Although the Cabinet last week decided on the establishment of a Royal Commission of Inquiry into the Lingam Tape scandal, and it is to decide on its terms of reference on Wednesday, I am very concerned that there had been no consultation process whatsoever on its terms of reference and composition in the past five days.
This is a matter of grave concern as all indications point to a very restricted terms of reference which is going to spark a new outcry, as Ministers are still in thick denial of the need for far-reaching judicial reforms to check the rot in the past two decades to restore national and international confidence in the independence and integrity of the judiciary.
This could be fathomed from the statements of two of the three Ministers who had been appointed to study the Haider Report on the authenticity of the Lingam Tape.
Home Affairs Minister Datuk Seri Radzi Sheikh Ahmad gave very clear indication that the terms of reference will be a very restricted one when he said that the royal commission would have the power to call anyone to assist in its inquiry.
He said:
“In this case, the lawyer seen in the video clip is the primary suspect.
“Once the royal commission is established, and based on its governing enactment and instruments, it has the power to call anyone as a witness.”
He added: “The royal commission can summon anyone it wants — the person who recorded the video, the actor, or the people mentioned in the clip.”
Was Radzi signifying that the terms of reference of the Royal Commission will be tightly limited to the Lingam Tape events rather than the fundamental question of the rot in the judiciary because of the prolonged and protracted crisis of confidence in the independence and integrity of the judiciary which had lasted some two decades.
From Radzi’s statement, there are legitimate grounds of concern as to whether the major series of crisis of confidence in the independence and integrity of the judiciary, starting with the “mother” of judicial crisis in Malaysia — the sacking of former Lord President Tun Salleh Abas and two Supreme Court judges Datuk George Seah and the late Tan Sri Wan Suleiman Pawanteh — would be completely out-of-bounds for the Royal Commission of Inquiry unless and until they had been explicitly featured in the Lingam Tape?
Such concern have been reinforced by the public stand of the Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department, Datuk Seri Nazri Aziz that there is no need for judicial reforms.
Such official attitude was best reflected in the “On The Beat” column of Star’s Wong Chun Wei, “Let the royal panel do its job”, who said he agreed with Nazri that “there is not much wrong with our institutions, except that wrong decisions have been made”.
Wong did not realize that he is caught in a maze of contradiction, as he had earlier admitted that “No one will argue that the judiciary needs an overhaul because its credibility has taken a bashing”, that “the rot” began when Tun Salleh Abas was sacked as Lord President in 1988 following moves to subjugate the judiciary and that politicians who did not know about the rot in the judiciary “must be hypocritical or living on another planet”.
Yet even Wong was not prepared to support a Royal Commission of Inquiry into the Lingam Tape with the additional mandate to make recommendations for judicial reforms to ensure that such rot in the judiciary spanning two decades cannot happen again because of institutional defects in the system.
I call on the Prime Minister and Cabinet on Wednesday not to be so pusillanimous and lacking in vision as to miss the golden opportunity to put right what had been wrong and rotten with the system of justice for nearly two decades by giving the widest and most comprehensive terms of reference to the Royal Commission of Inquiry into the Lingam Tape with the additional mandate to restore national and international confidence in the independence and integrity of the judiciary.
The Royal Commission of Inquiry into Lingam Tape should be empowered not only to investigate into every aspect of the issues featured in it, but also all aspects affecting the independence and integrity of the judiciary in the past two decades, starting with the 1988 judicial crisis, the 33-page anonymous letter of former High Court judge, Syed Ahmad Idid Syed Abdullah in 1996 containing 110 allegations of corruption, abuses of power and other improprieties against 10 named judges, as well as the revelations of “corruption” of judges resurfaced by V. Thirunama Karasu, younger brother of lawyer Datuk V.K. Lingam through a media conference by former MP Wee Choo Keong yesterday.
#1 by Filibuster on Monday, 19 November 2007 - 12:56 pm
I believe that the Cabinet has already realised that they have a timebomb on their hands; that they have failed to “deactivate” with the use of the Haidar Panel, ACA, among other tools at their disposal. Now they plan to restrict the “reach of the explosion” by limiting the power of the new RCI, to protect potentially the bigger fishes from any danger of persecution. One wonders whether the likes of Nazri actually understand what they are saying when they mention that there is no need for judicial reform.
#2 by dawsheng on Monday, 19 November 2007 - 1:14 pm
The Bar Council has claimed victory over the RCI, can anyone tell me what have the council won?
