Smarter RCI – summon Lingam first to give him opportunity to admit authencity of Lingam Tape

I read the first day’s proceedings of the Haidar Royal Commission of Inquiry into the Lingam Tape yesterday with dismay and disappointment.

Why wasn’t senior lawyer V.K. Lingam called as the first witness to give him an opportunity to confirm the authenticity of the 14-minute video clip which would have saved time, money and resources and allowed the real issues impinging on the crisis of national and international confidence in the independence, integrity and quality of the judiciary to be addressed frontally.

If Lingam is prepared to admit upfront the authenticity of the video clip, then the country can be spared the rigmarole of the completely unnecessary testimony of Anti-Corruption Agency (ACA) officers going to Lingam’s house in Kelana Jaya to take photographs of its living room and compare it with the location in the clip, finding them to be one and the same as well as other related testimony such as expert evidence from a private laboratory in the Spanish capital, Madrid verifying that the voice on the videoclip matched that of Lingam.

In fact, if Lingam admits to the authenticity of the clip, there would be no necessity to even summon businessman Loh Mui Fah who has surfaced publicly to admit that the video clip was taken by his son sometime in late December 2001 when he and his son had gone to Lingam’s house to obtain legal advice on family and business matters.

These evidence to establish the authenticity of the video clip would only be necessary if Lingam challenges the authenticity issue, in which case, he should be stood down as a witness until the Royal Commission has crossed the “authenticity” hurdle with all available verification testimony.

If Lingam admits to the authenticity of the videoclip, then the Royal Commission can immediately dispose of the first term of reference “to ascertain the authenticity of the video clip” and proceed to the other four terms of reference, viz:

• To identify the speaker, the person he was speaking to in the video clip and the persons mentioned in the conversation;

• To ascertain the truth or otherwise of the content of the conversation in the video clip.

• To determine whether any act of misbehaviour had been committed by the person or persons identified or mentioned in the video clip; and

• To recommend any appropriate course of action to be taken against the person or persons identified or mentioned in the video clip should such person or persons be found to have committed any misbehaviour.

Of course, should Lingam issue a flat denial about the authenticity of the video clip when called as an early witness and the Royal Commission of Inquiry reach a subsequent conclusion that the video clip was genuine, the Royal Commission should invoke the full punitive and penalty powers available to it to deal with Lingam.

It is still not too late for the Royal Commission of Inquiry to change strategy to summon Lingam immediately as a witness to offer him the opportunity to admit to the authenticity of the video clip, which will short-circuit the whole phase of calling witnesses for testimony to establish the authenticity of the videoclip – which will not only save public money, time and resources but a smarter way of conducting the royal commission of inquiry.

  1. #1 by HJ Angus on Tuesday, 15 January 2008 - 12:20 pm

    Sound rationale.

    But I guess we need to view from other aspects as well.
    The longer the RCI, the more claims can be made for 5-star hotel, transport and allowances and the more time for the public to become tired.

    So don’t expect a quickie. See the Altantuuya case. I don’t bother to read about it anymore.

  2. #2 by gofortruth on Tuesday, 15 January 2008 - 12:25 pm

    It makes our country looks so STUPID before international eyes.

  3. #3 by Tickler on Tuesday, 15 January 2008 - 12:25 pm

    If what Loh Mui Fah said was true, there are many questions can be asked:
    – Why did the PM mum over Loh’s letter and his appeal for protection?
    – Same question to Tan Sri Haidar who had insisted that nobody came forward to offer information, why did he keep silent?
    – What was the role of the ACA? Did the ACA act on the tip off from VK Lingam?

    In short, it is obvious that the authorities knew that the clip was genuine and have already had the means to tract down the maker of the video not long after Anwar released the clip.

    While in actual fact, the members of the investigation panel need no further evidence on the authenticity of the clip.

    Even when the Royal Commission was formed, Tan Sri Haidar continued to be silent on the identity of the video maker. If Mr Loh Mui Fah did not voluntarily present himself to the public, I wonder he would ever be called for the inquiry.

