©New Straits Times (Used by permission)
• Thirunama: I met Eusoff Chin in 1995
• Anwar, Aliran face contempt charge
• Lingam's lawyer accuses Shafee of case–fixing
• Excerpts from V. Thirunama Karasu's statement
KUALA LUMPUR: V. Thirunama Karasu stood up in the witness box as a "mark of respect" to identify former chief justice Tun Mohamed Eusoff Chin as the person whom he met some 12 years ago.
"I have to respect him because he is a Tun," said Thirunama to the laughter of those in the courtroom.
Thirunama identified Eusoff as the gentleman whom he had met in 1995 and 1996.
Eusoff arrived at court about 12.30pm after the commission instructed his
counsel Datuk Hazman Ahmad that the presence of the retired chief justice was
vital.
Thirunama's counsel, Wee Choo Keong, had earlier sought clarification whether
Eusoff would be called for his client to identify the former chief justice.
Hazman objected, stating that Eusoff, who had earlier
testified, had said that he did not know Thirunama.
Commission chairman Tan Sri Haidar Mohamed Noor then said that was all the more
reason for Eusoff to be here.
"Can you ask him to come now," he said, as Hazman hurriedly walked out to make a
phone call.
Hazman then suggested to Thirunama that he knew Eusoff from the newspapers and
watching television as the media had given extensive coverage to the
proceedings.
"No it's not true, I met him (Eusoff) way back in 1995," he said.
Wee then asked Thirunama how many times Eusoff was seen in Lingam's house.
Thirunama: Twice. I saw Eusoff and Lamin (Tan Sri Lamin Mohd Yunus, the former
Court of Appeal president) who came for dinner.
Lingam's counsel, R. Thayalan, objected to the line of questioning as this was
not in Thirunama's statement.
Mahadev allowed the question on the grounds that Lingam had denied that Eusoff
came to his Kelana Jaya home.
Mahadev: This is to ascertain the credibility of Eusoff and Lingam.
Thirunama said Eusoff came to Lingam's house for the second time to bid farewell
to Lingam and his wife, who were leaving for the Mayo Clinic, Minnesota in the
United States.
Wee: Apart from Eusoff, to whom did you distribute handphones?
Thirunama: Among them was Datuk Mokhtar Sidin.
Haidar: Come on, we have to work within the terms and reference of the inquiry.
He (Thirunama) cannot be given a free ride.
Wee: But these proceedings could be the "mother of all inquiries".
(Wee then went on to another question.)
Wee: Did Shafee (lawyer Datuk Muhammad Shafee Abdullah) take you to a minister's
house?
Thirunama: Yes, he took me to meet former minister in the Prime Minister's
Department Datuk Abang Abu Bakar Abang Mustapha at his house in Ukay Heights.
Wee: Why?
Thirunama: This was after I lodged a report with the Anti–Corruption Agency
against my brother and Eusoff in 1998.
Wee then mentioned the names of judicial commissioner Datuk K.L. Rekhraj and
Datuk Low Hop Bing who is still serving.
(These names were in Thirunama's statement to the inquiry to determine if he
could testify.)
The commissioners warned Wee against raising the names of the judges as they
would be deleted from Thirunama's statement.
Wee: I hope the commission can be fair and allow me some latitude.
Mahadev: We want to make sure you do not go off track. There must be procedural
fairness to others.
Wee: The commission was not fair as Thirunama was first asked to supply a
statement before he was allowed to testify. Others like Eusoff, Lingam and
another former chief justice, Tun Ahmad Fairuz Sheikh Abdul Halim, gave evidence
without having to give statements. I agree that I cannot talk about Low and
Mokhtar. These are special people.
Wee asked Thirunama if he gave the telephone numbers of Eusoff and Rekhraj to
the ACA to facilitate investigations. Thirunama replied that he did.
Shim then remarked that Wee was trying to squeeze blood out of stone.
Wee said he was trying to establish that Lingam was intimately close to Eusoff.
'No doubts' about man in clip
by V. Anbalagan and A. Hafiz Yatim
KUALA LUMPUR: The body language and the way he said "correct! correct!
correct!", left no doubt in Thirunama Karasu's mind that it was his brother
Datuk V.K. Lingam in the controversial video clip.
Thirunama, 50, told the Royal Commission of Inquiry yesterday
that he had viewed the eight–minute video clip.