#3 by k1980 on Monday, 19 November 2007 - 1:39 pm
Will the police ever subpoena Big Lingam over Lil’ Lingam’s revelations?
http://www.asiasentinel.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=880&Itemid=31
#4 by WFH on Monday, 19 November 2007 - 1:43 pm
Initially, the Royal Commission was to be on Police Corruption, but later was watered down to be a RC on Police Management. On that same reasoning, it will not surprise anyone if this Lingamgate RC will be “restricted” to just “invasion of privacy” of VK Lingam, where he will be spun to be the “victim”.
Hai….!!! Hopeless!!!!!
That’s it, Folks
**~~Warner Bros looney tunes music plays~~***
Even TV cartoons are more believable than the stupidity of the Gov.
#5 by kanthanboy on Monday, 19 November 2007 - 1:47 pm
When the Lingam tape was first revealed by DSAI, AAB was caught with his sarong down to his knee. He tried to cover up by turning around. Unfortunately, Thirunama and lawyer WCK were right in front of him. He panics and drops his underwear
#6 by Godfather on Monday, 19 November 2007 - 2:21 pm
You know that their intentions can’t be honourable when they refuse to publicise the 3 different reports from members of the Haidar panel.
Badawi should know a simple fact of life – when you tell the truth, there is nothing to worry about because you can always remember the truth; when you tell lies, the lies simply go out of control, and you can never remember your lies.
Multiply this by 38 members of the cabinet, and you can clearly see the web of deceit that this administration tries to spin.
#7 by Jimm on Monday, 19 November 2007 - 3:07 pm
This will be another EC’s show case where public funds will be put to waste.
At end of everything, BN will covered up the entire truth and people will forget about this story soon….
National scandal have been very successful forgotten by people after a few months as there will be newer stories to catch up with by then.
Anyway, it’s public monies and not theirs.
Most of the member of the public doesn’t care much about these monies as they never thought that it’s part fo them after all.
#8 by smeagroo on Monday, 19 November 2007 - 3:39 pm
And now VK’s brother has cucuk him also via a police report. BUt i wonder what the police did from that day till now over that report.
#9 by Libra2 on Monday, 19 November 2007 - 4:23 pm
I believe Abdullah consulted his SIL who decided on the terms of reference and even the names of the people who will constitute the RCI.
There is no need to consult his cabinet as they are a bunch of low IQ stooges.
As for Wong’s article. What can one expect from [deleted]?
The chances are Lingam’s brother made end up behind bars after he appears before the Khairy appointed RCI.
#10 by Jeffrey on Monday, 19 November 2007 - 4:28 pm
No matter how one tries to restrict Royal Commission terms of reference and segregate the narrow issue of (1) Lingam Tape and who is guilty from the wider fundamental question of (2) the rot in the judiciary, the fact is (1) and (2) are inseparable because the conclusion in (1) will lead to irresistible inference and conclusion on (2).
How can Royal Commission in determining authenticity of video clip and its contents not call VK Lingam’s estranged brother (Thirunama Karasu Kandar Veluppillai) and refer to his two police reports providing further allegations of judicial corruption and reveal inside information of the senior lawyer’s cozy relationship with top judges?
If ex CJ were found by Royal Commission to be implicated as the other party in the conversation with the lawyer, wouldn’t this naturally spill over to the necessary question whether the positions as well as past judicial decisions of all the judges mentioned in the video clip, in which the lawyer was representing one of the litigants successfully, as well as other judges mentioned in Thirunama Karasu Kandar Veluppillai’s police report, would also have to be immediately reviewed?
Wouldn’t this in turn further lead to enquiry whether there is a need for a judicial commission to appoint judges instead of having the system of judicial appointments left entirely as in present system to the recommendation to the Yang Di Pertuan Agong of the Prime Minister on advice of head of judiciary which is subject to vulnerability of being abused if it were now shown that a head of judiciary could be implicated, and what happened to such a system in the earlier 1988’s sacking of Lord President Salleh Abbas?
So how does one contain the narrow issue of (1) Lingam video clip from the wider issue of (2) on Judicial Rot? To me the truth of (1) will invariably suggest the truth of (2), thereby requiring remedial action.
Our first, main and last concern is to ensure that the members of the Royal Commission appointed by the King on recommendation of the government are persons of integrity, wisdom, experience and courage to ferret out and report the truth – acceptable to Civil Society and the Public. Otherwise it is of no purpose.
#11 by toyolbuster on Monday, 19 November 2007 - 5:38 pm
Wong Chun Toi, i mean Wai is the main architect of the spinning machine at The Star. He is such a great spinner that even he himself got spun. Its ok, he values his dato’ship more than his maruah, which we all know he has none. Lets forget about him. He is totally insignificant. Most foreign news agencies would agree so
#12 by toyolbuster on Monday, 19 November 2007 - 5:44 pm
They may proceed with the formation of the RCI, but towards the end, they may recommend that Mr Karasu be checked into Hospital Bahagia asylum permanently, and then close the case as no case, Jack and Jill will come tumbling after.
