Lingam Tape – Haidar, Mahadev, Lam Thye should return inquiry panel appointment letters to Najib “for the sake of Malaysia”


The three-man Haidar Inquiry into the authenticity of the Lingam Tape yesterday asked the person who recorded it and others who have relevant information to come forward “for the sake of Malaysia”.

Panel member and former Court of Appeal judge said: “Somebody out there (has) the original video. Does he have the responsibility (to come forward)? There may have been others who were there (during the incident). Have they got the responsibility?

“If you don’t come, don’t complain, because at the end of the day, our report is based on the material made available to us.”

It is the three panel members Tan Sri Haidar Mohamad Noor, Datuk Mahadev Shanker and Tan Sri Lee Lam Thye who should set the example of acting “For the sake of Malaysia” by returning their letters of appointment to the Deputy Prime Minister, Datuk Seri Najib Razak to ask for the establishment of a Royal Commission of Inquiry into the Lingam Tape, the allegations of the perversion of the course of justice concerning the fixing of judicial appointments and the fixing of court judgments as well as into the 19-year rot in the judiciary.

With the declaration of five “No”s — no power to administer oaths, no power to compel witnesses to come forward, no power to commit anybody for contempt, no immunity under the law and no power to protect witnesses, the Haidar panel is swiftly degenerating from a farce into a joke.

It is balderdash to plead “The truth is the best armour, justice is the best protection” or to trot out philosophical arguments about “the power of the powerless” as counterpoint to the absence of protection for witnesses who appear before the panel.

If all the judges at all levels of the judiciary in the past 19 years had been guided by the noble objective “For the sake of Malaysia” and the principle that “the truth is the best armour, justice is the best protection”, the system of justice and national and international credibility in the independence, integrity and meritocracy of the judiciary would not have plunged to such a sorry state with one judicial crisis after another in the past 19 years.

What happened to a courageous judge, Justice Syed Ahmad Idid Syed Abdullah who in 1996 tried the blow the whistle in his 33-page anonymous letter containing 112 allegations of corruption, abuses of power and misconduct against 12 judges?

Is the government seriously concerned in wanting to establish the authenticity of the Lingam Tape? Is the government really committed to restoring national and international confidence in the independence, integrity and meritocracy of the judiciary in setting up the Haidar panel inquiry?

Why then is the government not prepared to establish the Haidar Inquiry under the Commission of Inquiry Act to give protection to witnesses or at least come out with a policy statement by the Attorney-General Tan Sri Gani Patail that in the national interest, no one will be prosecuted or suffer adverse consequences for any information or testimony presented to the inquiry panel?

Can Malaysians be blamed for being skeptical about the government’s bona fides, when the government cannot rebut two overpowering arguments:

  • Cabinet Ministers are only concerned about the technical aspect about the authenticity of the Lingam Tape — i.e. whether the government can find the excuse not to do anything on the ground that there is doubt about its authenticity – while being completely oblivious to the grave and even more substantive issue about the perversion of the course of justice in the fixing of judicial appointment and fixing of judicial decisions; and
  • Total denial complex about the 19-year plunge in national and international confidence in the independence, integrity and meritocracy of the Malaysian judiciary.

The supreme example of acting “For the sake of Malaysia” under the principle “The truth is the best armour, justice is the best protection” is for all the three panel members to end the charade of the panel inquiry into the authenticity of the Lingam Tape and to convey in the strongest possible terms to the Prime Minister that what is urgently needed for the country is a Royal Commission of Inquiry both into the Lingam Tape scandal and the 19-year rot in the system of justice in Malaysia which has gravely undermined Malaysia’s international competitiveness.

Mahadev had made a contentious statement when he said: “Don’t throw stones at us until we have finished our inquiry.”

I presume I am one such “stone-thrower” as I had questioned the suitability, credibility and legitimacy of Haidar’s appointment as Chairman and member of the inquiry panel in view of his far-from-honourable role in the 1988 “mother-of-all-judicial crisis” when he was Chief Registrar of Supreme Court leading to the sacking of Tun Salleh Abas as Lord President and Datuk George Seah and the late Tan Sri Wan Suleiman Pawanteh as Supreme Court judges.

Datuk Param Cumaraswamy, former UN special rapporteur on the independence of judges and lawyers and immediate past president of the Bar Council during the 1988 judicial crisis, recently revealed a 19-year secret that he had approached the then Acting Lord President Tun Hamid Omar to withdraw from chairing a tribunal that led to the removal of his boss Tun Salleh Abas.

Param revealed in a recent forum:

“We went to see Hamid to advise him not to accept the position for the obvious reason that he was next in line. I advised Hamid ‘please don’t (accept), you will cause a very ugly embarrassment to the judiciary.

“His (Hamid’s) response was ‘Param, if I don’t accept, I will be sacked. If I am sacked, will you or your Bar Council compensate my losses of remuneration?'”

Is Haidar motivated by similar considerations in refusing to decline his appointment on the panel inquiry?

Haidar has said that his “conscience is clear” on his role in the 1988 Judicial Crisis. If so, why is Haidar fighting shy of fully accounting for his “honourable reasons” in the infamous judicial events in 1988?

Would Hamid admit to a “troubled conscience” for his role in the sacking of Salleh Abas as Lord President and Datuk George Seah and Tan Sri Wan Suleiman Pawanteh as Supreme Court judges and would it be in order for Hamid to chair an inquiry to restore national and international confidence in the independence, integrity and meritocracy of the Malaysian judiciary?

  1. #1 by k1980 on Thursday, 4 October 2007 - 11:24 am

    The five “No”s –
    no power to administer oaths,
    no power to compel witnesses to come forward,
    no power to commit anybody for contempt,
    no immunity under the law and
    no power to protect witnesses
    will soon be implemented in Malaysian courts

  2. #2 by citizen on Thursday, 4 October 2007 - 11:44 am

    The so called independent panel is not really independent because they couldn’t even decide for themselves what to do. All instructions come from the top government. It is indeed a government inquiry panel and not an independent panel.

    In cases like this, the authencity of the tape should not be the limit of the investigation of the panel. It should go beyond that but not limited to charging the criminals.

    So what if they find out later the tape is indeed real. I’m begining to doubt if they even have the power to seige telephone records from phone companies, request Lingam and the said datuk to surrender their handphones, personal computers, etc to assist in the investigation.

    This is high crime, why aren’t they doing this? But a UPM student suspected of having porn materials in his notebook had all his personal properties seized?

    Different people with different status different type of treatment?

    It is clearly government driven, and I can guess what the government is going to do even if the tape is real, those crooks will stay untouchable.

  3. #3 by citizen on Thursday, 4 October 2007 - 11:47 am

    …. the panel has even less power compared to the security guards in University Putra Malaysia, so what’s the use? This is all bullshit!

  4. #4 by sotong on Thursday, 4 October 2007 - 12:02 pm

    Nothing is spared from the damaging politics to maintain total control at all costs.

    When the integrity and independence of the judiciary is in doubt, nobody is safe.

  5. #5 by RealWorld on Thursday, 4 October 2007 - 12:10 pm

    Lee Lam Thye in the panel, ok la. After all, the man was in DAP once.

  6. #6 by helpless on Thursday, 4 October 2007 - 12:33 pm

    helpless Says:

    May be another way to get it resolve – public reward.

    If the cabinet not allocate monetary reward to catch “those who consider tarnish the image of the government”, collection from public, Malaysian … to punish those “team member”.

    October 4th, 2007 at 12: 13.48
    mwt Says:

    October 3rd, 2007 at 21: 34.04
    “… faced the first Protest from PKR led members demanding a Royal Commission of Inquiry & Rejecting the Independent Panel. ….

    May all member consider alternative… File a petition of non confidence & propose LKS or Anwar be in the panel … can get first hand info. as how the panel could be influence by……

    Probably we could see truth of other ” mystery”

  7. #7 by HJ Angus on Thursday, 4 October 2007 - 12:39 pm

    Most people when they practise damage control come up with some good measures.

    Sadly this independent panel set-up does nothing to instill confidence.
    http://malaysiawatch3.blogspot.com/2007/10/no-power-no-authority-no-results.html

  8. #8 by Jong on Thursday, 4 October 2007 - 12:41 pm

    OK la graduating from DAP, but somehow lost his spine post graduating at ummmm-No.

  9. #9 by ktteokt on Thursday, 4 October 2007 - 12:56 pm

    I thought bankrupts are not supposed to be appointed for judicial or even “quasi judicial” posts, so why is someone who is “spiritually bankrupt” put on a panel of inquiry as a “pengadil”?

