|
©New
Straits Times (Used by permission)
by Anis Ibrahim
• 'I can talk rubbish in my house'
• Case-fixing not in scope of inquiry
• Part of today's evidence to be heard in camera
KUALA LUMPUR: Datuk V.K. Lingam's trip to New Zealand was
booked through the same travel agent as Tun Eusoff Chin's.
Lingam, however, insisted that this was a coincidence even though his
secretary's name appeared on the former chief justice's itinerary issued by the
travel agent.
"I booked my holiday separately from Tun Eusoff and bumped into him at Changi
Airport," he said.
When counsel for the Malaysian Bar, Robert Lazar, asked why Lingam's secretary's
name, Jeyanthi, was written on Eusoff's itinerary, Lingam said he did not know.
"I cannot think of any reason why her name is there. There are many Indian women
called Jeyanthi," he added.
Lingam was giving evidence before the Royal Commission of
Inquiry which is investigating the authenticity of a video clip allegedly
showing him discussing judicial appointments with Tun Ahmad Fairuz Sheikh Abdul
Halim, who was at the time the chief judge of Malaya.
On Friday, Lingam's counsel, R. Thayalan, had objected to his client being
questioned on his New Zealand holiday taken allegedly with Eusoff in December
1994.
After hearing submissions on Tuesday, the commission yesterday ruled that the
Malaysian Bar could continue questioning Lingam on the trip. When Lazar asked
Lingam for the date his family's travel arrangements were made, Lingam replied:
"I don't know, it has been 13 years. I cannot recollect when we decided to go."
"At which travel agent did you make your booking?" Lazar asked.
"I can't remember the travel agent, but based on my ticket, it was issued by
Udara Travel & Tours Sdn Bhd," Lingam said.
He then added: "It does not appear to be Holiday Tours & Travel," referring to
the company where Eusoff had booked tickets for his family.
Lazar then tendered as evidence a Bank of Nova Scotia cheque dated Dec 21, 1994
for RM24,912 signed by Lingam and made out to Holiday Tours & Travel Sdn Bhd.
Lazar: This cheque is dated one day before both your respective families flew to
Singapore and thereafter to Auckland on Dec 22, 1994. Now that you've seen this
cheque, are you prepared to say that your flights were booked by Holiday Tours &
Travel?
Lingam: That is correct.
Lazar: By producing this cheque, I'm of course not suggesting that you paid for
Eusoff Chin. This is just to show that your agent was in fact Holiday Tours &
Travel.
When chairman Tan Sri Haidar Mohamed Noor asked him to explain, Lazar said:
"Once he saw the cheque, he recollected that Holiday Tours & Travel was his
travel agent."
Lingam, who appeared defiant and replied curtly to most of Lazar's questions, at
this point remarked: "You made a comment but not a question. If you don't ask me
a question, I cannot answer."
Lazar: This trip was planned by you and Eusoff Chin in advance of Dec 22, 1994.
Can I suggest that is why the name "Jeyanthi" is there?
Lingam: That is not true.
Lazar: You are telling this commission that it was a coincidence that you and
Tun Eusoff used the same travel agent, the itinerary covered the same locations
and the flights were on the same dates?
Lingam: It was not pre-planned, it was a coincidence.
Lazar: And your meeting at Singapore's Changi Airport was a chance encounter?
Lingam: That is correct.
Lazar: Can I suggest to you that the 15-minute difference between your
respective flights from Kuala Lumpur to Singapore was deliberately planned.
Eusoff Chin's family flew on Malaysia Airlines and you took Singapore Airlines
and met at Changi Airport so that both of you would not be seen together in
Kuala Lumpur but instead in Singapore, where both of you were less well known.
Lingam: That is not true. My agents booked my tickets.
Lazar: So you disagree?
Lingam: I disagree.
Earlier, Lingam testified that both families stayed at separate hotels at all
times in New Zealand, although he could not recall if his family had stayed
overnight at Queenstown.
Lazar: Did you meet up with Eusoff Chin in Auckland?
Lingam: Yes, we did. We first met his family at the zoo, then at a bird park.
Lazar: On the same day?
Lingam: I think so, to the best of my recollection.
Lazar: Was that the only time you met in Auckland?
