Lingam Tape – credibility of Fairuz’s denial through Nazri zero like earlier case on abolition of common law

Chief Justice, Tun Ahmad Fairuz Sheikh Abdul Halim has allegedly denied that he was the person that senior lawyer V.K. Lingam was talking to in the now infamous 8-minute Lingam Tape on the perversion of the course of justice concerning the fixing of judicial appointments, court judgment and getting a Tan Sri award.

I chose the term “allegedly denied” as there is no proof that Ahmad Fairuz had actually denied that he was the person Lingam was talking to in the Lingam Tape, especially as some 24 hours earlier Ahmad Fairuz had in “black-and-white” through his special assistant Arleen Ramly written to Malaysiakini to give a two-paragraph “No comment” response to its earlier fax inquiry.

The Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department, Datuk Nazri Aziz claimed that Ahmad Fairuz had called him to deny that he was the one talking to Lingam.

Nazri’s claim is full of holes.

Firstly, how is Nazri sure that it was Ahmad Fairuz who had spoken to him by phone and not an impersonator. Has Nazri got proof that Ahmad Fairuz had denied?

Secondly, why did Ahmad Fairuz make such a denial when 24 hours earlier he had directed his special assistant Arleen Ramly to fax a two paragraph “No comment” letter on the Chief Justice’s letterhead to Malaysiakini?

Thirdly, isn’t Ahmad Fairuz capable of issuing such a denial himself and isn’t he aware of the doctrine of Separation of Powers among the Executive, Parliament and Judiciary by conducting himself in such an improper and subservient manner, subordinating the Judiciary to the Executive?

Fourthly, why didn’t Ahmad Fairuz issue the denial in the first 72 hours of the expose of the Lingam Tape by Anwar Ibrahim on Wednesday, especially as he had met the Prime Minister, Datuk Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi both on Wednesday and Thursday night, seated at the same table, at the Istana and the Chief Secretary to the Government’s fast-breaking functions respectively?

Fifthly, what was the purpose of the photographs of Ahmad Fairuz and the Prime Minister seated at the same table on both consecutive nights prominently published in the New Straits Times and Utusan Malaysia?

Is it to send the message that Ahmad Fairuz has the full backing of the Prime Minister, regardless of the nation-wide outcry and outrage over the Lingam Tape?

Sixthly, what is the credibility of Ahmad Fairuz’ alleged denial through Nazri? Is its believability as abysmal as Ahmad Fairuz’ earlier alleged denial through Nazri of his proposal to abolish English common law and replacement by Islamic law – which is zero?

On 5th September 2007, Nazri replied in Parliament to my earlier speech criticizing Ahmad Fairuz’ call for the abolition of the common law system and favouring its replacement by Islamic law system as being most unbecoming of the highest judicial officer of the land sworn to defend and uphold the Constitution and the Merdeka social contract.

Ahmad Fairuz had made such a call when opening a seminar on the thoughts and academic works of the late Tan Sri Ahmad Ibrahim on August 21, which made the front-page headline in the Utusan Malaysia the next day.

I had pointed out that if the former Lord President Tun Salleh Abas could be indicted and sacked for, among other things, disregarding the secular basis of the Malaysian Constitution and advocating Islamisation of Malaysian legal system, shouldn’t Ahmad Fairuz similarly be referred to a Judicial Tribunal for a similar offence?

Nazri tried to give a very “slippery” reply. He gave a flat denial that Ahmad Fairuz had ever made such a call for the abolition of the common law system saying that the Chief Justice’s speech made no such mention whatsoever.

An exchange between DAP MP for Bandar Kuching , Chong Chieng Jen and Nazri on the New Economic Policy issues which Chong had earlier raised gave me an opportunity to do an immediate Internet search from my notebook in the Chamber and I was able, when Nazri resumed his reply, to point to newspaper reports of the Chief Justice questioning the need to use English Common Law after 50 years of independence and the ensuing furore of reactions to Ahmad Fairuz’ call, particularly from the Malaysian Bar.