"I am 100 per cent sure that the man in the video clip is my brother, Lingam.
This is based on his body language and also the way he talks aloud when he is
excited," he said.
"Furthermore, the way he said 'correct, correct, correct' is undeniably him."
During his testimony earlier, Lingam when asked if he was the one on the video
clip, had said: "It looks like me, sounds like me, but I am not sure if it is
me."
Replying to questions from his counsel Wee Choo Keong,
Thirunama said he had worked with Lingam between January and June 1996 and
during that time, he had run several errands for him.
The witness said it was during this time that he drove Lingam to Tun Mohamed
Eusoff Chin's house where his brother gave gifts, including a wallet, a handbag
and a handphone to the former chief justice.
"Initially, I did not know it was Eusoff's house. It was only when I heard my
brother saying 'thank you, my lord' when I realised who it was.
"I asked my brother about it in the car and he confirmed it was the chief
justice."
Thirunama said he drove a BMW, a bullet–proof car which once belonged to tycoon
Tan Sri Vincent Tan, with the registration number WDV 788.
He also said Lingam and Tan were very close and that they even went on a trip to
India together to meet Sai Baba (south Indian religious guru) and he had seen
photographs of the three of them together.
Thirunama also said that one of the conversations Lingam had with Eusoff centred
on the Ayer Molek case, but he did not know what the case was about then.
Thirunama said he had also advised Lingam against getting too close to judges.
"His wife, Datin Dr Gnanajothy, has also given him the same advice."
Lingam allegedly told them not to worry, claiming he knew what he was doing.
Thirunama said Lingam had met Eusoff seven to eight times and on several
occasions, Lingam's other drivers, whom he identified as Chandran and Mogan,
would drive him to the chief justice's house.
He also related an incident when he answered Lingam's handphone when his brother
was busy and it was Eusoff on the other side.
Wee: How many times have you gone to Eusoff house?
Thirunama: Seven to eight times to deliver cakes, handphones and three bowls of
soups.
Wee: How many times you met him in person?
Thirunama: Three times and once I spoke to him on my brother's handphone when he
asked me to pick it up. It was Eusoff and he asked to speak to my brother.
On one occasion, Eusoff had just returned from his stay in Porchester Gate,
England, a property owned by Tan, when I was asked to deliver a wallet, a
handbag and a briefcase with a brown envelope inside. All the details are noted
in my black diary.
Wee: Did you relate these incidents to anyone ?
Thirunama: I informed lawyers Tommy Thomas and Datuk Muhammad Shafee Abdullah.
Wee: Do you know about the trip to New Zealand?
Thirunama: Lingam's New Zealand trip with Eusoff was not merely accidental as
they were on a flight together. The photographs showed this. I also advised
Lingam against framing a photograph with Eusoff during a holiday there as it
would lead to many queries and my brother heeded my advice.
Wee: Have you met a member of Lingam's staff, Jayanthi?
Thirunama: I met her once and at that time I saw her receiving a cheque from my
brother. Lingam told me that Jayanthi was giving him a lot of problems. She had
threatened to reveal Lingam's connections with the judges.
Commissioner Datuk Mahadev Shankar then asked whether Thirunama was crazy and
his reply was: "I am 110 per cent certain that I am not mad" as alleged by his
brother and siblings.
Later, when questioned by Lingam's counsel, R. Thayalan, the witness continued
to deny that he was insane.
"I was forced by Lingam and other siblings to behave crazily after they found
out I had lodged a report against Lingam with the Anti–Corruption Agency,"
Thirunama said.
This, he said, was to put the ACA investigators off the track.
Thirunama: I am not crazy nor am I putting up an act now.
To a question by Eusoff's counsel Datuk Hazman Ahmad, Thirunama said when he
delivered the handbag and wallet to Eusoff's house, he was alone.
Hazman: Did Eusoff purchase the house in Petaling Jaya after seeing it? (See
excerpts from Thirunama's statement on page 8.)
Thirunama: I do not know. But Eusoff was not happy with the location as it was
situated close to a main road.
Hazman then asked if Thirunama had ever beaten up his wife.
Thirunama: I pushed my wife following an argument and she hit her head on a
wooden door. I sent her to the clinic where she received several stitches.
Hazman showed a handwritten statement that Thi–runama made before psychiatrist
Tan Sri Dr M. Mahadevan, and asked whether it was his handwriting?
