•
Part of today's evidence to be heard in camera
•
Picture Gallery: Eusoff–Lingam NZ Trip
©The Star (Used by permission)
• Lingam was bragging
• Commissioners clear the air over scope ruling
• Lawyer insists he and Eusoff Chin planned their NZ trip separately
• Wee gets into trouble again
KUALA LUMPUR: Datuk V.K. Lingam and former chief justice Tun Mohamed Eusoff Chin went for their New Zealand holiday shortly after the lawyer's client Tan Sri Vincent Tan won RM10mil in damages in a libel case.
Testifying on Day 8 of the inquiry, Lingam said the defendants appealed right up to the Federal Court but lost their case.
He said he acted as Tan’s lawyer in the appeal up to that stage while Eusoff chaired the panel, which threw out the appeal.
Neither he nor Eusoff declared that they had gone on holiday together.
Lingam said this in response to questions by Robert Lazar, counsel for the Malaysian Bar.
Lazar: When the appeal was heard, did Eusoff inform the parties that he and you had been on a holiday together?
Lingam: To my knowledge, he did not.
Lazar: Did you inform the counsel for the appellants that you had been on a holiday with Eusoff?
Lingam: No I did not.
Lazar: I now move on to another case even more controversial. In 1995, you appeared for two parties in the High Court – Insas Bhd and Megapolitan Nominees Sdn Bhd?
Lingam: Yes. I was instructed by Michael Lim, a senior partner of Shearn Delamore (Lazar is a partner in the same firm) to appear in this case. He asked me to act for them as he was a director of Insas.
Lazar: And this case involved Ayer Molek Rubber Company Bhd?
Lingam: Yes, shares of Ayer Molek Rubber Company.
Lazar: This was another case that was very high profile?
Lingam: Yes, it became high profile.
This line of questioning then prompted Commission chairman Tan Sri Haidar Mohd Noor to ask Lazar where he was getting to.
Lazar explained that he wanted to show that soon after the New Zealand holiday in 1994, Lingam had appeared before Eusoff in court.
Lazar added that he also wanted to show that some people “had acted out of the norm” in the Ayer Molek shares matter.
“We are saying there are features in this case serious enough to lend support to ascertain Lingam’s assertion that when Tun Eusoff was in power, I can straight get,” Lazar said, before Commissioner Datuk Mahadev Shankar interjected:
“So, we have come to the pom, pom, pom, pom part.”
Earlier, Lingam admitted that he had prior to the New Zealand holiday, appeared before Eusoff who was a judge in the High Court.
Lazar: And how often did you appear before Tun Eusoff in the High Court?
Lingam: I have appeared mostly in the Cooperative Central Bank (CCB) case for the employees who are retrenched and a case involving those dismissed by the Income Tax department.
Lazar: Roughly how many appearances?
Lingam: I can’t recall. You are talking about 14 years ago. To the best of my recollection, maybe there was a worker’s case involving certiorari.
Lazar: Any other?
Lingam: None whatsoever.
Lazar: But when you went for this trip, Tun Eusoff was already the Chief Justice?
Lingam: I think so.
Lazar: On May 21, 1994, he was appointed Chief Justice. Your holiday was in December 1994. Just prior to this holiday – a well deserved break no doubt – you did a matter that had a very high profile, a libel suit involving Tan Sri Vincent Tan?
Lingam: That’s correct.
Lazar: That was a suit filed in 1994?
Lingam: That is correct.
Lazar: This is the suit that Vincent Tan sued among others, the late MGG Pillai?
Lingam: That is correct.
Lazar: This was a case that started in 1994 and ended in 1994. Judgment was entered on Oct 22, 1994.
Lingam: That’s right.
Lazar: That is after a full trial, and not a summary trial?
Lingam: That’s right.
Lazar: Damages of RM10mil was awarded against Pillai?
Lingam: Total damages against all defendants was RM10mil. Against Pillai, if I recollect clearly, was only RM2mil.
Lazar: The case attracted a large amount of publicity in the local newspapers?
Lingam: Yes.
Lazar: It was a much talked–about case?
Lingam: It attracted publicity but I don’t know about much talked–about.
Lazar: It attracted publicity because it was a ground–breaking case?