I also referred to the comment of another Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department, Dato Dr. Abdullah Zin who advocated that “the proposal to use Syariah Law to replace English Common Law in court proceeding should be studied thoroughly first” and that of the Prime Minister that the proposal deserved study — all evidence that a flat denial that Fairuz had made the call for the abolition of the common law was just not acceptable or credible.

Nazri blamed reporters and their poor quality reporting for the mistake. However, when I asked why no correction had been made by Ahmad Fairuz for close to two weeks of the public controversy over his call, Nazri said Parliament was the best forum for the explanation and he made one startling claim:

“Hari pertama perkara ini keluar, Ketua Hakim telah menghubungi saya untuk menyatakan bahawa itu merupakan statu perkara tidak benar yang dituliskan dalam akhbar. Saya tidak menyalahi beliau kerana dengan izin I have got bad experience juga dengan surat khabar. Apa juga yang kita nafikan yang dilaporkan mereka, tidak mendapat tempat yang sama seperti mana mereka telah melaporkan sehari sebelum itu sebab credibilitynya. Saya rasa, pada saya, it is a waste of time.”

I found subsequently that Nazri’s reply was not truthful as he himself was reported in Utusan Malaysia on 24th August 2007 as supporting Ahmad Fairuz’s call for abolition of the common law system, as follows:

Beliau (Nazri) berkata sebagai pemegang jawatan tertinggi dalam bidang kehakiman, Ahmad Fairuz sudah tentu lebih arif terhadap perkara tersebut.

Sehubungan itu, beliau menyokong saranan yang dikemukakan oleh Ahmad Fairuz supaya rujukan kepada Common Law dimansuhkan daripada undang-undang sivil diMalaysia.

“Saya percaya Tun (Ahmad Fairuz) mempunyai asas dan tahu apakan jenis perubahan yang ingin beliau lakukan terutama yang berkaitan dengan cadangan ini (mansuh common law),” katanya kepada Utusan Malaysia di sini hari ini.

This Utusan Malaysia report of 24th August 2007 debunked Nazri’s claim that Ahmad Fairuz had contacted him the very next day the report of his call for the abolition of Common Law appeared in the media to tell him that it was incorrect — as Nazri would not have gone public to endorse Ahmad Fairuz’ call as reported by Utusan Malaysia.

Up to now, Ahmad Fairuz had never denied or confirmed Nazri’s denial that he had ever called for the abolition of the common law although he knew that the public controversy over his call is still raging on — with the latest article supporting him by Dr. Wan Azhar Wan Ahmad, Senior Fellow/Director of the Centre of Syariah, Law and Science, Institute of Islamic Understanding, Malaysia (IKIM) in the Star on 18th September 2007 entitled “Time to Malaysianise common law system” while the Bar Council website forum on the subject had attracted 68 comments.

This is why I say that if the credibility of Ahmad Fairuz’ denial through Nazri with regard to the Lingam Tape is the same as his earlier alleged denial through Nazri of his proposal to abolish English common law and replacement by Islamic law, then it is of total zero value!

If Ahmad Fairuz is not prepare to personally make a categorical denial with regard to the Lingam Tape and to take the necessary steps to clear his name, then the public must conclude that there is something very rotten about the judiciary and justify questioning his competence and fitness to continue as Chief Justice.

Ahmad Fairuz’ term as Chief Justice expires at the end of next month. He had caused one constitutional deadlock when his nominee for Chief Judge of Malaya was objected by the Conference of Rulers for eight months until it was withdrawn.

Is he going to be the cause of another constitutional crisis over his application to extend his tenure as Chief Justice after October 2007? And is a third constitutional crisis in-the-making over the nomination of the next Chief Justice after Ahmad Fairuz?

The Cabinet on Wednesday must act in the best interests of the nation to restore national and international confidence in the judiciary to its heyday before 1988 — and not allow the development of a twin crisis, both constitutional and judicial.

The Cabinet must cut the Gordian Knot on Wednesday — set up a Royal Commission of Inquiry into the Lingam Tape and the judicial scandals since 1988 and the establishment of a Judicial Appointment and Promotion Commission to ensure that the Prime Minister gives proper regard to accountability, transparency and meritocracy on all appointments and promotions of judges to uphold judicial independence, impartiality, integrity and meritocracy.