  4. #4 by Bigjoe on Tuesday, 15 January 2008 - 12:26 pm

    They are obviously going to drag this for as long as they can so as to avoid any fallout to an election. Even if they have to find everyone guilty including Dr. M, the hope is that it Badawi has a new mandate and have time to mitigate the fall-out with a new mandate.

    This is the worst foot-dragging second only to the IPCMC.

  5. #5 by k1980 on Tuesday, 15 January 2008 - 12:26 pm

    The real purpose of the RCI is to make sure that the entire dirty affair is swept under the carpet and the broom then thrown away. The witnesses can be expected to be arrested and jailed for taking part in an opposition-led conspiracy to bring down the judiciary and the government

  6. #6 by Tickler on Tuesday, 15 January 2008 - 12:30 pm

    Lingam is therefore a `hostile` witness?

  7. #7 by malaysia born on Tuesday, 15 January 2008 - 12:32 pm

    yet another wayang kulit put on by the government to buy time and to brain-wash the people.

    eventually the whole thing will become a circus. just wait and see…..

  8. #8 by Short-sleeve on Tuesday, 15 January 2008 - 12:34 pm

    This RCI is just a show. What Malaysians need to do is show up on election day with a broom and sweep BN out. If we dont take out the thrash from our house, it is gonna stink.

  9. #9 by Short-sleeve on Tuesday, 15 January 2008 - 12:35 pm

    “yet another wayang kulit put on by the government to buy time and to brain-wash the people.” – malaysia born

    Exactly!! And generally, we are suckers.

  10. #10 by Jamesy on Tuesday, 15 January 2008 - 12:40 pm

    Chairman Tan Sri Haidar Mohamed Noor, Tan Sri Steve Shim Lip Kiong and Puan Sri Zaitun Zawiyah Puteh seemingly refusal to disqualified themselves for the perception of biasness by the public goes to show that the RCI is a facade and conspiracy to cover-up in the highest order?

  11. #11 by ffgckl on Tuesday, 15 January 2008 - 12:50 pm

    Each and every thing will be proven genuine after all the rakyat’s money gone before they, the rci can find a conclusion or something not funny to the rakyat , it is too difficult to find something which is not funny in our masyarakat,don’t you think it is funny to just to send someone to the outer space and start claiming this and that,why they never remember the powerful Ayahpin already go to the outer space by just riding on his mitsubishi pajero? Lingam nothing, the producer of the clip shall be punished so my fellows rakyat tell him don’t come back since he will never be a Shanghai Knight.

  12. #12 by Malaysian on Tuesday, 15 January 2008 - 1:03 pm

    Tickler Says:
    – Why did the PM mum over Loh’s letter and his appeal for protection?

    Yeah, the letter dated 5 Nov. That means Abdullah knows about it 2 months ago. Unless he clarifies why he choose to keep quiet, the character of Abdullah is very questionable to me.

    Note:I does have very high hope on abdullah on last election, at least from moral point of view.

  13. #13 by Tickler on Tuesday, 15 January 2008 - 1:16 pm

    Note:I does have very high hope on abdullah on last election, at least from moral point of view.

    Yes many had the same position.
    I did not, and I told Jeff Ooi the same, but he too was hopeful.

  14. #14 by Cinapek on Tuesday, 15 January 2008 - 1:18 pm

    If Loh Mui Fah’s press interview with Malaysiakini is to be believed, Loh had informed Tan Sri Haidar earlier during his (Tan Sri Haidar) stint as the panel Chairman as to who was the person who videotaped the Lingam conversation.

    It is strange that Loh was not called for the panel hearings, despite all the comments made by the PM and the panel to the press for the person who made the tape to show up to testify when all along both Tan Sri Haidar and PM had been informed already.

    What makes it stranger still is now the tone of the comments by Tan Sri Haidar for Loh to come forward to the RCI and testify under oath. Why need to dare him to come and testify under oath? He has not only informed all the key players (who should have done something but did not) in writing but he has also revealed everything to the press.

