Senior lawyer V.K. Lingam has probably coined the quote of the century with his “It looks like me and it sounds like me” statement to the Royal Commission of Inquiry hearing yesterday.
What is even more serious, the Royal Commission of Inquiry into the Lingam Tape may forever be known as a “It looks like me and its sounds like me” Royal Commission unless it can shake off the infamy of being dismissed as a “cover-up” commission.
After the scandalous competition between former Prime Minister Tun Dr. Mahathir Mohamad and former Chief Justice, Tun Eusuff Chin to out-forget each other in their testimony before the Royal Commission of Inquiry last week, it would be hard-put for anyone to out-scandalise the public – but Lingam was clearly up to the task in putting the two Tuns in the shade!
Lingam has applied to expunge all evidence tendered at the Royal Commission of Inquiry on the New Zealand holiday in 1994 taken by him and then Chief Justice Eusoff Chin at last week’s Royal Commission of Inquiry on the ground that they were irrelevant to the scope of the inquiry.
The Royal Commission of Inquiry will decide tomorrow after hearing submissions by lawyers representing various concerned parties.
Whether Lingam’s application to expunge the evidence on his holidaying with Eusoff Chin in New Zealand in 1994 from the Royal Commission of Inquiry succeeds or otherwise, nothing can expunge Eusoff’s testimony from public mind and memory, for they are most pertinent to explain why the state of the judiciary is in such a sorry state, plunging from one crisis of confidence to another about its independence, integrity and competence in the past 19 years.
Even if Eusoff’s evidence before the Royal Commission of Inquiry is expunged from the Royal Commission proceedings, they cannot be expurgated from the public mind and Eusoff owes the nation a full responsibility to come forward to fully account for his integrity as Chief Justice during the period when he held the highest judicial post in the land.
In his testimony, for instance, Eusoff gave the most ridiculous and bizarre account of the chain of coincidences which caused his family and that of Lingam to take the same flight from Singapore to Auckland, from Auckland to Christchurch, from Christchurch to Queenstown and the return trips – as well lodging in the same hotels, visiting the same tourist sites and traveling in the same van!
In his appearance last Friday, when asked whether he stayed in the same hotel as Lingam, Eusoff said: “In Auckland there is only one good hotel.”
I have been informed that even way back in 1994, there were four or five five-star hotels in Auckland.
If Lingam succeeds in expunging Eusoff’s testimony from the Royal Commission of Inquiry, the Cabinet on Wednesday must institute a full public inquiry to get to the bottom of the scandalous stewardship of the highest judicial post by Eusoff Chin when he was Chief Justice of Malaysia.
(Speech 2 at a DAP ceramah in Tawau on Monday, 21st January 2008 at 9 pm)
#1 by limkamput on Thursday, 24 January 2008 - 7:27 am
Colonel, is this the first time you see the word robustness? If so, don’t be despair and feel small about yourself. Be humble, go check dictionary. If you still cannot find the context after checking the dictionary, that means you are not fit to be here.
BlackEyes @ laifong, what got deleted is between me and the moderator. I guess what is mundane, predictable, conventional, uncontroversial or conformist will stand.
DarkHorse, come on, you don’t know which one? You are smarter than that, unless you want me to put you in colonel’s and BlackEye’s category.
Undergrad2, I know it is not nice, the intention is intentional. But seriously, there are too many parroting here (but I am not referring to you).
#2 by BlackEye on Thursday, 24 January 2008 - 7:29 am
sharibomar,
It is not a court proceeding and so witnesses are allowed to say what they feel need to be said – except make a speech. In a court hearing, some questions call for a “yes” or “no” answer, others do not.
Not a matter of being serious and firm. It is a public inquiry and panel members have a lot of discretion.
#3 by BlackEye on Thursday, 24 January 2008 - 7:33 am
“BlackEyes @ laifong, what got deleted is between me and the moderator. I guess what is mundane, predictable, conventional, uncontroversial or conformist will stand.”
Now you go from insulting some posters to insulting all posters!