  1. #1 by Bigjoe on Monday, 24 September 2007 - 1:36 pm

    For sure, they are doing all they can to mute/slide away on this issue. They think they can because they think most of the public don’t understand what the implications are and will not get angry.

    Also UMNO cannot risk having the courts being independent again as it will reverse a lot of things including the very existence of UMNO Baru and the NEP constitutionality.

    This isssue cannot be dealt with in the complex matter that it is. It must be simplified and the way to put it to the public is Badawi’s failure to change anything and all his promises amount to nothing including all the grand Corridor plans.

  2. #2 by toniXe on Monday, 24 September 2007 - 1:38 pm

    interesting beating round the bush, except that the bush must be big and in Lingams backyard while the CJ was playing russian roulette with the chinese piao meis over russian vodka and murtabaks

  3. #3 by voice on Monday, 24 September 2007 - 2:04 pm

    They don’t need to talk anything, we can judge it by ourselves, stop making fool around and treat the “rakyat” as 3 years old kids

  4. #4 by sotong on Monday, 24 September 2007 - 2:11 pm

    The best interest of the Non Malays, moderate Malays and the country as a whole lies in the Constitution.

    There are abviously hidden agenda by some politicians who are prepared to cause enormous harm to the country and her ordinary people with their narrow, shallow and damaging politics.

  5. #5 by lakshy on Monday, 24 September 2007 - 2:45 pm

    But the Cabinet wont do anything because it will support PM’s choice!

    Hopefully the Rulers reject the extension!

  6. #6 by lakshy on Monday, 24 September 2007 - 3:00 pm

    I remember watching the CJ deny over TV3 news that there was any judge with more than 30 unwritten judgements. So there are records of this denial on tape. When I heard his denial the first thing that came to my mind was “Yea right! The judge probably has 27-28 unwritten judgements”. And he was playing with words.

    Imagine my shock the next day when NSt reported that the judge had 35 unwritten judgements, and they go back years! Thats not the end of the story. The CJ had the cheek then to deny that he had denied that any judge had more than 30 unwritten judgements!

    The traits of a judge should be honesty, integrity, and ability to carry out his duties without fear or favour.

    Does our current CJ have any of these traits? Should he be extended?

    I hope the Rulers do not let this happen!

  7. #7 by sonicwall on Monday, 24 September 2007 - 3:13 pm

    Uncle Kit

    Can you please let the Rakyat know if JUDICIAL Chief Justice Ahmad report to the EXECUTIVE De facto law minister Mohd Nazri Abdul Aziz? Where is the separation of power of Judicial and Executive?

    De facto law minister Mohd Nazri Abdul Aziz said he issued a denial on behalf of the chief justice in relation to the explosive ‘Lingam tape’ revelations because “I am his minister”.

  8. #8 by Godfather on Monday, 24 September 2007 - 3:15 pm

    Nazri is one of those in UMNO who have the distinction of having a mouth which is faster than his brain. As a lawyer by training, and a member of the den of thieves by profession, he should know that once you start spinning lies, you will trip on your deceit. One will always remember the truth, but one is unlikely to be able to remember his/her lies.


  9. #9 by Bigjoe on Monday, 24 September 2007 - 3:42 pm

    It boggles the mind how dim and arrogant Nazri is. Now he says that Lingam calling him is OK because he is his minister clearly implying the judicial is subserviant to the executive and that is all and fine.

    I tell you, we live in an elected Sultanate.

  10. #10 by Bigjoe on Monday, 24 September 2007 - 3:42 pm

    Sorry I meant Fairuz calling Nazri in the above

  11. #11 by grace on Monday, 24 September 2007 - 5:18 pm

    You can simply ignore this donkey Nazri. He is worst than my fishmonger friends who are more ntelligent than him.

    I am disappointed that the bar counsel did not take actions to strike this lingam out from the bar.

  12. #12 by Rocky on Monday, 24 September 2007 - 5:21 pm

    This Nazri guy is a joke.and a liar as well which is clear.

    Sick govt, sick ministers.