  15. #15 by grace on Tuesday, 15 January 2008 - 1:19 pm

    Aiya, Mr Lim,
    Like so many scandals that have surfaced, this one would just add up o the statistics.
    Pak Lah, the greatest slogan maker , always champion first world mentality. If he really is true to his word, he should call in foreign judges especially from GT Britain to be member of the RCI.
    Look at Musaraff tackling of Bhuto’s murder. Since the people over there in Pakistan doubt his sincerity, he has employed the Scotland yard to to the investigation. On top of that he is willing to exhume the body of Bhuto to clear the people’s doubt, once and for all.
    But Pak Lah? ZZzzzzzzzzz! Goodnight

  16. #16 by hiro on Tuesday, 15 January 2008 - 1:20 pm

    Perhaps they’re interviewing the witnesses according to the sequence which the AG has set out. Will the righteous folks in RCI please stand up to be counted? Think about the future of Malaysia. Don’t tow the line, and don’t listen to sweet promises. Bring your case to the press if you have to, if the Chairman of the RCI refuses to do what you suggest, even if it is a sound suggestion.

  17. #17 by Godfather on Tuesday, 15 January 2008 - 1:33 pm

    The RCI is obviously following Badawi’s style of “going by the book”. If all it took was for Lingam to confirm the tape and the conversation, where will it leave the ACA, and the whistleblower, and Anwar ?

    The total lack of common sense is what plagues this administration.

  18. #18 by HJ Angus on Tuesday, 15 January 2008 - 1:38 pm

    I think the independent panel had no authority to summon anyone to appear before it.

    It was a “suka suka” panel. Come if you please, lah.

  19. #19 by kanthanboy on Tuesday, 15 January 2008 - 1:42 pm

    The Haidar Royal Commission of Inquiry flunks on the first day. Time to cut losses. Fire them and appoint only qualified people as commissioners.

  20. #20 by Tickler on Tuesday, 15 January 2008 - 1:47 pm

    A Mad Tea-Party

    There was a table set out under a tree in front of the house, and the March Hare and the Hatter were having tea at it: a Dormouse was sitting between them, fast asleep, and the other two were using it as a cushion, resting their elbows on it, and talking over its head. `Very uncomfortable for the Dormouse,’ thought Alice; `only, as it’s asleep, I suppose it doesn’t mind.’

    The table was a large one, but the three were all crowded together at one corner of it: `No room! No room!’ they cried out when they saw Alice coming. `There’s plenty of room!’ said Alice indignantly, and she sat down in a large arm-chair at one end of the table.

  21. #21 by Luther on Tuesday, 15 January 2008 - 1:50 pm

    To me, they are set to be,as the finale finding will be 2:3 and conclusion is :-no action should be taken against anybody.

  22. #22 by Godfather on Tuesday, 15 January 2008 - 1:52 pm

    Remember that we have one of the most bloated bureaucracies in the world. If we use common sense and “go straight to the point”, then a lot of people are going to be out of work. Hence to keep the bureaucrats occupied, we have to twist our right hand over the back of our head to touch our nose.

    Do you think that the mainstream press will pick up on this issue ? I think not.

  23. #23 by ENDANGERED HORNBILL on Tuesday, 15 January 2008 - 2:14 pm

    Question for RCI:

    If Lingam is the last witness & he ‘somehow’ gets access to the testimonies of other witnesses or pieces them together from press reports, wouldn’t that allow him time to do ‘damage control’ before he takes the witness stand, eh?

    The bigger question must surely be: shouldn’t the RCI not only be seen to be just and fair but also be scrupulously so? And wouldn’t it attract flecks and flames if it appears to be anything less than a bride of consummate virginity and purity?

    Maybe, it doesn’t matter anymore these days, eh? After just the first day, I’m already wearied by this bride!

  24. #24 by Tickler on Tuesday, 15 January 2008 - 2:18 pm

    If they had called Lingam first, and he had lied, the damage control by the BN would have been impossible as the truth surfaced in subsequent testimonies.
    Now the rats have a fighting chance aided and abetted by the RCI sequence.