Thirunama: Yes, it's mine. But I do not know how you got it.
Hazman told the commissioners that Kanakalashimi (Lingam's sister) had supplied
him a copy.
Thirunama told the court that he was pressured by Kanakalashimi and Mahadevan to
write negative things, including suicidal tendencies and maintained that they
were all untrue.
He also disagreed with Hazman that he had made up the stories just to get at
Lingam and that he had pretended to recognise Eusoff when he was called in
earlier for identification.
"I am an honest person. I have seen Eusoff before but not from the photographs
in the newspapers or in the television."
Hearing continues.
Anwar, Aliran face contempt charge
KUALA LUMPUR: Failure to apologise and retract their statements may see contempt
proceedings initiated against Parti Keadilan Rakyat adviser Datuk Seri Anwar
Ibrahim and non–governmental organisation Aliran.
This came about yesterday after the Royal Commission of
Inquiry was told that Anwar and Aliran president P. Ramakrishnan were standing
by their statements which were published on the Internet.
"We will consider what further action we should take," commission member Datuk
Mahadev Shankar said in a written ruling.
M. Puravalen, appearing for Anwar, and C.V. Prabhakran, representing
Ramakrishnan, said their clients had decided that no apology would be made.
Ramakrishnan had said that Aliran was shocked and devastated that Anwar, PKR
vice–president R. Sivarasa and PKR co–ordinator Sim Tze Tsin were not being
called as witnesses in the inquiry even though they had relevant evidence.
The second article was a press statement by Anwar that the
commission was being manipulated by "unseen hands".
On Jan 30, the commission slammed Aliran and Anwar over the articles, saying
that both were on the "verge of contempt".
Mahadev had then said the commission hoped counsel for Aliran and Anwar would
advise their clients to amend their statements. The commission said the comments
were a sweeping generalisation that the three had some evidence to provide when
there was no full and particular evidence.
Puravalen had earlier submitted that the three should be called to testify as
their evidence would be of assistance to the commission. On Jan 28, Mahadev had
said based on evidence produced so far, the commission did not see the need to
call the three since their testimony did not go directly to the matter under
inquiry.
Lingam's lawyer accuses Shafee of case–fixing
by V. Anbalagan and Hafiz A. Yatim
KUALA LUMPUR: Two lawyers provided a sideshow during proceedings yesterday with
one of them accusing the other of fixing a case.
The "accused" was Datuk Muhammad Shafee Abdullah and the
accuser was R. Thayalan who is appearing for Datuk V.K. Lingam.
The allegation drew murmurs from those present.
Thayalan told the commission that a police report was lodged against Shafee in
1996 and added that they would go deeper into the matter if the situation arose.
The matter came about after Shafee had tendered a written application on why he
should be called to testify in the ongoing inquiry.
He had applied verbally last week to be included as one of
the witnesses but his application was rejected.
But when it was made known that Shafee had submitted a written application
yesterday, Thayalan objected on the grounds that Shafee's credibility was in
doubt, referring to the police report lodged against him.
Commission member Datuk Mahadev Shankar was quick to calm the situation.
"I am sure, he (Shafee) will be happy to answer the allegation."
Bar Council representative Christopher Leong pointed out that Thayalan's
statement was tantamount to intimidating a witness.
"It is a great concern to us. Thayalan has indicated that he will raise the
case–fixing matter if Shafee took the stand," he said, adding that the report
against Shafee had no relevance to the ongoing proceedings.
"This is a threat to Shafee and it is an offence under the Commission of Inquiry
Act to hinder a witness from giving evidence," Leong said, adding that Thayalan
had not even read Shafee's statement.
Mahadev said that the commission had taken note of Thayalan's statement and
would act on it at the appropriate time.
Shafee, who was in court, then stood up to clarify the police report.
"It has nothing to do with case–fixing but on alleged breach of official
secrets."
The lawyer claimed he was put into trouble over the report and was almost
arrested.
Thaylan then said the report would be raised only to test the credibility of
Shafee's evidence if he was called to take the stand.
"This is a report on case–fixing. Shafee had written who were the parties and
the judicial commissioner involved," Thayalan said.
He said if the matter arose, then the judicial commissioner would also have to
be called to give evidence.
Thayalan said Shafee's statement was recorded by the then CID director, (Tan
Sri) Musa Hassan, who is now the inspector–general of police.
