|
 •
Lingam video clip inquiry concluded after 17 days
•
Ex-driver: Limgam rude and aggressive
KUALA LUMPUR, Fri: The proceedings continued at approximately 2.50pm.
R. Thayalan, representing Dato' V.K. Lingam, informed the Commission that he had
prepared the statutory declaration of W. Satchithanandan, and tendered it as
evidence.
Further application to recuse Dato' Shankar
Thayalan then made reference to the ruling by the Commissioner Dato' Mahadev
Shankar earlier in the morning in relation to the application to recuse the
latter.
Thayalan submitted that serious and disparaging remarks were made
against his client – that Dato' Lingam’s statements were false, they were a
concoction by Lingam and an outright fabrication. It was submitted that those
remarks were made without the benefit of his client being allowed to rebut the
allegations made against him. The disparaging remarks made by Dato' Shankar
indicated a prejudice towards his client. He therefore requested that all
further proceedings be suspended, in order for Thayalan to put in a written
application to recuse Dato' Shankar based on the disparaging remarks made
against Dato' Lingam.
Commissioner Tan Sri Steve Shim then interrupted Thayalan to ask whether
Thayalan was aware of the Malaysian position in law was in relation to this
question of bias or prejudice on the part of the Commissioner. Thayalan admitted
that he had no authority to support his contention at the moment but required
time to put in his written application. Tan Sri Shim indicated that this issue
of law has been decided and that bias or prejudice cannot be a ground for
Thayalan to rely on. Thayalan requested for time to ventilate this issue before
the Commissioners.
Dato' Shankar then interjects and queries Thayalan.
Dato' Shankar: Your client made serious allegations against me. How am I
to respond to his allegations without saying that those allegations are false.
Do you want me to keep quiet and not say anything about it?
Thayalan: Absolutely not.
Dato' Shankar: This man files a declaration and accuses me of dreadful
things. On this issue, he calls me all sorts of things. How am I to defend
myself without saying what I said?
Dato' Shankar continues to set out that Dato' Lingam had said in great detail
the alleged misdemeanours on the part of Dato' Shankar, and that they were
atrocious falsehoods.
Dato' Shankar: How should I have said it? Let me learn something from
you. That the allegations are denied? Full stop? Teach me. What language should
I have refused which would have been acceptable to you.
Commission Chairman Tan Sri Haidar then interrupted this exchange and invited
submissions from other counsel.
Robert Lazar, counsel for the Malaysian Bar, then stated that when the
application was made by Tun Eusoff Chin, the evidence was supported by an
affidavit of Dato' Lingam. When a person decides to take a stand and puts
forward a position, he runs the risk of an adverse finding being made against
him. Either the person was telling the truth, or he was not. Having undertaken
that, and with a finding being made against him, he is now unable to accept the
consequences. Dato' Lingam was very much the author of his own misfortune.
Tan Sri Haidar agrees and states that Dato' Lingam should have been more careful
when putting in his statement, that he ought to have obtained all the supporting
evidence to what he was claiming.
Tan Sri Haidar then makes a ruling, having conferred with the other
Commissioners, with Dato' Shankar reserving his position, that Thayalan will not
be allowed to put in the written application for a further recusal of Dato'
Shankar.
Dato’ Seri Anwar’s application
Karpal Singh, representing Dato’ Seri Anwar, then referred to the ruling made
against his client that he could no longer take part in the proceedings. Karpal
had filed a written submission against that ruling.
Tan Sri Steve Shim then held that the Commission, having read Dato’ Seri Anwar’s
application and the written submission of Karpal, that they were unable to find
any merit in the application. In their view, the ruling of 4 February 2008 was
clear enough, and was the clarification of 5 February 2008. Therefore, the
application was disallowed.
Jayanthi’s further evidence
G. Jayanthi, the former secretary of Dato' Lingam, was then called back to the
stand to continue giving her evidence.
Her Counsel, R.S.N. Rayer, then referred to the statutory declaration filed by
the ACA officer, Wong Chee Kong, which states that he had never paid her the
RM3,000.00. Jayanthi confirmed that she stood by her position that the money was
in fact paid to her. She had called Dato' Shafee that evening itself and told
him about the fact that the ACA officer had paid her the money.
Referring to the statutory declaration filed by Satchithanandan, Jayanthi denied
that she harboured any spite or ill-will towards him.
Thayalan then continued with his questions. She confirmed that while employed in
Dato' Lingam’s firm, she handled all the documents and correspondence sent to
office. She denied the suggestion that in April 1995, Dato' Lingam had
confronted her about the theft of about RM12,000 using his Visa credit card. She
further denied that the alleged theft was carried out with the assistance of her
boyfriend who worked at the bank.
She denied that Dato' Lingam had found out about it and threatened to lodge a
police report, and that was the reason why she immediately tendered her
resignation in order to avoid any action.
