AG’s comments on Lingam Tape outrageous – is he for judicial independence, integrity, accountability?

The comments by the Attorney-General Tan Sri Abdul Gani Patail that “no criminal offence appears to have been committed” in the Lingam Tape and that senior lawyer V.K.Lingam “was in a monologue over his mobile phone and it was unclear who he was talking to” (New Straits Times) were most outrageous and raise important questions, viz:

  • his understanding of and commitment to judicial independence, integrity and accountability; and
  • his fitness to continue as Attorney-General.

How can the chief legal officer of the government try to minimize the gravity of the judicial misconduct exposed by the Lingam Tape and shirk off his responsibility by claiming that Lingam was in a monologue as “There is no clear reference that he was talking to a top judicial officer”, when Anwar Ibrahim’s allegation that Lingam was talking to Chief Justice Tun Ahmad Fairuz Sheikh Abdul Halim sometime in 2002 when he was Chief Judge of Malaya was corroborated by the contents of the conversation?

Forty-eight hours have passed and neither Ahmad Fairuz nor Lingam had denied that there was such a telephone conversation between them, which would be the first reaction of anyone to a doctored video clip.

Ahmad Fairuz was contacted the same afternoon of Wednesday when Anwar made public the video recording, but his personal assistant relayed the message that the Chief Justice wanted to have a look at the video before saying anything. But Ahmad Fairuz had been in ex communicado in the past two days, although he would have no difficulty in accessing it on the Internet, as it was put up on Malaysiakini almost instantly the same day (recording over 4,000 hits since), as well as on many blogs and the Bar Council website. One Youtube site which uploaded the clip registered 23,150 hits in one day.

The silence of Lingam cannot be explained by the claim that he is overseas, particularly in the present era of 24/7 and instant communications when information travels at the speed of light and denials could be made instantly from any part of the globe.

It is also most noteworthy that Gani had not challenged the authenticity of the video recording of the telephone conversation.

From the contents, the conversation would probably be January 2002 for the following reasons:

  • Ahmad Fairuz was referred to as “Datuk” and there was talk of getting a “Tan Sri”-ship for him the same year. Ahmad Fairuz was awarded the Panglima Setia Mahkota (P.S.M) by the Yang di Pertuan Agong during the King’s birthday in June 2002, making him a Tan Sri.
  • There was reference of making “Datuk Heliliah, Datuk Ramli and Datuk Maroop” as judges — on 8th February 2002, Datuk Heliliah Mohd Yusuf, former Solicitor-General, Datuk Ramly Ali, a former Chief Registrar and Datuk Ahmad Maarop, a former Commissioner of Law Revision, received their letters of appointment as High Court judges from the Yang di Pertuan Agong. Their appointments were from Feb. 1, 2002.
  • There was reference that “in three months time” Ahmad Fairuz would be made President of Court of Appeal and “six months time” he was going to be Chief Justice – Ahmad Fairuz was sworn in as President, Court of Appeal on Dec. 1, 2002 and appointed Chief Justice of Malaysia on March 17, 2003.

When Gani said that “no criminal offence appears to have been committed’ in the Lingam Tape, may be he should explain what crimes were committed by Tun Salleh Abas to be sacked as Lord President and by Datuk Seri George Seah and the late Tan Sri Wan Suleiman Pawanteh to be dismissed as Supreme Court judges in the dark days of Malaysian judiciary in 1988?

Five charge, running into 12 sheets of paper and nearly 1,700 words were levelled against Salleh Abas. Can Gani state what were the charges against Salleh in the shameful travesty of justice which precipitated the fall from grace of the Malaysian judiciary which could be termed “criminal”?

What is mind-boggling is that the Attorney-General, who had clearly viewed the Lingam Tape, should be so complacent as to find nothing improper or offensive in it and cannot see the grave judicial misconduct crying out for attention and which have plunged the country into the latest chapter of a long catalogue of crisis of confidence in the judiciary in the past two decades since the 1988 Judicial Onslaught.

How is it that Malaysia, which claims to want to be a first-world nation to face up to the challenges of globalization, is having an Attorney-General who seems to be oblivious of the importance of the principles of judicial independence, integrity and accountability and the various international statements and declarations on them, such as:

(1) The Beijing Statement of Principles of the Independence of the Judiciary in the LAWASIA Region 1995 which among other things declared:

  • Judges shall uphold the integrity and independence of the Judiciary by avoiding impropriety in all their activities.
  • To enable the Judiciary to achieve its objectives and perform its functions, it is essential that judges be chosen on the basis of proven competence, integrity and independence.

(2) The Bangalore Principles of Judicial Conduct 2002 which states, among other things:

  • A judge shall ensure that his or her conduct is above reproach in the view of a reasonable observer.
  • The behaviour and conduct of a judge must reaffirm the people’s faith in the integrity of the judiciary. Justice must not merely be done but must also be seen to be done.

If the Attorney-General assumes the stance that no criminal offence is disclosed in the Lingam Tape and that it was only a monologue of Lingam, totally disregarding the fact that it has done more than any other event in the four-year Abdullah premiership to destroy the myth that the country is making progress towards a system of justice where there is a truly independent judiciary and a just rule of law, how can Malaysians expect the Prime Minister to get proper and quality legal advice from the chief legal officer of the government on what he should do for the good of the country and future generations?

Instead of one scandal over the Lingam Tape, is the country getting a double whammy with another value-added scandal of an Attorney-General who refuses to see or lift his finger to save the country from the latest crisis of confidence in the judiciary in the country?

  1. #1 by raven77 on Friday, 21 September 2007 - 12:12 pm

    So…no case again……Malaysians are real suckers…..but what can the Malaysian do……the opposition must lead the way….otherwise the country will be lost

  2. #2 by trashed on Friday, 21 September 2007 - 12:19 pm

    Yes, will the A-G save the country …. or wait for instructions ?

  3. #3 by k1980 on Friday, 21 September 2007 - 12:26 pm

    Lingam “was in a monologue over his mobile phone and it was unclear who he was talking to”… in other words, he was talking to himself in his sleep after a heavy bout of drinking. So case dismissed! Next, please…

  4. #4 by peace on Friday, 21 September 2007 - 12:36 pm

    …and i must say Lingam really did went thru Drama School. His acting was totally convincing.