  10. #10 by Godfather on Thursday, 4 October 2007 - 12:58 pm

    Reporting to the ACA and to the den of thieves is the last thing I would do for the sake of preservation of self-dignity.

    What price justice ? What price transparency ? What price the future of Bolehland ?

  11. #11 by Godfather on Thursday, 4 October 2007 - 1:00 pm

    How can they work with the bunch of thieves whose operating slogan is CEMERLANG, GEMILANG, TEMBERANG ?

  12. #12 by Jong on Thursday, 4 October 2007 - 1:10 pm

    Haida was reported to have said the three-member team has ‘limited power’ or no power. So what the heck are they there for? Don’t they have any self-worth?

    Just quit idiots!

  13. #13 by taikohtai on Thursday, 4 October 2007 - 1:28 pm

    We need real investigators here. How about inviting some no nonsense Mak Sallehs from Britain – and set them on the trail?
    BN is tikus ka? Looks like the Lingam fella is too smart and calling the shots all the way to even the Prime Ministership.

  14. #14 by dawsheng on Thursday, 4 October 2007 - 1:28 pm

    “If you don’t come, don’t complain, because at the end of the day, our report is based on the material made available to us.”

    Yep, farce becoming a joke indeed. Uncle Kit, the way I see it, Fairuz will just have to retire because of this and that’s all, we can’t expect him to be sentence to jail. There is not going to be a case judging by the above statement. The birth of the “Lingam” Tape is soon going to be dead in the Hairdar panel but I think the opposition epecially Anwar has got what they want by causing considerable damages to the credibility of BN. My opinion is a second and bigger “walk for justice” is neccessary, and the Bar Council should play the neccessary part once more, and once and for all.

  15. #15 by sheriff singh on Thursday, 4 October 2007 - 1:36 pm

    The 3 members panel’s Vision and Mission Statement and their Core Values

    (1) – no power to administer oaths,

    (2) – no power to compel witnesses to come forward,

    (3) – no power to commit anybody for contempt,

    (4) – no immunity under the law,

    (5) – no power to protect witnesses,

    (6) – NO!!!

    (7) – Absolutely Not!!

    (8) – No! No! No!

    (9) – No! is the way forward.

    (10) – No case.

  16. #16 by Bigjoe on Thursday, 4 October 2007 - 1:38 pm

    What disturbs me is the assumption of ignorance of the public part by this process. The side-show is for those who don’t understand the nuances of the issue. It assumes that those who understand and a minority is powerless to do anything.

    The PM is being highly irresponsible by allowing this sideshow to continue. How can he ask Malaysians especially the bumis to shoot for excellence when he encourage the elites to engage in such lowly behaviour? We tell our children, shoot for the best but then we hypocritically behave otherwise. Ultimately, all we do is lose the respect of our children who will ultimately also be lost.

  17. #17 by sheriff singh on Thursday, 4 October 2007 - 1:42 pm

    “His (Hamid’s) response was ‘Param, if I don’t accept, I will be sacked. If I am sacked, will you or your Bar Council compensate my losses of remuneration?”

    That’s how it is. Then and now.

    All judges have to toe the line as otherwise they will lose out financially. They also will not get their “Tun”, “Tan Sri” and “Datuk” titles. And they will not get promoted.

    So how to be independent and deliver justice without fear or favour?

    So is the Judiciary an independent organ?

  18. #18 by k1980 on Thursday, 4 October 2007 - 1:43 pm

    If you complain too much, Najib might replace the 3 stooges in the panel with 3 new internationally-renowned members viz Osama Laden, Robert Mugabe and Kim Jong Il

  19. #19 by dawsheng on Thursday, 4 October 2007 - 1:53 pm

    The purpose of the Malaysian Bar shall be –

    (a) to uphold the cause of justice without regard to its own interests or that of its members, uninfluenced by fear or favour;

    (b) to maintain and improve the standards of conduct and learning of the legal profession in Malaysia;

    (c) to facilitate the acquisition of legal knowledge by members of the legal profession and others;

    (d) where requested so to do, to express its view on matters affecting legislation and the administration and practice of the law in Malaysia;

    (e) to represent, protect and assist members or of the legal profession in Malaysia and to promote in any proper manner the interests of the legal profession in Malaysia;

    (f) to establish libraries and to acquire or rent premises to house the libraries and offices of the Malaysian Bar or amenities for the use of members either alone or in conjunction with any other body or society;

    (g) to protect and assist the public in all matters touching ancillary or incidental to the law;

    (h) to make provision for or assist in the promotion of a scheme whereby impecunious persons may be represented by advocates and solicitors;

    (i) to award prizes and scholarships and to establish and subsidise lecturership in educational institutions in subjects of study relating to law;

    (j) to grant pecuniary or other assistance to any association, institute, board or society in Malaysia in the interest of the legal profession or of the law students;

    (k) to afford pecuniary and other assistance to members or former members of the Malaysian Bar and to the wives, widows, children and other dependants, whether of members, former members or deceased members who are in need of any such assistance;

    (l) to promote good relations and social intercourse amongst members and between members and other persons concerned in the administration of law and justice in Malaysia;

    (m) to encourage, establish and maintain good relations with professional bodies of the legal profession in other countries and to participate in the activities of any local or international association and become a member thereof; and

    (n) to establish a Compensation Fund.

  20. #20 by helpless on Thursday, 4 October 2007 - 2:33 pm

    Jeffrey Says:
    October 2nd, 2007 at 10: 08.07
    “.. Imagine a good and hardworking lawyer, after all his reserach into the cases,…. he loses the case because the opponent lawyer or client has a thing going on with the judge …where there’s corruption higher up… bribe of say (RM500) to the court clerk to lose the judge’s file everytime the hearing is scheduled……”

    Only 2,000 lawyers march for justice, where is the others ?

    Simple equation ———>
    Corruption = Supporter ( Must exist)
    Supporter = Malaysian ( Voter)
    Malaysian = Majority (BN supporter)

    Why ?
    1. Poverty = hard up for $$$$

    2. Easy way to get more $$$$

    Question is how to convince those at kampong to resist small $ support out of the corruption?

    Next question is how to make Malaysian to resist easy $$$$$$$ ?

    No answer – no solution!

  21. #21 by RealWorld on Thursday, 4 October 2007 - 2:39 pm

    “OK la graduating from DAP, but somehow lost his spine post graduating at ummmm-No.” – Jong

    Dont say like that la, bro. LLT was formerly your comrade in DAP. The man has done well for himself.

  22. #22 by Justicewanted on Thursday, 4 October 2007 - 2:42 pm

    “If you don’t come, don’t complain, because at the end of the day, our report is based on the material made available to us.”

    —————————————————
    Three office “boys” working for the government sitting down collecting information.

    How much info can they collect?

    Can the informers be assure of any protection or being blacklisted instead?

    How fair the report will be?

  23. #23 by Libra2 on Thursday, 4 October 2007 - 2:42 pm

    I wont throw stones. I will throw s**t at Haidar and Lee LamThye – the turncoat.

  24. #24 by RealWorld on Thursday, 4 October 2007 - 2:44 pm

    “What price justice ? What price transparency ? What price the future of Bolehland ?” – Godfather

    Dude, calm down la. Why do much anger and all?

    If you say no transparency, no justice and no future etc, then vote BN out la. In a democracy, as a voter you have the power of choice la. The rakyat is the judge and they will decide, right?

    You lot in the Opposition must offer to the rakyat something tangible la other than that wishy washy marriage of convenience.

  25. #25 by RealWorld on Thursday, 4 October 2007 - 2:45 pm

    “I wont throw stones. I will throw s**t at Haidar and Lee LamThye – the turncoat.” – Libra2

    Come on la, dont be so emotional. LLT is your fellow comrade before la.

  26. #26 by Jimm on Thursday, 4 October 2007 - 2:56 pm

    We all know that the BN government have consider that this case is ‘closed’. The moment they selected these 3 heroes, we all knew that their balls are being held tightly by BN people.
    All three have given a lifeline when they are completely a loser back then.
    Even today, all those high flyers in government bodies and all those retired key people that are now holding high profile seats in various companies , actually owes the people in BN a lifetime favor.
    It’s only in the matter of time that BN will claim back from them.
    We cannot fight this system anymore.