#4 by People on Thursday, 24 January 2008 - 7:44 am
V.K.L show can be a good case study for all aspiring law graduates that the malaysian legal system can be compromised and if caught all one need to remember is the 3 magical words..”It looks like me, sounds like me but is wasn’t me”. VKL should be voted Malaysian Man of the Year!!
#5 by dranony on Thursday, 24 January 2008 - 8:37 am
Seriously, I don’t think anyone should, even in jest, suggest shooting anyone. Especially not in the light of what had happend in M.I.C.Johor recently.
If someone was actually deranged enough to actually do what had been suggested here in jest, even if that nut had NOT been reading this blog, the moderator might land into hot water.
Else, the moderator might be hauled up for not moderating calls to violence left on this blog.
Alternatively, other bloggers may leave hate messages on other blogs calling for violence against others they don’t like.
After what had happened to jeffooi and rockybru, I think we should be more careful.
No malice intended.
#6 by melurian on Thursday, 24 January 2008 - 8:46 am
RCI is not a court, and court and not RCI. do you have objection and overrule in RCI ?
#7 by DarkHorse on Thursday, 24 January 2008 - 10:38 am
“Seriously, I don’t think anyone should, even in jest, suggest shooting anyone.’ dranony
Really?? Who suggested who be shot? I’m curious.
#8 by DarkHorse on Thursday, 24 January 2008 - 10:41 am
If someone says, “Let’s shoot all the politicians and next come the lawyers” does that qualify as a hate message?
#9 by DarkHorse on Thursday, 24 January 2008 - 10:44 am
Does this qualify as a hate message?
“I suggest we shoot the judges. Then you and I can sit and write new laws and send judges (those not shot) back to law school. Why wait for Parliament to do that since it is BN controlled though they may have lost their 2/3 majority.” BlackEye
#10 by undergrad2 on Thursday, 24 January 2008 - 10:54 am
“If someone was actually deranged enough to actually do what had been suggested here in jest, even if that nut had NOT been reading this blog, the moderator might land into hot water.”
Tell me it’s a joke!
#11 by Jong on Thursday, 24 January 2008 - 11:42 am
“Haidar said what was reported in the newspaper did not give a good reflection on the Commission.â€
Public opinion is like a mirror. If your reflection in the mirror is ugly, the problem is not the mirror. It is because you are ugly. – kanthanboy
Spot on! :D
#12 by dranony on Thursday, 24 January 2008 - 11:54 am
Try this link:
http://tinyurl.com/39l3vg
The Sun
Friday, August 04, 2006
“Report lodged against internet website”
Imagine what might happen if someone had posted “Someone shoot the MIC” a couple of days before the Johor MIC leader was shot…
#13 by DarkHorse on Thursday, 24 January 2008 - 7:34 pm
The case is well known – involving I believe Jeff Ooi?
“The Sun and Nexnews Group Executive Editor P. Gunasegaram yesterday lodged a complaint against an internet website for carrying a posting inciting people to do bodily harm to Gunasegaram over an article he wrote.”
That involved a named individual over what he did.
“Freedom of expression does not extend to inciting people to cause harm to someone else,” Ho said. “Indeed, the threat to Gunasegaram was clearly meant to shut him up. Those of us who cherish freedom of expression…”
“Shoot all politicians and lawyers” certainly is not in the same category. Furthermore, it is a common expression of disgust for members of the profession who fail to live up to expectations. It hardly qualifies as “incitement”. If it involves a named individual, then it is entirely a different matter.
So like undergrad2 said, gimme a break!
#14 by sharibomar on Thursday, 24 January 2008 - 10:49 pm
Watch this indian lawyer talks tamil. He’s going to twist and turn to free himself. Sad Datuk…..
#15 by BoDo Singh on Thursday, 24 January 2008 - 11:49 pm
“Colonel, is this the first time you see the word robustness? If so, don’t be despair and feel small about yourself. Be humble, go check dictionary. If you still cannot find the context after checking the dictionary, that means you are not fit to be here.” limkamput
I’m shocked to read this! We are here to debate on the issues and here we have a recalcitrant poster telling another he’s not fit to be here!