    I am going to nominate him in the next Emmy.

    The whole Judiciary System seems like an award ceremony, where everyone’s role is important in justifying each others’ existence in the game.

  5. #5 by ihavesomethingtosay on Friday, 21 September 2007 - 12:50 pm

    Half pass six

  6. #6 by liu on Friday, 21 September 2007 - 12:53 pm

    Look up MLJ 1981. Can somebody confirm that the AG and the late Sudirman Haji Arshad, the singer indeed graduated together in 1981 and both got 3rd class? There were only 3 who got 3rd class that year.

  7. #7 by badak on Friday, 21 September 2007 - 12:57 pm

    Pity the AG lah,Anwar is not payin his salary,When you a get bunch of coruppted BN BIGOTS ,running the country what do you get,Shit thrown at you everytime.

    TUN M..has started the ball rolling ,IF you don,t play ball with us, out you go.Do we really think things will change.As long as UMNO is in power nothing will change.

    I dare say 99 % of people in BN are there not to help the rakyat but to help themself,Go to any BN meeting its always the same question is asked “” YB mana contract YB janji.””

  8. #8 by sotong on Friday, 21 September 2007 - 1:02 pm

    If the government does not come out strongly to protect the independence and integrity of the legal, then there is no future for the country.

    It seems the AG cannot be independent and unable to speak for the common good of all for various reasons. His responsibility is first to his political party.

  9. #9 by 4th_wife on Friday, 21 September 2007 - 1:07 pm

    Lets people power be given to our Agong to appoint a new PM.

  10. #10 by Jamesy on Friday, 21 September 2007 - 1:08 pm


    Yeah, the AG’s statement of “no criminal offence appears to have been committed” in the Lingam Tape and that senior lawyer V.K.Lingam “was in a monologue over his mobile phone and it was unclear who he was talking to” is justice to Lingam, Tun Ahmad Fairuz , Mahathir, Tengku Adnan, Tan Sri Vincent Tan and etc. Justice may have eyes to see, but it cannot see the light. That’s justice to them.

    Your AG stands for Attorney-General or [deleted]? Even a 3 years old knows the meaning of your AG.

  11. #11 by wizzerd on Friday, 21 September 2007 - 1:15 pm

    One sentence = It’s proven, justice has gone to the dogs

  12. #12 by Justicewanted on Friday, 21 September 2007 - 1:24 pm

    What do we expect from someone who cleared the following three corruption cases within a short period:

    1. Deputy Internal Security Minister, Datuk Seri Johari Baharum,

    2. the Inspector-General of Police Tan Sri Musa Hassan and

    3. former Anti-Corruption Agency (ACA) director-general Datuk Seri Zulkipli Mat Noor.?

    Is he efficient or tertidur??????

  13. #13 by waterman on Friday, 21 September 2007 - 1:25 pm

    Imagine how something of this magnitude can be played down so simply!

    Don’t waste precious time anymore on AG or ACA or any other machanism set up supposedly to protect the nation’s interest. They are all “fixed” & “poisoned” through and through. Even the law of the nation is not spared.

    I did not understand Patrick Teoh’s phrase ” S**t caught in the fan” but now I surely do. Our nation is going over the cliff much sooner than we think.

    All opposition parties must be humble and do away with their differences and be united together under one banner to have a half chance.This is no time to talk about party self interests like “a marriage for convinience” this is an urgent national cry to save our nation because if the roof come down all your self interests would be buried underground.

    Correct me if I’m wrong, our nation is being raped in front of everyone’s watchful eyes under broad day light!

    God please hear the cry of Malaysia!

  14. #14 by badak on Friday, 21 September 2007 - 2:08 pm

    Nothing will change as long BN is led by UMNO,UMNO has become so arrogant ,That it can even threaten its fellow component party members,

    When will the CHINESS and INDIANS open their eyes,MCA and MIC party leaders are there not to help them ,but to help themself.This party leaders are scared to speak out againts UMNO ,Because its UMNO who picks the candidate for the GE ,The party leader just summit a list of names to UMNO BIG WITS and the rest is up to UMNO.

    We the rakyat should stop being afraid or shy in helping the opposition during the next GE.We must stop shouting in this blog or coffee shop, We must all do our part,Talk to our friends ,neighbours and family members.You can bet UMNO will use the MAY 13 Incident to frighten us, but we must overcome this.The future of your grandkids are in your hands .OPOSITION got my vote that,s for sure.

  15. #15 by Jeffrey on Friday, 21 September 2007 - 2:14 pm

    Ha Ha I knew that was coming – about V K Lingam “given to bouts of talking to himself on the mobile phone fantasying that he was talking to a high judicial officer on the other side of the line”…ie monoloque or soliloquy. AG is imputing that VK talked to himself (imagining CJ on the other side of the cell phone). In other words, VK fantasied that he could help fix judicial appointments. Note the insinuation that the powers of be acted with probity and won’t listen to or be influenced by him thats why the need to fantasise arose! This real good! :)

  16. #16 by Jonny on Friday, 21 September 2007 - 2:33 pm

    Yes. I think VK Lingam has gone cuckoo. He should be sent for psychiatric evaluation. Senile dementia perhaps?



    (Yes, their days are now terbilang ….)

  17. #17 by madmix on Friday, 21 September 2007 - 2:49 pm

    Correct correct correct correct! TDM’s look east policy was half past six; if this policy was a success, then those implicated should take kris and slash tummy.

  18. #18 by justice_fighter on Friday, 21 September 2007 - 3:01 pm

    The Attorney-General is as currupt and useless as the PM.

  19. #19 by k1980 on Friday, 21 September 2007 - 3:02 pm

    So, another frontpage attempt to divert attention away from LingamGate
    Another senior police officer is being investigated by the Anti-Corruption Agency for allegedly amassing property through illegal means.
    The officer, who has been in the force for over 20 years and rose to his current rank of superintendent through rank and file, is said to have illegally amassed his assets, worth more than RM6 million

  20. #20 by ihavesomethingtosay on Friday, 21 September 2007 - 3:59 pm

    “liu Says:

    September 21st, 2007 at 12: 53.15
    Look up MLJ 1981. Can somebody confirm that the AG and the late Sudirman Haji Arshad, the singer indeed graduated together in 1981 and both got 3rd class? There were only 3 who got 3rd class that year.”


