Horsekiller, I cannot agree with you more that the real object of public ire is that (1) someone who can’t remember things anymore and yet write memoirs and get away from accountability and (2) the other one who wanted an extension of term after talking about doing away with Common Law or the preceding one in relation to Anwar’s trial!

Lingam is just easy target because he was “caught left, right, up and down to his face…” on video and it is hilarious that he should try to squirm his way out of that by “It looks like me and it sounds like me” when the FIRST basic questions he should ask himself are “Is it wrong of me to recommend a judge to the PM to take the CJ post; as a senior lawyer am I not qualified to give a recommendation if asked whether directly or through corporate intermediary; should I apologise for the fact that Powers-that-be want to listen to me; or should I be punished just because a judge improperly tries to use my connections to vie for promotion? Is there a provision under our laws to say all these judicial brokering is a crime; is there anything in Legal Profession Act (Practice & Etiquette Rules) that says that ingratiating a judge, doing him favours is unethical?”

If we Malaysians pride ourselves rational, then we should go for the right target – the kingpin, not his minions.

In reference to boh-liao’s comments, what are we comparing here ultimately? A rodeo star caught on video for being human. He was victim of political conspiracy, filmed without his knowledge. He bit the bullet and publicly admitted he was the one without further ado – even though the CCTV footage possibly provided more room for technical challenge than the Lingam Video clip – and took the fall from grace, gracefully. He did not pussyfoot around with the public with “looked like me, sounded like me, moved like me but…..” like others, whose other variation to that theme is, “oh I don’t remember”, 14 or 18 times! That’s accountability and taking responsibility for one’s action. You ask yourself, whose conduct is more shameful?

This is just to go forward and clarify a little some of the issues raised by HB Lim in his earlier posting.

As we all know, the Royal Commission (RC) hearing is not a criminal trial, though commissioners have powers of judges in such a trial to subpoena and grant immunity to witnesses, and to commit anyone with contempt for disrespect or insult to them.

Procedures of trial & RC hearing vastly different, the former rather haphazardly without specific order, the latter with a defined set order.

In a criminal trial, the prosecution will be first to call its witnesses to make out its case The accused through his counsel could cross examine/challenge these witnesses to discredit them. At the close of prosecution case, if prosecution fails to prove a prima facie case, then the Defence need not be called and the Charge is dismissed. Otherwise, the Defence will be called, ie accused tells his version by calling his witnesses (to be cross examined and challenged by prosecution).

At the end of hearing both Prosecution/Defence cases, the accused is convicted only if overall the prosecution discharges its burden of proving beyond reasonable doubt the facts necessary to satisfy all ingredients of law relating to the crime/offence charged.

RC hearing does not conform to the above procedures. Even here Lingam is not accused of any offence – yet. It is guided only by its limited terms of reference which are to determine the identity of the person in video clip, the person with whom he spoke on cell phone, the persons mentioned in the conversation, the truth or otherwise of the content of the conversation in the video clip, whether any act of misbehaviour has been committed by person or persons identified or mentioned in the video clip and the appropriate course of action to be taken against the person or persons identified or mentioned in the video clip, should such person or persons be found to have committed any misbehaviour.

It does not per se relate to questions of independence or corruption of judiciary though its proceedings and findings may eventually be suggestive of it.

If TDM, Tun Eusoffee or Lingam are considered ‘defence’ witnesses (in the loose/layman sense), and video-maker Loh Gwo Burne & his father Loh Mui Fah as well as senior digital computer forensic analyst Mohd Zabri Adil Talib, are considered (in the loose/layman sense) ‘prosecution’ witnesses, then they are and have been called in a mixed order…….unlike in criminal trial in which prosecution witnesses are called first, and those of Defence called only after prosecution made out a prima facie case.

Talking about that whether the RC hearing establishes that the selection of members of Judiciary should be based on better methods and criteria, I think TDM’s testimony alone is already good enough to convince some of us that is so…..

About the other point – that Lingam should make a stand first whether he was the man in video clip and following from that premise only, he should next set forth his positions, whether he was drunk or just staging a brag show to the Lohs, and not speaking to Fairuz – this is a point by HB Lim that is logical and commonsensical (to layman) but what was apparently put forward by Lingam, with blatant inconsistencies, is something that only convoluted legal minds are expected to be able to hold on balance and reconcile.

