The second-week proceedings of the Royal Commission of Inquiry (RCI) into the Lingam Tape has delivered three body blows undermining the commission’s public credibility as an independent and fearless agency to restore national and international confidence in the independence, integrity and quality of the Malaysian judiciary.
The first blow stems from the continued testimony of senior lawyer V. K.Lingam, coming on the heels of former Prime Minister Tun Dr. Mahathir Mohamad and former Chief Justice Tun Eusoff Chin, turning the Royal Commission of Inquiry into a public circus to the extent that a Malaysian quiz could be created to ask who had respectively been responsible for the following unforgettable words:
“Correct, correct, correct”;
“No, No, No”;
“Coincidence, coincidence, coincidence”; and
“Bullshit, bullshit, bullshit”.
Malaysians are astounded as to how the Royal Commission of Inquiry had allowed the “star witness” of the “it looks like me, it sounds like me but I will not say 100% that it’s me” quote to turn it into a circus – reflecting adversely not just on Lingam but even more seriously, on all the five Commissioners.
The language used by Lingam in his testimony at the RCI on Lingam Tape was unprecedentedly offensive in any court or public hearing – and which would have been disallowed as “unparliamentary” in Parliament. In fact, the language used was so unprintable for polite society that two leading dailies had to use asterisks for part of the word instead of printing it in full!
The second blow was the ruling of the RCI limiting its scope to judge-fixing and not cases-fixing, or to use Datuk Mahadev Shankar’s colourful description, to completely exclude the “pom, pom, pom, pom part”!
The third blow was the RCI’s decision not to be “that open anymore” to “prevent baseless and wild allegations from making way into the news”.
The commission secretary, Datuk Abdullah Sani Ab Hamid said: “It’s not going to be that open anymore, like previously. It’s not nice for the news to come out first and then only it is (evidence) decided whether it is relevant to the terms of reference of the inquiry.
“The commission must determine first the questions to be asked so that unrelated matters are not brought up.”
Why has the RCI taken the fatal step to retreat from openness, accountability and transparency and resorted to the culture of secrecy like in camera proceedings just to hear submissions by counsels for Parti Keadilan Rakyat adviser Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim and Lingam’s brother Thirunama Karasu whether they should be called to testify at the Inquiry?
The commission said it wanted to make sure that allegations that had nothing to do with the video clip would not be included as evidence.
Why can’t this process be carried out openly and transparently as the Royal Commission of Inquiry is also accountable and answerable to the court of public opinion whether it had diligently carried out its underlying terms of reference to restore national and international confidence in the independence, integrity and quality of the judiciary or whether it has abdicated from its national duty by giving the narrowest interpretation of its scope of deliberations?
The RCI’s view that “it’s not nice for the news to come out first and then only it is (evidence) decided whether it is relevant” must be seen in the larger perspective whether it is nice for Malaysia and its judiciary to be pilloried nationally and internationally as a laughing-stock for 19 years for its fall from grace as a globally-recognised judiciary of independence, integrity and competence!
The RCI into the Lingam Tape should reconsider its decision to restrict the scope of its terms of reference as to completely exclude the “pom, pom, pom, pom part” as well as to resort to closed-door proceedings to decide on the relevance of summoning or allowing witnesses to help in its inquiry.
The entire in camera proceeding of the RCI yesterday should be adjourned to a public hearing for all the arguments to be made again in public before the RCI comes to any decision.
It will be sad and tragic if public confidence in the RCI into the Lingam Tape plummets to a stage where a national consensus is reached that what is needed now is a RCI on the RCI on Lingam Tape to restore national and international confidence in the independence, integrity and quality of the judiciary!
#1 by Tickler on Saturday, 26 January 2008 - 1:17 pm
YB you got ESP or what?
That is exactly what the talk is out there – an RCI on the RCI. It is being talked that Haidar and the others, may have been beneficiaries of Lingam`s correct, correct and pom pom.
#2 by ktteokt on Saturday, 26 January 2008 - 2:03 pm
So this is what Malaysian democracy and independence of the judiciary are all about?
#3 by chew km on Saturday, 26 January 2008 - 2:06 pm
The whole proceeding of the RCI looks like a joke. Even if that is meant to be a joke there is no need to have too many clowns. Has the RCI lost its direction or it is afraid to do what it must and it should? Lingam claimed that he was drunk and that was why he bullshit alot. He was drunk – “Correct,correc,correct” ( Korek?)Even if that is true the whole RCI could not had been intoxicated by him.
Lingam you are great!!!!
May be the whole judiciary, the government and the ministers were and are still drunk and would continue to be so. What they do everyday is just “bullshit”
May be the production team producing this “live show” needs a better director.
Stop wasting the tax payers money. Stop the Inquiry. Close the case. Put the whitle blowers to jail. Use the ISA. Its effective and fast and it saves money. More effectively “bomb” the “bad guys”.
#4 by Jamesy on Saturday, 26 January 2008 - 2:16 pm
“Malaysians are astounded as to how the Royal Commission of Inquiry had allowed the “star witness†of the “it looks like me, it sounds like me but I will not say 100% that it’s me†quote to turn it into a circus – reflecting adversely not just on Lingam but even more seriously, on all the five Commissioners.”
