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

Contributed by Syamsuriatina Ishak and Brendan Navin Siva

Dato' VK Lingam's younger brother, Thirunama Karasu

• Lingam stuns court with allegation
• Lazar wants to become Court Of Appeal judge, says Lingam
• Anwar Ibrahim's Press Statement: VK Lingam Video - Part III
• Commission: No need for Anwar to testify

KUALA LUMPUR: Day 10 of the Royal Commission of Inquiry Into the V.K. Lingam Video Clip started at 11.07 this morning.

Tan Sri Haidar started the proceedings by stating that the Commission had come to a decision on the extent of the evidence that may be adduced by certain persons who have offered themselves as witnesses to these proceedings.

In relation to the evidence of Rajendran a/l Vellupillai, the Commission decided that his evidence would be merely supportive of the proposed testimony of Thirunama Karasu a/l Vellupillai.

In this regard, the Commission decided not to take his evidence unless the need later arises. The Commission also decided that thus far they felt the need did not arise to call Dato’ Seri Anwar Ibrahim, Sivarasa Rasiah or Sim Tze Tsin since their evidence would be on subjects which have been touched on already.

In respect of Thirunama Karasu, the Commission decided that certain designated portions of the evidence as set out in the 21-page statement submitted to the Commission would be allowed into evidence whereas the remainder would be wholly excluded.

Datuk Shankar then informed all counsel of the paragraphs of the statement which contained evidence that would be allowed, i.e. paragraphs 1, 5, 8, 9(2). The remainder of the evidence was excluded on the grounds that it either had little or no probative value to matters germane to the terms of reference or was defamatory of persons not included in the proceedings. Datuk Shankar added that to allow the airing of these statements would be tantamount to using the Commission as a conduit to publication and deprive the persons named from defending themselves. To bring these persons into the Inquiry merely to give them the opportunity to rebut the allegations made, would extend the scope of questioning well beyond the terms of reference.

As a word of caution, Datuk Shankar said that the truth of the proposed testimonies would only be decided upon by the Commission after hearing all evidence presented before the Commission.

At this stage, the Commission marked the expert evidence report submitted by R. Thayalan, counsel for Dato’ VK Lingam. Datuk Shankar then informed M. Puravalen that the Commission would like to have the full text of the proposed evidence of Murad Khalid, at which point counsel explained that Murad Khalid has appointed one Nahendran Navaratnam to represent him in these proceedings. Tan Sri Haidar asked for him to liaise directly with Dato’ Nordin on this. At this stage, Puravalen disclosed that there is now a third video clip, to which Tan Sri Haidar said: “On appointment of Judges? This is news. It’s coming in by instalments. Please tell your client we have a time frame. We cannot dance to that tune. Time frame is set.” Puravelan informed the Commission that his client only came into possession of the third video over the weekend and is willing to give it directly to the Commission. When asked to pass the new video to Dato’ Nordin, Puravalen remarked that since the Commission is sitting he will pass it directly to them but will extend a copy to the DPP. Datuk Shankar remarked “The previous one was broadcast to the world before this. Now he wants to share this with us first?”

Dato’ Lingam was then called to take the stand again. As the Malaysian Bar had completed questioning this witness, Wee Choo Keong stood up to start questioning. The witness said that he had 4 brothers and 2 sisters and that he was the eldest. The witness confirmed that Thirunama Karasu is his brother. He said that in 1970 he was in Form 6 and did not live in a rented apartment with his siblings. He could not remember staying in SS21/12 PJ with his brothers. The witness said that he had purchased a house in Sea Park for RM21,000 and it was not purchased jointly with his siblings. He confirmed that Thirunama was working in his office from February 1996 to June 1996, and his job function was to photocopy court documents and assist in binding for about 2 hours a day. The witness said that he was aware that Thirunama had lodged a police report in March 2007.

At this stage, the members of the Commission questioned Wee as to whether he understood their earlier ruling as the extent of questioning allowed. Proceedings were adjourned for 20 minutes for counsel to get instructions.

Upon resumption, Datuk Shankar informed Wee that in order to accelerate the proceedings, the Commission would draw the witness to the relevant portions and ask him to comment.

Datuk Shankar then led the witness to paragraph 1 of the Statement of Thirunama, entitled “Sending Files to Tun Eusoff Chin’s house”. In the paragraph, Thirunama had described driving his brother, Dato' Lingam, to Tun Eusoff Chin’s house and then going back to pick him up from there and hearing his brother say “Thank you My Lord. Thank you My Lord.”.

