website
The Royal Commission of Inquiry Into the Video Clip – Day 6 Session 1 Contributed by Brendan Navin Siva;
Lingam, Manjit and Loh Mui Fah• Lingam: Looks like me, sounds like me
Wee was asked whether he did in fact say this to the press. Wee responded that he could not remember because there were a lot of reporters outside the courtroom after the proceedings adjourned on Friday. Tan Sri Haidar advised Wee to be careful and hoped that there is some respect for the Commission and to not simply make insinuations. Wee confirmed that there was no such intention to disrespect the Commission.
M. Puravalen then renewed his application for Dato’ Seri Anwar Ibrahim to be called as a witness as soon as possible because he leaves for overseas on Wednesday. After some queries and submissions, Datuk Shankar said that if the Commission was being asked to call him as a witness immediately, the answer is no. He said there are other witnesses that ought to be called first and it would be apparent to counsel why this is so.
Sony Camera Loh Gwo Burne was then called to give evidence. To questions by Dato’ Nordin, the witness confirmed that Loh Mui Fah is his father. He confirmed that he knew Dato’ V.K. Lingam. He said he cannot recall the exact date but he remembers visiting Dato’ Lingam’s house in late December and the purpose of the visit was for dinner and to discuss legal matters. He confirmed that he did take a camera to Dato’ Lingam’s house. He said he brought the camera along because it was a new camera and he brought it around everywhere to use it.
It was a Sony 707. He said Dato’ Lingam knew he had a camera and during the course of the night he did take photographs at the house.
When shown the photo of Dato’ Lingam, Manjit Singh and Mui Fah, the witness confirmed it was taken by him after dinner at about . When shown the photo of Dato’ Lingam, his sister and Mui Fah, the witness confirmed it was taken by him before dinner at about 7 pm. Gwo Burne also confirmed that his camera did have a video recording function. He confirmed he did record Dato’ Lingam speaking on the phone and he did record Dato’ Lingam speaking to his father after the phone call.
The video clip was played for the witness. The witness confirmed the contents were the same as what he recorded. When asked by Dato’ Nordin why he recorded the video clip, he said, “I was trying to take a picture of the vase and halfway through I discovered it was on video recording mode. I let the recording continue because he was bored and frankly I was fed up with Dato’ Lingam always on the phone”. He said that Dato’ Lingam was supposed to be discussing legal matters with his father and him but Dato’ Lingam was always constantly on the phone and dealing with other matters.
The witness confirmed it was Dato’ Lingam in the video clip speaking on the phone. He said he did not believe that Dato’ Lingam was aware he was recording the video. He said he had heard what Dato’ Lingam say when he was on the phone. He confirmed that it was his father sitting on the sofa. He said he did not tell his father he was recording the video. He said that he did hear the conversation between his father and Dato’ Lingam. When asked why the photograph after dinner shows the man’s shirt was tucked in but it was not so in the video clip, the witness said that the video clip was taken before dinner and during dinner, Dato’ Lingam spilled some curry on his shirt and went to change. Presumably he tucked in his shirt after that.
The witness testified that he went home and on the same night he downloaded the contents of the memory card of the camera into his computer. A month later, he burned it into a CD. When asked the whereabouts of the CD, he said it has been a long time and he did not know where the CD was. He said that before he left for
Alex De Silva To questions by his counsel, Alex de Silva, the witness said that he arrived at the house at around 6 pm and shortly after his arrival he asked Dato’ Lingam if he could take some photos and recordings and Dato’ Lingam said ok. He said Dato’ Lingam thereafter went out to buy some wine and came back after 30 minutes. He said Dato’ Lingam’s sister was there for about 30 – 45 minutes and that dinner was served at about . He said the video clip was taken after Dato’ Lingam’s sister had left but before dinner. He said that he did not follow exactly the contents of the phone conversation and that he did not tell his father about the video recording. He said he gave the video recording to Manjit Singh around 2002 and that he did so because they both had complaints about Dato’ Lingam. Manjit’s complaint was that he had not been paid. The witness testified that Manjit said Dato’ Lingam was always “politics, politics, politics”. The witness asked Manjit to check out the video clip and he burnt a CD for him. He did not tell his father he gave the CD to Manjit.