—————————————————————-
Why do we need 5 people in the Commissions? It seems the other 3 are very quiet. So far they are just spectators. It seems to me that only Datuk Mahadev has been the most active and vocal commissioner. Whereas Haider is only vocal when Wee Choo Keong speaks but when Lingam, Mahathir and Tengku Adnan testified, Haider seems to be silent that you can hear a pin drop. No wonder, you have statements such as, “it looks like me, it sounds like me”, “I can’t remember”, “bullshit”, printed all over the frontpage of the newspaper and the RCI a circus in itself.
#5 by grace on Saturday, 26 January 2008 - 2:20 pm
I suspect the speakers or some implicated have a strangle hold on some of them . That is why they have to thread gingerly in their inquiries or else????
Yes, it is better than the Circus in town. This Lingam is playing a fool all the time, knowing that they can do nothing to them.
Case fixing and judge fixing goes hand in hands. Why musy the former be excluded.
Just like in a footbal match. Once a team can fix a refree, three quarter of the game is won!!!
#6 by Tickler on Saturday, 26 January 2008 - 2:35 pm
Royal Commission of [deleted]
I actually wanted to title this the Royal Commission of something else but with all the fart jokes stinking up the Lingam Video inquiry it is perhaps apt to link the conduct of the Royal Commissioners with unmanly behaviour. They are sissies, maybe even bordering on cowardice.
So now Datuk Abdullah Sani is telling the judges of the Royal Commission they just cannot be transparent anymore. Not just Anwar Ibrahim but others also want to connect the former Yang Di Pertuan Agong, the former Chief Judge Fairuz and God knows how many other issues to this Royal Inquiry. What a can of worms. So this Royal Commission of Bravehearts and Defenders of Truth has become a Royal Commission of [deleted].
But even if Lingam and Fairuz confess that they were talking to each other so what? The Royal Commission must prove that Dr Mahathir listened to these two clowns in the appointment of judges. Dr Mahathir has said that in the appointment of judges, Sultans, choosing the King, picking the MPs, appointing Cabinet Ministers etc he listens to Lingam, Mutu, Christopher, Siti Nurhaliza, Wong, Hussein, Melissa, Sue, Hamidah, Khatijah, Mak Jah, Lebai Omar and that tall mamak fellow. But ultimately he makes his own decision in anything.
So what exactly is this Royal Commission trying to achieve? Kalau nak malukan Tun Dr Mahathir, well he has already come and gone. Tak kena apa pun. Now it is the Royal Commision that is running and hiding behind closed doors. And they are not going to achieve anything either. Why don’t they just pack up and go home. Buang karan, buang air dan buang masa saja.
http://www.malaysia-today.net/2008/content/view/1829/46/
#7 by Tickler on Saturday, 26 January 2008 - 2:38 pm
PM’s approval rating plunges 10 percent-point to all-time low of 61%;
Chinese most pessimistic over economic outlook 2008
http://jeffooi.com/
Habis BN. Itu Sami pun tak boleh selamat badawi sekarang. Dia sendiri dah habis.
#8 by contradictions on Saturday, 26 January 2008 - 2:47 pm
Well, I don’t know about the [deleted] part as some of them are actually quite brave and principled. But what I think I know, but might not know, is that the Commissioners have been insulted without even realising it. I’m referring to what Tun Eusoff Chin said about them quote “Initially, I trust the wisdom of the member (of the Commission) to look into what is admissible or inadmissible.” An insult is how I interpret it, or is it that my England is bad. Maybe the Commissioners can tell us, or maybe not since they were silent on it.
#9 by Libra2 on Saturday, 26 January 2008 - 3:25 pm
I have been on the witness stand before and I know if I had given answers like what Eusoff, Mahathir and Lingam did, I would have been reprimanded by the judge for being evasive, dishonest and insulting the court’s intelligence. But here we have, I read in Malaysia Today, that the Commissioners stood up when Mahathir walked into the court.
Hearing to be oftenconducted in camera in rape cases. So is this hearing concerning the rape of the Judiciary?
#10 by kanthanboy on Saturday, 26 January 2008 - 3:29 pm
What is the purpose of judge-fixing?
The answer is found in the Lingam Tape:
The purpose of judge-fixing is to pave the way for cases-fixing.
Judge-fixing is the method, cases-fixing is the goal.
[…So should be okay, then ar… correct, correct, it is very important that the key players must be there. Correct, correct, correct. Correct, correct. You know that the same problem that Tun Eusoff Chin had. He tried to do all this and yet he has run out of soldiers. He couldn’t do it because many were from the other camp….]
{He tried to do all this} = {He tried to do cases-fixing}
{soldiers} = {judges}
#11 by despin on Saturday, 26 January 2008 - 4:09 pm
Malaysia must surely enter the Guinness Book of Records as the country that has the most number of clairvoyants per capita. We have accurately predicted that no action will be taken against the “if I go down-everybody goes down†councillor from Klang; we can foresee that there will be a “buang case†in the Altantuya trial because the “DNA of the bone fragments are inconclusiveâ€; and we can foretell that this inquiry will evaporate into thin air because Lingam was “intoxicated and showing offâ€. Thank you Pak Lah for making all of us seem so clever.
