Lingam Tape 'Lingate'
-
ANOTHER Block-Buster Scandal...
An explosive video clip showing a senior lawyer in a telephone conversation allegedly with Chief Justice Ahmad Fairuz Sheikh Abdul Halim was caught on tape discussing on the telephone with a senior lawyer on how to 'fix the judgments' of several cases.
The eight-minute clip, which was taken in 2002, was made public by PKR de facto leader Anwar Ibrahim today.
Among the matters being discussed on the video clip were:
# the appointment of Ahmad Fairuz as the Chief Judge of Malaya and his promotion as the Chief Justice. At that time Ahmad Fairuz was the Chief Judge of Malaya, in charge of all High Court judges in Peninsular Malaysia.
# a conversation discussing which judges should be promoted and that "loyal" Ahmad Fairuz should be rewarded with a promotion.
Anwar said the video proved that his appeals against his sodomy and abuse of power convictions were tainted and that he was denied a proper and fair trial.
In this video, lawyer VK Lingham was seen and heard to be talking to the current Chief Justice of the Federal Court, Tun Ahmad Fairuz Abdul Halim wherein (Anwar's) name, among others, is specifically mentioned.
Anwar, however, did not disclose the person who took the video.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nlROjCITFvY -
• The comments by the Attorney-General Tan Sri Abdul Gani Patail that “no criminal offence appears to have been committed” in the Lingam Tape and that senior lawyer V.K.Lingam “was in a monologue over his mobile phone and it was unclear who he was talking to” were most outrageous and raise important questions, viz:
• his understanding of and commitment to judicial independence, integrity and accountability; and
• his fitness to continue as Attorney-General.
Photo Sharing and Video Hosting at Photobucket
Attorney-General Tan Sri Abdul Gani Patail
How can the chief legal officer of the government try to minimize the gravity of the judicial misconduct exposed by the Lingam Tape and shirk off his responsibility by claiming that Lingam was in a monologue as “There is no clear reference that he was talking to a top judicial officer”, when Anwar Ibrahim’s allegation that Lingam was talking to Chief Justice Tun Ahmad Fairuz Sheikh Abdul Halim sometime in 2002 when he was Chief Judge of Malaya was corroborated by the contents of the conversation?
Forty-eight hours have passed and neither Ahmad Fairuz nor Lingam had denied that there was such a telephone conversation between them, which would be the first reaction of anyone to a doctored video clip.
Ahmad Fairuz was contacted the same afternoon of Wednesday when Anwar made public the video recording, but his personal assistant relayed the message that the Chief Justice wanted to have a look at the video before saying anything.
But Ahmad Fairuz had been in ex communicado in the past two days, although he would have no difficulty in accessing it on the Internet, as it was put up on Malaysiakini almost instantly the same day (recording over 4,000 hits since), as well as on many blogs and the Bar Council website. One Youtube site which uploaded the clip registered 23,150 hits in one day.
It is also most noteworthy that Gani had NOT challenged the authenticity of the video recording of the telephone conversation.
What is mind-boggling is that the Attorney-General should be so complacent as to find nothing improper or offensive in it and cannot see the grave judicial misconduct crying out for attention and which have plunged the country into the latest chapter of a long catalogue of crisis of confidence in the judiciary in the past two decades since the 1988 Judicial Onslaught.
If the Attorney-General assumes the stance that no criminal offence is disclosed in the Lingam Tape and that it was only a monologue of Lingam , how can Malaysians expect the Prime Minister to get proper and quality legal advice from the chief legal officer of the government on what he should do for the good of the country and future generations?
The country (is) getting a double whammy with another value-added scandal of an Attorney-General who refuses to see or lift his finger to save the country from the latest crisis of confidence in the judiciary in the country? -
"No crisis, no problems. I don't see any scandal."
by Mohd. Nazri Aziz Minister in the Prime Minister's Department.
“No crisis, no problems. I don't see any scandal. These are all efforts by the opposition to create distrust and erode public confidence in the judiciary,” he added.
“Unbecoming, irregular and improper” are three adjectives which best characterize government and Independent Panel responses in the latest developments on the Lingam Tape scandal.
It was the Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department, Datuk Seri Nazri Aziz who was doubly “unbecoming” in launching a tirade against the Bar Council and Malaysian lawyers for their historic march for justice yesterday from the Palace of Justice to the Prime Minister’s Department in Putrajaya despite unwarranted police obstructions and in dismissing the Bar Council’s memorandum to the Prime Minister calling for a Judicial Appointment Commission.