  27. #27 by dawsheng on Thursday, 4 October 2007 - 3:04 pm

    The Bar Council must demonstrates that they are an able body set up for the intended purposes, that the council is determine the right way the judiciary is to be practice in Malaysia, or else how can they functions as lawyers when the justice is suspiciously corrupt to the core? Can the Bar Council, which suppose to uphold justice, continues to live with the open secrets that the judiciary in our country is a sham and it has been since 1998? Is this Limgan a member of the Bar Council? There must be some kind of action towards this practising lawyer by now. If there should be any kind of further action to be taken by the Bar Council, it is late by almost 10 years. The Bar Council must bears responsibility to make sure that the judiciary is back on track!

  28. #28 by waterman on Thursday, 4 October 2007 - 3:18 pm

    Yup, lets call out with one voice for a Royal Commission. March to the Istana if need be, all FOR THE SAKE OF MALAYSIA!

  29. #29 by boh-liao on Thursday, 4 October 2007 - 3:29 pm

    “In modern business it is not the crook who is to be feared most, it is the (so-called) honest man who doesn’t know what he is doing.” Pablo Casals

  30. #30 by dawsheng on Thursday, 4 October 2007 - 3:30 pm

    “It is balderdash to plead “The truth is the best armour, justice is the best protection” or to trot out philosophical arguments about “the power of the powerless” as counterpoint to the absence of protection for witnesses who appear before the panel.”

    The case here is not whether some form of protections are needed for the safety of witnesses, the case here is even though witness protection is guaranteed you won’t take it. Nobody dares under our circumstances where for the sake of Malaysia, let us finished you so we can case closed.

  31. #31 by waterman on Thursday, 4 October 2007 - 3:43 pm

    Its sickening to watch people who are supposed to command our highest respects and regards being reduced to playing “tai chi” to play time.

    Cut the non sense and call in a Royal Commission FOR THE SAKE OF MALAYSIA, Datuk Mahadev will you please!

  32. #32 by dawsheng on Thursday, 4 October 2007 - 3:54 pm

    The immediate action is to call for Chief Justice Fairuz resignation, no two way about it. Fairuz must resign in order to facilitate investigation. The Bar Council must press for this, is the only way and everyone know that.

  33. #33 by Jeffrey on Thursday, 4 October 2007 - 4:04 pm

    Mahadev Shanker said “Don’t throw the stones at us until we have finished our enquiry…”

    This is strange, to say the least, because it is the so-called Special ‘Independent’ Panel of 3 who invite the stones to be thrown at it by openly admitting “We have no power to administer oaths, no power to compel witnesses to come forward, no power to commit anybody for contempt, no power to protect witnesses ” which was highlighted on the front page of New Straits Times of 4th October – an admission that establishes its inherent limitations to ferret out and ascertain the truth of the video clip, since obviously Shanker’s declaration of conscience, good faith and honesty would not suffice in view of (1) Haidar’s chairing such a panel in spite of being allegedly implicated in the ignominious judicial crisis in 1988 of which his best rebuttal was only “I don’t want to enter into an argument. There is no point, there is no end to it” and (2) Haidar’s saying that the Panel had no plan to call the principal actor of the drama, Lingam, to testify before it whether the video clip was authentic!

    If there was an attempt to white-wash the scandal at damage control, the appointment of such a “toothless” panel – that even declares publicly its own limitations in getting evidence and thus constraints at ascertaining the truth at the outset – is a joke and farce of considerable proportion.

    It would have been a better pretext for the government to advise the Yang di-Pertuan Agong to appoint a Royal Commission and try to emplace in such a Commission, members of some public credibility who either are UMNO members (eg Datuk Said Ibrahim or Tun Musa Hitam) or who, at the very least, are not anti-establishment or have any antipathy towards the ruling party.

  34. #34 by waterman on Thursday, 4 October 2007 - 4:17 pm

    From Mkini
    http://www.malaysiakini.com/news/73202

    “After a four-hour meeting with ministry officials in Parliament today, PAC chairperson and MP for Johor Bahru Shahrir Samad said that a lack of supervision from ministry officials has resulted in overspending the budget allocated for the project.

    The ministry officials were led by secretary-general Mohd Yasin Salleh.

    Shahrir urged the Finance Ministry to find ways to impose surcharge on officials who were responsible for the purchases.”
    ————————
    After managing the country for 50 years, how can you let us citizens swallow a simple excuse of “a lack of supervision”.The truth is that there have been a systematic willful stealings from our country for don’t know how long already by don’t know how many departments. If you care to continue to probe deeper & further according to good principle of all internal auditing Sir!

    From where I worked as internal auditor in a Financial Institution back in the 80’s, the head of dept would be FIRED first (in this case the minister). PERIOD!Then those offenders ( in this case the offending officers)would be prosecutedin court (not just try to find ways to impose surcharge, don’t make my toe laugh la, you are encouraging more officers to go on the take la – if you catch me, I pay back without interest lo, if you don’t catch me, then I happy la).
    What a sick joke we have today la!50 years & we have made this much progress!

    You question me why have I become so negative, but FOR THE SAKE OF MALAYSIA, who wouldn’t be?????????

  35. #35 by HJ Angus on Thursday, 4 October 2007 - 4:18 pm

    I know what….
    We will ask Dick Lee of Singapore to produce a joint musical called
    “The Independent Panel” in 2 parts.

    The first part will be about the removal of the Chief Justice, then we have the march of the penguins..oops sorry lawyers and finally we have the 3 panel members in a sort of cricket match batting all the screw balls we can toss at them; with a Minister as the umpire.

    Enough drama to pack into a 2-hour show?

  36. #36 by helpless on Thursday, 4 October 2007 - 4:43 pm

    – Zakaria’s palace case – getting drawing approval soon.

    – Forgot to pay excise duty – will pay now.

    – Lack of supervision – will give back a peanut to shut our month….pay RM 0.01 fine.

    Billion of taxpayer $ go to somebody pocket…..?? Don’t say a word.

    What happen then : This sucker will pay some peanut ” penalty” or playing “tai chi” ….

    As far as Shahrir in the BN… same like 3 panelist…. working together with government..

    Shahrir : Cannot accuse BN member… subject discipline action…

  37. #37 by Jong on Thursday, 4 October 2007 - 4:44 pm

    I see a deliberate intent on the Government’s(or Najib’s?) part not to appoint ‘members of some public credibility’ to the panel. It’s so obvious, the fear is, more will be exposed.

    The existing three appointees are just being used. Since knowing their limitations and if they have self-worth left, they should gracefully quit and stop talking nonsence. It will make alot more sence, and please do not insult the intellect and integrity we Malaysians!

  38. #38 by sheriff singh on Thursday, 4 October 2007 - 4:47 pm


    ……..who have relevant information to come forward “for the sake of Malaysia.”………..

    Does he have the responsibility (to come forward)?………

    If you don’t come, don’t complain, because at the end of the day, our report is based on the material made available to us

    Paging for Tengku Adnan, Vincent Tan, Mahathir……Lingam

  39. #39 by helpless on Thursday, 4 October 2007 - 4:47 pm

    I think we forgot about P.klang port’s land scandal…

    LLS : Shu…..luckily there is a Lingam case

  40. #40 by forthesakeofmalaysia on Thursday, 4 October 2007 - 4:49 pm

    For the sake of Malysia!
    For the sake of Malysia!
    For the sake of Malysia!
    For the sake of Malysia!
    For the sake of Malysia!
    For the sake of Malysia!
    For the sake of Malysia!
    Let’s have a ROYAL COMMISSION!

  41. #41 by citizen on Thursday, 4 October 2007 - 4:50 pm

    “Don’t throw stones at us until we have finished our inquiry.”?

    “inquiry”? This is a joke! Can anyone tell me how to know the truth by asking?

  42. #42 by ngahc on Thursday, 4 October 2007 - 4:57 pm

    No protection given to witness/ informer…….Do you want to be witness / informer?

    What if they change the goal post of judicial corruption to the chasing after identity and motive of the witness / informer?

    After identify the informer, they will prosecute him and case close. What about judicial corruption? Forget it.

  43. #43 by helpless on Thursday, 4 October 2007 - 5:05 pm

    “If you don’t come, don’t complain, because at the end of the day, our report is based on the material made available to us.”

    —————————————————
    Anyone confirm the call taken place with maxis,celcom…..

    Perhap Lim KY shall go forward to get telco. check if the call was made….

  44. #44 by LittleBird on Thursday, 4 October 2007 - 6:37 pm

    Just read from Mkini…asking PKR to reveal source or go to jail.

    you see they are more interesting in finding out who the was the traitor to the chilli sauce man rather than finding if the judiciary appointment can be fixed up.