  25. #25 by malaysianboleh on Tuesday, 15 January 2008 - 2:38 pm

    Please don’t waste our tax payers monies. Be a Man Be barve Just say I am The Man in the Tape !!!.

  26. #26 by Libra2 on Tuesday, 15 January 2008 - 2:43 pm

    Going by this procedure there is no need for courts to ask accused persons if they wish to plead guilty.
    From now on let every case go on trial and the verdict passed at the conclusion of the trial. Guilty plea should be abolished.
    I think the 3-2 majority decision is already prepared and waiting to be dispatched to the government. This hearing is an eye wash. The pointers are there to a decided conclusion.
    Wonder if Lingam is dictating how the hearing should proceed.

  27. #27 by Tickler on Tuesday, 15 January 2008 - 2:51 pm

    ABOVE & BELOW: Loh Mui Fah at Lingams house in 2001

    He said Lingam told him that he was on the phone with the Chief Judge of Malaya. Replying to a question by inquiry leading officer DPP Datuk Nordin Hassan on whether Lingam mentioned a name (of the person he was on the phone with), Loh said: “Yes, he did mention. It was Datuk (now Tun) Ahmad Fairuz (Sheikh Abdul Halim).”

  28. #28 by grace on Tuesday, 15 January 2008 - 3:29 pm

    Viewed in the light of Chua Soi Lek’s admission of guilt, I come to the conclusion that many of thoe implicated in the recording of “Longam tape” have no balls.
    They shouold follow Chua’s example. “Berani buat, berani bertanggung jawab”.

  29. #29 by iweepformalaysia on Tuesday, 15 January 2008 - 3:53 pm

    Calling Lingam himself as the first witness is useless. We are not asking him to enter into defendence right? After all this is not a court.

    Furthermore, any sane human would not admit that it is authentic, let alone that sly fox. Eventually, we will come to the same circle, so it is better to make him unable to defend himself anymore first before calling him to testify.

  30. #30 by Tickler on Tuesday, 15 January 2008 - 4:30 pm

    Sure would have been nice to hear him say `No it is not me` and later to be proven wrong.
    Then we would be able to know what happens when someone lies to the RCI. I`m not sure if the Rules Of Perjury would apply.

  31. #31 by madmix on Tuesday, 15 January 2008 - 4:44 pm

    When Dr Chua Soi Lek was confronted with his video clip, he very quickly admitted it was him in the clip. A true gentleman. But this Lingam fellow with his dithering is wasting taxpayers’ money and the time of the ACA etc.
    He should have admitted that he was the person in the clips; his wife and children can easily confirm it was him; his servants can easily confirm this; his employees can easily confirm this, why the dithering? He could has said he was just boasting to his client to impress him of his connections and “kantou” and that he really have no influence on politicians and judges. That would have ended the matter and AAB would not call for 3 man commission and now 5 man Royal commission. He could have saved himself there and then when the clips first surfaced.

  32. #32 by k1980 on Tuesday, 15 January 2008 - 5:26 pm

    The Hindraf 5 should be released immediately from ISA terroism charges and this crafty mastermind put in their place

  33. #33 by boh-liao on Tuesday, 15 January 2008 - 5:31 pm

    Looks like AAB is trying to protect TDM since this affair occurred during TDM’s PMship. Also to protect V Tan and Lingam, for whatever reason.

    The questions Malaysians want to ask:
    Do we have honest people as judges, who rule without fear and favour?
    Do we have different laws for different people? Poor and not powerful people face tougher laws, while rich and powerful people are treated leniently and can get away even with murders!

  34. #34 by Evenmind on Tuesday, 15 January 2008 - 5:40 pm

    Lingam will not be the first one to appear because the inquiry is a farce , just as the case of the murdered Mongoliian beauty, they will drag all the dirt and sweep it under the carpet, at the end of everything .Who loses : the honest,hardworking tax payers., Don’t waste your time following the these cases .,simply not worth it., CORRUPT GOMEN IS HERE TO STAY, AND IS WAY OF LIFE . FULL STOP.