  13. #13 by undergrad2 on Monday, 24 September 2007 - 5:32 pm

    Let it not distract us from the real issue. Now the issue seems to be did the CJ actually call the Minister to deny his involvement?

    To me that is a non-issue. Apparently it is the Minister taking the initiative to defuse the explosive situation. The CJ knows better than to contact him to deny. But then I could be wrong. But I don’t think so.

    Surely now that the Minister has spoken on his behalf, the CJ is not about to issue a public statement to deny ever contacting the Minister!

  14. #14 by grace on Monday, 24 September 2007 - 5:33 pm

    Third class minister, withPak Lah being the head!!!

  15. #15 by undergrad2 on Monday, 24 September 2007 - 5:38 pm

    The aftermath of the revelation is damage control. It will all be about damage control. They are not interested in anything else. They are just hoping it will blow away and business will be as usual.

    Calling for the setting up of the tribunal as called for under the Constitution is one thing, but delaying in calling or refusing to call a member of their own to make his defense in the face of allegations would make the Bar Council criminally negligent.

  16. #16 by pwcheng on Monday, 24 September 2007 - 5:41 pm

    UMNO seems to be the bulwark for all their high level thieves, corrupts, cheats, spinners and twisters. It has already descended to this level and they still think the people are unable to do anything. These [deleted] thinks that they are in a invincible.

  17. #17 by mata_kucing on Monday, 24 September 2007 - 5:41 pm

    Good one, Uncle Lim. I also want to know how did Nazri know it was Fairuz on the phone with him? And not my grandmother? Or perhaps the murdered Mogolian girl?

    The silence from the CJ is defending indeed. They must be working their brains overtime to come up with incredible lies as always. Nazri says that he gave a press statement on behalf of the CJ because he is his boss. If the Lingamgate story is proven true, I hope Nazri is man enough to resign from his position, taking Fairuz with him. I’m not holding my breath though.

  18. #18 by undergrad2 on Monday, 24 September 2007 - 5:45 pm

    Malaysians understand that the third pillar of government has lost some or even much of its independence over the last two decades. But what the Lingam tape confirms is that this last bastion of democracy has finally fallen into the hands of the Executive. It is no longer about independence of the Judiciary but about the Judiciary being a tool of the Executive. Such is the seriousness of the issue.

    The country has long been sliding down the slippery slopes towards Executive tyranny.

  19. #19 by undergrad2 on Monday, 24 September 2007 - 6:01 pm

    It is pointless directing our anger at this Minister because we know what he is all about. Perhaps that is even what he wants because it would help take some of the heat away. The media should stop taking his statements and we should stop responding to his statements – and concentrate on the real work.

    Pressure should be kept on this BN run government until they can no longer deny that there was anything wrong, that the tape has yet to be authenticated and there is no word from V.K. Lingam. Surely he has a lawyer and a statement should have been issued by now. He has a brother Siva who is also a lawyer. Take a statement from him as to the whereabouts of his brother.

    Keep up the pressure with public calls and assemblies and demonstrations participated by pressure groups. This issue is not about corrupt lawyers and corrupt judges. It is much more than that. It is about a government which does not respect the rights of its citizens. It is about a system riddled with corruption and abuse of power which has gone wild. It is about self serving politicians who have no respect for the rule of law.

  20. #20 by k1980 on Monday, 24 September 2007 - 6:32 pm

  21. #21 by ADAM YONG IBNI ABDULLAH on Monday, 24 September 2007 - 8:05 pm



    AS NAZRI HAD CLEARLY STATED THAT HE IS THE MINISTER RESPONSIBLE FOR THE JUDGE , you may hereby declare in Parliament and throughout the world that :-





    rest my case.

  22. #22 by taikohtai on Monday, 24 September 2007 - 8:13 pm

    “If you tell the truth, you don’t have to remember anything.” — Mark Twain
    Carpe Diem Uncle Kit!

  23. #23 by straight talk on Monday, 24 September 2007 - 9:54 pm

    My! My! is this guy for real. Ahmad Fairuz has suddenly gone dumb.. and Nazri is his spokesman. This truly reflects the scandalous state of the judiciary. Nazri has just confirmed that the rakyat who are serious about the future of Malaysia, may it be the judiciary, the election process or the NEP has to go out and do what we have to do. You are a great liar.