    Let me put it more crudely, if someone shows the husband a recording of his wife screwing another man, what should the hubby do:-

    A) whack the idiot who brought the video to his attention ?

    B) whack the idiot to reveal the idot who recorded the video?

    C) confront the wife, for an explanation?

    D) confront hte other man for an explanation?

    e) confront both for an explanation?

    I am sure BN would choose a) and b).. but anyone interested in moral would choosec) to e) before deciding other course.

    Malaysia Boleh oh Boleh..

  45. #45 by smeagroo on Thursday, 4 October 2007 - 6:50 pm

    Go read the latest in Malaysia-today.net

    And u will know why one wont come forward to become a witness.

  46. #46 by shiock on Thursday, 4 October 2007 - 6:54 pm

    Well, the panel will eventually said that the tape is not genuine viz :
    1) The picture is blurred and edited
    2) The man is not Lingam. It is some actor from Bollywood
    3) The man is talking to himself in front of his friends. It is acting.
    4) The moustache is a paste on….

  47. #47 by waterman on Thursday, 4 October 2007 - 6:55 pm

    Mkini latest:
    Lingam tape: Name source or face jail
    Oct 4, 07 5:46pm
    The Anti-Corruption Agency (ACA) is compelling two PKR leaders to reveal the source of the Lingam tape or face a possible two-year jail term.

    PKR vice-president R Sivarasa and party worker Sim Tze Tzin were both served notices today to reveal the source of the controversial video within seven days.

    Sivarasa he would discuss the matter with party officials and legal advisors before deciding on the next course of action.

    “If we have to take the punishment to protect our source, so be it,” Sivarasa told reporters after receiving the notices at the Federal Territories ACA headquarters in Kuala Lumpur today.

    The notice stated that a failure to comply with the demand would be a breach of Section 29 (c) of the Anti-Corruption Act 1997 which stipulated that it is an offence if an individual failed to “comply with any lawful demand, notice, order or requirement” of an ACA officer.
    ——————
    For the sake of Malaysia take a statement from Lingam first,if he admits then no need to waste time and if he denies then check for the phone records.

  48. #48 by shiock on Thursday, 4 October 2007 - 7:08 pm

    I think the source will be safer if he is in overseas or else UTK or SB will hunt him down 24/7 and throw him a C4/ grenade. Case closed, no witness, BN can continue their sleep happily ever after.

    No need to ask from PKR who is the source, cause Lingam will be quite willing to whisper to Amno who is the guy sitting in front of him.

  49. #49 by undergrad2 on Thursday, 4 October 2007 - 7:16 pm

    Apparently I was wrong in thinking that they could make Anwar (Sim and Sivarasa) reveal the source only in a lawsuit when any of them is called to testify.

    Didn’t know about S. 29(c) 1997 (as amended).

    A million apologies.

  50. #50 by undergrad2 on Thursday, 4 October 2007 - 7:18 pm

    “For the sake of Malaysia take a statement from Lingam first,if he admits then no need to waste time and if he denies then check for the phone records.”

    What about the issue of self incrimination?? In court V.K. Lingam could not legally be forced to testify against himself.

  51. #51 by undergrad2 on Thursday, 4 October 2007 - 7:21 pm

    If I were Lingam, I’ll admit to nothing. Silence cannot legally be imputed as guilt.

  52. #52 by waterman on Thursday, 4 October 2007 - 7:38 pm

    “No need to ask from PKR who is the source, cause Lingam will be quite willing to whisper to Amno who is the guy sitting in front of him.”
    ——————
    Oh ya, for all you know ACA already knew the identity of the whistle blower/s. Question is how to blow them away.What a show!

    Seriously I just want to know the truth and all our citizens deserve to know for the sake of Malaysia.

  53. #53 by AnakTiriMalaysia on Thursday, 4 October 2007 - 7:56 pm

    …..>>>>>>October 4th, 2007 at 14: 39.52RealWorld Says:

    Dont say like that la, bro. LLT was formerly your comrade in DAP. The man has done well for himself

  54. #54 by ktteokt on Thursday, 4 October 2007 - 9:02 pm

    What can three “clawless” crabs do?

  55. #55 by Jeffrey on Thursday, 4 October 2007 - 9:23 pm

    Come on lah, the wide powers given under S. 29(c) 1997 (as amended) of the Anti Corruption Act 1997 were supposed to facilitate the ACA’s officers to investigate officials or persons suspected of have committed corrupt acts within purview of the Act and NOT their whistleblowers and informers!

  56. #56 by k1980 on Thursday, 4 October 2007 - 9:39 pm

    As expected, the whistle-blowers’ [email protected] are to be deep-fried while the real crooks get off scot-free. The real pity is that millions of voters still believe in umno as the “saviour” of their race and the “protector” of their NEP rights

  57. #57 by Jong on Thursday, 4 October 2007 - 10:18 pm

    ” …failure to comply with the demand would be a breach of Section 29 (c) of the Anti-Corruption Act 1997. ”

    Thanks Jeffrey, so it’s NOT applicable to whistle-blowers/informers!
    Good grief, what’s going on?

  58. #58 by waterman on Thursday, 4 October 2007 - 10:30 pm

    Jeffrey
    Thank you for enlightening us.

  59. #59 by straight talk on Thursday, 4 October 2007 - 10:33 pm

    Sdr Lim,

    Why don’t you join the ranks of TS Lee Lam Thye, just quit DAP… join KJ & Badawi….. sit on companies led by KJ & Kamaluddin…you bank balances increase ….you get a Tan Sri or even a TUN… life becomes so rosy… Nazri the bird brain…will sing praises for you till kingdom come…

    Follow your heart as you do now …. you get more heartaches..

    The outcome of the Independant Panel: Decision “Since no one had come forward with the original.. and since we only have the edited 8 minute version we have come to the unanimous conclusion that it is not an authentic tape”. This we say with a ‘clear conscience’ and GOD be OUR Witness……. Flashed across the media… and we all go on with our life. Is this not what we did for 19 years…… I ask you what is going to change.

    LOOK THE PEOPLE’S PARLIAMENT PETITION TO OUR KING.. SO FAR ONLY 1250 PEOPLE HAVE SIGNED… WHERE ARE ALL THE PEOPLE WHO ARE SO CONCERNED ABOUT WHAT IS HAPPENING IN OUR JUDICIARY. COME ON GUYS PUT YOUR MONEY WHERE YOUR MOUTH IS.

  60. #60 by Jeffrey on Thursday, 4 October 2007 - 10:53 pm

    What authorities could do – if they’re not bona fide – is to invoke Section 29 (c) of the Anti-Corruption Act 1997 against whistleblowers under the pretext of getting information and evidence that will lead to bringing corrupt officials or persons to justice except that along the way the whistleblowers will be the ones identified, quizzed and subject to such anguish of minds and emotions that they soon willingly discredit their own evidence so that investigations don’t have to proceed to the principals alleged to be or suspected to have ultimately committed an offence under the Anti Corruption Act. The only reprieve for the whistleblower facing such a prospect is to seek relief and justice from the very courts which are themselves now a subject matter of public disquiet and in a state of what many would euphemistically describe as “a crisis”. So whichever way you turn for fairness and level playing field – even as regards the interpretation of the purport, intent and applicability of Section 29 (c) of the Anti-Corruption Act 1997 to one’s situation, you find that you are ring fenced from breaking out, and in a checkmated situation. Don’t you think so? :)

  61. #61 by waterman on Thursday, 4 October 2007 - 10:58 pm

    straight talk
    If YB uncle Lim is for money & fame, he had gone for that from 1960’s. But how we citizens salute & revere him. He is like a father always on the look out to protect his children.

    There is another signing petition going on with Malaysia Today so can be a bit confusing. Will get my friends & relatives to look into that.
    Thanks.

  62. #62 by Jeffrey on Thursday, 4 October 2007 - 11:28 pm

    But let’s face facts : one such as Anwar/PKR cannot publicly disclose a videoclip that threatens the very foundation of public confidence in the institution of judiciary without being prepared to own up the person who made that clip. The moment the maker of that clip passed it to Anwar/PKR for public disclosure he or she ought reasonably to know that he/she will be called upon eventually to verify the authenticity and circumstances surrounding the video clip.

    (One cannot disclose a clip like that to the public with all its impact and implications and yet seek refuge in anonymity and to be shielded from having to answer whether he/she has acted responsibly in taking the video/clip and passing it to politicians whom one could reasonably expect would disclose it publicly whether for political mileage or genuine public interest).