    Does this justify as a logical reasoning? “third class is 2 class more than 1st class and just one class more than 2nd class, it is therefore only reasonable to deduce that he got more class…..”

    more class in his answer? or more class as a 1/2 pass six?

    oh dear, either way we are all heading to goondooland soon.

  21. #21 by uyatnej on Friday, 21 September 2007 - 4:07 pm

    Cermelang, Gemilang Terbilang + Chiak lang + Peng Lang + hai lang
    + Pak Lah em chai lang! kan niamah

  22. #22 by ihavesomethingtosay on Friday, 21 September 2007 - 4:09 pm

    Is AG now termed as LINGAMCHUM?

  23. #23 by malaysia born on Friday, 21 September 2007 - 4:36 pm

    What?! Even the judges themselves are corrupted?! Now we have crooks passing judgments on us? This is it! I am getting out of here…..and i wonder why anyone in their right mind would ever come and invest their hard-earned money here.

  24. #24 by gchiam on Friday, 21 September 2007 - 4:45 pm

    I want to cry for our country ;(

  25. #25 by Anti_NEP on Friday, 21 September 2007 - 5:10 pm

    Tanjung Rambutan Hospiatal Bahagia has just opened a VIP room for VK to check in. He was talking to himself on his mobile phone. That makes me remember seeing one man on the street holding up his collar and pretending to be talking on a mobile phone not too long ago.

  26. #26 by melurian on Friday, 21 September 2007 - 5:37 pm

    Technically (not morally, like judge acquits a killer, although he believes the defendant is the killer), i don’t agree that vk doing any criminal here. he called “whoever”, voice his opinion on who should be CJ, try to talk to PM about the recommendation – for PM and for country. Is this criminal, is this amounting to bribery ? The PM can either ignore or agree, which in this case he agreed. And if the whoever is fairuz, is he guilty of getting “word of encouragement” from this friend. Is it illegal for judge to have lawyer friend. I don’t understand, it there “specifically law (statutes, act)” that says this is illegal. Please highlight.

  27. #27 by melurian on Friday, 21 September 2007 - 5:49 pm

    And, i think the cameraman here will persecuted if he/she to be revealed (there’s no whistleblower protection law in malaysia, isn’t it) – he just violates law by intruding other ppl privacy by filming him illegally. i sought my oracle – and came to which tell me that the cameraman just screws act 574, section 501 and 509. damn, must backup this pdf for use in the future.

  28. #28 by melurian on Friday, 21 September 2007 - 5:55 pm

    and i also think that the cameraman if to be revealed will be persecuted (malaysia does not have whistleblower protection law, isn’t it?) – he just violated law by filming other people privacy without the person knowing it – that’s suppose to be illegal isn’t it? I check with my oracle – – and it refers me – which the camaraman just broken act 574 section 501, 507. since the evidence is illegal and null, so this is a “no case” at all, isn’t it?

  29. #29 by taikohtai on Friday, 21 September 2007 - 6:13 pm

    Malaysia, finally there you have it.
    Very simply,
    correct, correct, correct
    = koret, koret, koret!

  30. #30 by wtf2 on Friday, 21 September 2007 - 6:35 pm

    if this fella can say what he said, the result Mongolian murder trial is more or less as expected

  31. #31 by shiock on Friday, 21 September 2007 - 6:42 pm

    AG said that it is a no case. The person is not Lingam, the camera are blurred, all make up by the opposition, the phone he use is a toy phone and the moustache are stick on….hehe.

  32. #32 by Godfather on Friday, 21 September 2007 - 7:48 pm

    Thieves don’t snitch on fellow thieves. Semuanya OK !

  33. #33 by dawsheng on Friday, 21 September 2007 - 8:10 pm

    Fairuz will just have to step down and Abdullah will see to this. The only it is case closed and soon after that Fairuz will be made Tun and become the adviser of some GLCs. I wonder whether this VK Lingam has a part to play in turning Malaysia into an Islamic State? Surely he had been approached by Fairuz (since they are so kamcheng) to write the new Islamic State Constitution since he had been helping judges with their written judgements, for some fees of course!

  34. #34 by dawsheng on Friday, 21 September 2007 - 8:12 pm

    Sorry, Fairuz is already a TUN. He should be made a TUNKU instead.

  35. #35 by undergrad2 on Friday, 21 September 2007 - 8:54 pm

    I knew it was coming. The Lingam tape is by itself not proof of any criminal offence being committed by individuals concerned. He is right!

    What you hear Lingam said about who said to whom and for what reason was hearsay – and is inadmissible in a court of law. Not so in the court of public opinion, of course.

    But the tape per se is not proof of the commission of crimes involving the named individuals, but something more sinister. It refers to what could be a criminal conspiracy by individuals whose names were mentioned involving the highest levels of government.

    It is cause for investigation into the truth of what was referred to in the taped conversation. As to the identity of the speaker on the other end of the line, once an official investigation is convened due process would lead to the dislosure of his identity. Then the search for a possible commission of crime or crimes could begin.

    Court cases involving Lingam and any of the judges concerned would have to be reviewed for flaws in the reasoning by the presiding judge or judges.

    As for V.K. Lingam the tape itself is reason for him to be disbarred. I am assuming of course that he will not deny that it was him or that it was his voice. The tape is direct evidence and is not hearsay. A listener can listen to it and make up his or her mind.

  36. #36 by verbal-lash on Friday, 21 September 2007 - 9:12 pm

    Why are we not surprised? The AG has to cover his backside as well – he is one of them. Another half-past 6!! God, and this fella sits among the country’s top judiciary personalities – we are really going to the dogs, or is it “getting culled with the pigs”.