  24. #24 by pwcheng on Monday, 24 September 2007 - 10:03 pm

    There is already something sinister when Nazri has to respond on behalf of the chief judge whereby it would only be appropriate for the individual to speak out loud his denial if it is not him. It is simply not right to go through a third party as the judiciary is a pillar by itself . By such doing it is already an indication that the judiciary and the executives are working hand in gloves and that itself is already and indication on the state of our judiciary. Simultaneously the chief judge by going through a third party to voice his denial means that he is now in a confused state and try to issue an emergency remedy to save himself and the government and just in case somebody can come up with prove that it is him, he can always say that Nazri has misinterpreted him ( as this trick has worked well for UMNO) as mitigation.

    The rakyat has really no where to go for arbitration and we must be ready for the long march with the support of the monarchy.

  25. #25 by pwcheng on Tuesday, 25 September 2007 - 12:31 am

    We all know that there are a lot of misfeasance committed by these UMNO clowns. If you look at history most of them had shit all over them and that is why they need to control the legislative, judiciary, ACA and police so that nobody can touch them and they can do what they like as in return they will also offer protection to all those who protected them. Our system of democracy will make all of us crazy. The spin of “I scratch your back you scratch mine” has worked very well for all those evils.
    They will conveniently close one eye or even both the eyes as far as the rakyat’s sufferings are concerned. Their hardened abuse of power has left them no feelings for the people and what they want is the continuity of corruption and all their evil doings to prosper thyself and uplift their status so that they can enhanced their abuse of power.

  26. #26 by chaiong on Tuesday, 25 September 2007 - 12:33 am

    Mr. Anwar, where is your Part 2 of your Lingamgate? release it ! I want to see that this Abang-adek drown in the Tsunami!

  27. #27 by Jeffrey on Tuesday, 25 September 2007 - 12:49 am

    After the first shock, it is plain as to what course of action I would, if I were the government, will and should take.

    If the clip/tape were not real, there would be hell to pay for those who blew up this issue : they are guilty of undermining the public confidence in the judiciary – this is a grave offence, a sedition – and should be severely punished.

    However, if the clip/tape were for real that actually recorded the conversation between the lawyer power broker and the ‘senior judge’, then all attempts would be directed at damage control, firstly, for the same reason that the government cannot afford public confidence in the judiciary and administration of justice to be undermined by this incident and, secondly, for the reason that they take care of their own kind no matter how wrong the mistake made. [One of the reasons that has kept them in power is the absolute allegiance and loyalty of their members to the party’s cause and those helping them to stay in power. This is because of the prevailing feudalistic norms and mindsets : protection is granted always in exchange for loyalty. Loyalty (of the absolute and blind kind) is prized more important than all other virtues, including even honesty, let alone judicial propriety. (One recalls In the Hikayat, folk hero, Hang Tuah’s fatal stabbing of Hang Jebat has been cited as the example par excellence of loyalty to the state superseding loyalty to his friend].

    In the premises, even if a judge has done wrong, he has to be protected at all costs in consideration of his absolute loyalty present and past. So too an ACA director alleged to be corrupt; or an MP who abused power by telling the immigration official to “close one eye” or another local chieftain who controlled the municipal council, built restaurant or mansion without municipal approval, and so on….

    For damage control, it is most fortunate that the person speaking to the lawyer was not taped, and neither was what he said audible in the clip except for what may be deduced by listeners and readers based only on “context” of what the lawyer said.

    So the best course is to deny, deny and deny. The worst that could come from denial is to get contradicted by evidence in the future and proven a liar but that would not be very much worse than if one were to admit guilt to be the person at the outset. At least denial offers a hope. One can strongly suspect but that is still an element of doubt for so long as there is no admission. (Ask any married man suspected by his wife to have had an affair. Deny deny and deny. That’s best policy. Once you admit, you are finished!

    Nest question, then why through an intermediary, a member of the executive (a minister), at that, to channel one’s denial?