#12 by despin on Saturday, 26 January 2008 - 4:09 pm
This wayang kulit is worth watching just to see how their twisted minds work, and how much further they can insult our intelligence.
#13 by Bigjoe on Saturday, 26 January 2008 - 4:42 pm
We needed an RCI on Judiciary since 1988 when Dr. M started the downward spiral of crap that we have today. If we had an RCI then, Dr. M would have been booted out years before, we would have avoided waste in billions, our currency would not be worth 50% more, we would not be bailing out Proton for 20 years and still doing it, we would have better schools, Samy Vellu would have gone, Sharlinie may not have been kidnapped, etc. etc.
#14 by gofortruth on Saturday, 26 January 2008 - 4:52 pm
Lingam is trying to wiggle his way out by 2 ways:-
1) Video clip not authentic
2) Even if it is, he was drunk & was talking rubbish & he could not even recollect the phone act.
2 Witnesses have come forward & confessed that they were at the scene of the Video clipping, in fact one of them confessed he was the one who took the video. The time of recording was 7pm plus before dinner, nobody was drunk yet.
As fair minded public, does it look to you the person talking in the video is drunk or he is seriourly engrossed in a conversation with someone & he is explaining & clarifying very important matters?
Frankly, this is like what YB kit said it is a COVER UP COMMISSION. This how low our nation has gone down & still slipping.
#15 by aiD_kamikuP on Saturday, 26 January 2008 - 5:21 pm
RCI’s decision not to be that open anymore to “prevent baseless and wild allegations from making way into the news†only serves to fuel wider public speculation, and rightly so too, that this is an attempt to put the lid on explosive revelations coming from very KEY witnesses next week.
It has been said that even if one farts into a bottle and cover it up it will be futile. One cannot stop the stink from escaping.
#16 by dranony on Saturday, 26 January 2008 - 5:25 pm
Ironic isn’t it, that the principal Commissioner is named Haider.
If one does not listen carefully, one might have misheard it as “Hider” esp when heard in context of allegations of non-transparency in the proceedings.
A google/wiki on “Shim” shows that it means
“…a thin and often tapered or wedged piece of material, used to fill small gaps or spaces…”
#17 by aiD_kamikuP on Saturday, 26 January 2008 - 5:30 pm
should be “..explosive revelations coming from very KEY witnesses next week from reaching public ears.”
#18 by bennylohstocks on Saturday, 26 January 2008 - 5:32 pm
Rubbish, rubbish, rubbish like this also allowed..
http://malaysiancartoons.blogspot.com/2008/01/talking-to-president-bush-malaysiakini.html
#19 by Short-sleeve on Saturday, 26 January 2008 - 5:38 pm
What we need is a new government!
#20 by pkrisnin on Saturday, 26 January 2008 - 7:25 pm
RCI should have 4 hooded security guard standby the witness chair, ready on command to give the witness several slaps for giving rude BS stupid testimony.
#21 by hiro on Saturday, 26 January 2008 - 7:40 pm
When the RCI started, many criticised that the commissioners are not qualified because of potential conflict of interest. It bears out now that the fears were true.
What peeves me most is that case-fixing is excluded from inquiry. Logically, the worst possible result of judge-fixing would have been case-fixing, which has a direct impact on litigants of the other side. Haidar has failed to convince anyone why the RCI does not have remit to proceed with this issue when the Bar Council has interpreted the remit to be wide enough. This self imposed restriction is difficult to explain other than the fact that the RCI is working under the “telunjuk” of the PM. And it also appears to be reminiscent of Augustine Paul’s repeated ruling that conspiracy is not relevant to Anwar Ibrahim’s corruption trial.
The interesting question is why are they choosing to protect Lingam, but not Eusoff Chin? Is it because Eusoff Chin is already retired and no longer relevant to the powers that be, while Lingam is still actively involved in current judge-fixing?
I believe Malaysians are truly disappointed, and this will form another reason to vote against BN in the coming elections.
#22 by waterfrontcoolie on Saturday, 26 January 2008 - 7:49 pm
DEAR FRIENDS, I understand all your frustrations but there is only one way to show it: at the coming GE. I had said it when this circus was formed: a waste of our money!!
#23 by Jeffrey on Saturday, 26 January 2008 - 8:08 pm
Can the Commissioners of the Royal Commission make up their mind and come out open whether this is a public inquiry or a private (secret) inquiry, (because) from standpoint of confidence of the public we can’t have an enquiry that is “hybridâ€, sometimes public, and sometimes private based only upon the determination of the Commissioners or some of them that the public have no access to adjudge whether such determination is right or fair…..??
According to Malaysiakini’s report filed by Beh Lih Yi on Jan 25, 08 11:09am under caption title “Day 9: Closed-door hearing†–
“It is believed that the lawyers, in making their submissions, made references to certain personalities and their alleged involvement in court case-fixings as well as judge-fixings. It is also believed that Puravalen (Anwar’s lawyer) argued on the importance to bring in two ‘secret witnesses’ – codenamed ‘Mr X’ and ‘Mr Y’ – that Anwar intended to introduce as they could give evidence of judicial fixing and corruption in the judiciary. The two ‘secret witnesses’ are expected to be another younger brother of Lingam – Rajendram Vellupillai – whose identity was unwittingly revealed by one commissioner – and former Bank Negara assistant governor Abdul Murad Khalidâ€.