#16 by Jeffrey on Thursday, 24 January 2008 - 11:51 pm
VK Lingam is brazen in denying what to most reasonable persons is undeniable, turning the RC hearing to something of a circus.
After the “it looks like me and sounds like me†quote of the century, he gave further testimonies as ingenious as they are conflicting & hilarious – on one hand he said “I don’t want to say it’s 100 percent me because the authenticity of the clip has to be established by my two experts first”; on the other, when Commissioner Mahadev Shanker then asked him : “So how many percent looks like you?†(Laughter around the room) he said “I don’t want to get into a mathematical debate with my learned commissioner. My experts said the report by the local experts is fundamentally flawed and it’s defective. Let my experts first be called. I am not denying it’s me. If my experts said it’s 100 percent me, I will be the first one to say it….â€
Equally astounding was his further statements that it was up to him to ‘pretend’ to talk to whomever he wanted to. “I can choose whatever topic I like. I can even pretend to talk to President Bush if I like….That (conversation) was in my house. That was in the privacy of my room. My house is my castle. I am the king there. I can talk whatever rubbish in my house as long as I don’t get drunk outside and misbehave…Even if I did say it (ie mention Fairuz to Loh) and I am sorry to use this word but I was bullshitting and bragging,†he said, denying that he talked to ex CJ Ahmad Fairuz Sheikh Abdul Halim.
On his trip with Eusoff Chin, he said everything was coincidental – ie their meeting in Changi airport in Singapore, the same travel agency (Holiday Tours and Travel) that issued both Lingam’s and Eusoff’s itinerary, same dates of flight and same flight from S’pore to Auckland, the same places in Auckland that they visited – including the zoo and bird park – where they took photographs together, the same van they shared to same destination Queenstown….
The best part was Eusoff’s travel itinerary, shown as evidence, which was addressed to Rohani/Jeyanthi. (Rohani was/is Eusoff’s secretary, and Jeyanthi, Lingam’s secretary).
Asked whether he could think of a reason Eusoff’s travel itinerary should mention Jeyanthi’s name, Lingam said, “I can’t think of any reason, there are so many Indian women by that name Jeyanthiâ€. :)
#17 by harrisonbinhansome on Friday, 25 January 2008 - 1:56 am
V.K. Linggam is irrefutably one of the greatest stonewalling artist in the history of this so-called “Bolehland”.
1st he obfuscated the Royal Commission with “looks like me, sounds like me” of what can be the catchphrase of any directors of an upcoming movies and can easily be inherited to a National catchphrase by anyone who were captured on audio-visual for any misdeeds.
BUT DON’t EVER TRY THESE. V.K. Linggam is no ragtag. He is neither an ordinary lawyer but his ability to manipulate events is comparable to a master con-artist.
In later part, he averred that “he never claimed that he never said that the man appeared to be like him was not him.
His pre-meditated contiguency plans was, if he is to confess it is him, or by the dialectics and ruthless grilling could proves that it is him, now he made the whole episode of his chat with the suspected ex-CJ looks comical with his creative claims of being booze-up and talking rubbish himself.
Victor Lustig may be considered one of the greatest con man ever,
I am wondering has Guiness Book of Records (Malaysia) has any category for conmen?
#18 by undergrad2 on Friday, 25 January 2008 - 10:33 am
Jeffrey,
Like I said earlier his defense has to be: accept nothing and deny everything. He’s doing very well so far.
But I must say after these ‘outbursts’ his credibility as a lawyer is close to zilch. His alma mater University of Buckingham would have to put his mug shot in their Hall of Shame, and Lincoln’s Inn (I believe) would have to consider striking him off the roll.