  35. #35 by Tickler on Tuesday, 15 January 2008 - 5:41 pm

    Alternatively, BN wants the status quo maintained.

  36. #36 by vincent on Tuesday, 15 January 2008 - 6:45 pm

    Malaysia couldn’t be saved under the bn rule.

  37. #37 by undergrad2 on Tuesday, 15 January 2008 - 8:34 pm

    “Why wasn’t senior lawyer V.K. Lingam called as the first witness to give him an opportunity to confirm the authenticity of the 14-minute video clip which would have saved time, money and resources and allowed the real issues….” KIT

    The proceedings appear much like that of the Grand Jury hearings in the United States, the sole objective of which is to establish if there is enough evidence to go forward with the case and what the charges ought to be. Except that the Grand Jury hearing is not limited by any term of reference and is more than just a commission of inquiry with powers to summon witnesses etc. There is also a jury.

    Lingam’s counsel’s contention that the authenticity of the tape should first be established before witnesses are called is an attempt to hijack the proceedings if you will. It is after all an inquiry and not a trial – the objective of which is to establish criminal wrongdoing by the party or parties involved. No one has been named defendant. The strict rules of evidence and procedure do not apply here.

    The Commission of Inquiry should not feel strapped to methodically build a case against any particular individual but to use the wide latitude given to it and inquire into what crimes have been committed as revealed by the tape. Like YB Kit said it would save time and resources to just skip building that foundation needed in any examination of witnesses, and call first not Lingam but the maker of the recording assuming he is available. If he is not then call Lingam to view the recording and ask if the image and the voice heard is not his.

    I do not see how Lingam could deny and get away!

    If he admits it is him seen talking on the cell phone, then the next thing would be to admit the transcript into evidence. At this stage, and I could be wrong here, there is enough evidence of a prima facie case against him for an attempt to fix judicial appointments – a crime under the Prevention of Corruption Act? But cases are not won on prima facie evidence.

    Here the true identity of the caller is crucial.

    If Lingam provides a name then the next logical thing to do would be to call him as the next witness. If this witness denies being on the phone with Lingam, he should then be asked as to why Lingam identifies him.

    To try the ‘accused’ and the ‘co-accused’ jointly has its advantages over separate trials of each ‘accused’ – except that in this case no one has been accused and it is not a trial.

    It is downhill for Lingam once he is called to testify which is why his counsel is asking that the authenticity of the tape be first established. Just a mere roadblock.

  38. #38 by HJ Angus on Tuesday, 15 January 2008 - 11:40 pm

    The time delay of the RCI can be used to close as many bank accounts as possible by anyone implicated in “judicial arrangements” so that it will be harder to get evidence unless the AG’s office is really serious.

    Perhaps Parliament should appoint a special prosecutor and not the AG if there is a case of pursue.

  39. #39 by despin on Tuesday, 15 January 2008 - 11:54 pm

    It is mind-bloggling how they are trying to spin their way out of trouble on Lingamgate. But spin their way out of trouble they will just like the sun will rise in the east tomorrow. It is possible that the mastermind behind this imminent fiasco is the DPM because I cannot imagine the sleepy PM having the energy nor the motivation to prolong this charade because 1) he had nothing to do with it, and 2) his priority is to win the next election. The DPM’s motivation? If he can get everyone off the hook despite all odds, he would have collected enough favours to cash in on something he really wants: NO CASE ON ALTANTUYA. Quid pro quo, ladies and gentlemen.

  40. #40 by mwt on Wednesday, 16 January 2008 - 1:11 am

    Despite the evidence given by the Businessman Loh, Lingam’s lawyer still maintained that the pictures in the Video Clip are not clear and his current standing instructions are that “it looks and sounds like him in the Clip”. With his voice being verified in a Spanish lab and the Clip being certified authentic, Lingam is now cornered and must admit it and face the music.
    More details
    Go H E R E

  41. #41 by vckc72 on Wednesday, 16 January 2008 - 10:13 am

    I don’t know how many of us still remember this statement:

    ‘I have no hope of justice’

    ANWAR delivered the following address in court on April 14, 1999 after Judge Augustine Paul pronounced him guilty on charges which most people believe were trumped up.