Nazri had alleged that the lawyers’ march in Putrajaya yesterday was “unbecoming” while proclaiming: “There is no crisis in our judiciary. No crisis, no problems. I don’t seen any scandal.”
What makes Nazri think it is beneath the station of lawyers to be involved in a march for justice?
The 2,000 lawyers and supporters of the cause of justice have done themselves and the nation and the 50th Merdeka anniversary proud in the March for Justice in Putrajaya yesterday, in the true tradition of the great marches in the struggle of humanity for justice and freedom, like Gandhi’s Salt March in 1930 to help free India from British colonial rule and Martin Luther King’s March on Washington for Freedom in 1963 which culminated in his electrifying speech “I Have A Dream”.
Gandhi and Martin Luther King are now recognized by history and mankind for their great marches while their detractors, the Nazris of their era, have been forgotten!
It is also most unbecoming of Nazri to arrogate to himself the powers of the Prime Minister to dismiss offhand the Bar CouncilÂ’s memorandum to the Prime Minister calling for a Judicial Appointments Commission or has Nazri been authorized to usurp the powers of the Prime Minister?
Nazri has also shown utter contempt for the other Cabinet Ministers who are treated as utterly irrelevant, incompetent and unfit to give any input on the Bar CouncilÂ’s memorandum to the Prime Minister.
A lot of irregular things are happening in Malaysia today. It is irregular for the Deputy Prime Minister, Datuk Seri Najib Razak to announce on Tuesday before the Cabinet meeting yesterday the decision to set up a three-man Independent Panel to investigate into the authenticity of the Lingam Tape.
Such a decision should be taken by the Cabinet or has the Cabinet been reduced to just a rubber-stamp for the Prime Minister and Deputy Prime Minister despite all the talk about a functioning Cabinet where there is genuine power-sharing among the Ministers?
It is also most irregular for Tan Sri Haidar Mohamed Noor, Datuk Mahadev Shankar and Tan Sri Lee Lam Thye to meet informally yesterday in their prospective capacities as members of the three-man Independent Panel to investigate into the authenticity of the Lingam Tape when they had not received their letters of appointment and nobody, including the trio, knew about the actual terms of reference of the panel! They are expected to receive their letters of appointment and be informed of the panelÂ’s terms of reference later today.
Haidar said yesterday that the panel would need help from third parties.
He said: “The panel’s job is to determine whether the clip is authentic or not.
“Being laymen, we will need people to come forward and assist us on this point.”
It is not a question of asking technical people to “assist” the panel but to do the entire job of the panel to determine its authenticity, which would have been the first task of a Royal Commission of Inquiry into the Lingam Tape scandal.
Is the three-man panel just going to adjourn and close shop and report accordingly to the government, ignoring all the explosive revelations about the perversion of the course of justice such as fixing of judicial appointments and manipulating court judgments?
IsnÂ’t this reducing a very grave issue about the independence, impartiality and integrity of the judiciary into pure farce?
There is also gross impropriety – particularly with Haidar, as Chief Registrar of Supreme Court at the time who played a major role in the 1988 Judicial Crisis resulting in the arbitrary and unconstitutional sacking of Tun Salleh Abas as Lord President and Datuk George Seah and the late Tan Sri Wan Suleiman Pawanteh as Supreme Court judges now heading an Independent Panel concerning the independence, impartiality and integrity of the judiciary.
It is no exaggeration to say that if Haidar in 1988 had not been a party to the “mother” of all judicial crisis in 1988, the high international reputation and esteem of the Malaysian judiciary would have probably remained intact as the arbitrary and unconstitutional sacking of Tun Salleh as Lord President and Datuk George Seah and the late Tan Sri Wan Suleiman as Supreme Court judges might have been averted and the country saved from a generation of seismic shocks caused by one judicial crisis after another.
L.K.S -
" Featured (in the video clip) was (Lingam's) well-connected tycoon friend, (Vincent) Tan. By 2002, Chief Justice Eusoff Chin had already retired. His protégé, Ahmad Fairuz Sheikh Abdul Halim, is embroiled in this scandal. Playing the supporting role is Tengku Adnan Tengku Mansor, a junior minister but a trusted aide of then prime minister Dr Mahathir Mohamad.
Together they were the UNTOUCHABLES - the Masters of the Malaysian Universe, so to speak.