    What is fair is, firstly, that the authorities should investigate and quizz both the whistleblower as well as the persons shown in or implicated by the video clip alike and not give the impression that they are only interested in getting to the whistleblower (and staying away from those implicated by the clip) to discredit the evidence rather than genuinely getting to the bottom of things; and secondly in view of the matters of great public importance raised by the video clip, the government should not threaten with Section 29 (c) of the Anti-Corruption Act 1997 but should, as an inducement for as well as condition of the whistleblower coming forward, undertake to grant legal immunity to the whistleblower for coming out to explain and clarify the video clip that he discloses – for so long as the video clip is genuine and not fabricated.

    This immunity from persecution or prosecution should be undertaken by the government independent of and regardless that the 3 men panel itself has no powers to grant immunity.

    Now this immunity should be withdrawn and whistle blower may be punished by law if it is fairly proven that (1) the video clip is not genuine but fabricated and (2) the motives of the whistleblower are bad – actuated by malice to tarnish the lawyer and the current CJ without basis.

    Except where (1) and (2) are proven, the whistle blower should be absolved from other technical infractions of law or regulation if what he discloses is of overarching higher public interest served by the disclosure!

    I guess the expression “whistleblower” used here in context will refer not only to the maker of the video/clip but also the one who takes it and after evaluating its contents discloses it to the public with all its effect and impact.

  63. #63 by Jeffrey on Thursday, 4 October 2007 - 11:45 pm

    It is true that forensics can establish authenticity of such a clip even if the maker of it and the circumstances surrounding its making are not known. But this would not give the entire true picture. It is also the first rule of evidence giving that when a piece of evidence is presented, especially one that creates grave consequences, the maker of it should (unless he is dead or not around or there exist other compelling reasons why he should hide away) come forth to confirm that he was the one who made the evidence and explain the circumstances surrounding it in greater detail. Now if there is immunity granted, there’s no compelling reason to hide away. All this has nothing to do with the other aspect – the necessity to investigate, interrogate and take statements at the same time from those implicated in such a videoclip. They cannot be spared just because they are well connected or hold high office because the conventional wisdom, often repeated by our leaders (even if some of them may not mean it) is that no one is so high to be yet above the law. To give the impression that one is hounding the whistleblower and sparing the high and mighty is to invite public distrust in the investigative methods and the motives behind and the administration of law and justice in general.

  64. #64 by undergrad2 on Friday, 5 October 2007 - 12:24 am

    “…(ACA)should, as an inducement for as well as condition of the whistleblower coming forward, undertake to grant legal immunity to the whistleblower for coming out to explain and clarify the video clip ..” Jeffrey QC

    Any immunity from prosecution has to be given by the AG – but Malaysia does not practise plea bargaining. Neither does it give any party immunity from prosecution – at least not legally, which means another AG could later decide to prosecute.

    Is there a case when such immunity from prosecution was ever agreed in the past??

  65. #65 by undergrad2 on Friday, 5 October 2007 - 12:27 am

    This is why jurisdictions like the United States have plea bargaining and legal immunity from prosecution etc. Without it a lot of guilty parties and crooks would go free.

  66. #66 by Jeffrey on Friday, 5 October 2007 - 12:49 am

    I was thinking more in terms of a promise of immunity well before any determination of any offence if any has been made out.

    I thought plea bargaining is something a shade different, more like an negotiated agreement between the defense and the prosecution in a criminal case where typically the defendant for whom an a case of offence or offences have already been formulated by the prosecution agrees to plead guilty to a specified charge in exchange for some kind of understanding or promise, if you will, of the prosecution of not proceeding on another alternative charge attracting stiffer punishment or otherwise a lower sentence for the charge pleaded guilty to. In the sense just said, I think we have plea bargaining in Malaysia but seldom hear of an immunity – kind of an amnesty – in advance regardless whether or not any offence might or might not have been committed in the processes leading up to the making of the videoclip and disclosing it.

    The whilstle blower is not really in like position as partners in crime where one is either charged for lesser offence or not prosecuted but placed in witness protection program for snitching on his partners. Here no one is sure at this juncture that the whistle blower has committed an offence if any.

  67. #67 by kanthanboy on Friday, 5 October 2007 - 1:43 am

    LittleBird,
    l try my very best to answer your objective question. Based on the wisdom enunciated by Justice Augustine Paul, Answer (c), (D) and (E) are not relevant. So that leave me with either (A) or (B). My final answer is: Both (A) and (B) are correct.
    Saya pun boleh. Do I get a prize?

    A) whack the idiot who brought the video to his attention ?

    B) whack the idiot to reveal the idot who recorded the video?

    C) confront the wife, for an explanation?

    D) confront hte other man for an explanation?

    e) confront both for an explanation?

    I am sure BN would choose a) and b).. but anyone interested in moral would choosec) to e) before deciding other course.

    Malaysia Boleh oh Boleh..

  68. #68 by cheeyong on Friday, 5 October 2007 - 1:48 am

    RealWorld how much has BN feed you? Or you are contended with your humdrum life?Probably you’re just a katak dibawah tempurung that thinks BN the tempurung is the world.Maybe you’re a disgruntled ex member of an opposition party. So dude, take a hike and go somewhere else.

  69. #69 by nonmuslimbumi on Friday, 5 October 2007 - 2:15 am

    Whistleblowers will face the wrath of the establishment. This is the unmistakable message Malaysians are tuning in to and the intimidation and impotency of this panel is beyond description. As you have rightly pointed out this panel is an insult to the requirements of an impartial independent investigation. Tan Sri Haidar in particular should disquailfy himself from the panel because of his prior involvement in a case that acquitted Linngam of a defamation suit and role against the Tun Salleh Abbas sacking.

    Now is the time for all Malaysians who cherish justice to rise up and let their voice be heard. Our beloved nation must not be allowed to sink deeper into the pit of pernicious corruption. Stand up and walk the talk by excercising your right to call for a Royal Commission. Let justice prevail, and may those who threathen whistleblowers repent and atone for their sins of abetting a plot to fore the judicary to become a concubine of the Barisan Nasional government.

  70. #70 by bennylohstocks on Friday, 5 October 2007 - 2:21 am

  71. #71 by undergrad2 on Friday, 5 October 2007 - 4:22 am

    “In the sense just said, I think we have plea bargaining in Malaysia but seldom hear of an immunity…” Jeffrey

    You’re right about the two being different i.e. plea bargain is different from immunity from prosecution.

    No, Malaysia does not practise plea bargaining.

    As for immunity from criminal prosecution, I have yet to hear one case. In certain cases, without immunity extended to cover the criminal act or acts perpetrated by a secondary player, prosecution of a major player is unlikely to lead to a conviction. Hence the need to extend immunity.

    Don’t think Malaysia practise it. If it does we would know because the matter would come out in open court.

  72. #72 by undergrad2 on Friday, 5 October 2007 - 4:24 am

    Once immunity from prosecution is agreed, it becomes legal and enforceable. The Attorney General cannot then change his mind later on.

  73. #73 by undergrad2 on Friday, 5 October 2007 - 4:29 am

    “The whilstle blower is not really in like position as partners in crime where one is either charged for lesser offence or not prosecuted but placed in witness protection program for snitching on his partners. Here no one is sure at this juncture that the whistle blower has committed an offence if any.” Jeffrey

    That is correct.

  74. #74 by cto on Friday, 5 October 2007 - 5:46 am

    RealWorld Says:

    October 4th, 2007 at 14: 39.52
    “OK la graduating from DAP, but somehow lost his spine post graduating at ummmm-No.” – Jong

    Dont say like that la, bro. LLT was formerly your comrade in DAP. The man has done well for himself.

    ———————–

    OK la. But by the same token, Anwar Ibrahim was not only formerly an UMNO and BN big wig but was also the deputy PM.

    He obvioulsy think that there is validity in the tape and he released it. Do you simply believe him cos’ he was formerly from UMNO?

    Point being, political alliance should not play a role in this inquiry. And for that matter, it also does not matter who recorded the video. The more important questions are – 1. is there truth in the video recording and 2. can the members of the panel do a honest and good job?

  75. #75 by waterman on Friday, 5 October 2007 - 5:56 am

    “The more important questions are – 1. is there truth in the video recording and 2. can the members of the panel do a honest and good job?” cto
    ————–
    Thanks for keeping us on focus!
    All we want to know is the truth!