  37. #37 by badak on Friday, 21 September 2007 - 9:29 pm

    We are fpak, when PAK LAH said the police will investicate the tape,

  38. #38 by Jeffrey on Friday, 21 September 2007 - 9:56 pm

    Anwar Ibrahim would not surface the clip in public domain unless, under prior legal advice, which I am sure he has benefit of, the clip is sufficient evidence to implicate those it is intended to. The most crucial witness is the maker of the clip – the one who recorded the proceedings and disseminated its incriminating contents. Who is he or she? Anwar is not saying. Is there any doubt that that person, who is prepared to betray the lawyer will if necessary bear the witness and give first hand testimony of the clip, and everything that he or she knows not only about the conversation recorded in the clip but the context and everything else outside, around and surrounding the tape? The mystery whistleblower is someone present in Lingam’s house in which the telephone conversation purportedly took place. The whistleblower was someone known to Lingam, somebody he trusted to talk as he did on such sensitive matters in the person’s presence either not knowing that the proceedings were recorded or even knowing such, allowed it to be so. The key lies in this mystery whistle blower. This being the case what we hear or read of the transcript of the clip might well be only the tip of the iceberg : there’s more incriminating disclosure to come. So the people in power making decision or saying this or that have got to be careful because Anwar has not shown all the cards. This is only common sense. :)

  39. #39 by sean on Friday, 21 September 2007 - 10:16 pm

    Monologue………….ummm…so very soon I will be “monologing” outloud screwing the govt and criticising them as well.Afterall….its monologue……nothing more than that…………..!!

  40. #40 by sean on Friday, 21 September 2007 - 10:24 pm

    Imagine if you get stopped by cops…and you start to “monologue” and offer them bribe……(we could be halicinating too you know due to shock).And if the cops catches you saying that you tried to bribe them…then we can say that we were well…acting and nothing more than that.We can quote what Gani says as well isn’t it.Malaysia Boleh…semuanya OK….

  41. #41 by sean on Friday, 21 September 2007 - 10:34 pm

    typo error….halucinating..

  42. #42 by Jeffrey on Friday, 21 September 2007 - 10:38 pm

    A lawyer should know about precedents. They call it Doctrine of Precedents – that is a court deciding on a case has to stand by and adhere and apply the decisions and the rationale for them earlier made by another court (normally a higher court) if the case before it relates in all important respects to same factual matrix – so as not to disturb what is settled.

    And there are precedents of how certain people have been brought down by people whom they trusted by having their deeds taped witrhin the privacy of their home and later disseminated in public domain. We should apply from these precedents what is learnt – and that is Sophisticated Technology will always make possible exposure of sensitive acts and conversations that are not supposed to be known to the public.

    In June 2002, a 32 year old lady singer, formerly married to the son of a prominent politician had her intimate sexual acts with an unidentified man recorded in a three-minute video and circulated via the Internet and mobile phone. Apparently it might have intended to embarrass the ex father in law.

    Much earlier there was this prominent politician cum lawyer who made it a point to film and record his sexual gymnastics with a female partner in a video tape which he kept in the safe to be periodically retrieved for the private viewing pleasure of himself and friends. Well again the tape was stolen from the safe by someone close and circulated.

    One recalls that even under the security of the police lockup, someone could in 2005 capture from the cell phone MMS video clip of a fair malay lady detainee being stripped and made to hold her ears and squat ups, a scandal that came to be known as “Nudegate” which eventually led to independent commission headed by Tan Sri Dzaiddin to investigate the scandal, which in turn led to the proposal for the IPCMC.

    History has a way of repeating itself when it’s lessons are not learnt: may not the latest clip set forth a chain of events that may eventually lead to the establishment of the independent Judicial Commission?

    Or maybe we should call it by another name – Independent Judicial Recommendation
    Board – because if the name ‘Judicial Commission’ were used, siome of these guys would ask, “where’s the commission, how much”? :)

    Our politicians should realise that times have changed because of sophisticated technology. Their sheninegans and pecadillos can no more be shielded. There are eyes and ears everywhere now, and they have to conduct themselves with more priopriety and probity. The means are there to film them and to record what they say without them knowing.

  43. #43 by sean on Friday, 21 September 2007 - 10:41 pm

    well if the cops are serious enough…they should start with all the phone records from all the telcos from 2001 onwards and check how many calls were being made from suspicious chap in this case Lingham to future chief justice etc etc…..before the records goes missing….which i think could have been erase already or being kept for future use just incase.Imagine if they are calls made from Lingham’s phone to Fairuz’s phone and then to tan sri’s phone etc etc….and to “Tengku” then it should be enough for the real cops to gather info and evidence to start building up a case…….Boleh Boleh BoLeh X10

  44. #44 by Jeffrey on Friday, 21 September 2007 - 10:48 pm

    Sean, you’re giving them ideas : if immigration records can go missing so can phone records!

  45. #45 by sean on Friday, 21 September 2007 - 10:57 pm

    Jeffrey……i think the cops… well..when they are tainted with dirt …they tends to think 10 steps ahead of the clean ones….so…i guess even without me saying this….they could have retrieved all useful records etc for future uses..”just incase kind of things”…Amazing.. imagine if it is true..the speed that they worked on……for things like i said earlier….the bad ones have got minds that acts like thunder and lightning….Bolehland really boleh lah…we really need to look to the Royalties for help NOW…….it is hugh time all opposition parties ,NGO that cares and people like us..start wearing yellow for a show of support….its now or never.

  46. #46 by undergrad2 on Friday, 21 September 2007 - 11:29 pm

    “The most crucial witness is the maker of the clip – the one who recorded the proceedings and disseminated its incriminating contents. Who is he or she? ” Jeffrey

    His identity is not important.

    It does not render the evidence less credible. The evidence here is a video of the incident. The incident is a phone call by V.K. Lingam to a person reasonably believed to be the current CJ, and the conversation he was having. Depending how you use the evidence, if it infringes on the rule against hearsay then it is not admissible as evidence.

    The court does not need to call him.

  47. #47 by Jeffrey on Friday, 21 September 2007 - 11:43 pm

    What if the maker of the chip testifies that Lingam (before and after the telephone conversation) confirmed to him that he was talking to current CJ and even discussed with him (the maker of clip) matters relating to what the CJ said on the mobile phone? Would that not be direct evidence of a witness of what at least happened in that room that night? And what would the inference be then?