Apparently, THEY STILL ARE.
Almost a generation has suffered because of our 'tidak apa' attitude to the judicial crisis.
Here's another chance for us to make amends.
- Malaysiakini Editorial (Sept. 25, 2007) -
The Panel on the Lingam Tape
And what of the so-called panel to investigate the Lingam tape?
Well, itÂ’s comprised of a man who had risen to judicial high office under the leadership of a Prime Minister so contemptuous of lawyers that he would rather hang them on a noose, a man who started out as a champion of the people but changed course mid-stream to become an apologist for the regime and the Token Minority.
Clearly, the three-member independent panel announced by Deputy Prime Minister Najib Abdul Razak today - and restricting the probe to examining the authenticity of the Lingam tape - falls way TOO SHORT.
Surely no panel can be as a farce as this one.
Najib's Credibility GAP
The man who said that “the panel’s integrity should not be questioned” is more of a joke than the Iban fella forced to ride in a JAWI hearse for not fasting during Ramadhan.
Najib Tun Razak has no right to talk about integrity. At best, he is a racist bigot who rose to power by inheritance and by never making any decisions at all important junctures in Malaysian politics, and at worst a hen-pecked accessory to murder.
NajibÂ’s integrity is as intact as the virginity of the single cow in a pen of fifty bulls.
And what of old Mr Sleepy Head? He’s in New York, like a modern-day messiah bringing the message of Hadhari to the world, telling everyone from Palestinians to Burmese alike to follow ‘the Malaysian way’. If ever there was an example of a man who has come to believe his own lie, this is it.
Integrity? ItÂ’s such a lonely word.
Royal Commission:
A Royal Commission should be set up to investigate into the matter of the Lingam tape then this current panel. Nothing less then that should be accepted as an investigating body. The P.M has made it clear that the matter will be investigated , however , disappointed as it was that actions only will be taken 'If it was found out to be false' how about if it is found out to be authentic ? Does it mean no actions will be taken ?
Minister in Prime Minister's Department, Mohd. Nazri Aziz branded the Bar Council’s plan to hold a march on Wednesday to press for investigation into the scandal as an attempt to display ‘hostility’ and as support of the opposition.
Saying that the Bar should remain an independent body, he equated LAWYERS joining the march to the conduct of opposition politicians Lim Kit Siang and Anwar.
Is he contradicting himself ? Didn't past UMNO rallies, demonstrations an protests a way for any democratic country to express their views and frustrations when the governing body is not listening ? Unless he views UMNO as an opposition party too and a hostile entity creating hostility towards the people? -
haha this time no one say malaysia boleh?
-
Lingham was also implicated in the PricewaterhouseCoopers report which was tabled to Parliament following a thorough audit investigation of the Perwaja Steel scandal involving the loss of billions of ringgit of taxpayersÂ’ money.
In this video, Lingham was seen and heard to be talking to the current Chief Justice of the Federal Court, Tun Ahmad Fairuz Abdul Halim wherein my name, among others, is specifically mentioned.
It is mentioned in the context of a conspiracy to influence the appointment of senior judges and pervert the cause of justice.
In view of this, we have reason to believe that whatever has transpired in this exchange in 2002 had some bearing on the outcomes in a number of judicial proceedings, including mine.
The video also implicates Vincent Tan and Tengku Adnan Tengku Mansor. The former is a businessman and gaming tycoon who was allegedly at the center of a scandal involving the abuse of the judicial process now known as the Ayer Molek case. The latter is a prominent Umno leader and a member of the Cabinet who was involved in the political conspiracy to remove me in 1998.
Such a scandalous expose, as indeed this video really is, only serves to corroborate our allegations of a political conspiracy of the highest level and corruption of the highest judicial office, seriously bringing into question the impartiality of judicial proceedings involving the affected parties.
This is matter of utmost public importance and we demand the setting up of an Independent Tribunal to investigate this shameful and scandalous episode.
In this regard, we make a special appeal to the Conference of Rulers to continue to play their constitutionally entrenched role in safeguarding the rights of the people by exercising their discretionary powers in all matters within their jurisdiction.
- ANWAR IBRAHIM -
Watergate scandal ?
-
What is Mohd. Nazri Aziz position again in the government? Is he a big shot or small potato?
-
Datuk Seri Nazri Aziz, the Minister in the Prime MinisterÂ’s Department in charge of law and justice, who has wrought the greatest harm to the system of governance in Malaysia.Originally posted by euc:What is Mohd. Nazri Aziz position again in the government? Is he a big shot or small potato?