She disagreed with Thayalan’s suggestions that Dato' Lingam and Tun Eusoff Chin
had separately made their own travel arrangements in relation to the New Zealand
trip.
She further disagreed that she had met up or contacted Satchithanandan after the
Royal Commission had been formed, and she disagreed that she was angry at him
for not entertaining her calls.
Thayalan then suggested to her that she was a close friend of the late MGG
Pillai and that she had stolen the acknowledgment copy of the Writ of Summons in
relation to Tan Sri Vincent Tan’s libel suit. The witness disagreed with this
question.
Jayanthi agreed that the written grounds of judgment had been typed out sometime
in late November or early December 1994. Thayalan then referred to the written
grounds of judgment. The first paragraph states that on 22 October 2004, the
oral judgment was read out in open court, but due to the judge’s handwritten
notes, the written grounds were only produced later and the written grounds were
dated 5 December 2004.
Thayalan was impressing on the Commission that this indicated that the judgment
could not have been drafted sometime in November or December 1994. However, Dato'
Shankar pointed out that Thayalan was referring to an alleged handwritten
judgment. Jayanthi then disagreed with Thayalan’s suggestion that the written
judgment could not have taken place at that time stated by her.
On being queried on how she knew that Satchithanandan had seen the statement she
gave to the ACA, Jayanthi stated that he had told her that he had read her ACA
statement.
Dato' Hazman, counsel for Tun Eusoff Chin, then questioned the witness on the
booking arrangements for the New Zealand trip. She stated that she had made the
booking for Dato' Lingam and Tun Eusoff Chin through a lady at the travel
agency, but she could not remember the lady’s name. She had further communicated
with a Rohaini, to ensure the spelling of Tun Eusoff Chin’s name was correct for
the itinerary.
Dato' Hazman then tendered an acknowledgement receipt to show that the air
tickets had been picked up by a Lim Gee Moi, on behalf of Tun Eusoff Chin, as
well as a cheque stub showing the payment made by Tun Eusoff Chin for the plane
tickets. Dato' Hazman further tendered credit card statements to show the hotel
stays paid by Tun Eusoff Chin in New Zealand.
Ranjit Singh, representing the Malaysian Bar, then further queried Jayanthi on
the travel arrangements made in respect of the trip. She was not aware of the
accommodation arrangements made in relation of that trip. A copy of Dato'
Lingam’s family itinerary was also sent to Rohaini, then secretary of Tun Eusoff
Chin. She had dealt with Rohaini on 1 or 2 occasion, purely in respect of the
itinerary.
Upon receiving the plane tickets, she had separated them into 3 envelopes, and
had handed them over to Dato' Lingam. As far as she was concerned, Dato' Lingam
had paid for all the plane tickets. She remembered that she had given the cheque
to the travel agent and that she collected the tickets personally. Two cheques
were issued for two families.
Tan Sri Haidar then interrupted Ranjit and asked if he was now taking the
position that Tun Eusoff Chin had not paid for the New Zealand trip, when
previously the Malaysian Bar had indicated otherwise. Ranjit answered that it
appears from the documents just tendered, that Tun Eusoff Chin did not pay for
the trip.
When Dato' Lingam returned to Kuala Lumpur, he had handed to Jayanthi 3 rolls of
film to develop. Dato' Lingam had taken the photos and negatives for 2 rolls,
but the last set remained with her. She did have sight of the other 2 rolls, and
she confirmed that they were all New Zealand photos, showing Dato' Lingam and
his family and Tun Eusoff Chin and his family. The photos showed that the shots
were taken in various locations around New Zealand.
Referring to her position as a personal secretary to Dato' Lingam, arranging his
office work and personal life, Ranjit queried whether she had organised any
meetings, functions or dinners between Dato' Lingam and persons such as, Tun
Eusoff Chin, Tunku Adnan, and Tun Fairuz.
Dato' Hazman immediately stood up to object to this line of questioning and
argued that none of this material was in her statement. Thayalan joined in the
objection and strenuously objected to the question.
Tan Sri Haidar allowed the question to be asked, at which point, applause broke
out among the members of the public seated at the back. Tan Sri Haidar reminded
the room for decorum to be maintained and that it was not a circus.
In relation to Tunku Adnan, Jayanthi informed the Commission that he used to
call on Dato' Lingam’s direct line in his room. She used to answer the direct
line in his absence. She could not remember whether there were many phone calls.
In relation to Tun Eusoff Chin, he too used to call Dato' Lingam’s direct line.
She knew it was Tun Eusoff Chin, as he would introduce himself over the phone.
She was not aware if Tun Fairuz had ever called.
