Transmenu powered by JoomlArt.com - Mambo Joomla Professional Templates Club

Loh Gwo Burne

Dato' VK Lingam

©Malaysiakini (Used by permission)
by Beh Lih Yi & Chua Sue-Ann

• Q&A: 'It looks like me, it sounds like me'

Lawyer VK Lingam has denied he had been talking on the phone with then chief judge of Malaya - and later chief justice - Ahmad Fairuz Sheikh Abdul Halim in the infamous conversation on alleged brokering of judicial appointments.

“I don’t know who I was speaking to but certainly I wasn’t speaking to Tun Ahmad Fairuz because I never had his telephone number and he never had my telephone number either,” he told the royal commission of inquiry tasked with investigating the authenticity of the clip.

The commission chief, former chief judge of Malaya Haidar Mohd Noor, was apparently taken by surprise with Lingam’s reply and asked him again: “You don’t know who?”

Lingam, the star witness, was testifying on Day 6 of the inquiry today. He is said to be at the centre of the 14-minute grainy video clip, which shows a man talking on a mobile phone allegedly with Ahmad Fairuz in December 2001.

Asked to confirm whether it was him, Lingam would only say that the person “looks like me and sounds like me”.

“You can ask me the question 100 times, I will still give you the same answer,” he said in a raised voice when Anti-Corruption Agency deputy public prosecutor Nordin Hassan repeated the question.

Lingam, 57, who was clad in a black suit and red-stripped tie, took the stand at 12.30pm as the 13th witness, immediately after the video-maker Loh Gwo Burne completed testifying.

The senior lawyer was all smiles as he entered the inquiry room at the Jalan Duta court complex and then took the oath, with his hand raised high.

Speaking loudly, as he typically does, he appeared to be composed throughout. He did not display much interest when the 14-minute video clip was played for him to confirm a point raised by Nordin.

Lingam had earlier been called into the room during the testimony of Gwo Burne, who identified him as the person in the footage recorded.

The conversation, as captured on the video clip, revolved around the urgent need to get Ahmad Fairuz appointed as Court of Appeal president (No 2) and then Chief Justice (No 1).

There was also a plan to get former attorney-general Mokhtar Abdullah, then a Federal Court judge, to replace Ahmad Fairuz as No 3.

To do that, Lingam had allegedly roped in business tycoon Vincent Tan, a close crony of Mahathir, and Tengku Adnan Tengku Mansor, then a key minister in the PM’s Department and currently tourism minister. They were to talk to Mahathir on the appointments.

Tan has yet to testify but Tengku Adnan denied any involvement last week, saying that Lingam must have been “mad or drunk” to have mentioned his name in the conversation.

Contradictory testimony

In his testimony, Lingam made an attempt to disassociate himself from the footage by insisting on the original video-clip being submitted to the commission.

He said he would not go beyond conceding the point that the person in the clip “looks like me” until the original video clip is produced.

Lingam confirmed that he knows both Tan and his then business partner Tengku Adnan (left).

He said his law firm is a panel lawyer for Tan's Berjaya Group, while he has done personal legal work for the tycoon since 1991. He has known Tengku Adnan since 1990 when the latter was executive director of Berjaya Group.

However, Lingam firmly denied that businessman Loh Mui Fah was his client, as had been claimed.

“He has never been my client, let’s make that clear, I have documents to establish that, but his father was my client once,” he said, contradicting Mui Fah’s testimony.

Lingam also said both Mui Fah and his son Gwo Burne, had been to his house “three to four times”, which differed from their testimony that they had only been to the house once.

When continuing his testimony after the lunch break, he denied knowledge of all events mentioned in the video clip, answering “I don’t recollect having said this” to almost all 21 sections of the transcript raised by Nordin.

Commissioner Mahadev Shankar then asked: “I just want to clarify. You said that you ‘do not recall having said that’. That leaves it open for inference that you might have said this but cannot remember. Is that possible?”