The witness confirmed that in transferring the data from his camera to his computer, he did not interfere, tamper or edit the video clip. He confirmed that what had been played in the courtroom was the recording he had taken. When asked what was his impression that evening and whether Dato’ Lingam was drunk or intoxicated, Gwo Burne said “It was just early in the evening. We had not even had dinner yet. Throughout the night they didn’t drink that much anyway. I don’t think even by the end of the night he was drunk”. When asked whether it was his impression that Dato’ Lingam was play acting or staging, the witness said “No. Sometimes I could hear a male voice on the other side of the line”.
Then R Thayalan, counsel for Dato’ Lingam, posed questions. The witness confirmed that the photos and video were on the same memory card. He said he had deleted the photos and videos stored in the memory card. Counsel asked whether the witness agreed that the recordings taken of the house were not part of the video clip and that part of the video recording had been deleted from the video clip. When the witness did not understand, Tan Sri Haidar explained the question and the witness said that the video recording of the house was before the video clip shown in the courtroom. To a question by Datuk Shankar, the witness agreed that the memory card has other material apart from what has been seen here.
When asked by Thayalan whether he agreed that without the original memory card, the Commission could not compare the video clip with other materials in the memory card, the witness said that the materials are still available and whether or not he recorded the house is not relevant to the video clip recording. He did not agree that without the original memory card, it was not possible to compare. He said that the video clip was a separate file from other recordings in the memory card and it was not a continuous recording. When asked “Without the memory card, can we conclusively say that the video clip is only recordings in that file?”, the witness said yes. Datuk Shankar said “What you are saying is that this segment is complete in itself from start to finish and this is one complete segment?” The witness agreed.
When asked whether it is possible to have edited the video clip, the witness said it is not entirely impossible. Upon clarification from Tan Sri Haidar, the witness agreed that the video clip he saw today was the same as what he recorded.
The witness said that the camera was not hidden and was visible to Dato’ Lingam. He said it was either hanging from his neck by a strap or on his lap and was visible at all times. Questions were then posed by counsel for Tun Ahmad Fairuz. The witness refused to agree that the video clip could not be verified without the original memory card. He said that when he downloaded a file to another medium, it is still identical.
Datuk Shankar posed a few questions. The witness said the memory card could hold 60 to 90 minutes of recording. He said he bought the camera 2 weeks before the visit. To a question by Thayalan as to how the witness could tell it was a male voice on the other side of the line, the witness said “I think through experience I can tell”. The witness agreed that he did not know as a fact who Dato’ Lingam was talking to. When questioned by counsel for Tun Ahmad Fairuz as to how far away Dato’ Lingam was from the witness, the witness said he was moving around, sometimes he was near him and sometimes he was far away. When asked whether his father was in a better position than he was to hear, the witness said he might have better hearing than his father. That brought to an end the evidence of Gwo Burne.
Dato’ Lingam was then called as a witness. To questions by Dato’ Nordin, he confirmed that he knows Tan Sri Vincent Tan, Tengku Adnan and Mui Fah. He said that he had known Mui Fah since 1995 and that he used to come to his office 3 times a year. He said that Loh was never his client and he had not done any legal work for him. He did say that Loh’s father had been his client. He said he had never acted as Loh’s lawyer. He said he had seen the video clip – the ACA had shown it to him and he also watched it on the internet while he was overseas. The video clip was played again and the witness confirmed it was the same clip he had seen.
When asked whether he was the man speaking in the video clip, Dato’ Lingam said “It looks like me”. At this point, Dato’ Nordin explained to the witness the evidence already given by Mui Fah, Gwo Burne, Tengku Adnan, the expert voice analyst and Tun Eusoff Chin and asked the witness again whether it was him in the video clip.
The witness said that “Irrespective of what others have said, it looks like me and sounds like me.” But he continued that he had read literature and research that states that authenticity cannot be established without the original recording and when he had the original recording, he would send it to his consultants to verify its authenticity.
When asked who was he speaking to on the phone, the witness said “I do not know. But certainly I was not speaking to Tun Ahmad Fairuz because I have never had his phone number and he has never had my phone number. To date I have never spoken to Tun Ahmad Fairuz on the phone and he has never spoken to me on the phone”.
Proceedings to resume at .
