|
 •
I feared my brother, says Thirunama
•
Anwar was uncooperative, says Commission
•
Fresh bid to have inquiry panel recused themselves
•
No need for Manoharan to be present at this stage, rules Commission
•
Ex-CJ wants commissioner disqualified
KUALA LUMPUR, Tues: Day 15 of the Royal Commission of Inquiry
into the V.K. Lingam Video Clip started at approximately 10.15am.
The Chairman of the Commission, Tan Sri Haidar Mohd Noor, started the
proceedings by stating that the Commission wished to provide a clarification on
the ruling made on 4 February 2008.
Commissioner Tan Sri Steve Shim read out the clarification in relation to the
ruling made to disallow Dato’ Seri Anwar Ibrahim and Aliran from participating
in the proceedings.
The Commission set out the background facts leading up to
the summoning of Dato’ Seri Anwar as there was some indication that he would be
able to provide some clarification and assistance to the Commission. On Friday
18 January 2008, Dato’ Seri Anwar had tendered a very brief outline or summary
of the testimony which was lacking in particulars and too skimpy. There was also
an indication that two other secret witnesses would be called.
On Monday 21 January 2008, the Commission had requested Dato’ Seri Anwar’s
counsel, M. Puravelan, to provide a full transcript of the testimony but
Puravelan had informed the Commission that his client would not give more than
in his summary. Dato’ Seri Anwar’s secret witnesses also did not want to give
unless served with a subpoena and would not testify until after he had given his
evidence. The Commission could not be seen to give Dato’ Seri Anwar special
treatment, and the same was for his other secret witnesses. Left only with the
brief outline of the proposed testimony, the Commission then made its ruling on
28 January 2008.
The very next day, on 29 January 2008, Dato’ Seri Anwar and P. Ramakrishnan,
president of Aliran, made scathing comments and allegations of impropriety on
the Commission. The Commission had stated that what it would do next would
depend on the responses of the counsel for Dato’Seri Anwar and Aliran.
It was against this backdrop that on 4 February 2008, the Commission had made
its ruling to exclude Dato’ Seri Anwar from the proceedings.
Tan Sri Steve Shim then made reference to the Commissions of Enquiry Act 1950
which allows the Commission to summon anyone as a witness. Dato’ Seri Anwar was
originally summoned as it was thought he could assist the Commission. However,
he had been uncooperative and did not provide full written particulars of his
evidence. This was compounded by his conduct in casting aspersions on the
Commission by stating that the Commission was manipulated by unseen hands.
The Commission considered this to be on the verge of contempt. Having asked Dato’
Seri Anwar to apologise, he had refused. This ran counter to the definition of
rendering assistance to the Commission.
As regards Aliran, it was appearing merely as an observer and counsel was
allowed to assist the Commission. P. Ramakrishnan had made serious allegations
which had the effect of impugning the integrity of the Commission. Aliran too
had refused to retract its statement or tender any apology. This militated
against any form of useful assistance to the Commission and we deemed it
necessary that it should not participate any further in the proceedings.
Therefore, the Commission on 4 February 2008 ruled for Aliran’s exclusion.
Commissioner Datuk Mahadev Shankar provided a further ruling. The Commission had
decided that all applications for any interlocutory directions must be made in
writing and due notice given to all parties. Allegations of fact have to be
attached to the application, by way of direct evidence, and not hearsay. If the
evidence is by hearsay, then the source of that information should also be
revealed. Datuk Shankar also cautioned that such statements and applications are
not privileged under the Commissions of Enquiry Act 1950.
Datuk Shankar then thought it would be useful to set out the duties of an
advocate and read out a passage from the Ethics of Advocacy. The passage
emphasised that an advocate cannot launch into allegations of fraud without
fullest investigation. An advocate must insist on being given all information
which is thought by his client to justify his attack. It is not sufficient to
say that it is for the court to decide the matter. It is for counsel to see that
no man’s good name is wantonly attacked.
Datuk Shankar: Every advocate, being a man or lady of honour, is to bear
the arms of a warrior and not of an assassin.