Replied Lingam: “Yes, it might be possible. (It has been) six years. I cannot remember.”

Asked how he had obtained confidential information about the appointment of High Court judges, Lingam said that this was based on speculation among lawyers.

“Sometime in October 2001, I (heard this) from lawyers who attended hearings in courts ... We discuss who is being appointed or promoted. I heard gossip ... subsequently in late December 2001, I heard that two of them, Dr Andrew Chui and Zainuddin Ismail, were rejected.”

The video-clip depicts the person in the telephone conversation as having access to this information, which is mentioned in confidential correspondence exchanged by former premier Dr Mahathir Mohamad and chief justice Mohamed Dzaiddin Abdullah.

When pressed by Nordin and the commissioners to name his sources, Lingam replied: “I talk to so many lawyers. I cannot remember.”

Relationship with the Lohs

Lingam was again asked about his relationship with Loh.

“I make it absolutely clear. Loh Mui Fah was never my client, I never gave him any legal advice. I want to make it crystal clear. Show me documents. Show me any paper,” said a visibly upset Lingam.

According to Lingam, Loh had been to his office to discuss business matters and had visited his house “as a social friend”.

Loh's lawyer Americk Singh Sidhu then produced an affidavit dated July 31, 2001 stating that Loh had accompanied his father Loh Kim Fong, 94, to Kuala Lumpur to meet with lawyers R Thayalan and Lingam and lawyers from the Cheang and Ariff law firm.

Lingam denied seeing the Lohs, adding that they had only met with Thayalan who was working for him at the time. He also denied a suggestion later by Alex de Silva, who is representing Gwo Burne, that the two had met to discuss legal matters.

Questioned by his counsel Thayalan as to why he has no recollection of the events of Dec 20, 2001, Lingam referred to the footage as he responded: "Looking at the video, there are bottles of wine, whisky or brandy, and a bottle of 7-Up. I would have had one too many drinks. It was a drinking session, a celebration, a party. It was more than six years ago, I can't recollect."

Later asked who provided the alcohol, Lingam replied that Loh usually brought "three to six bottles of red wine and one to two bottles of whisky or brandy" during visits to his house.

“He (Loh) insists we drink, so just to accommodate him, we drink,” Lingam said.

The session then moved to issues related to the admissibility of events prior to the recording of the footage, with Thayalan seeking to expunge all testimony relating to the purported close relationship between Lingam and former chief justice Eusoff Chin.

Q&A: 'It looks like me, it sounds like me'

Beh Lih Yi & Chua Sue-Ann

VK Lingam, the lawyer said to be at the centre of the grainy video clip on alleged judicial fixing, had declined to confirm or deny his involvement ever since the explosive footage was revealed last September. 

Today, he finally took the stand at 12.30pm as the 13th witness before the royal commission of inquiry tasked with investigating the authenticity of the tape.

Clad in a black suit and red-stripped tie, Lingam (right in photo) began his testimony with the Anti-Corruption Agency (ACA) deputy public prosecutor Nordin Hassan asking when he had been admitted to the Bar. 

Lingam: 1988

Do you know a person by the name of Vincent Tan?

Lingam: Yes.

Since when? 

Around 1991.

How did you know him?

My legal firm is one of the panel lawyer for the Berjaya Group (owned by Tan) and I also do some personal legal work for Vincent Tan. 

Do you know Tengku Adnan Tengku Mansor? 

Yes.

Since when? 

Somewhere in the 1990s, when he was an executive director of companies under the Berjaya Group. 

How about Loh Mui Fah? Do you know him? 

Yes. 

When?

Since 1995. He used to come and visit me at my office. He used to come three times in a year, not as my client. He has never been my client, let’s make that clear, I have documents to establish that, but his father was my client once. 

Did you discuss any legal matter with Loh Mui Fah (left)? 