= == = == == = =from Malasian Bar Website
The Royal Commission of Inquiry Into the Video Clip – Day 6 Session 2
He did not know that Tun Dzaiddin’s recommendations were rejected but sometime in 2001 he heard from lawyers in court and they discussed who is being promoted and who is retiring. He said he heard from some lawyers that Andrew Chew and Zainudin Ismail and 2 others were being considered sometime in October 2001 and sometime in December 2001 he had heard that Andrew Chew and Zainudin Ismail were rejected.
When questioned how he got this highly confidential information, Dato’ Lingam repeated that he picked up rumours and gossip from lawyers waiting for cases in court. When asked whether he could remember who these lawyers were, he said he talked to so many lawyers. He could not name one. He said he had never sent any memo to the Prime Minister. He said he did not know anything about the contents of the letters shown to him by Dato’ Nordin but he said it was a common fact that there were 6 vacancies in the Court of Appeal. He denied informing Tengku Adnan to call for a meeting with the PM. He said he never arranged for Tengku Adnan to call the person on the other side of the line.
When asked to explain the words “these people fought for us”, he said he did not know what it means. He denied talking to Tan Sri Vincent Tan to put Tun Ahmad Fairuz as Chief Justice. When referred to the words “old man”, he said he did know who it was a reference to. When queried by Datuk Shankar whether the witness is saying he did not say it or does not know who was being referred to, the witness said he does not know who was being referred to. And when asked whether he did say it, the witness said he cannot remember having said this.
Dato’ Lingam said he did not remember Thayalan ever telling him what Raja Aziz said in court. When the witness answered “I don’t remember having said this” to several questions, Datuk Shankar said the inference may be that the witness may have said it. The witness replied that it is possible he may have said this but he cannot remember as it has been 6 years. The witness then answered the next line of questions about the statements in the transcript with the words “I don’t remember having said this”.
The witness then denied having spoken to Tun Ahmad Fairuz on the appointment of judges. He said that he had never influenced any party to appoint Tun Ahmad Fairuz as Chief Judge, President of the Court of Appeal or Chief Justice. He also said that he had never spoken to Tun Dr Mahathir or Tan Sri Vincent Tan about the appointment of judges.
R. Thayalan then posed questions to his client. Documents were tendered to establish the witness had not acted for Loh Mui Fah in any case. Dato’ Lingam said that Mui Fah came to see him as a friend and for business matters and nothing on legal matters. He said Mui Fah visited him as a social friend. The witness said he did not personally know Andrew Chew or Zainudin Ismail or Datuk Heliliah, Dato’ Ahmad Maarop or Datuk Ramly. He said he has never appeared before Dato’ Ahmad Maarop and he has not had any hearings on the merits before Datuk Ramly. He said he had one case before Datuk Heliliah. He said he did not know as a fact that Tun Dzaiddin was going to recommend 6 judges. He said it was gossip and rumours among lawyers which he picked up. To a question as to how he can surely say he did not speak to Tun Ahmad Fairuz when he cannot recollect the phone conversation, the witness repeated his earlier statement that he had never had Tun Ahmad Fairuz’s phone number and had never spoken to him on the phone.
When asked why he appeared to have said certain things on the video clip, he said that it looked as though there was a drinking session and he may have had one too many drinks. At which point, the witness said his friends say that when he drinks a lot of wine, he talks rubbish. Datuk Shankar then quipped “In vino veritas”. When the witness asked Datuk Shankar to explain what he meant, Datuk Shankar said it meant “there is truth in wine”.
The witness denied that he had been to the Prime Minister’s house and that he had only been to Tun Dr Mahathir’s house after September 2005 when he was engaged to act for him. He said that he has only appeared before Tun Ahmad Fairuz once for a mention on June 16,.2006. Except for this one mention, he said he had never appeared in any other case before him at all. He said Wee Choo Keong’s case was reported in the newspapers and law journals and there was nothing secret about that. When asked whether he knew Manjit Singh, he said Manjit was a close and dear friend. He said Manjit lived near his house and he visited very often for a drink. The witness said he could not confirm whether the photo with Manjit was taken on same day as the video clip. He said Manjit was present on 2 occasions when Mui Fah came to see him. When asked which event took place – the photo or the video clip – he said he normally would have his shirt tucked out when drinking goes on.