    First, I would like to thank my lawyers, who have conducted the defence with such dedication and spirit. They deserve the greatest admiration.

    Right from the beginning, I had no hope whatsoever that I would be tried fairly. I say this not out of prejudice; I base my statement on information I have been privy to. When I was in government, many senior officials, noting my reformist attitude, used to complain to me about all kinds of afflictions within the government machinery, including the judiciary. A very senior judge, out of his own volition, submitted a detailed report which showed how serious the crisis in the judiciary was. He gave several examples of personal misbehaviour and professional misconduct in the handling of court cases.

    I have no hope of justice. The charges are part of a political conspiracy to destroy me and ensure Datuk Seri Dr Mahathir Mohamad’s continued hold on power at whatever cost, even if it means sacrificing whatever little is left of the judiciary’s integrity. “You resign or I charge you.” That was the ultimatum the Prime Minister gave on the morning of 2 September 1998. Isn’t this corruption? The Prime Minister uses the judicial system as a tool to exert political pressure.

    All the instruments of government–including the Attorney-General’s Office, the Police and, indeed, the Judiciary–are under the Prime Minister’s thumb. In the days of absolute monarchies, the king could do no wrong, rex non potest peccare. That is precisely how this country is ruled now; members of the ruling clique are immune from prosecution and those who go against them are humiliated and disgraced through trumped-up charges.

    At the begining of the trial, the Honourable Judge exhibited some courage when he cautioned members of the administration against commenting on the case. But courage left him when the Prime Minister blatantly committed contempt of court by remarking that there would be chaos if I was found innocent. Was this not a warning to the court? And neither did the Attorney-General utter a single word. However, the honourable judge recovered his “courage” and “vigour” when my lawyers tried to question his rulings.

    Indeed, this trial has influenced perception regarding our judiciary, not just among Malaysians but the international community as well. It has opened the people’s eyes. The court, in ruling that a political conspiracy was irrelevant and that certain witnesses were irrelevant, has helped me prove to the people that my prosecution was indeed part of a political conspiracy. I could not guarantee achieving this on my own even if I were to go on a nationwide campaign.

    Charges were trumped up against me because I worked against corruption, power abuse, cronyism and nepotism in government. And the judge has declared: “Let the whole country be corrupt; it still has nothing to do with this case.” But corruption is precisely the issue; it was because I opposed corruption that I was expelled and it is because of corruption that this case cannot be tried fairly.

    And while I am accused of corruption, the Attorney-General has not brought an iota of evidence—indeed he has not even tried to prove—that I used my position to enrich myself or my family. But the Prime Minister has directed Petronas to bail out Konsortium Perkapalan, which is owned by his son, Mirzan Mahathir. Isn’t this corruption? In my possession there is a report of an investigation over corrupt practices by a cabinet minister which was submitted to me by the Attorney General. It ends with this sentence: “The Anti-Corruption Agency and the Prosecution Division of the Attorney-General’s Office recommends that B1 (the minister concerned) be charged in court.” The report was signed on 14 March 1995 by a prosecutor named Gani Patail. And I have letters written by corporate figures to Tun Daim Zainuddin (when he was Finance Minister) which conclude thus: “In the event of my death or permanent disablement, this letter shall serve as irrefutable proof of your claim against my estate.” The amounts involved run into hundreds of millions of ringgit. I repeat my challenge to the ruling clique to give full disclosure regarding the approval of licences, contracts and shares by Tun Daim and me and privatisation approvals by the Economic Planning Unit.

    The corruption charge against me is not a charge concerning pecuniary gain but one of abuse of power. But in the process of prosecuting me there have been so many startling incidences of abuses of power by the Prime Minister which point clearly to the existence of a conspiracy.

