Conclusions made by Royal Commission on Lingam tapePosted: May 18, 2008
Datuk V.K. Lingam
When confronted with the clip, Lingam told the commission that “it looks like and the voice sounds like me.”
“It is our considered opinion that Datuk V.K. Lingam had virtually emasculated himself on the issue of his credibility by admitting to his identity in the photographs but refusing to admit his identity in the video clip…Datuk V.K. Lingam took an oath before us to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. In refusing to accept that he was the person in the video clip we hold that his credibility was worthless.”
Tun Ahmad Fairuz Abdul Halim
Fairuz denied that he was the person on the other end of the line.
…when he was asked by counsel why he described the conversation as a monologue, he said that his voice could not be heard at the other end of the line.”
The commission also noted that after the video clip was made public, Fairuz retreated into silence and refused to respond to call from the media.
Datuk Seri Tengku Adnan Tengku Mansor
The commission noted that Tengku Adnan’s name was mentioned 11 times in the video clip.
…he denied the truth of the content and said that he never had a conversation with Lingam about these matters.
Later he suggested that Lingam was drunk when captured on the video clip. That was why he kept bringing up Tengku Adnan’s name in the conversation during the telephone conversation.
“This explanation is too facile to be accepted. The Datuk V.K. Lingam we saw on the video clip was certainly not drunk…So why give such an explanation which was no explanation at all? Again, it was one man’s word against another and in all the circumstances of the case we regret to say that it is our opinion that Tengku Adnan Tengku Mansor was too economical with the truth to be believed.”
Tan Sri Vincent Tan
The commission was left incredulous by the businessman’s testimony during the hearing, saying that his answers were a faithful echo of Lingam’s. For example, when he was asked if the Indian man in the video clip was his close friend, Tan remarked: “It looks like him, it sounds like him but I cannot be 100 per cent sure.”
“A little later, he gives the reason, ‘I cannot be sure 100 per cent because with modern technology, I don’t know what is the motive behind this.’ In other words he is suggesting that the video clip may have been tampered with. All this is such a faithful echo of Datuk V.K. Lingam’s own testimony that it is very hard not to make an inference that there has been some confabulation here between them.”
“When it was roundly put to him that PM did admit that he could have taken the views of Tan Sri Vincent Tan into account in the selection of judges, Tan Sri Vincent Tan’s answer was that he could not remember this but went on to say (notwithstanding he had just said that he could not remember) that he had definitely not discussed about judges,” said the commission.
Tun Eusoff Chin
The commission said that the credibility of the former chief justice was in tatters after he gave evidence regarding his relationship with Lingam. In his sworn testimony, Eusoff said that there was nothing special about his ties with the lawyer.
This issue was important because in the video clip, Lingam seems to suggest that because of his close relationship with Eusoff, he was able to get his own way in a number of matters.
The commission noted that evidence showed that Eusoff and his family spent almost the entire holiday in New Zealand in 1994 with Lingam.
Eusoff put his travel arrangements and itinerary down to coincidences. “Given the amazing number of alleged coincidences, which can be extracted from the whole trip from Singapore to New Zealand and back, we need no more than mere common sense to detect the incredulity of that proposition,” the commission ruled.
Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad
The commission noted that Dr Mahathir did not follow the constitutional process of consulting the then Chief Justice Tun Dzaiddin Abdullah in the appointment and promotion of judges. For example, when the then PM rejected Dzaiddin’s choice of Tan Sri Malek Ahmad to fill in the vacancy as the Chief Judge of Malaya, he did not give any reasons.
The commission noted that they was evidence that Lingam and his collaborators sabotaged Malek’s candidacy by influencing Mahathir. In the video clip, Lingam told Fairuz that Malek was considered anti-Mahathir.
“The PM cannot remember the reasons. His KSN (chief secretary) does not know the reasons. But there was somebody else who claimed to know the reasons. That somebody else is Datuk V.K. Lingam and he said that he achieved this with the participation of Tan Sri Vincent Tan and Tengku Adnan Tengku Mansor when all three of them went to see the PM with this objective in mind,” noted the commission.
All this and more from The Malaysian Insider. (All highlights my own)
It makes one wonder exactly how stupid these people think we are. When the tape came out, all of them happily denied everything. Either that, or they “couldn’t remember” something from way back then.
The choice of words in this conclusion is very telling. I’ve highlighted all of them. They have no qualms in telling that they find it impossible, almost, to not think and conclude the way they did.
Was the AG, Patail, even paying any attention to the tape and the statements made by these people when he said, so infamously, that “no crime seems to have been committed”?
Now, he has some serious work cut out for him. The Royal Commission doesn’t look like they’ve left stones unturned, and the conclusions made are quite clear. They know what they have seen, they’ve done their investigations and researches. Now it’s up to the AG to carry whatever recommendations they gave him.
Will he do it? Some are very VERY sceptical. After all, he doesn’t have a very good track record.
I’d like to think that he’s been given a second chance to live and repent. I hope he feels the same way, and acts in accordance. Because this is the one most important turning point for the judiciary in Malaysia. Should this end up to be another one of his NFA’s (no further action), I’m afraid that would be the end of our juduciary system.