  76. #76 by Godfather on Friday, 5 October 2007 - 6:40 am

    “We are fair….we will always be fair.” Sleeping Beauty 2007.

    Someone mentioned that he thought this was said in relation to some skincare product that Badawi was using.

  77. #77 by Godfather on Friday, 5 October 2007 - 6:54 am

    In the corporate world, if you have a crooked lawyer, a crooked borrower, a crooked accountant, and a crooked banker, then you can siphon off billions of dollars without being caught.

    In the world of justice, if you have a crooked prosecution, crooked investigating officers, crooked politicians, and crooked supporters, then the truth is whatever these people want it to be.

  78. #78 by ahkok1982 on Friday, 5 October 2007 - 7:34 am

    sorry, juz to digress a little. Please do visit the nasa website at:
    http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/station/expeditions/expedition16/index.html

    everyone else are commanders, space engineers and astronauts but then the malaysian fellow is a SPACE PARTICIPANT. Arent we proud of having a malaysian space participant and the whole country is so hyped up about it.

    In the website, all the other crews have links to their biography (and) interview but then there is none for our malaysian participant. sorry to say, looks like NASA dont give a crap about the malaysian participant. Not even enough to wanna add a link to his biography.

    sorry uh, NASA people not interested in teh tarik or roti canai.

  79. #79 by k1980 on Friday, 5 October 2007 - 8:24 am

    Biography of Spaceflight Participant Sheikh Muszaphar Shukor is not available simply because readers will roar with derisive laughter when they compare his “qualifications” with the rest of the crew.

    Surely you don’t want a shameful Sheikh Mus to commit hara-kiri in the International Space Station because he was taunted by the rest of the ISS crew over his credentials, that is playing batu sembilan and making teh tarik?

  80. #80 by bystander on Friday, 5 October 2007 - 8:27 am

    Latest. Iraq to be like Malaysia. Corruption like malaysia is top down approach. The Prime Minister refuses to investigate corruption cases. The Interior Security Ministry cannot be investigated.

  81. #81 by wtf2 on Friday, 5 October 2007 - 8:58 am

    what if the PKR guys claims that the tape was left on the doorstep with a note that’s since been thrown away?

    Will this silence the threats of jail for disclosure of source?

    After all, as observed, evidence has a way of doing a backflip in the many high profile cases in Malaysia.

  82. #82 by k1980 on Friday, 5 October 2007 - 9:39 am

    If the CCTV images of the suspects in the Nurin murder case can be sent to the Federal Bureau of Investigation in the US for enhancement as are the strands of hair found in the bag for DNA tests, why can’t the Lingam video tape be sent to the FBI for testing too? I would rather trust the FBI any day than the 3 stooges in the panel set up by Najib

  83. #83 by RealWorld on Friday, 5 October 2007 - 10:02 am

    “LOOK THE PEOPLE’S PARLIAMENT PETITION TO OUR KING.. SO FAR ONLY 1250 PEOPLE HAVE SIGNED… WHERE ARE ALL THE PEOPLE WHO ARE SO CONCERNED ABOUT WHAT IS HAPPENING IN OUR JUDICIARY.” – straight talk

    It is easier to to make noise from afar than stepping forward.
    Or the majority is with BN. :)

  84. #84 by RealWorld on Friday, 5 October 2007 - 10:05 am

    “OK la. But by the same token, Anwar Ibrahim was not only formerly an UMNO and BN big wig but was also the deputy PM.” – cto

    But brother, we dont call the man names like turncoat, spineless etc etc even though he is no longer with BN.

    Have some class la.

  85. #85 by megaman on Friday, 5 October 2007 - 10:36 am

    it’s all a wayang … after a while .. all dies down n back to normal …

  86. #86 by Jimm on Friday, 5 October 2007 - 10:57 am

    We all knew that BN government are trying very hard to do a massive cover-up on all the recent incidents. At times, we can easily noticed that they are shooting at their own feets with remarks and proclaims.
    They will defend at all cost as most of their ‘members’ are equally ‘involved’ in the scam. Most of them are holding high post in the government structure which make things rather easier to ‘managed’ even though the public outcry.
    They have to pretend that things are not what the public sees and someone or parties are trying to take advantage from thses situation.
    It’s like Believe-it Or Not kind of stunts ….
    A lesson to learn from here is never trust anyone even when they are really closed to you for years…
    Who knows .. one day ..they are the one that turn on you.
    Save your days with a careful stride. Share only what is commonly not harm to your life with friends especially those that interested to dwell into political environment later.
    You never know what hit you when you are at the top then..

  87. #87 by guessin on Friday, 5 October 2007 - 11:15 am

    I think we should emulate the bar chamber in marching peacefully with 10,000 people to show the goverment our unhappiness towards their handling of this case.

  88. #88 by Bigjoe on Friday, 5 October 2007 - 11:23 am

    Malaysiakini is doing an excellent job is digging up the issues on so called ‘independent’ panel.

    However it boils down to this – does the nuances of the issue matter enough to the electorate? The lawyers and opposition obviously understand how important it is but unless they are willing to stake themselves the ways the monks in Myanmar are willing to do then this thing will not go far.

    The ‘walk fo justice’ was dramatic but not enough. What is needed to to break the backs of the kinds of Nazri and ACA. Nothing short of total embarassment of the three-member panel will move things forward. Najib chose the panel because it is irrelevant and not a threat. Only and embarassment will galvanised the voters.

    The lawyers should filed court appeals for all cases like pig farming and other cases that challenge the integrity of the court itself citing the lack of a royal commission. Just blanket and paralized the court system itself…

  89. #89 by k1980 on Friday, 5 October 2007 - 11:23 am

    They don’t go after whistle-blowers over there– they grab the real crooks
    http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/americas/10/04/pinochet.widow.ap/index.html
    Relatives, ex-associates accused of participating in misuse of fiscal funds, Widow, several other suspects already arrested

  90. #90 by RealWorld on Friday, 5 October 2007 - 11:33 am

    “I think we should emulate the bar chamber in marching peacefully with 10,000 people to show the goverment our unhappiness towards their handling of this case.” – guessin

    Errr brother, why dont you get that royal petition going first? You cant even muster 5000 online, and you are already thinking of 10,000 marching in the hot sun!?

  91. #91 by cto on Friday, 5 October 2007 - 11:38 am

    RealWorld Says:

    October 5th, 2007 at 10: 05.19
    “OK la. But by the same token, Anwar Ibrahim was not only formerly an UMNO and BN big wig but was also the deputy PM.” – cto

    But brother, we dont call the man names like turncoat, spineless etc etc even though he is no longer with BN.

    Have some class la.

    ——

    Ya la, “we” don’t call the man names but “we” drummed up sodomy charges, have him found guilty in some kangaroo court, incarcerate the man and gave him a black eye. I have to fully agree that was really classy.

  92. #92 by k1980 on Friday, 5 October 2007 - 11:40 am

    Could afford more than RM3.5 million for wedding but still require the NEP for support!
    http://www.nst.com.my/Current_News/NST/Friday/National/20071005082244/Article/index_html

  93. #93 by RealWorld on Friday, 5 October 2007 - 11:56 am

    “Ya la, “we” don’t call the man names but “we” drummed up sodomy charges, have him found guilty in some kangaroo court, incarcerate the man and gave him a black eye.” – cto

    Brother, whether ‘drummed up’ or ‘kangaroo court’, you & me, we are not in the position to pass that judgement. We leave that to the court, ok?

  94. #94 by Godfather on Friday, 5 October 2007 - 12:10 pm

    Hahaha…the court which reports to the thieves and crooks, the prosecuting officers who report to the thieves and crooks, and the investigating officers who are part of the thieves and crooks.

    Have you got no SHAME ?

  95. #95 by Godfather on Friday, 5 October 2007 - 12:13 pm

    Oops, I forgot…UMNO does not know the meaning of the word SHAME.

  96. #96 by madmix on Friday, 5 October 2007 - 12:22 pm

    Now ACA wants the source of the tapes from Keadilan. Tehn they will persecute and prosecute the tape makers. Do you need them to verify the authenticity of the tapes? Surely ACA forensics can do that, but they are incompetent idiots. Surely they can as Lingam, but Lingam is untouchable. ACA is a CORRUPTED organization.

  97. #97 by cto on Friday, 5 October 2007 - 12:38 pm

    RealWorld Says:

    October 5th, 2007 at 11: 56.27

    Brother, whether ‘drummed up’ or ‘kangaroo court’, you & me, we are not in the position to pass that judgement. We leave that to the court, ok?