RSN Rayer along with Ramesh Sivakumar, introduced themselves as counsel for
Jayanthi, who is Datuk VK Lingam’s former secretary.
Rayer then applied for his client to be provided with her statement made to the
ACA in 1998 along with the exhibits handed over to the ACA, in order for her to
refresh her memory before she takes the stand.
Tan Sri Haidar was of the opinion that the statutory declaration which she had
provided to the Commission ought to be sufficient and was concerned that it
would take time to retrieve the ACA statement made 10 years ago. Datuk Shankar
said that Jayanthi could give her evidence, and then refresh her memory in the
event her memory was cloudy for certain areas.
Datuk Muhammad Shafee Abdullah then stood up to assist the Commission in that
her statement given to the ACA would be in the same file as his statement given
to the ACA in 1998. He had been allowed to read his statement from the file, and
the file was now with the ACA.
Datuk Shankar then decided that Jayanthi would give her evidence, and where she
thinks she cannot remember, she could then refer to her ACA statement.
David Gurupatham introduced himself as counsel for former High Court Judge Datuk
K.L. Rekhraj, and V. Vijaya Segaran appeared as counsel for Tan Sri Dr.
Mahadevan.
Vijaya Segaran at this point informed the Commission that there were 3
allegations against his client to which he wished to reply to later.
T. Nayagam appeared as counsel for Kanakalashimi, Datuk VK Lingam’s sister.
Karpal Singh, counsel for M. Manoharan, informed the Commission that his client
ought to be allowed to appear before the Commission to reply to the allegations
made by Datuk Lingam against him, instead of merely filing a Statutory
Declaration.
Tan Sri Haidar then queried whether the Commission had the power to compel his
presence here, as Manoharan is being detained under the Internal Security Act.
Karpal then clarified that the Commission can issue a subpoena for his
attendance and related how he himself had appeared as a witness in Court even
when he was detained in Kamunting.
Datuk Shankar then replied that the issues before the Commission relate to the
brokering and appointment of judges. The allegations made by Datuk Lingam
against Manoharan were serious allegations and Manoharan ought to be given a
reasonable opportunity to rebut them, but these were peripheral issues and not
the main issue. Datuk Shankar advised Karpal to put in his client’s Statutory
Declaration and then the Commission can decide whether it wants to go on
further. If the credibility of Datuk Lingam is not what it should be at the end
of the case, then Manoharan’s Statutory Declaration might be enough.
Datuk Hazman Ahmad, counsel for Tun Eusoff Chin, then stood up to make an oral
application to recuse Datuk Shankar as a member of the Commission. This drew an
immediate chatter from everyone present in the court room. Datuk Shankar
requested Datuk Hazman to put his application in writing with full support of
evidence and the Commission would hear him out.
Datuk Hazman protested and stated that the previous applications for recusal had
been entertained without having to put it in writing. Datuk Shankar replied that
the Commission had made a ruling this morning and Datuk Hazman agreed to put in
a formal application by this afternoon.
Thirunama Karasu returned to the witness stand and R. Thayalan informed the
Commission that he had obtained documents from Thirunama’s siblings which he
would put to the witness.
On being questioned by Thayalan, Thirunama disagreed that he was jobless for
more than 2 years after leaving Datuk Lingam’s legal firm. He explained that had
been doing odd jobs. He agreed that he had received RM1,300 a month from his
siblings after he left Datuk Lingam’s firm.
On being referred to his resignation letter drafted to Tenaga Nasional Berhad,
Thirunama explained that the letter was drafted by his sister and her friend,
although he did sign the letter. The letter sets out that he had given 24-hour
notice of his resignation as his child had asthma and bronchitis and he had to
leave the office 3 or 4 times a day to obtain treatment for his child. He
explained that his brother, Datuk Lingam, had put pressure on him to resign and
disagreed that the reason why he resigned was because he was seeking treatment
for his child. The letter was drafted by Thirunama’s sister. However, he
admitted that he had not made any police report against his brother or sister in
relation to the drafting of the letter.