Thirunama had stated in a subsequent paragraph that he drove Dato' Lingam to Tun Eusoff Chin’s house on several occasions using different cars, which Thirunama said he was told by Dato' Lingam was necessary to avoid being noticed. Thirunama also stated that on the occasion that the Perwaja’s case was being investigated, he had heard Dato' Lingam’s wife shout at him “Stop all this nonsense with these judges, there will be another investigation”.

When asked to respond, Dato' Lingam replied that this was certainly not true. When asked whether he had anything to add, Dato' Lingam stated “I never had a BMW car in the first place. I only went to Tun Eusoff Chin’s house once with my wife for Hari Raya Open House in 1995. That was the only visit to Tun Eusoff Chin’s house until today. That is all I have to say”.

In response to Datuk Shankar’s reading of paragraph 5 of the Statement entitled “Intended Purchase of a House for Tun Eusoff Chin”, wherein Thirunama had stated that his brother had presented a house bearing address No. 2 SS1/28 Kg. Tunku, Petaling Jaya as a present to Tun Eusoff Chin and his wife, but which was rejected when Tun Eusoff Chin asked for a bigger land to build a house of his own choice. Thirunama had stated that his brother then instructed him, and two others namely Sivaparamjothy and Panjaratnam to look for 2 plots of land for this purpose.

In response, Dato’ Lingam said the statements were untrue. “I have never had a car WDN. Not sure about WCN… need to check that. This house No. 2 in Kg Tunku, my wife was not happy with the house, so I put it on the market for sale. My brother Thirunama had the keys and was responsible for showing it to buyers. I did ask him to look for 2 plots of land, but that was for me.” When prompted further, he denied the specific references made by his brother of Tun Eusoff Chin and his wife at his house.

Then Datuk Shankar led the witness through paragraph 8 of the Statement, entitled “Handbag and Wallet given to Tun Eusoff Chin”, in which Thirunama stated that Dato’ Lingam had instructed him to give the handbags and wallet he had purchased in Italy to Tun Eusoff Chin and Thirunama personally handed them to Tun Eusoff Chin. In response, the witness informed the Commission that the Bally bag and wallet had been purchased by him on his credit card for his wife. Dato’ Lingam went on to say that the ACA had already questioned him about this and taken a copy of his credit card statement.

Datuk Shankar then went on to paragraph 9 of the Statement, in which Thirunama stated he was given RM1,200 cash by Dato’ Lingam to purchase a handphone from a Mutiara TeleCommunications outlet at Lot 1, Shahzan Prudential Tower, Jalan Sultan Ismail for Tun Eusoff Chin, which the witness also denied. This concluded the statements in Thirunama’s statement which were designated by the Commission as admissible in the proceedings.

Then Wee was invited to further question the witness. Dato’ Lingam denied the question put to him that the said paragraphs were true. When asked when he bought the house in Kg. Tunku, the witness said he would have to check his records. When prompted further, Dato’ Lingam confirmed he would produce the records if ordered to do so. When Wee suggested that Mutiara Telekom was a part of the Berjaya Group or a company connected to Tan Sri Vincent Tan, the witness replied he was not sure.

At the end of this series of questions, Ranjit Singh, counsel for the Malaysian Bar, asked the witness whether his wife or anyone in his family owned a BMW. The witness said no one in his family owned a BMW registration No. WDX788. Dato’ Lingam also said he did not know of anybody who owned a BMW registration No. WDX788.

Mohd Fauzi, counsel for Tun Eusoff Chin, then asked a few questions. The witness confirmed that apart from the 1995 New Zealand trip, he had not followed Tun Eusoff Chin to any other locations overseas or local. Dato’ Lingam stated that he had not visited Tun Eusoff Chin at his house or office apart from that Hari Raya visit he testified on earlier while admitting that Tun Eusoff Chin had only once visited his house for Deepavali in 1995.

When questioned on the New Zealand trip, the witness also confirmed that he did not pay a single cent of Tun Eusoff Chin’s expenses. In response to Mohd Fauzi’s further questions, Dato’ Lingam confirmed that he has never offered Tun Eusoff Chin to be a partner or consultant in his firm, nor introduced him to be partner or consultant to his friends, or introduced him to business associates or Tan Sri Vincent Tan with the view of being appointed as chairman of a company.