    Again it is plain to see why. How the executive advises and responds publicly is an indication whether protection (in exchange for loyalty) is forthcoming and honoured. If denial were made public via the executive branch, it implies that the executive confirms protection and will share the responsibility of upholding and defending one’s denial!

    One other thing left to be done is not to pursue an extension of the contract of service when it expires soon. The extension hence will not be granted.

    This alone is not suggestive or an admission of culpability and guilt.

    Again it is plain to see why. A judge should, by the nature of his exalted position, not be mired in public controversy, and the moment that such a controversy exists, then – never mind that the controversy has no basis – there is still a good reason for him to retire and not to seek an extension. No extension does not prejudge or suggest or imply in any way, guilt or that the controversy has any factual basis or that any of the allegations is true – but the fact that there is controversy (rightly or wrongly) per se, there is already justification to end the judge’s tenure without predetermining the contentious public issue of whether there was guilt.…..

    Now once the judge (mired in controversy) abstains from seeking an extension of his tenure, the controversy will die a natural death because the very person accused of compromising judicial independence is no more sitting in that chair for the controversy to continue…

    In the same manner, what is there to investigate allegations against an ex ACA chief when his contract of service was not renewed?

    Public controversy relating to an official who retires from his position has a limited life span to sustain interest. After all, there is no shortage of other controversies in the Malaysian scene that keep on unfolding every other week to keep public attention riveted!

    No investigation – no embarrassment – no guilt – no punishment : that is the crux of protection extended if one’s loyal supporter had inadvertantly taken a misstep, a small gesture in exchange for his loyalty. To err is human – to be loyal is divine, and to reciprocaqte by extending protection is the feudal way, to keep every member committed in the feudal patronage system.

    But what to do with the lawyer caught on the tape/clip? Everyone who knows him could testify whether it was him, his voice and way of speaking, so it is harder to deny. So if one does not deny that he was the one speaking on the phone caught in clip, what is he going to say when asked who was on the other side of the line? Surely implicating another in same feudalistic fraternity is a great sin – equally to suggest that one is merely talking to himself or play acting a monologue is also suggestive of temporary insanity, which is a sin to one self.

    So the better way is to stay away for a longer period until way after the other has vacated his seat and left government service by natural expiry of contract, then return when things have simmered down. Then when posed the question, “who was it?”, just say “no comment loh”.

    There is no point of incriminating or, conversely absolving or exonerating anyone because by then the subject matter of contention is no more there. What is important is for the wounds of the controversy to heal for the nation’s good – and the truth, either way, need not be said in the interest of public confidence in the judiciary. Any action by the Bar Council is also no big issue : a suspension is not an issue because one has other lawyers working and standing in for him during period of suspension. Even if one’s license to practice is revoked permanently, it is also no big deal for obviously one who is already rich does not need legal practice for bread and butter.

    Alls well that ends well.

  28. #28 by art-upon-mu on Tuesday, 25 September 2007 - 1:08 am

    I say, this is the special month. Let’s forgive and forget. Let’s let life goes on as usual and not rock the boat. Let’s follow our usual Malaysian style. Be happy.

  29. #29 by Jeffrey on Tuesday, 25 September 2007 - 1:10 am

    “How is Nazri sure that it was Ahmad Fairuz who had spoken to him by phone and not an impersonator” – YB LKS.

    That’s a dangerous question that could cut both way because Nazri could also equally ask, how can LKS be sure that it was Ahmad Fairuz who had spoken to V K Lingam by phone and not an impersonator!

  30. #30 by sheriff singh on Tuesday, 25 September 2007 - 2:39 am

    Anwar, who has the full 14 minutres tape, says it is indeed the Chief Justice Ahmad Fairuz and has named him in his statement. The tape was shortened to protect the identity of its maker.

    I think if one can accept that the tape is indeed authentic and can rely on Anwar’s words, then Fairuz it is. If it is not Fairuz or if there is any doubt, then I believe Anwar would not have named him as he would then be sued.

    Anway, it is surprising that Fairuz has remained silent. Perhaps he is on medical leave overseas and will come back after two weeks, exonerated and forgiven like a particular Minister. And everything would have died down and forgotten.

    Anybody remember anything about the Auditor General’s report last two weeks? See?

