|
©The Star
(Used by permission)
• Clip taken by accident
• Lawyer: Don’t bring NZ holiday into the picture
• I never represented Mui Fah, says Lingam
• Vacation photo taken sometime in 1995 or 1996, says Lingam
• Lingam: ‘I talk rubbish when I drink’
KUALA LUMPUR: It looks like me and it sounds like me, said Datuk V.K Lingam.
He denied that it was former Chief Justice Tun Ahmad Fairuz Sheikh Abdul
Halim on the other side of the line.
“Irrespective of what others have said, it looks like me, it sounds like me.
“I’ve read literature on the subject of video recordings and I’ve consulted
my experts who said the only way we can determine the authenticity is to have
both the original clip and the equipment used to record it,” said Lingam, 57,
the 13th witness on Day 6 of the Royal Commission of Inquiry.
He added he would not change his stand until he had both items examined.
Asked by leading officer DPP Datuk Nordin Hassan if he could identify the
other man in the video, Lingam replied: “It’s not very clear but it looks like
Loh Mui Fah.”
(Loh had testified that he was in Lingam’s house to discuss some legal
matters when the video clip was taken.)
However, the lawyer denied that it was Ahmad Fairuz when asked whom it was
that he was allegedly speaking to in the video clip.
“I don’t know (who it was). But certainly, I was not speaking to Tun Ahmad
Fairuz because I don’t have his phone number and he doesn’t have mine.
“I’ve never spoken to him on the phone and he’s never spoken to me on the
phone.”
When DPP Nordin pointed out that by replying in such a way, he was admitting
to being the person in the video clip, Lingam replied: “It looks like me. You
can ask me a hundred times, I’ll give you the same answer.”
Lingam, who had a number of portions of the transcript read out to him one
after another by the leading officer, denied all of them.
He kept saying the statements were not true.
Among the portions read to him was one involving the appointment of High
Court judges in late 2001. The portion read:
“It... According to Tengku, I’m going to see him tomorrow, there is a letter
sent to ... ah ... CJ ... ah I mean to Tan Sri Dzaiddin that Datuk Heliliah,
Datuk Ali ... and Datuk Ramly and Datuk Ma’arop be made judges ... and aa ... he
rejected ah ... that Dr Andrew Chew and apa itu Zainuddin Ismail lah because
Zainuddin Ismail who condemned your appointment and Tan Sri Mohtar’s
appointment.”
DPP Nordin: Is this statement true?
Lingam: Not true.
DPP Nordin: It was mentioned here that “he rejected ah.” What does it
mean?
Lingam: If I read this, it appears as if Tun Dzaiddin rejected.
DPP Nordin: How do you know Zainuddin was rejected because he
condemned Tun Ahmad Fairuz and Tan Sri Mohtar (Abdullah)’s appointment?
Lingam: I do not know why he was rejected but some time in October
2001, I heard from some lawyers in court. While waiting for our cases to be
called up, we were discussing the appointment of judges. I heard a gossip that
Zainuddin and Dr Andrew were suggested for appointment. Then in late December, I
heard Zainuddin and Dr Andrew got rejected.
DPP Nordin then showed Lingam a letter from the then Prime Minister to the
then Chief Justice dated Jan 31, 2002, and followed up with a question on how he
got hold of highly confidential information even before the Prime Minister had
sent this letter to the Chief Justice to confirm the rejection.
Lingam, however, maintained that he heard it from the lawyers in October 2001
and that this was the first time he saw the letter.
“I heard in late December 2001 that the two were rejected. It spread like
wildfire,” he said.
DPP Nordin asked Lingam who the person in the video was referring to when he
said: “But you know the old man, at 76 years old, he gets whispers from
everywhere and then you don’t whisper, he... he get... aa... aa taken away by
the other side.”
“I don’t know who it was,” Lingam replied.
At this juncture, commissioner Datuk Mahadev Shankar pointed out that there
were two aspects of this question – whether he had made the statement and if he
did, whom was it referring to.