Lingam: I want to make it crystal clear. I did not tag along the whole time we
were in Auckland, my family had its own programme and Eusoff Chin had his own
programme.
Lazar: Just answer the question, please. Was that the only occasion that your
family met up with Eusoff Chin's family?
Lingam: These were the few occasions.
Lazar: So it would be wrong to say that you spent most of your time in Auckland
with Eusoff Chin?
Lingam: That is correct.
Lazar: In Christchurch, did you stay in the same accommodation?
Lingam: We did not stay in the same accommodation.
Lazar: Was the trip to Queenstown pre-planned?
Lingam: It was pre-planned.
Lazar: We have evidence that you and together with Eusoff Chin hired a van from
Christchurch to Queenstown?
Lingam: That is correct. We shared the van and the travel expenses to
Queenstown.
Lazar: Was that a day trip?
Lingam: I'm not sure about that.
Lazar: Do you recall if you spent a night in Queenstown?
Lingam: I can't recall if I spent a night there because it was 13 years ago.
Lazar: Was there a discussion on sharing the cost of the Queenstown trip, where
did it take place? Was it in Auckland or Christchurch?
Lingam: I can't recollect now but there was a discussion.
Lazar: So to say that you tagged along would not be accurate?
Lingam: When I said 'tagged along' I meant I tagged along for the ride in the
van.
Lazar: So it was all coincidental?
Lingam: Yes, coincidental.
The commission's ruling compelling Lingam to answer questions on the New Zealand
trip was made before Eusoff's counsel Zamani Ibrahim submitted on whether
details of the trip were relevant to the hearing.
Zamani informed the commission that they were in the midst of preparing
submissions to be made today.
Haidar then said to Zamani: "You must either make your stand or align yourself
to other counsel who have already made their submissions. This is to allow the
inquiry to proceed."
"Our stand is that we align ourselves with Thayalan and (counsel for former
chief justice Tun Ahmad Fairuz Sheikh Abdul Halim) Kamarul Hisham Kamaruddin,"
said Zamani.
'I can talk rubbish in my house'
By : V. Anbalagan and A. Hafiz Yatim
KUALA LUMPUR: "My house is my castle. I am the king in my house. I can choose to
talk rubbish even if I am drunk," lawyer Datuk V.K. Lingam said yesterday.
He was replying to a question by Ranjit Singh who appeared
for the Bar Council at the hearing by the Royal Commission of Inquiry on a
controversial video clip.
Ranjit had asked Lingam why he discussed the appointment of judges when he was
drunk.
Lingam was caught on the 14-minute video clip allegedly brokering judicial
appointments on the telephone with Tun Ahmad Fairuz Sheikh Abdul Halim, then
chief judge of Malaya on Dec 20, 2001.
Ranjit: Why talk of judicial appointments in the presence of Loh Mui Fah and his
son Gwo Burne?
Lingam: I can even pretend to talk to President Bush if I
like.
Ranjit: Why specifically say that?
Lingam: I don't remember saying that. If I had referred to then chief judge of
Malaya Datuk Ahmad Fairuz's (Sheikh Abdul Halim) name, then I am sorry. But I
was bull****ting and bragging.
Ranjit: Are you suggesting that you were bull****ting and bragging?
Lingam: Yes, I could be bull****ting and bragging.
Ranjit then referred to the clip which showed several wine, whisky and 7-Up
bottles.
He asked Lingam whether the lawyer was now claiming to be tipsy after seeing the
bottles in the clip.
"That is quite a lot for people to drink and get drunk," Lingam said.
Commission chairman Tan Sri Haidar Mohamed Noor asked Lingam why Mui Fah and Gwo
Burne, who claimed to be social friends, would go against him.
Lingam: If they believe that I was involved in fixing judges, they should have
gone to the ACA or the police and made a report. They should have said, "Charge
this fellow" but they kept the clip for over six years.
Commission member Datuk Mahadev Shankar also asked Lingam whether he was
disputing that the person in the photograph taken in New Zealand was him
(Lingam).
Lingam said he was not disputing it.
Mahadev: Why is it that when it comes to the clip, you are now saying that it
might not be you? How many per cent of that is you?