  31. #31 by undergrad2 on Tuesday, 25 September 2007 - 8:02 am

    “If it is not Fairuz or if there is any doubt, then I believe Anwar would not have named him as he would then be sued.”

    The same reason why a tabloid would welcome a lawsuit from the party or parties who claim they are being defamed. The difference is the tabloid would have the resources to meet the claim for damages. Anwar does not appear to have those. But Anwar knows he is unlikely to be challenged. The rest of us welcome a lawsuit by the CJ for obvious reasons.

    “…how can LKS be sure that it was Ahmad Fairuz who had spoken to V K Lingam by phone and not an impersonator!”

    We hope Fairuz would put the matter to rest.

  32. #32 by Jeffrey on Tuesday, 25 September 2007 - 9:05 am

    Actually two top judges got into public controversy in realyion to Lingam, the earlier being Eusoffe Chin whose photograph with the lawyer in New Zealand was circulated on the Internet.

    Nothing much also happened in that earlier case. Eusoff responded with a press conference showing his bills and receipts for the New Zealand trip, and threatening to sue anyone who alleged that someone else had paid for his vacation. He said he had merely bumped into Lingam in New Zealand: “I was going to the zoo and he asked, ‘Could I tag along?” Eusoff denied that then new minister in the Prime Minister’s Department, Rais Yatim, overseeing legal affairs had prior discussed the New Zealand holiday with him. Eusofee was subsequently investigated and cleared by Malaysia’s Anti-Corruption Agency (under PM Mahthir’s portfolio). Eusoff was then given a six months’ extension at his job. Bar Council took disciplinary action against Lingam based on breach of article 31 of the Legal Profession (Practice and Etiquette) Rules 1978 and that his actions tantamount to misconduct under Legal Profession Act. Lingam appealed to High Court against the disciplinary action on technical grounds that that if the Bar Council was a complainant of his conduct then the president of the Bar Council or his alternate would be disqualified person from sitting as a member of the disciplinary board, and since names of members of the disciplinary Tribunal were not revealed to him, his rights had been violated – a point that the High Court presided by judges Azmel Maamor, Zulkefli Ahmad Makinuddin and Zainun Ali agreed as a basis to allow the appeal in favour of Lingam.

  33. #33 by 1eyecls on Tuesday, 25 September 2007 - 9:51 am

    certain things can be pardon,certain things cannot be pardon!
    these “maaf zahir batin” malay cultures had rescued many ppl from being prosecuted!myself close all the court houses in malaysia this ramadhan month to celebrate this ”good ‘culture!

    that’s why,i did mention before,they tipu,rogol,rompak,rasuah,bunuh,and if they were to be prosecuted ,especially this month,they will dressedd up their own costumes,pakai teludung,pakai songkot,………asking for pardon!and you will find that most of the time,they are forgived!

  34. #34 by wtf2 on Tuesday, 25 September 2007 - 9:57 am

    when the butt mouth speaks you can be pretty sure it’s under sleeping beauty’s direction.

  35. #35 by peng on Tuesday, 25 September 2007 - 4:48 pm

    Enough of the ‘wayang kulit’. For us ‘powerless’ rakyat, our power lies in our votes. Let it do the talking because no matter how much noise we make, we are regarded as empty vessels.
    For the government, ‘no pain, no gain’; let them learn through the hard way and not take us for fools anymore.

  36. #36 by 1eyecls on Tuesday, 25 September 2007 - 10:34 pm

    nowadays,we hardly find judges like PAO QING TIAN,Attorney General,Chief Judge,Chief Justice(justice?),IGP,ACA Chief,Custom Chief,they are all related to each other!


  37. #37 by undergrad2 on Wednesday, 26 September 2007 - 3:58 am

    Thanks for the info, Jeffery QC. So V.K. escaped on technicalitites then?? How convenient.

  38. #38 by verbal-lash on Thursday, 27 September 2007 - 1:31 pm

    Really sick and fed-up of all the stupidity that this Nazri is churning out! Arrogant, brainless (IQ of a toad) and a lump of incompetence. Is there anyway we can all tell Nazri what we think of him through an email?

You must be logged in to post a comment.