“I do not know whom I was referring to. I can’t remember having said this,”
Lingam replied.
From this point onwards, the senior lawyer’s response to the portions of the
transcript read to him was “I can’t remember having said this.”
Later, Mahadev again remarked that the inference drawn from his answer was
that he had in fact made the statements but could not remember doing so.
Lingam agreed, saying: “Yes, I might have said this but I can’t remember. It
was more than six years ago.”
Questioned by Robert Lazar, counsel for the Malaysian Bar, on his position
about the man in the video clip again, Lingam refused to commit.
“I’ve already said that it looks like me and it sounds like me. But I’m not
going to say anymore until my experts see the original video clip and equipment
used to record it.
“They must be given the opportunity to say whether the clip has been tampered
with or not,” said Lingam.
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.
Clip taken by accident
KUALA LUMPUR: The person, who took the controversial clip purportedly showing a
lawyer brokering the appointment of judges over a mobile phone, said it was made
by accident.
Loh Gwo Burne, the 34-year-old son of businessman Loh Mui Fah, said he was
trying to take a picture of a vase when he realised his digital camera was on
video mode.
“I then continued to record the conversation between Datuk V.K. Lingam and the
other person on the other line.
“I was bored and fed up with the lawyer for constantly talking on the phone, as
he was supposed to discuss legal matters with my father,” said the 12th witness
on the sixth day of the Royal Commission of Inquiry into the video clip
yesterday.
When questioned by DPP Datuk Nordin Hassan, Gwo Burne, a Shanghai-based
consultant, said he had gone to Lingam’s house in the middle of December 2001
with his father.
Gwo Burne said Lingam was aware that he had a digital camera, as when they
arrived at his house, he had asked for permission to take photographs of the
lawyer’s dog and videos of the house.
He said Lingam had also asked him to take group photos, adding that shortly
after they arrived at about 6pm, Lingam had gone out to buy wine.
When DPP Nordin questioned if Lingam or his father was aware that he was
recording the conversation, Gwo Burne said neither of them knew.
To a question by his counsel Alex De Silva, Gwo Burne said Lingam did not appear
drunk when the video clip was recorded.
He said the recording was taken earlier in the evening, and both his father and
Lingam did not have many drinks.
Asked if he thought the lawyer was play-acting, he replied, “No, there were
times I could hear a male voice, although I did not know what the person was
saying.”
At the start of court proceedings, DPP Nordin has questioned Gwo Burne on what
he did with the photographs and the recording, to which the witness replied that
he had downloaded them from his camera’s memory card into his personal computer,
and later deleted the data from the card.
He said he had burned the data into a compact disc, and that before he left for
China in 2004, he had stored the CD in “various sources,” which he took along
with him.
Gwo Burne said he gave one copy of the CD to lawyer Manjit Singh, who had since
died, adding that his original personal computer where he downloaded the
recording was no longer with him.
When asked how the video clip went public, Gwo Burne said he initially though it
was Manjit Singh, but later found out that he had passed away.
Gwo Burne said he had given a copy of the CD containing the video clip to Manjit
Singh, as both of them had complaints about Lingam.
“I had complained about Lingam not attending to the legal matters and Manjit
Singh complained of not being paid, and he said that ‘this guy always politics,
politics, politics’.
“So I told him in that case, he had to check the video clip out, and gave him a
copy in 2002.”
Thayalan said if he had no idea how the clip went public, there was a
possibility that other people had access to the clip and it was possible to edit
the clip, to which Gwo Burne said: “Not entirely impossible.”
When Thayalan pointed out that the camera seemed to be placed behind a book, as
it seemed from the video, Gwo Burne said he was reading a magazine and a
coffeetable book at that time, and that the camera was hung around his neck.
Lawyer: Don’t bring NZ holiday into the picture
KUALA LUMPUR: Evidence regarding a New Zealand holiday involving former chief
justice Tun Eusoff Chin and Datuk V.K. Lingam is irrelevant, said R. Thayalan,
counsel for Lingam.