Lingam: Yes, that is one view you could look at.
Lazar: Would you say that that case started the trend of mega damages?
Lingam: Possible.
Later in the afternoon, Ranjit Singh, another lawyer representing the Bar, tendered eight photographs taken of Lingam, Eusoff and their families during their New Zealand holiday in December 1994.
When asked if he remembered where the photos were taken, Lingam said he could not remember as they were taken over 13 years ago.
“It must be New Zealand but I don’t know which part,” he said.
When Ranjit Singh asked if he could confirm that several photos of the holiday taken on a boat was at Lake Wakatipu near Queenstown, New Zealand, Lingam replied: “I don’t recollect this lake. It looks like Papua New Guinea.”
To this, Ranjit Singh responded: Are you suggesting that you’ve also gone to Papua New Guinea with Tun Eusoff?
Lingam shook his head.
He later confirmed that both his and Eusoff’s families were the only people on the boat apart from the crew.
He also told the commission that the then Chief Justice had rented the entire boat to himself.
Asked how he and his family ended up on the same boat, Lingam said: “I spoke to him and asked if we could go along with him and he said okay.”
At one point, Lingam demanded that the negatives of the photographs be tendered to court to clear doubts about them being doctored or tampered with.
To this, Ranjit Singh replied that the negatives were with another lawyer, Datuk Muhammad Shafee Abdullah, who had also provided the Bar with ticket stubs from the New Zealand trip.
Among these ticket stubs, which were tendered to court, were two bearing the names of Lingam’s wife and Eusoff’s daughter stapled together.
Asked about this, Lingam replied that anyone could have stapled them together.
When it was pointed out that it came with a cover bearing both names, Lingam replied: “I’ve never seen this before. You have to call the maker of this.”
Lingam was bragging
KUALA LUMPUR: Datuk V.K. Lingam told the Royal Commission of Inquiry into a video clip purportedly showing him brokering judges’ appointments that he was only bluffing about talking to former Chief Justice Tun Ahmad Fairuz Sheikh Abdul Halim.
The lawyer said this in reply to a question by Ranjit Singh, counsel for the Malaysian Bar, who asked him why he told businessman Loh Mui Fah (whose son recorded the video) that he was talking to Ahmad Fairuz.
Ranjit Singh: You said you are known to talk rubbish if you had one too many drinks. That day, even if you were tipsy, why did you discuss the appointment and brokering of judges?
Lingam: This was in my house, in the privacy of my room. My house is my castle. I’m the king of my house. I can talk whatever rubbish I want in my house, as long as I don’t get drunk outside and misbehave.
Ranjit Singh: Why did you choose the topic of brokering of judges’ appointments as your topic of rubbish in the presence of Loh Mui Fah and son?
Lingam: I can choose to talk about whatever topic I like. I can even pretend to talk to President Bush.
Ranjit Singh: Why did you say to Loh that you were speaking to Ahmad Fairuz?
Lingam: I cannot recall I said that. Even if I did, I’m sorry to use this word, but I was bulls****ing and bragging.
Ranjit Singh: Are you suggesting, that in part of the transcript you were bragging?
Lingam: It could be bragging. It could be bull****.
Lingam disagreed with Ranjit Singh’s contention that he had mentioned the name of a judge who heard a case involving Loh and his father (Loh Kim Foh) during the phone conversation in the video.
Ranjit Singh also asked Lingam if his claim of intoxication was based on what he saw in the video clip.
Lingam then replied that he could see two bottles of wine, two boxes of whisky and one whisky bottle in a photo that was taken together with the late lawyer Manjit Singh.
He added that the amount of alcohol was “quite a lot to drink for two to three people that night.”
Ranjit Singh: The bottles may look like whisky and look like wine but they might not be.
Lingam: They appear to be bottles of wine to me and I was sipping from a wine glass.
Earlier, Lingam was also grilled by Robert Lazar, counsel for the Bar, over his denial of having a phone conversation with Ahmad Fairuz as alleged in the video.
Pointing out that no one had mentioned any names, Lazar asked him to clarify why he had volunteered the immediate past Chief Justice’s name when he had claimed that he could not remember whom he was speaking to.