#13 by undergrad2 on Monday, 19 November 2007 - 9:09 pm
“How can Royal Commission ….not call VK Lingam’s estranged brother … and refer to his two police reports …? Jeffrey
A court of law cannot admit statements by a witness given to the police because it infringes on the common law rule against heresay without calling the witness. Even then if it were to refer to such statements, the only allowable purpose would be to impeach the credibility of the witness. Otherwise such statements are inadmissible as evidence in a court of law.
It is simply not evidence. Period. However, a lot of the hearsay evidence is relevant, accurate and credible. But that’s another matter.
Jeffrey QC is right. One caveat though.
The Royal Commission, I believe (and I hope I’m not wrong in my assumption) is a semi-judicial body and not a court of law and the rules of evidence do not apply to exclude hearsay evidence in the same way it does in a court of law.
Being an investigative body with judicial powers, I believe it has flexibility a court of law does not have. Referring to statements given by a maker to the police is still an option but it would have to explain why in its report it is relying only on those statements without making any serious attempt to call the maker.
It goes to credibility.
#14 by undergrad2 on Monday, 19 November 2007 - 9:17 pm
Home Minister says “The royal commission can summon anyone it wants – the person who recorded the video, the actor, or the people mentioned in the clip.â€Â
Does this include not summoning anyone it does not want??
#15 by ENDANGERED HORNBILL on Monday, 19 November 2007 - 9:22 pm
Can the malaysian tokkok Law Minister (Hello Nazri) make some submissions at the ICJ on behalf of Malsayia or is he only a “Jagoh kampung” (which is a recognised fact!).
From STI news:
“S’pore ‘disappointed’ at M’sia’s ‘baseless’ allegations on Pedra Branca”
Professor Jayakumar was speaking on Monday at the International Court of Justice at The Hague in the Netherlands on the first of a two-day round of rebuttals for the Singapore side. — PHOTO: AFP
DEPUTY Prime Minister and Law Minister S Jayakumar has called Malaysia’s allegations in the two sides’ dispute over Pedra Branca ‘baseless’ and ‘distracting’.
He was speaking on Monday at the International Court of Justice at The Hague in the Netherlands on the first of a two-day round of rebuttals for the Singapore side, after both countries had presented their main arguments to the Court in the past fortnight. “
#16 by LittleBird on Monday, 19 November 2007 - 9:22 pm
You know why Khir started to award brooms. Because this country is soooo good at sweeping everything under the carpet.
The issue is so big therefor expect nothing. Video tape links a very prominent businessman now being entrusted by AAB to print money. Next, Wee’s case actually benefitted BN so who was the puppet master?
Also remember the video lawyer is or was our ex PM and sons lawyer.
It als implicate current Judges.
Overall, unless one want to commit suicide by bringing everything out I doubt whether anything will change. More so after BERSIH, reports against RPK, Jeffooi and the Royal housekeeper’s statement.
End of the day, will it bring more good or bad to the country ( in Malaysian context country = governemnt).
#17 by DarkHorse on Tuesday, 20 November 2007 - 4:28 am
“I call on the Prime Minister and Cabinet on Wednesday not to be so pusillanimous …” KIT
[deleted]
#18 by undergrad2 on Tuesday, 20 November 2007 - 7:41 am
Tsk, tsk, tsk….naughty! Naughty!
#19 by Jeffrey on Tuesday, 20 November 2007 - 8:24 am
Picking up from where Endangered Hornbill bill left off – on this off topic on Pedra Branca dispute before International Court of Justice in Hague – Pedra Branca is just a white crop of rock with much bird droppings of a size of football field with a light house but no oil or even defense strategic value so what’s the big issue?
The case is significant because of issue of national pride. Singapore some more rubs it in by saying that it contests Malaysia’s claim because as a matter of principle, we (Malaysia) should not be allowed to simply claim sovereignty over territories without regard to international law!
Singapore’s domestic team is a dream team of Law Minister/Deputy PM S. Jayakumar (LLM Yale), Chief Justice Chan Sek Keong, Attorney-General Chao Hick Tin, Ambassador at large Professor Tommy Koh (Harvard LLM) as compared to Attorney-General Tan Sri Abdul Gani Patail; and Foreign Affairs Adviser to the Prime Minister, Tan Sri Abdul Kadir Mohamad. Our AG may have litigation experience but his area of expertise is criminal law, ISA and the like whereas Jayakumar and Tommy Koh are experts in international law not only theory (lecturing in universities) but experience having rotated their service as Singapore ambassador at large in the UN. But domestic talent aside, much depends on foreign talents and how to argue. Singapore’s team comprises Queen’s Counsel Ian Brownlie, an international law specialist, Professor Alain Pellet of the University of Paris X-Nanterre, and a member of the United Nations International Law Commission, Mr Rodman Bundy of the English firm Eversheds and Loretta Malintoppi.