To the best of my recollection, I have not done any legal work for him, never discussed legal matters with him or acted as his lawyer at any time.

Has he ever been to your house? 

Yes, three to four times in my present house (in Kelana Jaya). 

Do you know (Mui Fah’s son) Loh Gwo Burne?

Yes, he had on some occasions followed his father to my house and some occasions to my office.

Have you seen the video clip allegedly showing you talking on the phone?

Yes, I saw it. The ACA showed it to me (while being questioned at the ACA) and I also saw it on the Internet when I was overseas (at the time the clip was revealed).

The 14-minute full video clip was showed to Lingam at this juncture.

Is this the same video which you have seen?

Can I clarify whether is this the original tape?

However, Commission chief Haidar Mohd Noor advised Lingam to first answer the question posed to him.

Lingam: Yes, I have seen this before.

Are you the man speaking on the phone? 

It looks like me. 

Nordin then briefed Lingam on the facts that established by previous witnesses who had positively identified him as being the man in the clip.

They include Mui Fah, Gwo Burne, Tengku Adnan, CyberSecurity Malaysia senior analyst Mohd Zabri Adil Talib who said the tape is authentic, and Eusoff Chin who said the person sounds like Lingam. A sample to Lingam's voice had been tested in Spain and a match was obtained. 

So are you the man speaking on the phone? 

My answer is - irrespective of what other have said - it looks like me, it sounds like me. I have consulted my experts overseas, (they said) the only way to verify its authenticity is to have the original video or equipment (which made the video clip) itself. If I have (the original video or equipment), I will send them to my experts and if necessary, I will ask them to testify.

Can you identify the person sitting on the sofa talking to a person who looks like you? (Laughter around the room) 

It is not very clear, it looks like Loh Mui Fah.

Who are you speaking to in the video clip?

I don’t know who I was speaking to... 

Haidar (photo) interjected: You don’t know who?

I don’t know who I was speaking to but certainly I wasn’t speaking to Tun Ahmad Fairuz (Sheikh Abdul Halim, then chief judge of Malaya) because I never had his telephone number and he never had my telephone number either. To date, he has never called me and I never called him. 

Referring to the video clip again, you are admitting the person is you? 

It looks like me. You can ask the question 100 times, I will still give you the same answer.

What was the purpose (for which) Loh Mui Fah came to your house?

He came to visit me as a social friend. Sometimes he came with his son, sometimes he came with his second wife or mistress, Puan Tong Mei Lan.

Do you know who recorded the video clip?

I don’t know.

The proceedings were adjourned at this point for lunch and Lingam continued his testimony in the afternoon.After lunch, Nordin then led Lingam through a transcript of the telephone conversation and questioned him about his knowledge and involvement of 21 highlighted events. Lingam answered “Not true” and “I don’t recollect having said this” to all the questions.

(transcript from video clip)
Ah, so we just keep it confidential. I am working very hard on it. Then there is a letter, according to Tengku - I am going to see him tomorrow - there is a letter sent to … ah … CJ - I mean Tan Sri Dzaiddin - that Datuk Heliliah, …er Datuk Ramli and Datuk Maarop be made judges, and he rejected that Dr Andrew Chew and apa itu Zainudin Ismail lah because Zainuddin Ismail who condemned your appointment and Tan Sri Mohtar’s appointment.

Nordin: It is mentioned “he rejected”, do you know what it means?

Lingam: When I read this transcript, it appears that Tun Dzaiddin rejected.

Nordin: How did you know Tun Dzaiddin rejected the appointments?

Lingam: I do not know why he has rejected but sometime in October 2001, I hear from lawyers who attend hearings in courts ... We discuss among lawyers who is being appointed or promoted. I heard gossip ... subsequently in late December 2001, I heard that two of them Dr Andrew Chui and Zainuddin Ismail were rejected.

When pressed to name his sources, Lingam replied “I talk to so many lawyers. I cannot remember.”