On the subject of judge-fixings as distinct from court case-fixings, if the terms of reference for the present Royal Commission cover judge-fixings but not court case-fixings, then the terms of reference should be expanded to cover the latter or otherwise form another Royal commission for court case-fixings.
One cannot avoid the latter when DSAI comes out openly and says he has 2 two ‘secret witnesses’ – codenamed ‘Mr X’ and ‘Mr Y’ – that could give evidence on this – not unless the government is prepared to say openly that court case-fixings and corruption within the judiciary (once upon the time conceded publicly by then CJ Ahmad Fairuz) are not important enough to be addressed as (say) judicial-fixings in the Lingam Video clip.
The fact is, as a matter of public concern, the issue of judge-fixings is inextricably entwined with the issue of court case-fixings, somewhat like hand and glove, and I don’t see how one can pay attention to one by invoking a RC for it and ignoring the other one!
#24 by grace on Saturday, 26 January 2008 - 9:29 pm
have been on the witness stand before and I know if I had given answers like what Eusoff, Mahathir and Lingam did, I would have been reprimanded by the judge for being evasive, dishonest and insulting the court’s intelligence. But here we have, I read in Malaysia Today, that the Commissioners stood up when Mahathir walked into the court.- Libra 2
Tell you what Libra2. The RCI is just behaving like clowns now. Lingam is dictating terms to them.
Now if fixing judges =cases fixing , do you understand RCI? They are interelated. If you want to clean the judiciary, go on and do a good job. Otherwise don’t do it.
Case fixing is like a cancer. If you want to remove cancer, make sure that all the cancerous cells are removed.
#25 by mendela on Saturday, 26 January 2008 - 10:04 pm
To side track, the head (either President or PM) of any civilized Gomens in the world would have quit if he or she was not performing well or not up to par as head of Gomen in order to avoid his/her ruling party suffering from big losses in the GE.
If he or she is not quiting, his party would have made him to quit.
Only in Bolehland, though the PM is a stupid idiot nut, his party members are still blindly worshipping him!
This is typical of UMOputras, cannot differentiate bad from good, they only blindly believe in power. Who has the power, who will be the GOD!
God saves Malaysia. UMO is doomed!
#26 by HB Lim on Saturday, 26 January 2008 - 10:37 pm
One of the terms of reference is “to determine whether any person identified or mentioned in the clip committed any misbehaviour”.
The persons mentioned in the clip include Eusoff Chin and Mahathir. The RC is empowered or appointed to determine if they among others have misbehaved.
Why then get into the nit-picking exercise of dividing the events or behaviour as relating to either one of judge-fixing or case-fixing? It is splitting hair when common sense says that person involved in any one of them would be misbehaving. Are the RC members so devoid of common sense?
If there is someone (say, Murad) who can give evidence that Mahathir was in the Palace of the Golden Horses discussing judge-fixing or case-fixing, then that evidence is relevant to show that firstly, Mahathir had lied to the RC and secondly, that he might have misbehaved.
If Eusoff Chin is shown to have an intimate relationship with Lingam (say, after a full investigation into the NZ trip or after Lingam’s brothers had given evidence relating to the relationship between Lingam and Eusoff) and was sitting in high profile cases in which Lingam had appeared as counsel or was directly involved (say, the Vincent Tan’s defamation appeal), then that is relevant to show firstly, that Eusoff had been lying to the RC and secondly, that he may have misbehaved by fixing cases conducted by his good friend to be heard before him and deciding them in his favour in questionable ways.
The central focus is misbehaviour by any of the people mentioned in the clip, whether they were fixing judges or fixing cases or doing other wrong or dishonourable things. The issue is whether the things they had done constituted misbehaviour.
Misbehaviour must be construed generally within the context of its natural and legal meaning and not specifically to suit the expediency of the RC to protect certain personalities.
This RC now seems like a farce like the Tribunal which removed Salleh Abas or that which removed the three Supreme Court judges immediately after Abas and Augustine Paul’s court which convicted Anuar.
The RC should just take the uncontroversial approach of letting all allegations be made and tested and the truth be known in a hearing open to the public and then deciding whether there had been misbehaviour by any one mentioned in the clip.
The RC and its members would go down in infamy and utter contempt and do a great disservice to the country if they were to contribute to the further decline of the reputation, integrity and well-being of the Judiciary.
What is the interest of a few compared to the interest of the whole nation and its future? The RC and its members have a once in a life time opportunity to set things right for the nation and for themselves and their souls.
Members of the RC, your final report cards on your lives are not signed or endorsed by Lingam, Mahathir, Eusoff or Fairus. They have to be approved by God.
There is soulful aspect to this whole inquiry, not just pure legality. The members of the RC are there to heal the soul of the nation and not just to show face or engage in pure, incomprehensible legal talks or in a adversarial trial between two parties. The RC members are there to find out the truth.
We want to find out the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth and hence the RC must be open, transparent and not even be seen to be siding anyone!