  48. #48 by sean on Friday, 21 September 2007 - 11:51 pm

    Well we can have all the evidences and witnesses you want but if the PM and ruling party are tainted with dirt and then blood….then there will eventually be no case at all or probably a court case full of actors and actresses

  49. #49 by undergrad2 on Saturday, 22 September 2007 - 12:06 am

    “Would that not be direct evidence of a witness of what at least happened in that room that night? ” Jeffrey

    In the context you just mentioned, and if there are relevant issues his identity and even his testimony would be relevant. It depends.

    The tape is proof. But what does it prove? That is the issue. Is it proof of any wrongdoing? Whose wrongdoing?

    One thing is clear and that is V.K. Lingam is heard offering his services as a middleman, as a power broker to fix certain judicial appointments – a direct admission implicating him and those named by him.

    It is enough to get him disbarred.

    It is not proof of any wrongdoing or crime by those implicated in the tape. But it is cause for an official investigation into their role or roles.

    Ordinarily this should be enough for the top judge to tender his resignation with immediate effect or made to go on leave. He may not have committed a crime but controversy now surrounds his role and he is unfit as a result to hold the office of CJ – and should step down.

  50. #50 by Jeffrey on Saturday, 22 September 2007 - 1:06 am

    Yes, the contents of clip, when authenticated, do not, by themselves, (as what Attorney-General Tan Sri Abdul Gani Patail said) constitute criminal offence having been committed but in saying so, the AG is throwing a red herring because the immediate issue is not about whether a crime per se occurred but whether there was (1) judicial misconduct though not amounting to crime but nevertheless is sufficient, by convention and professional norm, locally and internationally recognised, to disqualify the judge from sitting on CJ chair and (2) whether suspicions of the tainted system of judicial appointments, executive interference and abuse of executive power are now vindicated. If (1) and (2) have been established in due course, then this may give rise to further investigations into the going ons in specific cases reviewed which may or may not unravel new materials suggestive of commission of crime – for example where any one or more of the following elements are uncovered – ie fraud or conspiracy, intentional violation of due process of law, deliberate disregard of material facts, judicial acts without jurisdiction etc (as when a judge is proven having gone out of the way to favour one side against the other side for whatever consideration.Judicial Immunity provided under the constitution will no longer then shield a judge guilty of any such misconduct from not only being sacked but ion addition prosecuted as the degree of misconduct has crossed the line to tantamount to a ceriminal offence…….

  51. #51 by undergrad2 on Saturday, 22 September 2007 - 2:01 am

    The AG is right in saying that the tape does not reveal any wrongdoings (to paraphrase). It is certainly not proof of a conspiracy to pervert the course of justice!

    But it is enough reason for the CJ to go on indefinite leave and perhaps take an early retirmenet at the end of it.

    It is enough reason to convene an independent tribunal to look into whether irregularities in the appointments of judges involve corruption and abuse of power, to look into court cases involving V.K. Lingam as counsel for litigant or litigants presided over by the judges named or other judges not named but have reason or reasons to make judgments unduly favourable to his clients.

  52. #52 by undergrad2 on Saturday, 22 September 2007 - 2:08 am

    This AG like all other previous AGs is obviously not prepared to go against the Prime Minister’s recommendations. He puts, and not surprisingly so, his career first letting the politicians to do their work. We are getting ahead of ourselvs here.

    First the ACA, now that a complaint has been filed by PKR, has to commence and then complete its investigation into the matter.

  53. #53 by lakshy on Saturday, 22 September 2007 - 5:42 am

    HE became Ag after teh Anwar case right? So we know he “earned” his position!

  54. #54 by undergrad2 on Saturday, 22 September 2007 - 6:03 am

    “..AG is throwing a red herring ..” Jeffrey

    Don’t know if he recognizes a red herring when he sees one. Why not just throw ikan kembong?? It’s a lot cheaper than imported frozen fish.

  55. #55 by undergrad2 on Saturday, 22 September 2007 - 6:53 am

    Viewing and listening to the tape is like watching V.K. Lingam having sex with the then CJM. They may be consenting adults but the act is illegal.

  56. #56 by Bigjoe on Saturday, 22 September 2007 - 11:05 am

    The first reaction coming from the two top executive in this country is to investigate the source and authencity of the tape rather than the truth. Both implied it could be false.

    Its vomitting how they cover up for each other perversion.

    The opposition rallying cry should ve vote for BN if you want more corruption, bail-outs, higher prices, more spin than real projects.

    The implication of a bad justice system is so beyond the little minds of our two top executives..

  57. #57 by grace on Saturday, 22 September 2007 - 1:26 pm

    There is no one to turn to nowadays in case you need justice.
    Judges,also cotrolled by tycoons.
    police too are not much better.
    politicians (except DAP ), aiya, lagi teruk. AG pun tak boleh percaya!!!
    What can we do now?

  58. #58 by shortie kiasu on Saturday, 22 September 2007 - 2:25 pm

    Why can’t AG be a little more professional in his comment before giving a blanket instantaneous defensive stereotyped response? As if he is trying to cover up some thing? Very unbecoming of a top lawman in the country. Some thing to hide or what not?

  59. #59 by undergrad2 on Saturday, 22 September 2007 - 8:07 pm

    The AG is the last casualty of a system gone wild!

  60. #60 by undergrad2 on Saturday, 22 September 2007 - 9:28 pm

    “The whistleblower was someone known to Lingam…” Jeffrey

    He was not in the room to blow any whistle – certainly not on himself.

    If he were to take the witness stand in a court of law, he stands the risk of incriminating himself in some way or ways. That explains why he has allowed the tape to speak for itself.

    Apart from V.K. Lingam himself, the others in the room with him (assuming there were) would not only know the identity of that person but would also know the identity of the person making the recording. If any one of them were to forward a note anonymously to the police with the name of the maker of the tape, the note would not be admissible in evidence as it is hearsay.

    But it would help the police in their investigations.

    What is obvious is that the maker of the tape is not a mere friend of a friend. He must be somebody trusted by V.K. Lingam to be in the same room when he was on the phone with the then CJM and talking about such matters.

    Most likely the maker had dealings with V.K. Lingam and recorded this as an assuarance that nothing could go wrong, that V.K. would live up to his promises. Obviously it did not – and the tape is out!

    Or worse it was used as an instrument of blackmail earlier. The tape then develops a life of its own – going from one hand to another in exchange for money. Now a copy of it re-surfaces.