Lingam replied: “It’s so widely reported in the press and Malaysiakini reported that it must have been Ahmad Fairuz. It was already in the public domain since Sept 19 last year. I want to tell the truth and make it very clear.”
Lingam also disagreed with Lazar’s suggestion that, based on plain reading of the transcript’s content and context, he could have been speaking only to Ahmad Fairuz.
Commission chairman Tan Sri Haidar Mohd Noor also asked Lingam if he knew why Loh and his son were willing to testify that it was him in the pictures and in the video if they were his social friends.
Lingam replied that he did not know the reason but said that if the two had believed the video clip was authentic, they would have reported it to the authorities.
“They would have gone straight to the police and the Anti–Corruption Agency and said this guy was brokering judges' appointments, charge him. They kept it for around five or six years...,” he said.
At this juncture, Haidar interjected to stop Lingam’s elaborated reply.
Towards the adjournment of the inquiry, commissioner Datuk Mahadev Shankar also questioned Lingam on his reluctance to confirm the identity of the man in the video.
Mahadev: You do not dispute that the person is you?
Lingam: I do not dispute that.
Mahadev: But when it comes to the video taken on the same occasion, you said that it might not be me, it could be me, it could be somebody else.
Lingam: No, no, no. My learned commissioner, you did not get it right. I said it looks like me, it sounds like me but I will not say 100% that it’s me. The authenticity must be established by my two experts.
Mahadev: You do not want to say that it’s 100% you. How many per cent would you say it’s you?
Lingam: I do not want to get into a mathematical argument with the learned commissioner but my experts say the local expert’s report is fundamentally flawed and defective. Let my experts first be called. I don’t want to close the door without hearing my experts first. If my experts say it’s me 100%, I will be the first one to say it. I’m not denying it’s me.
Haidar: We have an expert’s report and two witnesses with direct evidence saying this is what happened.
Lingam: I just want to hold that position until my experts testify. I’m not saying it’s not me, don’t get me wrong.
The hearing continues today.
Commissioners clear the air over scope ruling
KUALA LUMPUR: There was a slight confusion over the ruling made by the Royal Commission over the scope of the inquiry into the V.K. Lingam video clip.
In the morning, the panel permitted the Malaysian Bar to pose questions to Datuk V.K. Lingam on his New Zealand holiday in December 1994 with then chief justice Tun Mohamed Eusoff Chin.
Robert Lazar, counsel for the Bar, proceeded to do so before moving to the high–profile cases that Lingam had handled and how often he had appeared before Eusoff's court.
Lingam said he had appeared before Eusoff for a number of civil cases.
It was about 25 minutes into Lazar's questions on the matter when commission chairman Tan Sri Haidar Mohd Noor interrupted, saying that anything beyond the trip was out of the terms of reference of the inquiry.
Haidar said the questioning should be only confined to the New Zealand trip.
Lazar said that he thought he was allowed to pose questions on the New Zealand trip as well as on the allegations of case fixing from the video.
Haidar replied that there was a miscommunication and called for a short break to allow the commissioners to deliberate on the matter.
The commissioners came out with a ruling later that the questioning be limited to just that of the trip.
After lunch, Lazar sought clarification from the panel again regarding the ruling.
“The position that we take is that the terms of reference are not just confined to judicial appointment but also on the fixing of cases.
“From what we understand, in refusing to continue the witness' (Lingam's) testimony on the Insas and Ayer Molek cases, then the ruling is that the scope is only on the appointment of judges and not on the fixing of cases,” he said.
Haidar agreed as the inquiry would otherwise “go on a frolic of its own.”
Lazar then pointed out several portions of the transcript pertaining to the allegations of case fixing and asked if he could still pose questions to witnesses on them.
The panel again took a short break to deliberate the question before coming out with a ruling read out by commissioner Datuk Mahadev Shankar.
“You are entitled to ask questions on portions of the transcript that are related not to the fixing of any cases but to show the relationship of Tun Eusoff Chin and Datuk V.K. Lingam in relation to the appointment of judges at the relevant time when the video clip was made,” Mahadev said.
Lawyer insists he and Eusoff Chin planned their NZ trip separately
KUALA LUMPUR: Lawyer Datuk V.K. Lingam insisted that he and former Chief Justice Tun Mohamed Eusoff Chin planned their 1994 New Zealand holidays separately although their travel itinerary and flights schedule were almost identical.