When reprimanded by the Commission, Mohd Fauzi said this line of questioning was necessary because “it was better that the witness clarify than the public speculates”. The witness went on to testify that he had never lobbied any of his lawyer friends to be appointed as a Judicial Commissioner or Judge, although someone did approach him for help to be elevated straight to the Court of Appeal, not through Tun Eusoff Chin but to speak to Tun Dr. Mahathir directly.

At this point Tan Sri Haidar interjected:

Tan Sri Haidar: This is during Tun Eusoff Chin’s regime?

Dato’ Lingam: Yes, during his regime.

M.Fauzi: What happened? Did you accede to the request?

Dato’ Lingam: I told him I don’t know Dr Mahathir. He asked me to speak to my client Mirzan Mahathir. I told him I can’t. He is my client, not my friend. He appealed to me.

When asked, Dato’ Lingam then denied ever conducting meetings with Tun Eusoff Chin and Tan Sri Vincent Tan relating to the appointment of judges or ever asking Tun Eusoff Chin to see Tengku Adnan or Tan Sri Vincent Tan regarding the promotion or appointment of Judges. The witness said, after Tun Eusoff Chin’s retirement in 2000, he had never consulted him on the appointment or promotion of Judges. Mohd Fauzi then started to question the witness on whether, at the New Zealand holiday, Dato’ Lingam had ever approached Tun Eusoff Chin’s wife or children regarding the appointment or promotion of judges. Datuk Shankar remarked: “What? I hope you know what you’re doing”. After Tan Sri Haidar remarked that this line of questioning was becoming unreasonable, Mohd Fauzi declined further questioning.

Ranjit Singh then stood up again to ask the witness about the person he was referring to earlier that had approached him for assistance to be elevated directly to the Court of Appeal and how he came to know of this person. When Tan Sri Haidar expressed his concern on whether that person’s name appeared in the transcript, Ranjit assured the Commission that he did not intend to ask Dato’ Lingam to reveal the identity of that person. Dato’ Lingam said the person was a lawyer known to him, which he did not socialise with. When asked why this lawyer was under the impression that Dato’ Lingam could assist him on this issue, Dato’ Lingam replied “I guess this person was desperate, he wanted to go directly to the Court of Appeal. He didn’t want to be a JC or Judge of the High Court. He told me there is a precedent set to go direct. I was in Mirzan’s case, he was representing Star newspapers. His name is Robert Lazar and he is from Shearn Delamore. He said: You are the man to help me. I told him I don’t know Mahathir”. On further questioning, the witness said this happened in early 2000.

Subsequently, Puravalen brought Dato’ Lingam’s attention to page 10 of the Transcript of the Video where an Indian man referred to himself being well connected. On Puravalen’s query, the witness confirmed that he had only met Tun Dr Mahathir officially after he had been engaged to represent him in a case, and that the witness may have seen Tun Dr Mahathir at a function. When it was pointed out that the witness had answered “can’t remember” on 26 occasions in response to questions concerning the transcript, Dato’ Lingam confirmed that he had never suffered any problems of memory loss and that he was very much in active practice.

Alex De Silva, counsel for Loh Gwo Burne, attempted to question Dato’ Lingam on the issue of whether he was drunk at the time of the video clip. He however ceased this line of questioning when Tan Sri Haidar stated this had already been covered earlier.

Thayalan then re-examined his witness, asking the witness why his own brother would have reason to make up stories about him. To this, Dato’ Lingam said “I’ll make a long story very short. There is a breakdown in the relationship between my brother Thiru and his younger brother Rajendra and other members of the family. The other members of the family have been supporting Thiru and Rajen since our parents have died and they want free money. And that we cannot do. In January, Thiru told my sister that I promised to give him a bungalow, car and educate his children. My sister said that cannot be. He said that if I did not give this, he would file a police report against me. After the police report was filed, his lawyer Manoharan said: “he has made the report, are you prepared to give him now?” None are true, he is a psychiatric patient. He said he would look into the matter. That’s all.”

The Commission then noted Dato’ Nordin’s stand that he intended to call Tun Eusoff Chin next to complete his testimony and that it would be followed by Tun Ahmad Fairuz’s testimony.

The morning session adjourned at 12.48pm. Proceedings are to resume at 2 pm.

Comments (2)

Subscribe to this comment's feed