#27 by grace on Saturday, 26 January 2008 - 10:43 pm
Only in Bolehland, though the PM is a stupid idiot nut, his party members are still blindly worshipping him!- Mendela
You are spot on! Pak Lah would not be qualified to be a chief clerk in a developed country even! Oh yes, he can be the sleeping prince!!!
#28 by Rocky on Saturday, 26 January 2008 - 11:12 pm
RCI needs to get their act together and Haidar is tough on wee..good. can he get tough on Lingam and his language. If not Haidar will not go down well in history and believe me at the end of the day, the truth will be out. Haidar might as well o it on his watch.
and another RCI on case fixing is needed if this RCI doesn’t deal with it cos it is obvious there are case fixing pom pom except to those who do not want t see it.
#29 by pulau_sibu on Saturday, 26 January 2008 - 11:18 pm
All the hard fightings of Indians went to the drain, if we have Samy and Lingam in the Indian communities.
No………Lingam is not an Indian. He looks like Indian, he sounds like Indian. He speaks like Indian, but he is not 100% Indian.
#30 by HB Lim on Saturday, 26 January 2008 - 11:31 pm
Both Samy and Lingam brag. SAmy brags about what he has done for the Indian community which are mostly untrue. Lingam brags about talking to Ahmad Fairuz about fixing judges here and there. The difference compared to Samy’s bragging is that Lingam was bragging about the truth; what Lingam was bragging about did happen! So, it does not matter whether Lingam was bragging or even drunk. The question is how or from where or from whom did he get to know the things he was talking about which were so damn accurate?
#31 by anak sungeisiput on Sunday, 27 January 2008 - 12:03 am
The balme for this mess in the judiciary must surely lies with the Reid Commission for its failure to formulate enough provisions in the than Malayan Constitution to safeguard the independence of the judiciary.
#32 by anak sungeisiput on Sunday, 27 January 2008 - 12:07 am
and this, failure of the Reid Commission, is one of the claims lodged by HINDRAF in their Claim Form in the High Court of Justice, UK.
#33 by pwcheng on Sunday, 27 January 2008 - 12:35 am
grace Says:
Yesterday at 14: 20.48
Just like in a footbal match. Once a team can fix a refree, three quarter of the game is won!!!
Grace I will only three quarter agree with you on that. It should be if a team can fix the referee, the game is already won.
#34 by Short-sleeve on Sunday, 27 January 2008 - 12:38 am
Folks,
Until the rakyat wakes up and vote for change come this GE, there is nothing we can do.
#35 by Loh on Sunday, 27 January 2008 - 12:39 am
///The commission secretary, Datuk Abdullah Sani Ab Hamid said: “It’s not going to be that open anymore, like previously. It’s not nice for the news to come out first and then only it is (evidence) decided whether it is relevant to the terms of reference of the inquiry.///
Many things that are not nice are happening. It was not nice not to allow the public to know whether the commission draws the correct conclusion base on the findings. The public is not convinced that the composition of the Commission is the best for the job. By hiding evidence from the public, the suspicion would always be there. That is definitely not nice. The public have the right to know whether the judiciary performs as expected. That would help the public to be well informed so that they can decide how to vote for the next general election. Keeping the people informed about governance is part of democracy.
Though the Commissioners are responsible for deciding what among the evidence provided in the enquiry are relevant to the terms of reference, but unless the public are provided the same information, we are not able to judge whether the Commission had done the job fairly without fear or favour. It is not nice that the public continue to suspect the integrity and independence of the Commission. It is not nice that the public think that the Commission uses the excuse of ‘not nice’ to carry out things that are really bad.
The terms of reference are the issues that the Commission is responsible to provide its findings. The ‘Lingam tape’ implies that many things that were not nice were happening. The RCI is responsible of course to determine whether the ‘drunkard’ was relating what he did while he was sober, or that he had the uncanny ability to create stories that coincide with reality and government secrets while he was drunk. In addition to the ‘drunkard’, the Commission is also under examination. The Commission should seize the opportunity to prove beyond doubt its integrity and independence. It has to be seen to be doing it.
The Commission secretary should not think that the citizens are fools who accept the excuse given. If the enquiry is not open to public, then it confirms that the Commission has something hide, and the Chairman was chosen to draw predetermined conclusion. Which ‘not nice’ is worse?
#36 by undergrad2 on Sunday, 27 January 2008 - 12:56 am
“In his testimony on Thursday, Lingam stuck to his stand that the original video clip had to be tendered to the commission for his experts from the United States and Britain to authenticate it. ” STAR
After the battle of the experts, the Commission is still left with the question of who to believe. Guess what?? They will believe the experts from the U.S. and the U.K.
And guess how much Lingam (and his co-conspirators) have had to pay for their expert opinion. They don’t come cheap – probably anywhere from USDLS250k and above.
#37 by cheeran70 on Sunday, 27 January 2008 - 1:19 am
Korek….korek…korek…koreklah merata-rata…jalanraya korang korek, taman-taman korang korek, tepi jalan korang korek dan sekarang sistem kehakiman pun kau orang dah korek. Apa lagi korang mau korek????