    ————–

    Yes, brother, you are absolutely correct. You and I are really not in any position to pass judgement. That lies with the court.

    I am however entitled to an opinion and I am of the opinion that the charges were drummed up and his case was heard in a kangaroo court. I trust that you do not have a problem with me being entitled to an opinion. After all, you have been encouraging others to be more intellectual and classy.

    By the way, I am also of the opinion that Malaysia will be a much better place if all of us can discuss matters and issues without bringing in race and religion. Do you think that the government can and should play a key role in bringing about such a climate? What is your opinion on this?

    Ah, but we digressed. This thread is about that damm video. Do you agree that it is immaterial who video taped the conversation and who is on the panel? What is more important is the truth behind the video and the ability of the members of the panel to do the job properly, right?

  98. #98 by ihavesomethingtosay on Friday, 5 October 2007 - 2:44 pm

    annoying umnopologist, picfarmincidentwithumnoandalipologist, now, LLpologist, how low can one get?

  99. #99 by ihavesomethingtosay on Friday, 5 October 2007 - 2:44 pm

    annoying umnopologist, picfarmincidentwithumnoandalipologist, now, LLpologist, how low can one get?

  100. #100 by Jimm on Friday, 5 October 2007 - 3:19 pm

    Hey, this part of the investigation is just like the TV series , 24.
    After getting the recorded conversation betweem the President and Henderson back to CTU for authenticity checklist … there will another ‘paid’ sucker to wiped out the evidence right in front of the watchful eyes of the CTU force and TV viewers .. it’s so easy..
    Guess, nowadays, what we see are we will get …..
    Malaysia Boleh …. in most cases .. we are much better as we are able to perform everything “LIVE” ..

  101. #101 by guessin on Friday, 5 October 2007 - 5:31 pm

    we should gather more people to the march

  102. #102 by guessin on Friday, 5 October 2007 - 5:35 pm

    rally all the people to join in the march just like taiwan or other countries, if yb lim should oragnize a march, i will be the first one to join in.

  103. #103 by RealWorld on Friday, 5 October 2007 - 6:34 pm

    cto Says:

    Yes, brother, you are absolutely correct. You and I are really not in any position to pass judgement. That lies with the court.

    I am however entitled to an opinion and I am of the opinion that the charges were drummed up and his case was heard in a kangaroo court. I trust that you do not have a problem with me being entitled to an opinion. After all, you have been encouraging others to be more intellectual and classy.

    By the way, I am also of the opinion that Malaysia will be a much better place if all of us can discuss matters and issues without bringing in race and religion. Do you think that the government can and should play a key role in bringing about such a climate? What is your opinion on this?

    Ah, but we digressed. This thread is about that damm video. Do you agree that it is immaterial who video taped the conversation and who is on the panel? What is more important is the truth behind the video and the ability of the members of the panel to do the job properly, right?

    ————————————————————–

    Brother, your subjective opinions are more than welcomed. And I must say from the previous rants I seen here ranging from Godfather’s insults on another religion to other baseless allegations, your subjective opinions are a welcome relief indeed.

    And I must say I am totally 100% behind your call “that Malaysia will be a much better place if all of us can discuss matters and issues without bringing in race and religion”. How I wished someone like Godfather can have a quarter of your maturity. Anyway, a big yes to discussing matters without bringing in and insulting religion and racial matters.

    Ok, pertaining to that climate you are advocating, I must say Malaysia is a young nation. We are only 50 years old. We should not be comparing ourselves to the democracies in the West. Of course, our system is not perfect. But then again, is there ever a perfect system or a perfect government? But one thing I do know is that, we have no famine, civil wars, poverty here in Msia. Our nation have progressed steadily over the years. Education is available for everyone. Employment and business opportunities are there for the rakyat.

    And brother, what are the alternatives out there? PKR DAP PAS, what do they have? Some marriage of convenience? They dont even contest under one banner? What about PAS’s Islamic state stand? Say if the Opposition wins the next GE, who will be PM etc etc? How can they govern and administer the country when they are not in agreement? And lastly, what is this Msian Malaysia when there are very few or no indians/malays in DAP leadership?

    Ahhh…. the tape. My opinion is that let the tape be authenticated first and let the authorities do their investigations.

  104. #104 by RealWorld on Friday, 5 October 2007 - 6:37 pm

    “Oops, I forgot…UMNO does not know the meaning of the word SHAME.” – Godfather

    Do you know the word shame, after you insulted the religion of another?

  105. #105 by RealWorld on Friday, 5 October 2007 - 6:41 pm

    “rally all the people to join in the march just like taiwan or other countries, if yb lim should oragnize a march, i will be the first one to join in.” – guessin

    Why dont you focus on that royal petition instead first? You can hardly get 2000 on the email, you want to get others to join you in a walkabout under the sun??

  106. #106 by straight talk on Friday, 5 October 2007 - 7:47 pm

    Great talk, yes good march…. Hi there is an easier way… The People’s Parliament is seeking 5000 signatures for the petition to our DYMM Agung to initiate a Royal Commission … Why don’t we rally the people to sign the petition… after 6 days only 1600 has signed. Talk is cheap.. Cheaper still is writing comments on a blog.

    Get real guys sign the petition…. Lets promote the petition with everything we have… let’s surpass the 5000 mark.

  107. #107 by Godfather on Friday, 5 October 2007 - 9:23 pm

    The UMNO poodle said :

    “Ahhh…. the tape. My opinion is that let the tape be authenticated first and let the authorities do their investigations.”

    If we wanted to hear a repeat of your bosses’ position, we would not be reading this blog. We have heard enough of your heroes Nazri and Najib.

    Maybe I should call you an UMNO parrot instead of UMNO poodle?

  108. #108 by Godfather on Friday, 5 October 2007 - 10:58 pm

    SHAME, SHAME, SHAME !

    CEMERLANG, GEMILANG, TEMBERANG !

  109. #109 by RealWorld on Saturday, 6 October 2007 - 12:18 am

    Only 1600 signatures in 6 days. And thats thru the internet. Looking kinda bleak, dont you think so?

    Looks like the rakyat is not responding, eh?

  110. #110 by Old.observer on Saturday, 6 October 2007 - 12:53 am

    “straight talk Says:

    October 5th, 2007 at 19: 47.27
    Great talk, yes good march…. Hi there is an easier way… The People’s Parliament is seeking 5000 signatures for the petition to our DYMM Agung to initiate a Royal Commission … Why don’t we rally the people to sign the petition… after 6 days only 1600 has signed. Talk is cheap.. Cheaper still is writing comments on a blog.

    Get real guys sign the petition…. Lets promote the petition with everything we have… let’s surpass the 5000 mark.”

    ___________________

    1. What petition?
    2. Where to sign?
    3. How can those living outside KL can sign?

    If you don’t make it simple for the Rakyat to sign, we are doomed!

    Old Observer

  111. #111 by Old.observer on Saturday, 6 October 2007 - 12:57 am

    YB LKS’s blog here has fantastic information about Lingam-gate.

    Why not have a link to signing the petition from this blog?

    Or better, why not repeat the link on every posting comments in this blog?

    Then, readers don’t have to search to sign.

    Make it EXTREMELY EASY for Rakyat to sign lah …

    I for one have neither seen the Petition, and if I had seen it, I would be the first to sign if this is a call for a Royal Commission of Inquiry.

    If this is the quality of the opposition, and if the opposition don’t shaped up by the next GE, this country is doomed!

    Old observer.

  112. #112 by Old.observer on Saturday, 6 October 2007 - 1:13 am

    “RealWorld Says:

    October 6th, 2007 at 00: 18.08
    Only 1600 signatures in 6 days. And thats thru the internet. Looking kinda bleak, dont you think so? ”

    ______________

    RealWorld is right. The Internet only influences a very small group of the Rakyat, mainly the more intellectual readers.

    So, how, can we reach out to the wider Rakyat?

    For me, I talk to my families, friends, colleagues about the corruptions that are happening in this country at every possible opportunity. Gently at first. I would discuss and point out for example, the recent Port Klang Free Zone $4.6bn bailout where no heads have been rolled yet, and where the press tries to suppress it, and where the government tries to sweep it under the carpet. I would point out that taxpayers are affected. I point out the fact that BN has grown more cocky as the years passed by. Now, it’s no longer a case of embezzling $4.6bn. In a few months time, this will be “kacang putih”. When you keep embezzling funds successfully without punishment, and when Rakyat continues to keep voting for BN, you as a voter is merely giving permission for BN to “rape and pillage” the country in even BIGGER extent. Port Klang Free Zone costs every single taxpayer $460 to benefit a select few individuals, and this is utterly disgusting.