  61. #61 by 1eyecls on Monday, 24 September 2007 - 10:24 pm

    i think the cj/lingam case will just end-up at such:lingam confessed he was talking on the phone,but he was drunk,cant you see the liquor on the desk?he was talking on his own!close topic!

  62. #62 by 1eyecls on Monday, 24 September 2007 - 10:29 pm

    do you still want to guess numbers at sportstoto?TOTO,created by Vincent Tan,tolong orang tipu orang!

  63. #63 by counsel888 on Sunday, 12 October 2008 - 2:11 pm

    Just when the dust had begun to settle on his previous and unfortunate misadventure, a naked attempt to throw Malaysia into chaos and seize government in the ensuring confusion, Anwar Ibrahim appears once more to have gravely miscalculated his moves, demonstrating a mercenary ‘the devil may care’ attitude in his unquenchable lust for power.

    If there is one thing that will forever characterize Anwar’s contribution to Malaysian history it is this. He will be remembered as the man who never failed to waste or squander an opportunity through his own vanity and his unwavering belief in his own infallibility and invincibility. Hitler too suffered from that same complex.

    The sheer audacity of Anwar’s putsch this time is only dwarfed by enormity of the arrogance of the man’s ignorance. Using an outdated apocryphal document he calls Video Korupsi Tun Datuk Fairuz dan VK Lingham, (“Video”) Anwar seeks to revive his faded jaded personal and his political reputation and leadership ambitions with a sensational policy free campaign.

    THE VIDEO (Video Korupsi Tun Datuk Fairuz dan VK Lingham)”

    What the Video is proof of is nothing more than a documentary footage of an Indian male, even if that Indian male is VK Lingham, engaged in a monologue over a telephone.

    To Anwar it purports to be a record of proof of an act of corruption in recording what he asserts is a private conversation between the Chief Justice of Malaysia and a lawyer (identified in the video as VK Lingham) conclusively therefore also proof of corruption against the judge and Lingham.

    There is no dialogue. We hear no one else. The Video is evidence of and proves nothing more than just that. Perhaps just a little more. That the Anwar camp has no regard for the privacy of individuals, nor regard for the law is evident in his actions nor is there any indication that Anwar understand the law or how it works.

    What surprises many around the world and yet seems oblivious to a sector of the Malaysian community, the Malaysian legal fraternity and their Human Rights Advocates (at least that’s what they prefer to be portrayed as) if that’s not stretching credibility too far, is the failure of these two groups to comment on, or to challenge this glaring defect in this egregious document, the Video in support Anwar’s claims of proof of corruption against the judiciary in Malaysia.


    *Like the word corruption, judicial misconduct and judicial misbehaviour has no universally defined meaning. Instead each of these terms can be applied selectively in any given set of circumstances.

    At its weakest, it is used to define a morally or socially unacceptable or questionable form of conduct to make it sound so reprehensible as to deserve legal sanction.

    It should be noted that regardless of the jurisdiction, a majority of jurists and politicians in common law countries would not be in favour of any statutory definition of what constitutes removable misbehaviour , misconduct, incapacity or what divides removable misbehaviour from non-removable misbehaviour in the case of judicial misconduct.

    However worthy such an endeavour might be in principle, it would seem to be a near impossible and impractical exercise due to the difficulties in identifying and defining the offence in this area.

    For example, there is widely held opinion amongst internationally renowned jurists and academics that the term misbehaviour or misconduct as far as judicial officers are concerned should be used in a way that meets the ordinary definition of those terms and should not to be restricted to misconduct in office or to conduct of a criminal nature.

    A considerable degree of leeway is thereby offered for debate and interpretation as to what constitutes misconduct and as to whether, in any particular case, it constitutes a “hanging offence”.

    It will be recalled that the Commissioners in the Lionel Murphy affair, (Lush, Blackburn and Wells) were to some degree in unison about notions such as

    • conduct judged by contemporary standards which casts doubt on a judge’s suitability to continue in office;
    • conduct which, being morally wrong, demonstrates the unfitness of the judge to continue; and
    • behaviour which represents a serious a departure from the standards of proper behaviour by the judge that it must be found to have destroyed public confidence in the judge.

    Perhaps the last of these categories as propounded by Lush, Blackburn and Wells is what Anwar was alluding to. But the manner in which he presented his case and his credentials as the future leader of Malaysia behind the veneer the tapes leads to more questions being asked about Anwar’s credibility, his capability and his character (his character is an issue when he attacks the character of his opponents).

    World renowned legal commentator and professor of law, Tony Blackshields of Macquarie university Australia, notes that in the Federal context, (applicable in the Anwar tapes question (my opinion)), “Misbehaviour is essentially a political rather than a legal notion”.

    It was further argued or submitted in the Lionel Murphy matter that the distinction between criminal and non-criminal behaviour is not necessarily going to be very helpful.

    For example, while a conviction for a lower or medium level drink driving offence or a minor assault may not be regarded as sufficient for the removal of a judicial officer, non-criminal behaviour such as persistent failure to produce timely judgments or repeated serious rudeness to litigants and/or lawyers could be.* ( *adapted from the Sallman Paper 2005)

    Anwar did not allude to any of these notions or suggestions but instead went on a whim to cling on to an outdated piece of questionable but sensational document suggesting a desperate action by a desperate man.

    On the face of repeated complaints where proof is readily available from the record and the bar, for persistent failure to produce timely judgments or repeated serious rudeness to litigants and/or lawyers for which there is ample proof, Anwar would have been better submitting these as examples of misconduct rather than a feeble sensational video to make his case then fall on his sword.


    If this is Anwar’s and Elizabeth Wong’s idea of proof of corruption (as opposed to inadmissible and uncorroborated evidence) and proof of the truth to their assertions, then that video unfortunately purporting to show Anwar’s good wife engaging in an intimate encounter with a white male in a hotel room, (an Australian or American journalist according to the commentary) a video which once did the rounds of the internet when Anwar was imprisoned, is by these same standards he now applies to Fairuz and Lingham, evidence of his wife’s infidelity and his party’s immorality if not by implication then at least expressly so. She was once their president.