Thayalan told the Royal Commission of Inquiry that evidence relating to the trip
in December 1994 was irrelevant to the inquiry and did not fall within the
commission’s terms of reference.
Thayalan said the commission was set up to look into matters regarding a video
clip on the appointment of judges and the commission should not go beyond its
terms of reference.
He added that if the commission allowed the questioning of the trip, then it
would also have to look into any misbehaviour of all those named in the video,
including former Yang di-Pertuan Agong (Tuanku Syed Sirajuddin Syed Putra
Jamalullail).
“The argument advanced is that the evidence relating to the New Zealand trip and
the photographs taken are to show the ‘closeness’ of Lingam with Eusoff.
“We respectfully submit that the issue of ‘closeness’ will not in any way help
this commission of inquiry establish the authenticity of the video clip, or
identify the speaker and the person speaking in the video clip, or ascertain the
truth of the contents of the telephone conversation with regard to the
appointment of judges,” Thayalan said while reading from a 13-page submission.
He said the case of the trip was heard in the Federal Court and the
Anti-Corruption Agency (ACA) had also investigated the trip in 1998 and closed
the case.
He then accused the Bar Council of having its own agenda for raising an issue
that had been closed by the ACA.
He also objected to (Lingam's brother) V. Thirunama Karasu’s evidence relating
to events that allegedly took place in 1995 and 1996, as he said it was
irrelevant to the appointment of judges.
Eusoff was also grilled by the Malaysian Bar on Friday about the same New
Zealand trip before the proceedings were halted by the commission to allow him
to engage a counsel.
On the same day, the Bar also tendered a photograph of the former chief justice,
Lingam and their spouses taken during the holiday.
Yesterday, Robert Lazar, representing the Bar, rebutted that the closeness of
the two had to be established in order to identify the speaker in the video.
“The identity of the speaker becomes an issue. The witness (Lingam) is not
prepared to say that it’s him.
“If we establish the closeness, would it not go on to establish the identity of
the speaker in the video clip?” he said.
The commission adjourned to today to allow Lazar and any other parties to
continue their submissions.
I never represented Mui Fah, says Lingam
KUALA LUMPUR: Datuk V.K. Lingam has denied that he was ever Loh Mui Fah's
counsel.
“He's never been my client, let me be clear about this. But his (Mui Fah's)
father was my client.
“My counsel has the documents to prove it,” he said as soon as leading officer
DPP Datuk Nordin Hassan asked him if he knew Mui Fah.
Lingam said that he knew Mui Fah since 1995 and that he used to visit him
(Lingam) at his office two to three times a year.
He said Mui Fah had also been to his house about three to four times, sometimes
with his son.
Asked why Mui Fah had gone to his house, Lingam replied: “He came to my house as
a social friend, sometimes with his son, sometimes with his second wife or
mistress.”
Later, Lingam's counsel R. Thayalan produced several documents to substantiate
his claims.
Among the documents was an ex parte order from the Ipoh High Court which ordered
Mui Fah to produce his father Loh Kim Foh, 94, in court.
Thayalan informed the court that according to the documents, the counsel on
record for the businessman were Manjit Singh (deceased) and C. Vijayakumar.
Lingam insisted that he had never acted for Mui Fah despite all the questions
posed to him by Mui Fah's counsel Americk Sidhu.
When Americk asked if Lingam's firm had generally utilised Messrs Manjit Singh &
Kumar as counsel, Lingam replied that it was only for two to three cases.
Asked if he had ever appointed Manjit Singh or Vijayakumar to be Mui Fah's
counsel, Lingam said Mui Fah had chosen his lawyer himself.
Lingam agreed that he would go through any document produced by Mui Fah to
suggest that he had indeed acted for him as a lawyer.
Later, when Alex De Silva, counsel for Mui Fah's son Gwo Burne, examined Lingam,
details of the Loh family dispute suddenly spilled out at the inquiry.