He said his encounter with Eusoff at Changi airport in Singapore at the start of the trip was “a chance encounter” and not a ploy to camouflage their holiday together.
Questioned by Bar counsel Robert Lazar as to why Eusoff’s travel itinerary for that trip had the name of Eusoff’s secretary and a “Jeyanthi”, which coincidentally tallied with the name of Lingam’s secretary then, the witness said:
“I don’t know. There are so many Indian women by the name Jeyanthi. This document was first shown to me by the Anti–Corruption Agency in 1998. I told them the same thing.”
Lazar: So, in short you can’t give a reason?
Lingam: No.
Lazar: Can I suggest to you then that the reason that Jeyanthi’s name appeared was because it was a trip planned by you and Tun Eusoff in advance of Dec 22, 1994?
Lingam: That is not true.
Lazar: So, you are telling the Commission that it was a coincidence that Tun Eusoff and you used the same agent, your itinerary covered the same locations and flights?
Lingam: It was nothing unusual. It was a coincidence.
The lawyer also testified that there was no other trip, planned or coincidental, between him and Eusoff.
After further examination, Lingam then testified that there were altogether nine people travelling – the two families and Lingam’s bodyguard Tan Chong Paw.
Lazar: This entire trip to New Zealand, everywhere that Tun Eusoff went, you went also?
Lingam: No, not everywhere. We had our own programme in Auckland. Similarly in Christchurch. Tun Eusoff’s family had their own programme.
Lazar: This trip that started on Dec 2, you said you planned it. When did you arrange for it?
Lingam: I don’t know. We decided to go to New Zealand because we were very busy. My wife had a dental clinic. We decided that the Christmas and New Year seasons would be the best time to go. A relative suggested that we go to New Zealand.
I cannot recall the travel agent but looking at the document now, it appears to be Udara Travel & Tours Sdn Bhd and not Holiday Tours & Travel Sdn Bhd (the travel agent which prepared Eusoff’s itinerary).
But payment may have been made to another company.
Lazar: So, you are saying that tickets booked through one company but issued by another company?
Lingam: Yes.
Lazar then referred Lingam to a Nova Scotia bank cheque for the amount of RM24,912 issued by Lingam to Holiday Tours and Travel on Dec 21, 1994.
Lazar: And, now you are able to say that Holiday Tours is your travel agent?
Lingam: Yes.
Lingam then explained that the amount paid was to cover the travel expenses of his family and his bodyguard.
Wee gets into trouble again
KUALA LUMPUR: Lawyer Wee Choo Keong got into trouble again with the Royal Commission of Inquiry into the V.K. Lingam video clip.
The third in as many days, this time Wee was ticked off by commission chairman Tan Sri Haidar Mohd Noor for releasing his submissions notes to the press on Tuesday before he had even made the oral submissions before the panel.
However, it ended in a positive note after Wee expressed his regret over his actions.
The matter came up just before the proceedings were adjourned yesterday, when Haidar told Wee that he would be given a chance to make his submissions today on the relevance of the evidence of his client, V. Thirunama Karasu who is Datuk V.K. Lingam’s brother.
The chairman then reminded the lawyer not to release his submissions notes to the press like what he did on Tuesday.
Wee explained that the press had come to him as he was walking out of the courtroom on Tuesday.
He told Haidar that commission secretary Datuk Abdullah Sani Ab Hamid only approached him over the matter later when he was at the lift.
Haidar then told the lawyer that as a senior member of the Bar, he ought to have known that he should not have done so before the commission made a decision on the matter.
The chairman said as a result, he had to instruct Abdullah Sani to tell the press not to publish the contents of the 13–page submissions notes, which commissioner Datuk Mahadev Shankar had described on Tuesday as containing “colourful allegations”.
Wee, however, insisted that it was a public inquiry, not a trial, and that “the public deserved to know”.
To this, Haidar pointed out that what the lawyer had done could be considered a form of misconduct.
“If Tan Sri chairman is upset, I’m sorry about that,” Wee said, to the sighs of relief from the public gallery.
Haidar replied: “Thank you. That was very nice.”