..//To be a bystander to the same and but have the power to change is a crime// – Undergrad2. There’s a word for that – I learned it from the Wesley Snipes movie “Murder at 1600” – it is ‘dereliction of duty bordering on criminality!

On what DarkHorse said, it’s all over front pages of mainstream newspapers. The Star of 13th Feb for example highlighted 4 points brought up by Lingam’s 45 year old former secretary G Jayanti:-

· “Lingam wrote judgment in Vincent Tan’s case”;

· Jayanti gave statements to ACA 3 times but ACA closed case on grounds that as it involved many high ranking people in government…and ACA gave her RM3000”…

· She arranged the Lingam Eusoffe Chin’s NZ trip

· She left Lingam’s employ as she was accused of making off with RM1 million Berjaya Group Shares.

Amazingly, The Star has these bold caption : the “Amazing tales”!

Meanwhile Eusoff Chin’s lawyer applied to recuse RC commissioner Shanker; Lingam’s counsel, for Prof Khoo Kay Kim to b recused – aginst backdrop of Anwar’s lawyer Karpal Singh, for Haidar to go.

The RC is becoming a circus….In light of the several revelations (not just by Jayanti but the so called “mad” brother of Lingam and others lobbying to testify but not permitted), the narrow terms of reference of RC confined to authenticity of tape is a farcical joke missing the woods for the trees…. In further light of these allegations – if true – it is not just Judiciary but the ACA and the whole administration of justice and by extension the govt are inching to the spot where they will be on public trial. We do live in interesting times.

HB Lim says, “they (RC) will delay their findings until after the GE is over” – the implication being all these findings if disclosed earlier would affect elections results. The question is whether this is the case.

Many Malaysians had suspected what’s going on in corridors of power – and judiciary – way before RC had its first sitting, and the RC proceedings only confirmed everything no matter ‘the looks like sounds like me’ spin! But surprise surprise do you think many care about such things? Many would still vote the BN come what may, just have to give ang pows, school donations, federal grants to this association or that etc during campaigning and everything “kow tim”.

That’s why they the people or at least the majority voting section thereof deserve the govt they get, and TDM said that the voters would be bribed. Well I am sure he knew what he was talking about.

Just wondering what would it take and what apocalyptic event has to happen before large swathes of Malaysian public will be galvanized to turn against the present govt in a general election.

“Jayanti: Yes. I used to deliver (the share certificates) to the securities company, it was two floors below in the same building. They went missing for a while.Then he called me two weeks later and said they had been recovered. He asked me if I wanted to come back. I said I wanted to leave.” – on her leaving LIngam’s employ.

Upon his return, Lingam handed her three rolls of film to be developed.

“I developed all three rolls, which were about the New Zealand holidays of the two families but Lingam collected only two rolls of negatives and photographs. One of the rolls remained with me. He also handed some of the ticket stubs of the trip.”Jayanti also testified that former Industrial Court chairman W. Satchithanandan had told her to keep the holiday itineraries, the photographs and negatives and the ticket stubs “for future use” – on the fact that Jayanti kept physical records & evidence of Lingam/Eusoff relationship.

“Jayanti, 45, testified that some time between November and early December 1994, Lingam had asked her and two other secretaries, Sumanti Jaaman and Jamilah Abdul Rahman, to do some “confidential typing” – on the fact that Jayanti has corroboration from Sumanti Jaaman and Jamilah Abdul Rahman tro cobnfirm that Lingam dictated and composed the judgment in which he was involved as lawyer for one of the parties.

Information – from NST 13th Feb

You are welcome. So a foreign (S’porean) investment banker was talking to me on the matter over lunch. Now maybe average voter esp in Kampungs in coming election might not be bothered but would it affect his evaluation of sovereign risks relating to Malaysia. He said might be not yet though he said that what’s disclosed in RC proceedings was real bad for image of country, and undermined confidence of foreign investors. (eg the Ayer Molek case). He said investors would be worried if opposite litigant could get to the judge. He asked what’s going to happen to the Pak Lah’s four “corridors” and how were they going to get the critical mass with help of foreign investment to make these viable.
I bantered and asked whether it would be so bad if investor could also play the same game against the opposite side. In any case, I commented that we should keep open mind about RC…. see what happens. Jayanti’s testimony was expected damaging but RC commissioners allowed her to come in as witness. They didn’t find means to exclude her based on limited scope of its terms of reference. Attempts to recuse some of RC commissioners were made even by Lingam’s & Eusoff’s lawyers, so the RC commissioners are not that bad as originally perceived to be rubber stamp by powers-that-be. And are the Powers united on this issue of RC & exposure of these things and effect? I’m not sure that they are. I think PM should just let the RC do its work to conclude and recommend based on what evidence discloses. Why bother to damage control that which is very difficult to do so in light of what has been disclosed so far to the public – and why protect the previous administration whose legacy the state of Judiciary presently is the munificent bequest? At least try to show investors that we’re having some political will to turn the corner. We’re not some real third world African or Middle East countries where people in control have not heard of a word like Royal Commission.