Lingam: I only said that the man in the clip looks and sounds like me. I did not
say he was 100 per cent like me. I do not want to enter into a mathematical
debate.
He added that the expert findings by Mohd Zabri Adil Talib on the identity and
the voice of the man in the clip was fundamentally flawed.
"I will be the first to admit if my experts say so.
"Until then, I will not confirm without the report," he said.
Haidar then interjected that Mui Fah and Gwo Burne had positively identified
that he was the man in the clip.
"You will have my evidence.
"Fairness demands that I be given the opportunity. I think I have made myself
clear about the matter," Lingam said.
Earlier, Ranjit tendered eight photographs of Lingam and former chief justice
Tun Eusoff Chin and their families during a vacation in new Zealand.
Clearly irritated by the production of the photo- graphs, Lingam asked whether
they should be accepted as evidence as the negatives were not produced.
Ranjit replied that the negatives were now with lawyer Datuk Muhammad Shafee
Abdullah and they would be tendered as evidence.
He said Shafee was prepared to testify before the commission.
Case-fixing not in scope of inquiry
by Anis Ibrahim
KUALA LUMPUR: The Royal Commission of Inquiry yesterday ruled that its scope of
reference did not cover the issue of case-fixing.
Commission chairman Tan Sri Haidar Mohamed Noor said
questions should be confined to the appointment of judges.
"After considering the submissions, we have decided that the cases pertaining to
the fixing of court decisions and references to certain cases fall out of the
terms of reference and are not to be pursued.
"The role and terms of reference of this commission should be read together with
the main subject matter, which is the video clip we are concerned with.
"The issue of brokering and appointment of judges must be investigated into,
especially in respect of the contents of the video clip," Haidar added.
Counsel for the Malaysian Bar, Robert Lazar, had on Tuesday
submitted that the scope of the commission's tasks included looking into
instances of case-fixing.
"The fixing of cases goes hand-in-hand with the fixing of judicial appointments.
It is not possible to separate these issues."
Yesterday, he referred to several cases where Datuk V.K. Lingam was counsel for
the litigants and former chief justice Tun Eusoff Chin was one of the judges.
Part of today's evidence to be heard in camera
KUALA LUMPUR: Part of today's evidence to be given to the Royal Commission of
Inquiry on the Lingam video clip will be heard in camera.
Commission chairman Tan Sri Haidar Mohamed Noor said the
public would be barred from following the proceedings as it wanted to hear
submissions from lawyers who would be making references to certain
personalities.
Lawyer Wee Choo Keong, who is appearing for Thirunama Karasu, a brother of Datuk
V.K. Lingam, is one of the counsel who had tendered a statement by his client.
Another lawyer, M. Puravalen, had earlier told the court that the testimonies of
two persons, codenamed Mr X and Mr Y, were relevant to the inquiry.
Their statements had been given to the commission earlier this week.
Parti Keadilan Rakyat adviser Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim was
subpoenaed to give evidence on how he had obtained the 14-minute clip,
purportedly showing Lingam brokering judicial appointments with a top judge.
However, his appearance was put on hold because businessman Loh Mui Fah who gave
evidence last week said that it was his son who filmed the clip.
It is said to have been recorded at Lingam's house in Kelana Jaya on Dec 20,
2001.
Mui Fah's son, Gwo Burne, had also told the commission he made the recording.
Puravalen, who is also appearing for Anwar, is expected to tell the commission
that the former deputy prime minister's testimony was relevant in deciding on
the issue of brokering of judges.
Proceedings will be reopened to the public after the commission had decided
which part of the statements could be allowed and whether witnesses should be
called to give evidence.
Former chief justice Tun Ahmad Fairuz Sheikh Abdul Halim is expected to take the
stand this afternoon.
He is allegedly the person Lingam was speaking to on the telephone in the clip.
Earlier yesterday, Haidar took to task Wee for giving out copies of documents
which contained allegations to the media on Wednesday.
"As a senior member of the Bar, I had expected you to know that it is
inappropriate to give documents which were under the consideration of the
commission. But yet you proceeded to release them," he said.
"This is an open inquiry. They (the media) were curious to know about the
information in the document," Wee said.
He apologised to Haidar.
 |
News 
Subscribe to this comment's feed
Circular No 297/2008