Lingam basically does not expect anyone least of all the commissioners to believe that the one shown in the clip was NOT him. He actually does not expect others to believe his testimony; credibility is not his concern, his main concern being to preserve his right, as he sees it, not to incriminate himself by an admission on record and to require everyone else to prove to the hilt everything that is alleged against him or others with whom he is associated, whether or not it is reasonable for him to expect so and regardless that he may not have such right in either law or logic.

His main concern is not to admit notwithstanding overwhelming evidence to the contray that he was the one in the clip. [That’s why he came out with this original – looked and sounded like him (perception) without confirming whether the perception is true or false unless the original video or equipment (which made the video clip) itself was produced to him, which he is also fully aware is well nigh impossible, nor is it necessary…. .

Whilst not conceding an iota on the above stance, he proceeded to testify that the person he spoke to was not Fairuz or he could be drunk at that time as if and on the ASSUMPTION that original video or equipment (which made the video clip) itself was already produced to him and supposing that it was really him talking on the phone.

It is not his concern that reasonable inferences will be drawn by impartial arbiters/judges against him on such “double talk” or legal speak (*dubed by NST as Lingam-Speak) ; that he is prevaricating or lying, not a truthful or credible witness or anything else as long as he is not on record admitting even to the obvious!

His rarefied distinctions based on inconsistent what ifs (ie “first I am not admitting anything, you prove that I was the one in clip beyond what is apparent, that a duck that looks, quacks, waddles like a duck is inductively a duck, and second/alternatively, supposing I had admitted that it was me, then….” ) – this attempt to hold two apparent opposite contradictions in balance – is something of a legal speak that only the convoluted minds refined by ultra legalese training can grasp.

To practical minds, this is absurd. But it suffices in keeping out an admission on record that he was the one in clip that may in future be used against him and yet allows him, without forgoing that right not to admit, to go forward to refute allegations implicating himself or Fairuz (on supposition that he has admitted).

This is something like having one’s cake and eat it at the same time that in real life – other than in the ethereal world of legal speak – cannot happen or be allowed to happen but to him notwithstanding, so be it! What else can he do or say if he’s not prepared to be Dr CSL?

Darkhorse, didn’t see your posting at time of mine; otherwise, would not go through same grounds already covered more elaborately by you on criminal trial procedures.

QC is an abbreviation for Queen Counsel. In UK and some commonwealth jurisdictions, QC title is conferred to senior legal practitioners in court, acknowledged by their peers as leading counsels who are of good integrity and character, exceptionally gifted and excellent in their specialized field of practice.

So Kanthanboy, thanks for the very kind reference. My answer to your question is – irrespective of what others have said – the writing looks and sounds like a QC’s but….. :)

On a more serious note, and in reference to various legitimate concerns raised by HB Lim, the following thoughts occur to me:

· Our hopes are pinned, to a significant extent, on how vigorous the independent Bar Council’s lawyers fight the Public Cause of Judicial Independence and how persuasive they are to get the RC address the alleged rot within the judiciary – the first battle is the present fight by them to resist attempts by Lingam/Eusoff to expunge from RC’s records evidence of their personal relationship on grounds that they are outside RC’s terms of reference.

· The other significant player is the panel of the RC Commissioners, how committed they are or otherwise in respect to the Common Public Cause.

· One has to watch closely Mahadev Shanker : he is sharpest of them all and by virtue of competence tends to lead the way for others. Where he leans is important – something one adjudges along the way and could see with greater clarity only with further deliberations and proceedings of the RC, it being premature at this moment.

· Generally speaking (with no particular reference to any one or body), perception is not necessarily reality, and competence and sharpness does not necessarily indicate to which side one ultimately leans or that one would necessarily would use the competence and brilliance for the right ends! And even if one leans on the right side, the majority who lean the wrong side can overrule and outvote one in the final decisions.

· We would have to wait and observe developments as they unfold.

· As I said before, it is a ‘here and now’ thing to get through this hearing all ‘skeletons’ hidden in judicial closets exposed to the public (since we cannot control what RC eventually recommends or how Govt will act on their recommendations).

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….”

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 Jeyanthi”. :)