Shafee retorted that it was unethical for a lawyer to reveal information about
the case, adding that the report against him was lodged by judicial commissioner
Datuk K.L. Rekhraj.
"The report was lodged at the instruction of Tun Mohamed Eusoff Chin (then chief
justice of Malaysia). Rekhraj personally apologised to me about the matter
later," Shafee said.
Eusoff's counsel Datuk Hazman Ahmad stood up and said his client was not
involved.
Commission chairman Tan Sri Haidar Mohamed Noor then cut short the sideshow and
ordered that proceedings continue with Lingam's brother, V. Thirunama Karasu,
taking the stand.
This is the second time an accusation has been levelled against a lawyer in the
inquiry.
Last week, Lingam, who was in the stand, had accused Robert Lazar, who was
appearing for the Bar, of trying to broker a seat for himself in the Court of
Appeal.
Lingam had alleged that Lazar had sought his help in organising a meeting with
former prime minister Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad's son, Mukhriz. Lazar vehemently
denied those allegations, calling them an "outrageous lie".
Excerpts from V. Thirunama Karasu's statement
• Sending files to Tun Eusoff Chin’s house:On or around early 1995, Datuk V.K.
Lingam told me to come to his house to follow him to his friend’s house. I went
to Lingam’s house at 1.10 pm. Little did I know than that his friend was Tun
Eusoff Chin.
Lingam brought a few files and we drove to Eusoff’s house.
Upon arriving there, Lingam told me to come and pick him up later when he
called. I went back to my house. Lingam called me between 12.30am and 1am and I
drove Lingam’s BMW to Eusoff’s house to pick him up. When I arrived at Eusoff’s
house I saw Lingam talking to him. He said: “Thank you, my lord.” Only then I
realised that this was Eusoff’s house. On several occasions from 1995 to 1996, I
had driven Lingam to Eusoff’s house using different cars. On one occasion,
Lingam told me that the reason he was using different cars was because he did
not want to be noticed by others.
On one occasion, when the Perwaja incident was being investigated, I was present
in Lingam’s house. His wife, Datin Dr Gnanajothy, shouted at Lingam asking him
to stop all this nonsense with the judges because there would be another
investigation. Following this, I, too, advised Lingam to stop going to Eusoff’s
house but Lingam told me not to worry as he knew what he was doing.
• Intended purchase of house for Tun Eusoff Chin: On or around October 1995, I
was instructed by Lingam to bring the keys to the house at No 2 SS1/38, Kg Tunku,
Petaling Jaya. I went to Lingam’s house and I met Eusoff and his wife there.
Subsequently, I followed Lingam in his BMW (registration number WDN 788). Eusoff
and his wife followed our car in their Mercedes Benz. At the back of Eusoff’s
car, Lingam’s bodyguards, namely Ramli and Budiman, were following in a car
bearing registration number WCN 8981. In the car, Lingam told me that he wanted
to give the house (No 2 SS1/38, Kg Tunku, Petaling Jaya) to Eusoff as a gift.
Upon arriving at the house, I showed Eusoff and his wife the house in the
presence of Lingam. However, from the conversation between Lingam and Eusoff, I
gathered that Eusoff and his wife were not happy. I heard Eusoff telling Lingam
he wanted a bigger land to build a house of his own choice. In the car, on our
way back, Lingam told me to look for two plots of land as Tan Sri Vincent Tan
and my brother (Lingam) wanted to buy the land for Eusoff. I contacted P.M.
Vijendran who was then working for Reapfields Sdn Bhd.
Lingam also told me to tell Datuk Sivaparanjothi and Panjaratnam to look for two
plots of land.
• Handbag and wallet given to Tun Eusoff Chin: On or about 1996, I was
instructed by Lingam to go to Eusoff’s house to deliver a briefcase with a brown
envelope in it. There were some documents in it. Together with this briefcase, I
also delivered a woman’s handbag and a man’s wallet. Lingam told me that these
items were from Italy. I personally gave them to Eusoff.
•Purchase of handphones On or about January to March 1996, I was given RM1,200
by Lingam to purchase a handphone from Mutiara Telecommunication at Lot 1, Level
1, Shahzan Prudential Tower, No 30, Jalan Sultan Ismail, Kuala Lumpur for Eusoff.
I bought the handphone and took it to Lingam’s office.