Nazri publicly claiming that he is “Minister” for the Chief Justice when none of the five Prime Ministers in 50 years had dared to make such a claim shows how lowly the judiciary had fallen and the contempt meted out to the doctrine of separation of powers.
Under the doctrine of separation of powers, the three branches of government, the Executive, Legislature and Judiciary are independent and do not infringe upon each other’s rights and duties – providing an important check and balance for democratic good governance to avert any form of tyrannical government.
In this system, the Prime Minister, the Chief Justice and the Speaker of Parliament are meant to be independent and almost equal status as respective heads of the three branches of government.
This is why in the official protocol list as gazetted, the Prime Minister and Deputy Prime Minister are listed as No. 6 and 7 respectively after the Yang di Pertuan Agong, Sultans and royal dignitaries, while the Chief Justice is No. 11, the President of Senate No. 12, the Dewan Rakyat Speaker No. 13 while Cabinet Ministers are placed No. 16.
It is therefore most outrageous for Nazri to claim that he is the Minister for the Chief Justice when even the Prime Minister and Deputy Prime Minister, placed on a higher level than the Chief Justice protocol-wise, cannot make any such claim.
Protocol wise, the Chief Justice is No. 11 between the Prime Minister (No. 6) and Parliament Speaker (No. 13) – how did Nazri (No. 16 for Cabinet Ministers) become Minister for Ahmad Fairuz?
What is shocking is that Ahmad Fairuz is now so subservient to an ordinary Cabinet Minister, who is five places below him in the official protocol list, that he dared not even bleat a protest to uphold the dignity of the office of Chief Justice and the independence and integrity of the Judiciary from any Executive interference or encroachment!
However, Nazri had not only wrought great damage to the public standing of the judiciary, the de facto law Minister had also gravely undermined the credibility of the government with his tirade against the Bar Council and Malaysian lawyers for their historic march for justice on Wednesday from the Palace of Justice to the Prime Minister’s Department in Putrajaya and his comment: “There is no crisis in our judiciary. No crisis, no problems. I don’t seen any scandal.”
Is Nazri seriously suggesting that when some 2,000 lawyers could be so moved as to be involved in a March for Justice express their long-held and deep-seated concerns about the rot in the system of justice, Nazri is completely blind and deaf to such concerns?
And is Nazri typical of all the Cabinet Ministers in the country – for if so, then the former Prime Minister Tun Dr. Mahathir Mohamad was being very kind in dubbing them as “half-past six Cabinet”!
The 50th Merdeka anniversary has seen many knotty nation-building problems surfacing in public – including the long-standing rot in the judiciary. The question is whether the 50th Merdeka anniversary will see the beginning of a new national resolve to right these generational and historic wrongs or their further aggravation.
L.K.S -
The irascible de facto Law Minister in the Malaysian government, Mohamad Nazri Abdul Aziz, has made an ominous announcement, reported in the Malaysian Daily Star and Australia's News.com.
Aziz, of the UMNO (United Malays National Organisation) party made headlines in June last year, when he shouted "Racist!" 28 times in Parliament, and later refused requests from the Democratic Action Party (DAP) to apologise.
The Law Minister said that anyone who criticised Islam would be tried under the Sedition Act, a legacy of British colonial rule, which existed in Malaysia before its independence in 1957.
Recently, there has been international condemnation of the bizarre constitution in Malaysia. According to Article 3(1) of the constitution, "other religions may be practiced in peace and harmony in any part of the Federation." Article 11 of the constitution states that a citizen can follow any religion of their choosing.
However, this is directly contradicted by Article 121 (1A), which was introduced in 1988. This states that civil courts have no jurisdiction over "any matter" which falls under the jurisdiction of the Syariah Courts (Sharia courts). As only the Sharia courts can rule on cases of apostasy, no Muslim is allowed to leave Islam, and can be consequently jailed for "belittling Islam".
On December 8 this contradiction created a scandal when a disabled former mountaineer, who had ascended Everest and been a national hero and a Hindu, died. The sharia courts decided as he lay in a coma that M. Moorthy was a Muslim. His wife Kaliammal petitioned the High Court to allow his body to be released for a Hindu cremation. The High Court judge ruled that he could do nothing, and Moorthy's body was taken away and given a Muslim funeral.