According to the New Straits Times, our foreign legal advisers are Professor Nicolaas Jan Schrijver, Mr Marcelo G. Cohen, Ms Penelope Nevill, Sir Elihu Lauterpacht and Mr James Crawford of which Sir Elihu Lauterpacht is a text book writer on International Law.
#20 by Jeffrey on Tuesday, 20 November 2007 - 8:27 am
On the balance of all probabilities, Malaysia will lose the case. Our Foreign Minister Syed Hamid Albar, speaking at a Hari Raya event in Kota Tinggi in Johor, slready prepared us for a blow to national pride by urging Malaysians to accept the ICJ’s decision even if it went against Malaysia.
#21 by Jeffrey on Tuesday, 20 November 2007 - 8:49 am
Malaysia team, take heed of this.
By normal rules of international law we will lose. Our strongest claim is historical – that since the time of the Johore sultanate, Johore ruled over vast expanse of land and sea stretching all the way from Natunas to Riau Lingga archipelago…including all the islands under dispute. This argument “tak jadi†because what is more important is contemporary history of last few decades not far far back – don’t tell me, (just for dramatizing a point) Mongolia can now assert some parts in Russia or Middle East and part of Europe just because Genghis Khan conquered some of these parts and remained undefeated?
It was Singapore that asserted sovereignty via its activities on the islands such as putting a flag there building other facilities, including a water desalination plant and a helicopter pad which we had not protested or challenged (until time of official dispute).
When we disputed with Indonesia over Pulau Sipadan and Ligatan, two islands to the east of Borneo we won in the ICJ based on the same ground that on the basis of the range of actions that Malaysia had carried out on the islands over many years, which showed our intent to exercise state functions over them – which Indonesia acquiesced and did not challenge and therefore lost the case. The same rationale by which we won the case against Indonesia will be used against us based on International law precedent against which we have no answer for Pedra Branca.
Malaysia should try something ingenious and uncoventional outside normal international rules, better still make new international rule based on contemporary history : tell them that when they (Singapore) joined Malaysia in 1963, it came in the union with the island Pedra Branca but when they were kicked out in 1965, they were kicked out without Pedra Branca since the Separation Agreement did not mention that it left with Pedra Branca. Ha ha ha (A desperate argument in the absence of alternatives)! :)
#22 by Cinapek on Tuesday, 20 November 2007 - 11:30 am
Let us stop deluding ourselves. This RCI, if at all it materialises, will be rendered so toothless it would be a farce, which it was intended to be all along.
The IPCMC is a great example. It is classic Pak Lah double speak. For political expediency, make the promise without any sincere intention to drive it through. Furthermore, with the impenmding GE, no way this RCI should happen soon as the revelations could embarass the Govt., even if they can spin it that the shennanigans took place before Pak Lah’s administration. Because the same players are still there. Just a change of skin does not make for a whole change of season.
You can bet that there will be delays after delays in the setting up of the proposed RCI until the public gets tired of hearing about it and is desensitized. They will then set up a watered down version designed to sweep the issue under the carpet, knowing by this time, no one gives a damn.
#23 by Filibuster on Tuesday, 20 November 2007 - 9:39 pm
Cinapek Says:
“You can bet that there will be delays after delays in the setting up of the proposed RCI until the public gets tired of hearing about it and is desensitized. They will then set up a watered down version designed to sweep the issue under the carpet, knowing by this time, no one gives a damn.”
This is why we need the Opposition then! :) The public needs reminding of the Government’s attempts to confuse the people and manipulate what they see/hear/think – after all, it is how some governments kept power over the course of history; this is no different. I hope YB Lim will do his utmost to keep justice at the forefront of the nation’s concern.
#24 by ihavesomethingtosay on Tuesday, 20 November 2007 - 10:27 pm
ATTENTION PEOPLE.
want a cool new ringtone for your mobile?
download the all new LIMGAMTONE
http://sloone.wordpress.com/2007/11/20/lingam-ringtones/#comment-36725
#25 by ChinNA on Tuesday, 20 November 2007 - 11:06 pm
Just curious… Uncle Lim is not young any more.
My uncle Lee lives near the south of Johor. Uncle Lee have a son who is taking of his family business now.
Has Uncle Lim found someone to take care of his? We may need him by the time lingam case is finally resolved.