Aside from phone calls, Dato' Lingam would then arrange for a meeting with Tun
Eusoff Chin. His drivers would tell her, that there was a meeting sometimes and
that they would have to take him to Tun Eusoff Chin’s house. She was not aware
if Dato' Lingam had prepared any other judgments for any other judge.
Wee Choo Keong, representing Dato' Lingam’s brother Thirunama Karasu, then asked
Jayanthi a few questions. She agreed that she was familiar with Dato' Lingam’s
movements and voice. She agreed that he likes to use the words ‘Correct,
Correct, Correct’. Having seen the video clip, she stated that the Indian man in
the clip was Dato' Lingam.
Upon trying to ask more questions, Tan Sri Haidar stopped Wee as he felt that
the questions were outside the terms of reference of the Commission.
Wee: Every time I stand up, you don’t allow my questions.
Tan Sri Haidar: Then you can relax and sit down.
This immediately drew laughter from the room.
Dato' Nordin, Deputy Public Prosecutor, then confirmed with Jayanthi that no one
was present aside from her and Wong Chee Kong, the ACA officer, at the time of
the alleged payment of RM3,000. She had signed a voucher acknowledging receiving
the RM3,000 and had passed the voucher back to him.
Upon being asked by Dato' Shankar, she stated that the RM3,000 was in cash and
that she had spent it.
Dato' Nordin then further asked the witness if she was aware that the ACA
investigation was only closed sometime in 2006. Ranjit then clarified to the
Commission that there was newspaper article quoting the then AG Tan Sri Mohtar,
that the investigation was closed sometime in 1999 or 2000, but that the ACA
would be prepared to re-open the investigations if there was more evidence.
Dato' Lingam's ex driver testifies
 Jayanthi was then allowed to leave, and D. Ramachandran, a former driver of Dato'
Lingam, was then called to the stand to give evidence. His statutory declaration
was tendered as evidence, and in the interests of saving time, the Commission
proceeded to questions by counsel.
On being asked by Thayalan, Ramachandran agreed that he was now working as a
driver for Dato' Shafee, since September 2007. He had not informed Dato' Shafee
that he had previously worked for Dato' Lingam. He denied that he had lied in
his statutory declaration about the period he worked with Dato' Lingam, as he
only remembered it was until the year 2001.
The witness was then referred to a letter he had written to Dato' Lingam after
being told to leave. The letter stated that Dato' Lingam was an excellent
employer and wanted Dato' Lingam to treat him like a younger brother.
Tan Sri Steve Shim then interjected and pointed out that this letter was written
by the witness in the hope of getting his employment back and he would say
anything.
The witness disagreed that he had misused Dato' Lingam’s petrol card to buy
petrol for the witness’ own car and family. He disagreed that this was the
reason why he quit when he was confronted by Dato' Lingam.
In reference to the witness’ statement that Dato' Lingam had hosted a Deepavali
lunch for Tun Eusoff Chin sometime in 1998-1999, the witness could not remember
if Dato' Lingam’s house was under renovation during those years.
On being questioned by Wee, the witness agreed that he knew Dato' Lingam’s
movements and voice. He was also sure that Dato' Lingam was the man in the video
clip.
Dato' Shafee then asked Ramachandran a few questions. He had only informed Dato'
Shafee that he had worked for Dato' Lingam previously about 2 weeks ago.
Jayanthi had informed Dato' Shafee and Dato' Shafee had asked him about this. He
had not told Dato' Shafee about this previously as he knew he would not be hired
otherwise.
The witness then stated how he had been badly treated by Dato' Lingam, and on
one occasion had nearly been hit with Dato' Lingam’s handphone. He finally
decided to leave when Dato' Lingam nearly hit his own wife, and Datin had to run
behind Ramachandran to be protected from the blow.
Tan Sri Dr. Mahadevan was then brought in as a witness, and again, his two
statutory declarations were treated as read and tendered into evidence. Thayalan
covered a few questions on how Dr. Mahadevan’s provisional diagnosis was that
Thirunama was suffering from personality disorder at that time. On further
questioning by Wee, the Commission noted that Dr. Mahadevan’s evidence was
neutral and advised Wee to not ask further questions.
Christopher Leong, for the Malaysian Bar, established that Thirunama was not
hallucinating or delusional, when referring to the University Hospital notes.
Further, that Thirunama was not suicidal at that time.
There were no further witnesses to be called, and Dato' Shafee would be allowed
to file in his statutory declaration to be admitted into evidence.
Tan Sri Haidar then requested for all counsel to assist the Commission in filing
in written submissions by Monday 25 February 2008.
The Commission would go through the submissions, and then
request for oral clarification if necessary.
Tan Sri Haidar thanked all counsel and the DPPs for their
assistance.
 |
News 
Subscribe to this comment's feed
Invitation to the Launching of the Bar Council Legal Aid Centre (Kuala Lumpur) Website 