#38 by pwcheng on Sunday, 27 January 2008 - 1:46 am
I think Brother Kit is dead right that we need a RCI over this RCI because it is becoming pretty obvious that the present set of commission members are veering towards fixing this hearing. A the end of the day Lingam and all his henchmen will walk away without any damage to them and to make maters worse judge fixing and case fixing will be exacerbated as now they can do it without any fear as we all know the shit is flying all over UMNO and most of them stinks. If you yourself stinks how you can complain the stinks on the other guy.
Coming back to the RCI, right from the start most of us knows that some of the members already stink and yet they are put there. Does this ring a bell. They are being put there to be made as fools and to be insulted and he revelations are becoming more obvious by the days.
They started off by putting a brave front by openly inviting everybody to come forward if they have any evidences relating to the case and initially during the inquiry stage they even threaten those who refuse to come forward to face the music. Now why are they doing the half somersault and even going to the extent of closing doors. What a farce and what a way to insult our intelligence.
To me I think this country is beyond repair and redemption so long as it is run by UMNO. Thy have made mockeries and mockeries over the RCI, one of the most known is the IPCMC. I believe this RCI will also suffer the same fate. Whatever is the outcome, the loser is the Rakyat as we are the one paying for all these side shows and matters will usually gets worse. The “landscape†of this country has been changed during TDM’s era, from flat to undulating and how steep and slippery. Our country is going to the dogs slowly but surely.
#39 by undergrad2 on Sunday, 27 January 2008 - 1:56 am
I will have to agree with the Commission’s opinion that the terms of reference limit the inquiry otherwise it “might go on a frolic of its own.” But what if it does? This is not a court proceeding and some latitude must be allowed in the way questions are asked and answered.
I sense the lawyers’ concern. Their concern is that this public inquiry will only lead to the government being vindicated i.e. no abuse of power and no corruption because the video tape could not be authenticated. So the lawyers are doing their best to try to get to the issue of “case fixing” that “judicial appointments fixing” implies”. They were stopped. They then tried to justify the line of questioning by pointing out to the relevance of the contents of the transcript. They failed.
I agree that the issue of “case fixing” is another issue. But I think while not being a primary issue is a secondary issue and is not totally unrelated. Lawyer Lazar should have anticipated the move by the Commission chairman.
#40 by cherasusie on Sunday, 27 January 2008 - 2:27 am
1st, many tks to dr.m for producing a bunch of famed golden bananas that talk like him and sound like him…….you will go down in history as one hell of a big banana!
If lingam can get away with his “it looks like me and it sounds like me†then crooks nationwide caught red-handed in cctv can also tell the police, “it looks like me and sounds like meâ€.
So, to whom it concerns, please put the purchase of cctv, if any, on hold, until the rci make the final decision on this…..of course, the decision is yours.
I cross my fingers……..to prevent the middle finger from going up…..op’s NAH!!!
#41 by undergrad2 on Sunday, 27 January 2008 - 2:35 am
“The Royal Commission of Inquiry into the Datuk V.K. Lingam video clip will not be “that open anymore†to prevent baseless and wild allegations from making way into the news. It’s not going to be that open anymore, like previously. It’s not nice …” STAR
This is nothing more than an attempt by the Chairman of the Commission to limit the collateral damage caused by statements made by witnesses and reported in the media. If he is worried about defamation, those being defamed can always seek remedies through the court system.
#42 by Godamn Singh on Sunday, 27 January 2008 - 2:52 am
“As fair minded public, does it look to you the person talking in the video is drunk or he is seriourly engrossed in a conversation with someone & he is explaining & clarifying very important matters?” gofortruth
In a grand jury hearing, there’d be jurors (members of the community) to decide this issue which is an issue of fact. Is Lingam drunk or sober during the conversation is an issue of fact that should be left to jurors – not judges.
#43 by Jeffrey on Sunday, 27 January 2008 - 4:43 am
It is an attempt to limit the collateral damage caused by statements made by witnesses to the high and mighty of the our political establishment whose attempt at remedies through the court system for defamation may be thwarted by immunity granted by the Commission of Enquiry Act to those giving testimonies in pursuance of the Act or by or under the authority of the Royal Commission in its hearings.
#44 by kanthanboy on Sunday, 27 January 2008 - 5:45 am
“…Case fixing is like a cancer. If you want to remove cancer, make sure that all the cancerous cells are removed…†grace
The cancel has spread to the whole judiciary, including the RCI. In fact 4 of the 5 commissioners come from the judiciary. If the body is cancerous, blood drawn from the body is equally cancerous. We need a new RCI filled with non-contaminated new bloods.
#45 by Godamn Singh on Sunday, 27 January 2008 - 6:12 am
“If he is worried about defamation, those being defamed can always seek remedies through the court system.” undergrad
He is worried about what it could do in the coming general elections.
#46 by Evenmind on Sunday, 27 January 2008 - 6:23 am
Since when anybody thought this inquiry was for real, only fools will fall into the trap of the imbercile gomen. All this set up to show the world at large that they are so efficient in combatting CORRUPTION., but then again becos of their imbecility its only reflect they are nothing but IMBERCILES.
Come on for god sake., you can’t take people for a ride at your whims and fancies, this is the 21st century, grow up you fools.
#47 by LadyGodiva on Sunday, 27 January 2008 - 6:36 am
The truth is they are!