Americk Sidhu then posed questions to the witness. He denied that Mui Fah was intrinsically involved in the legal matters of his father. Dato’ Lingam said it was Mui Fah’s father who gave instructions and he collected fees from him and not Mui Fah. He agreed that Mui Fah had sought a refund of fees but he had told him to bring his father as he would only deal with his father. When asked how old the father was, Dato’ Lingam said he was born in 1914 and was 94 years old. He said the last time he had seen the father was in 2002 and he was in good physical condition. He said Mui Fah’s father became his client after an Order was made in Ipoh High Court for him to be produced in Court to ascertain his mental condition. The witness said that the father was in good mental condition. When asked whether Mui Fah had accompanied his father to the office, he said that Thayalan informed him that they did not come for the
Dato’ Lingam said he had no fixed schedule but normally he comes home on a Thursday by 4 or 5 pm but it depends on the circumstances. He said he did not go to pubs before coming home and if drinking he would start at about 8.30 or . When asked to confirm that he had had very little to drink at the time of the video clip, he said that there were many bottles of wine and liquor on the table in the video clip and it may be “quite a couple of consumption”. He said that if he drinks two half glasses of wine, he is okay. If he drank more than that he would get tipsy and if he drank even more, he would get drunk and have to go upstairs and fall asleep.
To questions by Alex de Silva (ABOVE), Dato’ Lingam said that Loh Gwo Burne had not visited him on his own and that he was not involved in any of his grandfather’s legal matters. He said that he was not involved in advising Mui Fah or Gwo Burne and never discussed the
Robert Lazar then began questioning. He confirmed that when he was admitted to the Bar in August 1988 he was 37 years old. He said he took instructions from both Tan Sri Vincent Tan and Tengku Adnan but for most of the legal work of the Berjaya Group of Companies, he did not see Tan Sri Vincent Tan. Instead he met with in-house legal general managers and executive directors. If it was a very complicated matter, Tan Sri Vincent Tan would want to know about it and he would brief him. He said he did very little work for Tengku Adnan. He said the last occasion when Tengku Adnan gave him instructions was in mid to late 1990s.
He said his relationship with Tan Sri Vincent Tan could be described as close. He confirmed that he had been on holidays with him several times until 1999. When asked “You are not prepared to say you are the one speaking in the video clip ?”, the witness said “It looks like me and it sounds like me”. He said he was not going to say anything more until the original recording had been verified. When asked “You are prepared to say you are not the person in the video clip ?”, the witness said he was not prepared to say that. When asked “Is there somebody who looks like you and talks like you ?”, he said he does not know.
Dato’ Lingam said that he was close to Tan Sri Mokhtar Abdullah and that he was a friend. He said Tan Sri Mokhtar lived near his house. He said he had been on holiday with him when Tan Sri Mokhtar was the Attorney General. He confirmed that Tan Sri Vincent Tan was also on this holiday in
When counsel asked him whether he had been on holiday with Tun Eusoff Chin, Dato’ Lingam said that he wanted his counsel to make a submission at this stage.
Thayalan submitted a full written submission on the relevancy of the evidence pertaining to the
He gave the example of investigating whether there was misbehaviour in Tun Dzaiddin becoming consultant in Skrine merely because his name was mentioned in the video clip. He continued by saying that if the terms of reference was read any other way, it would mean that members of the public may come forward to testify on misbehaviour of any judge mentioned in the video clip. It must therefore be confined to misbehaviour in the appointment of judges, he submitted. He said that establishing the closeness will not in any way help to establish any of the matters in the terms of reference. He said that the evidence of Dato’ Lingam’s brother should also similarly be excluded.
Dato’ Shankar then remarked that the point is really quite simple and he referred to section 11 of the Evidence Act and asked whether or not the contents of the transcript are the subject matter of the terms of reference. Thayalan responded that the transcript is evidence but evidence on closeness in 1995 cannot factually establish closeness for the appointment of judges in 2001.
Robert Lazar in responding to Thayalan’s submissions said the relevancy of the closeness of Dato’ Lingam and Tun Eusoff Chin was beyond doubt. He also said that the relevancy also goes to the identity of the speaker in the video clip. He submitted that the witness is not prepared to say he is the person in the video clip but the speaker in the video clip said he was close to Tun Eusoff Chin. The evidence will therefore go to show the closeness and this is relevant.
Robert Lazar said he would like to reply comprehensively to Thayalan’s submissions and asked for time. Proceedings were adjourned to tomorrow and all counsel who wished to submit on the scope of the terms of reference were invited to also make their submissions tomorrow.