This happened when De Silva touched on accusations in the Loh family dispute –
that one faction of the family had been accusing the other of kidnapping the
elder Loh (Kim Foh) – when he was trying to suggest that his client too had
dealt in legal matters with Lingam.
In the dispute, Kim Foh was trying to wrest back control of a multi-million
ringgit business empire from his second wife Wong Kim and four of their
children.
However, Lingam remained adamant that he had neither acted for Mui Fah or Gwo
Burne.
Vacation photo taken sometime in 1995 or 1996, says Lingam
KUALA LUMPUR: Datuk V.K. Lingam went on a holiday in Spain and Morocco with
tycoon Tan Sri Vincent Tan and former Attorney-General Tan Sri Mohtar Abdullah.
He said he was “neighbourhood friends” with Mohtar who lives “very, very near”
his house.
Lingam said he knew Tan in 1991 when his legal firm was one of the panel lawyers
for the Berjaya Group but he rarely saw him as Tan was a “busy businessman.”
“I only spoke to the in-house legal advisers and general managers.
“I hardly talked to him but if he really wanted to speak to me, he would call me
on the phone and ask me to brief him,” he said, describing Tan as “a good
friend.”
Lingam said he had gone on three holidays with Tan, including a couple of
pilgrimages to India, up until 1999.
Lingam said he first became friends with Mohtar, then the Attorney General, when
they attended a neighbourhood gathering on security in 1994.
He said he had been to Mohtar's house twice for Hari Raya but never had private
dinners with him.
On the Spain holiday, which Robert Lazar, counsel for the Malaysian Bar,
produced a photo of, Lingam said it was probably taken in 1995 or 1996 when
Mohtar was not a High Court judge then.
On his relationship with Tourism Minister Datuk Seri Tengku Adnan Tengku Mansor,
Lingam said he first knew him in the 1990s when the latter was a director in one
of the Berjaya Group of companies.
He said he did not meet Adnan in 2001 and 2002 as he had “lost contact with him
(Tengku Adnan) after he left Berjaya.”
Lingam said he had only been to Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad’s house after September
2005, when he acted as his counsel in the defamation suit brought against Dr
Mahathir by Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim.
“Since then, I have visited him at his house and at his office to discuss the
case several times,” he said.
Lingam described his relationship with former Chief Justice Tun Eusoff Chin as
“not extremely close.”
Asked if he had gone on a holiday with Eusoff in 1994, Lingam immediately
instructed his lawyer R. Thayalan to object to the line of questioning.
Lingam: ‘I talk rubbish when I drink’
KUALA LUMPUR: He could have had too many drinks.
This was why he could not remember the occasion in the video clip that allegedly
showed him brokering the appointment of judges.
Datuk V.K. Lingam told the Royal Commission of Inquiry that the video clip was
made more than six years ago and that he could not recall the occasion at all.
The video showed several bottles of whisky, brandy and wine as well as a bottle
of soft drink, he added.
“It looks from the video clip that there was a party (with) drinking going on,”
said Lingam.
At this juncture, commissioner Datuk Mahadev Shanker commented: “There is truth
in wine.”
Lingam: “Well, my friends tell me I talk rubbish when I drink wine.”
He said businessman Loh Mui Fah – whose son filmed the video clip – would
usually bring about three to six bottles of wine whenever he visited him at his
house.
To questions from Loh’s lawyer, Americk Sidhu, regarding his drinking habit,
Lingam said from what he saw in the 14-minute video clip, he was “seen
drinking”.
Lingam said he only drank at home and not in pubs.
Furthermore, he said if he were at a function, he would not drink too much.
He added that he would start getting tipsy if he drank more than two-and-a-half
glasses of wine.
“There were occasions, when my wife and children were away in England, when I
would have taken one too many (drinks),” he said.
When Americk said Loh had told him that he did not bring anything when visiting
Lingam, the lawyer replied:
“Didn't bring anything? On every visit, he brings. I've made it very clear.”
 |
News 
Subscribe to this comment's feed
Circular No 297/2008