#48 by malaysiatoday.com on Sunday, 27 January 2008 - 6:52 am
The Royal Commission of Inquiry appointed by the King is no more a child playground for these prominent people to insult our Malaysian intelligence publicly.
The public inquiry is no more a public affairs now, RCI has to be conducted in close door to avoid more damages to our King and the international image of Malaysia.
Lim Kit Siang asked “Do we need another RCI on RCI to restore our confidence on this Lingam Video RCI?”
#49 by HJ Angus on Sunday, 27 January 2008 - 8:35 am
There is no time to have another RCI before the next elections.
You can read many articles on corruption, NEP and justice on my blog.
I am no lawyer but this RCI is perceived to be tainted if any of the judges on the RCI was promoted during the time of EC’s tenure as CJ and in view of the damning tapes.
Any new RCI should be appointed after all Malaysians deny BN its 2/3 majority and we appoint judges who must appear before a parliamentary select committee and not the PM’s fancy.
Now if only the opposition parties will stop bickering over seats.
#50 by grace on Sunday, 27 January 2008 - 8:37 am
Pak Lah is really a third rate mentality and still wants to be amongst the first rate world leaders.
He wanted to brag about his success in DAVOS. Sorry la, no one wants to hear from an ustaz la. You like to fly overseas to hide your weakness at home.
Oh yes, the RCI should be from former judges in England or Australia. If Musharaff is willing to employ Scotland yards toclear the government of kliing Banazir, why can’t we follow his example.
Now just look at the enormous number of criticism on the CRI, which is not without good reasons!!!
#51 by HJ Angus on Sunday, 27 January 2008 - 8:37 am
Maybe this RCI was commissioned so that the findings would be “nice” for the general elections?
#52 by DarkHorse on Sunday, 27 January 2008 - 9:09 am
The motive behind allowing for the setting up of the RCI is “clear the air” so that voters would look to the controversy like it is “much ado about nothing” – and they are succeeding!
#53 by mendela on Sunday, 27 January 2008 - 10:24 am
Again to side track. John Howard of Liberal Party refused to quit before the GE resulting Kevin Rudd of Labor Party to win big in the recent Australia GE. Howard himself too lost his seat.
I am seriously think that DAP, PKR and PAS have a good chance to hit UMO and all its running dogs real hard this round!
I am really cannot understand why the million plus UMO members need to tolerate such lame duck leaders like Bodohwi !
To have some slim chance of winning big again, UMO should immediately remove Bodohwi !
UMO must start a movement from within to bring down Bodohwi NOW, before GE is held!
#54 by kritikus on Sunday, 27 January 2008 - 10:30 am
As what we expected and anticipated………………
Case fixing…….
Judge fixing………..
RCI fixing……………….
Hey you witnesses out there these guy named Hider is only flushing out all the whistle blowers and there will be another
WITNESS AND WHISTLE BLOWERS FIXING !!!!!!!!!
You all should know what it is all about, WATCH YOUR STEP AND LOOK FRONT, LEFT, RIGHT AND RIGHT BEHIND YOU. YOU SENSE ANY SUSPICIOUS CHARACTERS…………DEFEND YOUSELF….COS THE AUTHORITIES ARE NOT COMING TO HELP YOU.
THIS IS SERIOUS
EVERY EVIDENCE IN CAMERA???????????????
LEAVE YOU TO DRAW YOUR OWN CONCLUSIONS
CASE CLOSED.
#55 by kritikus on Sunday, 27 January 2008 - 10:43 am
he is worried about what it could in the coming GE………..Goddamn Singh
Brother, what worried, he is very, very, very confident of winning cos………….GE FIXING IN PROGRESS
Defamation suit………..undergrad.
Court, judges already fixed what are you talking about taking the defamation suit to court……which court..BEDMINTON COURT, TENNIS COURT, BASKETBALL COURT, FUTSAL COURT, AND FINALLY S Q U A S H……COURT.
YOUR ARE GUILTY AND SENTENCED TO…………………..
CASE CLOSED AND DESTROYED BY CCCC…..44444
#56 by kritikus on Sunday, 27 January 2008 - 10:50 am
THESE WHOLE JING-BANG SANDIWARA IS A FARCE AND COMMEDY SCENE DISPLAYED AND ACTED BY A BUNCH OF SO-CALLED LEARNED JUDGES WHO DONT SEEM TO BE LEARNED AT ALL AND THIS JING-BANG IS ONLY A BN CAMOUFLAGE AND PROVIDING THEM WITH THE BEST LEVERAGE TO WIN. DONT YOU ALL SEE…………
THEY WANT THE OPPOSITION DISTRACTED SO THAT THEY CAN CARRY OUT THEIR NEFARIOUS ACT OF RIGGING THE GE….
GUYS BEWARE THE IDES OF APRIL………….
#57 by lbn on Sunday, 27 January 2008 - 11:20 am
It’s a mockery of justice. Let’s be honest and face a fresh start. What is done is done. Nothing can change it. No point painting shit over shit. It’s not the govenment the world is laughing at but the country which includes the innocent rakyats. What a shamble these handfuls have created!
#58 by Tickler on Sunday, 27 January 2008 - 12:25 pm
Klip Video Terbaru – Cubaan..Cubaan..Cubaan..