Referring to various documents, on being questioned by Thayalan, Thirunama
agreed that a limousine service had been started, but at the request of his
brothers. Datuk Lingam had bought him a Mercedez car and informed Thirunama that
he would find clients for the limousine business. Thirunama stated that he had
run this limousine business, and he had to source out his own clients. Thirunama
explained that he had been forced to sign many of the letters referred to in the
bundle.
On further questioning, Thirunama agreed that Datuk Lingam had provided him with
some monies to purchase a house as well as to start a lawn-mowing business.
Thayalan suggested to Thirunama that he had been lying when he stated that
Satchi was in Datuk Lingam’s house when he collected the handbag and wallet, and
Thirunama disagreed and stated that Satchi had been staying in the guest room.
Christopher Leong, counsel for the Malaysian Bar, then continued with the
questioning of Thirunama.
On being referred to a document which Thirunama had written, Thirunama confirmed
that in the course of 1997, he had met with Tommy Thomas, Dato’ Param
Cumaraswamy, and Raphael Pura. In late 1997, he had also met with Datuk Shafee
and went to London with Datuk Shafee to meet some solicitors.
Leong clarified to the Commission that this line of questioning was to
corroborate his evidence as well as to establish consistency.
After the London trip, Thirunama’s siblings came to meet him and brought him to
a hotel in Klang. There, he was forced to sign a statutory declaration and he
was not allowed to read its contents. He was also asked at that time to fake
mental illness and his siblings asked him to go (then) Datuk Seri Dr. Mahadevan.
This was in late December 1997.Thirunama did not agree to fake mental illness.
Leong referred to Thirunama’s statutory declaration and Thirunama explained that
he signed it but under incredible pressure and duress.
Before the ACA came to visit Thirunama on 8 March 1998, he explained that Datuk
Lingam and Kanakalashimi had met him. They confirmed that the ACA would be
visiting him. They repeated the request for him to fake mental illness but he
again refused.
On 8 March 1998, he followed the ACA to its headquarters and although he was
afraid to give his statement initially, he provided them his first statement. He
stayed at the ACA overnight and left its headquarters on 9 March 1998. He
confirmed that he informed the ACA about the matters he has given evidence on
before the Commission.
Leong asked Thirunama if he then met up with Datuk Lingam or Kanakalashimi after
that, and Thirunama said that he met his sister. He told her that he had given
his statement and she was distraught and she called Datuk Lingam. He was then
asked to see a Dr. David and to fake mental illness. This time, he agreed to act
mentally ill as his sister was so upset. He agreed that immense pressure was put
on him. He then rode his motorbike to see Dr. David and told him that he had
family problems, that he was fighting with his wife, and he put up an act. Dr.
David then gave Thirunama a referral letter to see Dr. Devadas.
On 10 March 1998, Thirunama took his motorbike and saw Dr. Devadas where he told
him the same story and put up an act. He was asked to go to see Dr. Mahadevan.
On the same day, he went to see Dr. Mahadevan and he told him what he had told
the ACA was true, and told Dr. Mahadevan about the judges and the corruption.
When he was at Dr. Mahadevan’s clinic, Thirunama was asked to write the document
produced before the Commission. He wrote up until about page 3 on the first day,
he then continued on the next day, 11 March 1998, and wrote approximately 5
pages. After his ACA remand of 6 days, he completed writing the rest of the
document. On the first two occasions, Thirunama had written the statement only
with Dr. Mahadevan in front of him.
Thirunama agreed that he had informed Tommy Thomas of all these events even
before Tommy Thomas had asked him about the dates of the Ramachandran and Ayer
Molek case. He had showed Tommy Thomas the letter and told him about Datuk
Lingam’s corrupt practices.
Thirunama stated that Dr. Mahadevan did not refer him to be admitted to any
hospital. Dr. Mahadevan stated that the document could be used to help Datuk
Lingam. He had been told by Dr. Mahadevan to write some of the contents, some of
the contents his sister had told him to write in, and some he had written
himself. Thirunama clarified that the contents were not dictated out to him and
he used his own words.