    Keep talking about the extent of corruptions that are happening in this country. Tell your spouse, children, grandchildren the things that are happening today. Make sure they remember just 1 thing only – Whatever you do, just make sure you vote in the next election, and make sure you vote the opposition. They might not remember anything else, but just Vote the Opposition. Doing otherwise is just giving a license to BN to continue “raping” the country in far greater proportion.

    If all 1,600 online signees who signed up can reach 20 other people in the Real World, and they themselves reach another 10 other people in the Real World, and they then reach another 10, etc., the multiplicative power of the original 1,600 online signees will be very, very large.

    But if we after being informed and knowing the Real Truth keeps quiet and not touch the lives of others, then, it is not only the corrupt politicians who are evil, but I would argue, that we, the informed, are worse. We allow evil to continue to perpetuate, and this to me, is a far worse crime than commiting the initial crime.

    Wake up Rakyat!

    Old Observer.

  113. #113 by dawsheng on Saturday, 6 October 2007 - 4:33 am

    I believe the Agong will fall asleep if you sent him 5000 signatures in a petition. If you want Agong to be awake, get 5000 “tahi cicak” and march to the istana, then I believe you will get your royal commission, how much is that btw?

  114. #114 by waterman on Saturday, 6 October 2007 - 4:55 am

    “1. What petition?
    2. Where to sign?
    3. How can those living outside KL can sign?
    If you don’t make it simple for the Rakyat to sign, we are doomed!
    Old Observer”
    ———–
    There are 2 calling for signing of petition to our Agong.One is with Malaysia Today & the other is with ‘the People’s Parliment” which you can click the link below:-

    http://harismibrahim.wordpress.com/2007/10/05/get-to-know-your-mp-will-they-work-to-restore-the-judiciary-to-the-rakyat/

    Yup, I totally agree with you this site should not be a place for us to rant & vomit our over boiled blood, but it should be very interactive & action oriented and we should go away and tell everyone we know about the dire needs of our country.

    I was hoping YB uncle Lim can come out with some kind of periodical leftlets or downloadable message which we can print out or turn into CDs and send to our friends & relatives in the villages who are without internet access. This is the least I can do for being living far away.

    We all love Malaysia!

  115. #115 by waterman on Saturday, 6 October 2007 - 5:00 am

    dawsheng
    Yes a good march to the Istana with people coming from all walks of life and from all races & religious backgrounds may perhaps move the king’s heart.. but then and again if his hands are tied….. What do you think?

  116. #116 by cto on Saturday, 6 October 2007 - 1:17 pm

    RealWorld Says:

    October 5th, 2007 at 18: 34.28

    …. Our nation have progressed steadily over the years. Education is available for everyone. Employment and business opportunities are there for the rakyat.

    And brother, what are the alternatives out there? PKR DAP PAS, what do they have? Some marriage of convenience? They dont ….

    Ahhh…. the tape. My opinion is that let the tape be authenticated first and let the authorities do their investigations.

    —————–

    Forward this discussion to the next Lingam tape blog entry to keep current. See you there.

  117. #117 by dawsheng on Saturday, 6 October 2007 - 2:47 pm

    Waterman,

    I don’t think his hands are tied, I think is a matter of guts. What I meant is not simply gung ho about anything that walks and talks, if the Chief Justice is corrupt and he is the enemy of the Rakyat, that makes him the enemy of the Agong too. The time for serious consideration about what action to take is over, but what is the Agong have to worry about and till now haven’t said a word, (isn’t he the one who signed the appointment letter?) I can think of nothing, so no guts to take action and order for a royal commission. So I hope few thousands people there at the Istana will makes his guts to take the right stand.

  118. #118 by taiking on Saturday, 6 October 2007 - 7:13 pm

    It does not matter very much who the person at the other end of the line was. The whole matter is likely to meet a quick technical knock out anyway. And that other person will no doubt be saved by the TKO. But what about that guy with well endowed midsection in the clip? The fact is he was quite obviously talking of making arrangement for promotion of judges; and he had sought of assistance of one tan sri vincent. This act is clearly wrong, unlawful and against the constitution. Can he get away too by taking cover behind the TKO? I suggest the DAP start an online poll and see what sort of response readers would give:
    “WOULD LINGAM GET AWAY? COULD HE?” YES? NO?

  119. #119 by undergrad2 on Saturday, 6 October 2007 - 8:54 pm

    “Panel member and former Court of Appeal judge said: “Somebody out there (has) the original video. Does he have the responsibility (to come forward)? ”

    What is the Panel investigating here?? Infringment of copyrights and piracy??

    Is this former Court of Appeal saying that since it is not the original video tape, the information it contains is unreliable. How so? Is he saying the tape has been edited or even mutiliated to give the appearance that it now gives i.e. V.K. Lingam practising his role in a major sitcom?

    Why is this former judge fixated on the tape being a copy. This is an investigation and not a trial in a court of law. At trial it would still be evidence. It only goes to the issue of weight to be attached to the evidence.

  120. #120 by undergrad2 on Saturday, 6 October 2007 - 9:01 pm

    “Why then is the government not prepared to establish the Haidar Inquiry under the Commission of Inquiry Act to give protection to witnesses …” Kit

    A question we must all ask and the truth we must forever ponder.

    Under the Anti-corruption Act 1979, witnessess who come forward are protected from prosecution: Sec. 22(7).

  121. #121 by Jeffrey on Sunday, 7 October 2007 - 8:12 am

    Actually the relevant section for immunity under our revised Anti Corruption Act (as mentioned by Anwar himself) is section 53(3) which provides that every person required to give evidence under the Act “who, in the opinion of the court, makes a true and full discovery of all things as to which he is lawfully examined, shall be entitled to receive a certificate of indemnity under the seal of the court stating that he has made a true and full discovery of all things as to which he was examined, and such certificate shall be a
    bar to all legal proceedings against him in respect of all such things”.

    ‘What is the Panel investigating here?? Infringment of copyrights and piracy??’ – that’s a good question.

    Mahadev Shanker being former Court of Appeal Judge naturally thinks in terms of law relating to evidence, which he had said before as – though strictly not applicable to the panel’s deliberations – forming a guide. To him, the ascertainment of authenticity of video tape clip would require its maker to come forward with primary evidence to say, “yes I made it”.

    If you think about it, to video tape and catch on camera someone engaged in conversation about fixing judicial appointments (in his house) is not the same as doing the same thing to unsuspecting ladies in the toilet or bath! The latter is an offence but the former is not. It is not as if its something captured in the course of work in the office whether private or government sector in which Employment Contract or General Orders or official Secrets Act has been breached. Also the one who did the video clipping might be an audience but certainly not an accomplice to the judicial fixing and position broking (assuming the latter is crime, which itself is a matter of contention). If it was a kind of investigative journalism for disclosure for public interest, then why not disclose it then in 2002 rather than now? Was there blackmail? There is no suggestion. In fact the excuse for delay is (1) then it was TDM at helm, no regime change yet and (2) clip was to assist Anwar in his predicament if he required it in his court appeals. Also if mere filming attracts some offence like for example sedition for undermining public confidence in the judiciary, it will be the ordinary police – and not ACA – moving in to look for the whistle blower and threatening persons harbouring him. The whistle blower is not implicated in corrupt acts per se but just filming/video clipping a possible corrupt act taking place conducted by others. So why does the ACA move in? Here the Government will be able to argue, with some force, that the ACA moves in because it is genuinely investigating whether (1) video clip is genuine and (2) if so whether there is corruption implicated in events caught in clip, and that (3) all criticisms that ACA moves in to harrass whistleblower and push the issue of judicial fixing under the carpet are therefore baseless.

  122. #122 by undergrad2 on Sunday, 7 October 2007 - 10:53 pm

    That’s right, Jeffrey. Someone misquoted the Sec. which should read Sec. 53(3).

    But obviously, whistleblowers don’t trust the system to protect them.

  123. #123 by undergrad2 on Sunday, 7 October 2007 - 10:57 pm

    “.. the one who did the video clipping might be an audience but certainly not an accomplice ..” Jeffrey

    We do not even know that the maker of the tape (the recording) is the same party who handed over the tape to PKR. This is likely to be the case for obvious reasons.

You must be logged in to post a comment.