Sekembali saya dari Hong Kong petang Jumaat, saya memperolehi klip video terbaru mengaitkan lagi pelakon utama VK Lingam, para hakim pilihan, tauke judi Vincent Tan, sekutunya Tengku Adnan Mansor serta bekas PM Tun Dr. Mahathir.
Tunggu dan saksikan adegan menarik Isnin nanti inshaAllah.
http://anwaribrahimblog.com/2008/01/27/klip-video-terbaru/#comments
#59 by boomingray on Sunday, 27 January 2008 - 2:00 pm
why the Commissioners never quiry why there were so many coincidences?1)the fixing of judges became reality,2)both of them went to New Zealand,3)all the big guns mentioned were at that time,related to each others,4)if he was drunk,why not he said Tan Sri William Cheng instead of Tan Sri Vincent Tan,Why not mentioned Tengku Razali instead of Tengku Adnan,a drunk person can have such an accurate memories?If he talks to George Bush like that,i think Malaysia will receive an outdated nuclear-bomb just just for testing!Who do he think he is?Lingam,i m talking to you!
#60 by boomingray on Sunday, 27 January 2008 - 2:04 pm
Tidak Malas Tidak Melayu,(like Haidar)
Tidak Tipu Tidak India,(like Lingam)
Tidak Tipu Tidak Cina!(like Vincent Tan)
#61 by boomingray on Sunday, 27 January 2008 - 2:05 pm
sorry,
Tidak Judi Tidak Cina!:-)
#62 by boomingray on Sunday, 27 January 2008 - 2:07 pm
use a lie-detecter machine to measure Lingam’s heart-beat,bcos when his face turn red,nobody knows!
#63 by Evenmind on Sunday, 27 January 2008 - 3:21 pm
Did Malaysians at large chose a Government or a bunch of clowns during tha last Elections . The latter must be 100% true becos of what is currently going on. They are indeed the CLOWNs of the century, The joint awards go to Badawi, Kerismuddin , Nazri , Najib and not forgetting the ugly ,pretentious Sammy Velu.
#64 by U32 on Sunday, 27 January 2008 - 7:16 pm
It is another wayang kulit show and yes it is done because of the coming elections. This whole wayang kulit show is done to fool Malaysians into thinking that we have a justice system whereby we can drag even the big shots into the court. What can I say ? How can I express myself except another ha ! ha ! ha !
#65 by aiD_kamikuP on Sunday, 27 January 2008 - 10:09 pm
RCI limits scope to ‘judge-FIXING’
Counsels cannot question ‘case-FIXING’
‘Not-open’ hearing may lead to ‘findings-FIXING’
…no prizes for guessing what’s the next ‘????????-FIXING’
#66 by cheng on soo on Sunday, 27 January 2008 - 10:22 pm
If Mr Wee Lin Gam said the person in the clip is not him, then why bother to say he might be drunk? Now this RCI is “closed door” very funny lah! “To prevent baseless and wild allegations” ?
Surely members of RCI know how to prevent such allegations (if any) even if the RCI is OPEN!
#67 by Godfather on Sunday, 27 January 2008 - 11:29 pm
I suspect that the reason everyone has been weaving and ducking like Muhammad Ali is because the phone records haven’t been tendered yet.
#68 by DarkHorse on Sunday, 27 January 2008 - 11:32 pm
Yeah, even Muhammad Ali has a limit to his ducking and weaving. Only Aflac can do that because he is a real duck.
#69 by budak on Monday, 28 January 2008 - 11:37 am
Yeah, Malaysia BOLEH…!
we just need a RCI to remove all judges and reappoint them again based on MERITs…
#70 by grace on Monday, 28 January 2008 - 11:49 am
The only way Lingam can convice others that it is not his image is to employ David Copperfield to do the disappearing act on his images in the recording.
The whole world say that it is correct, correct, correct- that is linam’s image. He himself could not recognise. Oop! Maybe RCI too!
Claim to be drunk -Sh@@!!
Now they want to close the inquiry from the public! Pak Lah, what are you doing. You said you want to be transparent! S@@@
#71 by boh-liao on Monday, 28 January 2008 - 3:49 pm
Don’t forget:
“Pom, pom, pom”!
#72 by boomingray on Tuesday, 29 January 2008 - 8:53 am
at the latest video clip,Lingam says that ‘i didnt know,the worst part is,he(yusof chin) put his hand on my shoulder!ha ha ha!’
If the RCI still cant read this,all the rakyat should organize a huge “Rakyat Dah Bosan” rally,everyone goes to the streets,yell the slogan as loud as possible,so that this time,the corrupted BN will be toppled!
All the lawyers should challenge Lingam to to do some ‘false’ video-clip outside the court-room,video-clipping what is inside the court-room,then play it out,he can use whatever techniques he likes,see whether he could come out something as real as in the court room!
Really a stupid clown RCIs!
#73 by People on Tuesday, 29 January 2008 - 11:44 am
Whatever the outcome from the RCI, the Malaysian judiciary system has now been pushed back to the dark ages. Wonder if cases involving those corrupted and unethical judges and lawyer can be nulified or brought up for further hearing??