    That video of Anwar’s wife (which it purports to be) which no one should condone for what damage it does to unsuspecting individuals in the exercise of their private rights, cannot be proved to contain anything factual or of public benefit without the benefit of an open trial and testing of that evidence. Such is an example of the dangers of cheap entertainment and an immoral stunt to defame being submitted as proof.

    Anyone who supports such a stunt without the benefit of a proper investigation, procedural fairness and conclusive proofs of the assertions made is equally at the very least morally culpable.


    Clearly Malaysian lawyers have a credibility problem if they do not unequivocally condemn Anwar’s pernicious theatrics. In remaining silent observers and indolent spectators on the sidelines in the face of such an unprecedented assault on the judiciary, the dignity of the office of the Chief Justice and the courts, they are guilty of a gross dereliction of their duty as officers of the courts.
    Politics and political biases should not interfere with such a duty.

    It is a duty they must discharge impartially as is expected of them. Lawyers by their training are expected to be forensic and detached, not partial and biased. The law cannot operate fairly in an environment where fairness, truth and merit are casualties whilst mediocrity and bias are the criteria for justice to prevail. This is an assault on the competence and integrity of the entire legal system which includes lawyers as its largest constituent component.

    Lawyers ought to know that it is for the courts (and that includes them as officers of the courts) to dispense justice rather than for an individual like Anwar to dispense with justice with their tacit support in pursuit of a purely personal and political objective.

    What’s also perhaps more disturbing in this affair is the lack of discussion or argument about those critical legal issues of evidence, probity, political and moral integrity that will eventually impact on all of us if Anwar gets his way with government which the Malaysian bar appears to have conveniently ignored with their silence.


    Consider the following proposition in the light of the position the Malaysian bar has adopted in this affair.

    The ultimate statutory sanction against a human being in Malaysia is the death penalty. It applies to persons who are found in unlawful and unlicensed possession of firearms as well and more notably it applies to persons in possession of drugs of dependence such as marijuana, cocaine or heroin.

    In the absence of the expected outrage on pressing legal issues raised by the Video, an outrage which has yet to manifest itself from the Malaysian bar, one can only wonder as to how many Malaysians who dangled on the end of a hangman’s noose paid that ultimate price for the incompetence or ignorance a Malaysian legal practitioner acting in their defense.

    This Video purporting to show VK Lingham engaging in a conversation with Chief Justice Fairuz is designed to bring the reputation and credibility of the bench and the courts of Malaysia into disrepute. Lawyers must remember that the bench is made up of persons from their esteemed ranks.

    Anwar’s actions in this particular instance constitutes the offence of contempt of court. A politically bankrupt exercise designed to smear individuals he does not like with his contumely against an elected government of the day through a cowardly act of the most sinister sort, has neither legal nor moral basis.

    Interference by breaching the privacy of an individual through use of untested perhaps even manufactured evidence which Anwar relies on in support of his vain belief that he is the only worthy contender for the office of Prime Minister of Malaysia, is reflective of the extent to which a delusional narcissistic Anwar will go in pursuit of his ambitions at the expense of others.

    Anwar demonstrates an embarrassing inability to distinguish fact from fiction, evidence from proof or a clear understanding of the law. Anwar demonstrates a level of culpability, recklessness and reinforces the fact he is clearly a man with little regard for the law or the constitution.

    A totalitarian blackmailer is more likely the character he proves himself to be in this unfortunate episode, having further gone on the record to make the claims that the judiciary is corrupt based on a suspect video and his discredited word.

    Some media like Malaysia Kini and the legal profession on the other hand willingly and irresponsibly assist Anwar to muster a misguided public in manufacturing consent.


    As a politician with a considerable degree and wealth of experience in the intimate workings of government and a long career of having dealt with the law and government at the highest levels, his smear and defamation of the bench is inexcusable, unforgivable, deliberate and without proper cause.

    If this were the rantings of an uneducated rural Malay, an Indian plantation labourer or a common Chinese Malaysian whom many believe have an in built anti Malay bent anyway, then the making and publishing of such defamatory material, labeling it so confidently as evidence of corruption could be tolerated and to some extent excused.

    However when presented so confidently as proof by someone of Anwar’s perceived caliber, his mischief is criminal, deliberate, seditious, treasonous, reckless and criminal.

    Here is an individual who so readily points the accusing finger of corruption, malice and inequity towards his colleagues, his partners in crime with whom he once shared a common goal, acting as a repository of the trust of Malaysians,.


    The obvious question on everyone’s lips is, how come Anwar remained so deafening silent when the ISA and all other forms of ‘undemocratic behaviour’ during his time in government was inflicted on so many? What makes Anwar so believable now? especially with his reckless and unlawful defamation of the office of the Chief Justice of Malaysia without reason cause or proof apart from his personal desire for revenge?.

    Anwar’s attempts to convince us his ‘road to Damascus conversion’ occurred sometime during the currency crises in 1997 and that he is now a changed man for the better is less than convincing in light of this unfortunate episode in his political life. The 16th of September has now come and gone. It is history like he is fast becoming himself.

    Where is the evidence if not the proof of Anwar’s sudden change? or is Anwar suggesting that the moment he left parliament for the last time everything went pear shaped and corrupt and therefore suddenly worthy of his contempt for the nation which gives him license to defame his opponents with impunity? Or is he perhaps suggesting something else to us, such as perhaps, he was himself complicit in that culture of corruption he suggests existed whilst he was in office, but that the real offence committed by the government of the day was that he was not placed in charge of the till?


    Except for his coterie of rabid fanatics, ignorant legal advisors and sycophantic admirers, it is hoped he will be made an example of for what he has now done by his reckless childish behaviour in thwarting any real opportunity by those committed to exposing real corruption and undemocratic behaviour wherever it occurs.
    Sadly Anwar has lost any semblance of credibility that may have existed within him as a residue of his last disastrous adventure, with this farcical, deliberate tarnishing of the reputations of either Fairuz or Lingham.

    Indelibly stamped across his feeble attempts to grab power again through anarchy is the clear absence of statesmanship. Brinkmanship maybe, but where is the cause or principle?
    If the judiciary is corrupt, then let due process prevail. The general suspicion is that too many within the legal profession themselves find this ‘expose’ too close for comfort which is why their silence is deafening.