#19 by Jeffrey on Friday, 25 January 2008 - 12:23 pm
“//…..But I must say after these ‘outbursts’ his credibility as a lawyer is close to zilch…//†– Undergrad2
I am sure he knows that. I am sure he knows he won’t be believed. Even people who want to help him would shake head when they read the transcripts. Frankly he is not concerned with “credibility close to zilchâ€; I don’t think he is even concerned with his cerdibility as a legal practitioner any more; he is concerned with only but one issue – not admitting, which means deny and deny even in the face of overwhelming evidence and the obvious.
There is a method in such kind of madness that I can imagine if I were in similar position. First denial means no self-incrimination, no walk over to the probers and investigators, because one never knows where such a hearing on fixing of judicial appointments and its findings may lead to – for enquiry into for eg. fixing of cases and its comparatively more serious implications; second, it is ‘mafia honour’ that those who benefited from Powers-that-be ought not, on their own accord, spill the beans on those with whom they had collaborated and benefited by an admission that gives no opportunity or room for subsequent spinning even if that were intended.
So he says to RC and lawyers of interested parties, “I admit nothing, you prove everything†knowing fully well that had this been a civil court using the standard of ‘balance of probabilities’ or even a criminal court using the standard of ‘beyond reasonable doubt’, he would not be believed by application of both standards, if the persons adjudicating and deciding are reasonable and impartial.
What he is saying to Powers-that-be is something (hypothetically) along these imaginary lines – “that if you want to protect your own credibility, then make sure your arbiters/judges/decision makers whoever in whatsoever forums will decide in my favour and give me benefit of doubt, no matter how incredible my testimony may sound. If you can’t, well that’s just too bad. However, I have kept to the minimum part of the bargain, expected of a person who has benefited from the support of Powers-that-be in the past : that even under the most extenuating circumstances of being caught on tape, I keep to my bargain of not implicating anyone from whom I have benefited. I rather publicly blame myself for being drunk or boastful and even a laughed at by my incredible testimony. What happens after this, is taken out of my hands, and up to you, the ball is in your court, and how you handle the Malaysian public, the commissioners, lawyers, whatever…..If you get further into trouble, let it not be said that I have done anything to compound my first indiscretion and recklessness of getting caught in video clip and photographsâ€.
In the face of absence of alternatives, he has no other course except to deny and deny that there is anything in the room even if an African elephant occupies ¾ of it.
#20 by undergrad2 on Friday, 25 January 2008 - 8:56 pm
“I am sure he knows that. I am sure he knows he won’t be believed. Even people who want to help him would shake head when they read the transcripts.”
Yes, even if God were sitting at the corner of the room laughing just listening to him!
He is seen to be taking no chances with the ‘system.’ So admit nothing, deny everything how ridiculous it may appear. In this country respect comes with wealth. With the loss of freedom what is wealth? He has accumulated millions in the short period of some 10 plus years after having made a midlife career change – something most of us could only dream of, putting to shame many politicians whose only purpose of entering politics is to enrich themselves.
I can’t help but burst out laughing when he said his home is his castle and he can do whatever he pleases, be drunk and brag and bullshit – or talk to imaginary persons.
My home is my castle! In typical Englishman style! LOL.
#21 by undergrad2 on Friday, 25 January 2008 - 9:00 pm
He could at least have shown more respect to his mentors and say instead “My home is my istana” instead of my home is my castle. I cannot imagine former U.S. President Bill Clinton wagging his finger at the camera and saying that the White House is his castle.
#22 by cheeran70 on Saturday, 26 January 2008 - 1:02 am
“It looks like me and it sounds like me†. Lingam, its not you. If I am not mistaken it was your long forgotten Siamese Twin :))!!> Huh!!..are we living in the real world? Mahathir created the illusion, Badawi is losing in delusion. What a fantastic Malaysian politics.
#23 by sharibomar on Saturday, 26 January 2008 - 5:46 pm
He looks more like a ‘lawyer buruk’ than a senior lawyer.
#24 by aiD_kamikuP on Saturday, 26 January 2008 - 7:49 pm
Posters above say Lingam is not even concerned with his credibility as a legal practitioner any more….yes for a good reason….new Rap star in the making.
http://www.savefile.com/files/1331521