    Coercion, ultimatums, even torture were used by the parties charged with the responsibility to fabricate evidence against me. I have evidence of such a conspiracy: from the involvement of the Attorney-General in the police affidavit calculated to vilify me in Dato’ Nallakaruppan’s case, alleging sexual misconduct on my part, treason, leaking government official secrets and corruption, to the cases of coercion and torture of Dr. Munawar Anees, Sukma Darmawan, and Mior Abdul Razak, the statutory declaration of Manjeet Singh, to the meeting between the police and Gani Patail at Bukit Aman on the night of 20th September 1998. But the judge simply did not have the patience to hear all this. As Socrates once said: “A judge must be patient enough to hear the evidence of both parties.” On the contrary, in my case, my counsel Zainur Zakaria was found in contempt of court and others were warned that they too would be subject to the same punishment. I have overwhelming evidence concerning the deception and conspiracy but all this was brushed aside; even more so when the names Dr Mahathir and Tun Daim were mentioned, as if the court was more interested in protecting them than getting to the truth.

    When I was still in office I referred to the need for legal reform, the need for the independence of the judiciary to be further strengthened. Many of the rich and powerful did not take kindly to my statement while many of the people read my statement with scepticism. Now they are no longer sceptical. As they say, one bad apple can spoil the whole bunch. The actions of a small group of people have destroyed the judicial institution. Only that I had unwittingly become the victim in order for people to be convinced about this. I have no regrets whatsoever. Perhaps this is just a small sacrifice on my part to convince the people how urgent and vital is the need for reform in this country, especially in the police force, the AG’s Department and the Judiciary.

    Justice is the soul of a nation. Our tragedy is that there are people who are prepared to sell their souls for a pittance.

    I was brought up on the adage: a tiger’s legacy is its stripes, a man’s legacy is his name. So, if I may ask, what is a judge’s legacy? Surely nothing if not his judgments. If his judgments be just, then they would be remembered for generations. Otherwise, his injustices will stink till Kingdom come.

    I have been dealt with a judgement that stinks to high heaven. This is an absolute disgrace. An interpretation of corruption which is ludicrous, nauseating, in fact, when one considers how in Malaysia billions of ringgit of the people’s money are being squandered by leaders to save their children and cronies. They have made greed and unethical behaviour their private domain, rendering themselves above the law.

    I have been convicted, but the people know that my conviction was according to the script written by the conspirators. It is not the Court but the conspirators who are sending me to jail. But remember that man is made of body and soul. My body may be incarcerated, but my soul remains free. However, there are those who are outwardly free, but their spirits remain forever shackled, imprisoned by their rank and status. Indeed their souls can be bought and sold.

    This trial has been political persecution hiding behind the cloak of the law. I would advise the conspirators to stop this nauseating charade. To all Malaysians, regardless of race or age, I am grateful for their support. Hold fast to the struggle. Love Malaysia. And if we do love Malaysia then the fight against injustice, to establish justice and freedom, must be invigorated. The corrupt and despicable conspirators are like worms wriggling in the hot sun. A new dawn is breaking in Malaysia. Let us cleanse our beloved nation from the filth and garbage left behind by the conspirators. Let us rebuild a bright new Malaysia for our children.

    That’s what BN Government has so for built over the 50 years of natioanl building. A bunch of shitty system that destroy the credibility, efficiency, reliability and effectiveness of our country.

    They are good at “twisting”…..

  42. #42 by darnielng on Wednesday, 6 February 2008 - 10:54 am

    Again the government wants to show power on the weak and inflict fear into common people on the extend the of action the government will go through.

    If the controlled media say they are so great why is there almost 100% of the Indian community go against MIC and Samy is still there?

    There is no racial harmony in this country. The people are just not happy with the gov’s silly actions over and over. The Ministers have become too fat seating on the same seat for too long. Some 30 years!. And half the family members, friends or distant relatives are also involved in business-politics.

    I don’t believe what they say on The Star, TV3, and RTM. They are all white lies anyway. With one single objective.

    To ensure mental control over the general community with White Lies that protect their own seats and mostly their own contracts or mega projects involving relatives or friends.

You must be logged in to post a comment.