    The more pressing problem is the question of whether members of the legal fraternity in Malaysia have the requisite skills or levels of competence to prosecute or bring a successful action against those they ‘suspect’ of corruption without revealing a tainted hand.

    Anwar has tarnished the image of Malaysia’s courts and its judicial institutions to an extent it can only be remedied by locking him up after an open trial and throwing away the key, bad back or otherwise.

    He deserves to be reminded that the quality of evidence he accused the Mahathir government of relying on at his trial, labeling it unfair, tainted, manufactured and inadmissible is now the very same quality of evidence he relies on to defame his targets. Anwar cried for procedural fairness during his trial. His recent actions demonstrate an acute lack of understanding of that concept.

    In his own words and by implication of what he conveyed at his recent press conference, Fairuz is in his cross hairs for revenge because Fairuz he claims was part of a ‘conspiracy’ to destroy him. That’s not good enough a reason to hold the nation and its political and legal institutions to ransom. Or is it fair game in pursuit of a larger political objective? Clearly the nation and its people are dispensable commodities where Anwar’s political ambitions are concerned.


    No conspiracy was needed to destroy Anwar except a conspiracy of truth, fact and the law. Considering Anwar’s demonstrated abject , unmitigated ignorance of politics and law and his contempt of the law, the judiciary or the liberties of individual citizens whether these be VK Lingham or Fairuz , Anwar needs no enemies to fail. He shoots himself well in the foot and is self destructive enough for others to let him engineer his own demise again. If Anwar does not take his foot out of his mouth soon he may well commit political suicide as well.

    Anwar reinforces the proofs and the truth behind his conviction for sodomy to the extent that, the standards of proof established at his trial was far higher than the standards of proof he is able to establish to prove the culpability of Fairuz and Lingham in the commission of such a grave offence as judicial corruption.
    For a politician having experienced both of the extreme examples of what the law may dish out to the unwary when abused, he still seems terribly ignorant, careless and quite clearly indifferent to the seriousness of his charges against his victims and appears clearly not to have learned his lesson.


    In legal proceedings it is generally accepted that there must be a subject matter for determination, and some immediate right, duty or liability to be ascertained by a court.

    In order to establish that there is a prima facie case (ignoring for the moment the magnitude of the offence complained of) due process and reference to established legal practice should be the first course of action.

    Anwar may like us to believe that he is being chivalrous by his behaviour. His actions though appear to belie a somewhat sinister, cavalier attitude and design for what is by his own admissions a campaign of retribution en route to his ultimate destination, the office of prime minister.

    Anwar appears to be totally naieve about the dangers of relying on video recordings (second hand hearsay ) ( a case of sex lies and videos or is it life imitating art?) purporting to show what is clearly uncorroborated ‘evidence’ of proofs that the events complained of occurred. This most unfortunate outburst by him will be the root cause of his downfall again.

    In such a vain attempt at grabing power through sensation and unsubstantiated, uncorroborated claims of corruption, it may be useful for Anwar to examine the reasons why courts in common law jurisdictions do not allow for the admission of these types of evidentiary material to be used against an accused save in exceptional circumstances and even then only where permitted by law.

    The law of evidence and the common law provides adequate studies of the dangers of second and third hand hearsay evidence against an accused especially if in uncorroborated documentary form.


    People may recall the popular animated film Babe. Babe is an Oscar winning film depicting a pig, ducks and other barn animals speaking effortlessly in English with flawless lip sync, seamless edits and the unmitigated use of computer graphics.

    The film cleverly uses animals in animation to reinforce a cryptic moral message so convincing to its audiences. It also provides the most compelling contemporary evidence of why the use of such material as the Video can be dangerous when presented as unimpeachable evidence of proof of his assertions.

    With the advent of computer film technology now available in “off the shelf” software to anyone desirous of creative or damaging mischief, anyone with half a brain can concoct what Anwar relies on for his very conclusive statements about the Judge and Lingham. That is not to suggest that Anwar concocted this Video. The point is that it is possible for someone with the necessary tools to create such a Video. The US continually uses it to discredit its enemies like Osama Bin Laden.


    If a pig could speak and a horse argue (which by the way many young Americans interviewed after the film said, they believed possible, citing the example of a parrot speaking human languages even if only by repetition) then surely Anwar’s base intelligence should have told him that applying the same medium to his mischief carrying his evidence as proof, it is also equally possible to produce the same result he now relies on in this tape he presents as proof of corruption.

    This is precisely the reason why competent courts do not and are under a duty not to admit such evidence without proper cogent corroborative supporting proofs.


    For Anwar to stoop so low is final reinforcement of the dangers of ever having him in parliament let alone as a future Prime Minister of Malaysia. He cannot be trusted to distinguish fact from fiction, he has very poor choice of legal advisors and has now been dragged into a final act of self destruction through political suicide driven by desperation of his own incompetence and ambition. (foot in mouth disease).

    If he were ill advised into this perfidious act against his nation, he has a duty to at least to dismiss his entire legal team and his political advisors immediately he discovers the futility of pursuing this stunt with its dire criminal implications for him. It has far reaching consequences for his personal and professional reputation and whatever may be left of his political integrity.

    Anwar demonstrates a characteristic beneath contempt for what he has done or attempted to do to Lingham and to Fairuz regardless of what one may perceive of both these individuals privately. He demonstrates a terribly immature and unstable personality devoid of the statesmanship qualities one would expect of a would be political leader.

    It is widely hoped that he will contain his vanity, uncontrollable anger and desire for revenge in order to re establish his credentials and redeem himself once again to convince that he is what Malaysia needs (like a hole in the head at this time).

    In parting, someone should perhaps introduce Anwar to this verse:

    “The heights to which great men have leapt were not achieved in sudden flight. But they whilst their companions slept were toiling upward in the night”

    Harvard and George Washington University may also for their part wish to take time out for some introspection. Their hasty willingness to bolster their jaded reputations with the hype associated with awarding unmeritorious honorary professorships and doctorates to people like Anwar and others for purely politically expedient reasons will only enhance their reputations. Bad reputations that is.

    Gopal Raj Kumar

You must be logged in to post a comment.