Thirunama’s sister, Kanakalashimi, was present when he wrote the third part of
the document. She told him what to write in the statement. A copy of his
statement was also given to her by Dr. Mahedevan. The witness agreed that the
words in relation to him taking revenge on Datuk Lingam were words suggested by
Dr. Mahadevan and Kanakalashimi.
After he had given his statement to Dr. Mahadevan, Kanakalashimi had asked
Thirunama to give a second statement to the ACA. He was asked to state that he
had been assaulted by the ACA officer and that is why he had given his first
statement. She also asked him not to mention anything about the psychiatric
doctor. When he gave his second statement on 11 March 1998, the ACA officer did
not believe him and asked him a lot of questions. He was subjected to a
polygraph test and he was remanded for 6 days. Thirunama then started to
elaborate that he was locked up with a former sessions court judge, which drew
laughter from the room. Tan Sri Haidar said that there was no need for this, and
exclaimed that the next thing would be his name being mentioned. This drew even
louder laughter from the room.
He stated that the ACA did test his statement and he showed the ACA the houses
mentioned in his statement. Thirunama provided the final third statement to the
ACA on 17 March 1998. He then went to see Dr. Mahedevan on 18 March 1998.
He saw Dr. Devadas on 26 March 1998, as instructed by 3 lawyers and his sister.
He was asked by one of the lawyers to steal the original document from Dr.
Mahadevan as well as his patient card. The reason given by them was that it was
very hard to communicate with Dr. Mahadevan and they wanted to handle the matter
themselves. He agreed that this was because Dr. Mahadevan had refused to refer
him as a patient to any hospital.
Dr. Devadas on the other hand, had referred him to admission to University
Hospital. He was in the hospital for 2 weeks. He stated that he had put up an
act and he had acted suicidal.
When he was brought to see Dr. Devadas, he had waited outside while his sister
went in to meet him and she came out with the referral letter. He had been given
medication by Dr. Devadas and was told that the medication was to calm him down.
After 14 April 2008, when Thirunama was discharged from University Hospital, he
was then admitted to General Hospital a few days after. He was again asked by
his sister and Datuk Seri Jeyakumar to act mentally ill. He was warned that ACA
would put him in lock up.
The witness explained that he took his medication while he was in the hospital,
but when he was sent back home with medication, he did not take this medication.
He had given this medication to Datuk Shafee in late 1999 as evidence.
On being asked whether Datuk Lingam or Kanakalashimi had contacted him during
the Commission proceedings, he answered no. They had however contacted him after
he had lodged his police report in March 2007.
Leong had no further question for the witness.
At this point, Datuk Shafee, representing himself, stood up
and requested that he be allowed to clarify one issue in relation to the police
report lodged by Datuk K.L. Rekhraj against him. Datuk Shafee explained that it
was relevant to show lack of credibility. Thayalan explained that the point of
the police report was in relation to the credibility of Datuk Shafee if he is
called as a witness.
Datuk Shafee requested that the Commission allow him to ask Thirunama one
question to show the kind of influence and power that Datuk Lingam exerted in
order to put in context the pressure that the witness was under. The Commission
however was not minded to allow Datuk Shafee to ask any questions.
The Commission then adjourned the proceedings to 2pm for further questioning of
Thirunama.
 |
News 
Subscribe to this comment's feed
Direct Access Mastercard Exclusive Rebates
It appears that Anwar will not be cited for contempt because that will give him a chance to address the Commission. Maybe something may leak out?
He cannot speak when he offered himself as witness and when he spoke out in the papers against the refusal to let him appear, he is not cited for contempt but still barred from the proceedings, for being on "the verge of contempt" whatever that is.
He cannot defend himself because he is not cited for contempt. If he is cited, he will be able to speak up in the inquiry. Simple way out, just bar him for whatever reason, so he cannot cast anymore doubt against Haidar or the government.
Lim Chong Leong