Lingam also denied any involvement in the brokering of judges.

Nordin: Datuk, did you at any time speak on the telephone to the chief justice of Malaya on the appointment of judges?

Lingam: You referring to Tun Ahmad Fairuz?

Nordin: Ya.

Lingam: I’ve never spoken to him on the telephone.

Nordin: Between late 2001 and early 2002, do you remember that the chief justice of Malaya is Tun Ahmad Fairuz?

Lingam: Possible.

Nordin: Did you influence any party to appoint Tun Ahmad Fairuz as Court of Appeals president and chief justice?

Lingam: I never influence anybody to appoint Ahmad Fairuz as chief judge of Malaya, Court of Appeals president and chief justice.

Nordin: Have you ever spoken to the former Prime Minister Dr Mahathir Mohamad about the appointment of judges?

Lingam: I’ve never spoken to PM about the appointment of judges.

Nordin: Did you ever ask Tan Sri Vincent Tan to speak to the (former) prime minister to appoint Tun Ahmad Fairuz as chief justice?

Lingam: Never.

Thayalan submitted three court documents - affidavits and orders - as evidence that Lingam had not acted for Loh Mui Fah on any legal matters. Their relationship and the purpose of Loh’s visit to Lingam’s house was also subject to scrutiny.

Thayalan: You’ve said that Loh Mui Fah had come to see you in your office. Why?

Lingam: As a friend to discuss business, a social visit, nothing to do with legal matters.

Thayalan: You’ve also testified that he had been to your house three or four times. Why?

Lingam: He visited my home as a social friend.

Thayalan: Did you discuss any legal matters with Loh Mui Fah?

Lingam: To the best of my recollection, no.

Thayalan: Going back to your answer that you do not recollect this particular occasion, in the video. It is alleged that this took place in Dec 20, 2001. Can you tell us why you cannot remember?

Lingam: Without looking at the video, I cannot recollect the occasion. After looking at the video, I do not recollect. It has happened so long ago. Looking at the video, there is bottles of wine, whiskey or brandy and 7-Up. I would have had one too many drinks. That was a drinking session, a celebration, a party. I must have had one too many (and) it is more than six years ago. I cannot remember.

Thayalan: You have said or confirmed that you have never spoken to Tun Ahmad Fairuz on the telephone, whether it was he or you who called?

Lingam: That is correct.

Thayalan: Now you have said that you don’t recollect this occasion, so how can you confirm that you did not speak?

Lingam: I do not have his number. He does not have my number. Until today, Tun Ahmad Fairuz has never spoken to me on the telephone.

Thayalan: Datuk (Lingam), in the video clip of the telephone conversation, it is depicted that you are going to ask Tengku Adnan and Tan Sri Vincent Tan and other personalities to do certain things on the appointment of judges. If these are not true, why would you have said these things?

Lingam: It looks, from the video, that there was a drinking session or a party, I may have had one too many drinks.

Mahadev: There’s truth in wine. (Laughs)

Lingam: My friends tell me that I talk rubbish when I drink wine. (Smiles)

Thayalan: Loh Gwo Burne, Loh Mui Fah’s son testified this morning and he said that on this occasion, you went out and bought went. Can you confirm this?

Lingam: Whenever Loh Mui Fah visits me, he brings three to six bottles of red wine and one or two bottles of whiskey or brandy.

Thayalan: You also confirm that you will drink alcohol with Loh Mui Fah when he visits?

Lingam: He insists we drink so just to accommodate him, we drink.

Thayalan: Do you know of a Manjit Singh?

Lingam: Yes, I know him. Manjit was very close and dear friend of mine.

Thayalan: Can you confirm that this photo was of you, Manjit Singh and Loh Mui Fah?

Lingam: Yes, I can confirm. I also must mention that Manjit lives very near my house and he visits often.

Comments (9)

Subscribe to this comment's feed