The tyranny of the Islamic courts, which have commissions in all 13 states of Malaysia, mean that no person has ever been allowed to leave Islam while alive. The only person allowed to apostasise was an 89-year old Buddhist woman, Nyonya Tahir, who was only allowed this privilege after her death.
Many states have adopted a controversial Control and Restriction Bill, which allows fines of 10,000 ringit or $2,653 and terms of imprisonment for up to one year for anyone guilty of "persuading, influencing a Muslim to leave Islam for another religion."
Only 60% of the country are Muslim, and these are mainly ethnic Malays. The remaining 40% have felt threatened by the encroachment of Islam into their lives, particularly following the Moorthy case. 30 Hindu groups have formed the Hindu Rights Action Force (HRAF) to counter the effects of sharia law. The Deputy Prime Minister, Najib Razak, promised on January 14 that the courts will work to ensure that non-Muslims and Muslims will "have redress" under the law.
But the tide of Islamic extremism is hard to beat. The leader of the opposition, Lim Kit Sang, has stated that the constitution should revert to its pre-1988 position before the contentious Article 121 (A) was introduced. On 12 January, a delegation of eight Islamic groups petitioned for the controversial article not to be revoked.
This month, Marina Mahathir, feminist and rights activist, and also the daughter of the former prime minister Mahathir Mohammad, wrote an article in the Malaysia Star criticising the way that Islam in Malaysia was oppressing women. She cited the controversial Islamic Family Law Bill which makes it easier for husbands to divorce their wives, encourages polygamy, and allows a husband to seize assets of former wives and their offspring.
So the current proclamations of the Law Minister appear to be in direct contradiction to the bland platitudes of the Deputy Prime Minister. Far from ensuring redress, Datuk Seri Mohamad Nazri Abdul Aziz seems to prefer threatening critics of Islam into silence. By saying the government will not hesitate to use the Sedition Act to stifle criticism, he is in effect bringing the threat of jail.
"We will not think twice about using this law against anybody who incites," he said, addressing reporters in the Parliament lobby. "But you must remember the word amok comes from this country and there is a limit to everything." He warned that no-one should make comments or publish articles which could be seen as "belittling Islam".
"I want to remind non-Muslims to refrain from making statements on something they do not understand," he added. "We do not want to take away your rights but religion is an important matter, especially to the Muslims."
He had previously been petitioned by a group of 43 Muslim non-governmental organisations. This petition supported the Islamic Family Law Bill, and said it did not contradict sharia law, nor did it discriminate against women.
The minister brought up the issue of articles which had been written which criticised the current situation in Islam, probably alluding to the article by Marina Mahathir. On what non-Muslims were to able to write about, Mohamad Nazri Abdul Aziz stated ominously: "However, there are some things which should not be touched on."
The penalty for transgressing against the Sedition Act can be three years in prison, with an additional fine of up to 5,000 ringit or $1,350.
W.R -
Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department, Datuk Seri Nazri Aziz, is up to his histrionics again – yesterday claiming that he will ask the Cabinet today to provide protection for the people behind the recording of the Lingam Tape.
This was 48 hours after Nazri had declared “No Source, No Case”, castigated the people behind the Lingam Tape as liars if they dared not come forward to co-operate with the Haidar Inquiry Panel to determine the authenticity of the Lingam Tape on the ground that witnesses and whistleblowers are already fully protected under the various laws of the land, although he subsequently admitted that he had made a mistake when referring to the non-existent Witness Protection Act or Witness Protection Bill.
However, if various laws already provide protection to the maker or makers of the Lingam Tape, why is it necessary for Nazri to ask the Cabinet to provide protection for the people behind the Lingam Tape recording?
Furthermore, why ask the Lingam Tape makers to come forward to co-operate with the Haidar Panel when Deputy Prime Minister, Datuk Seri Najib Razak had said that the Panel is not supposed to call witnesses and must rely on the Anti-Corruption Agency and the Police in their deliberations?
At least Nazri has one quality which has so far been absent from other Ministers, the humility - some will say the “temerity” - to admit that he was wrong, although it is not clear what is the wrong of wrongs which Nazri is admitting to, whether in mistakenly claiming that there is a Witness Protection Act or Bill which are non-existing, or mistakenly claiming that the various laws already provide adequate protection for the maker or makers of the Lingam Tape to enable them to surface publicly to give information to establish its authenticity.
However, if Nazri could be so wrong in many aspects about his claim that the law already provides full protection for witnesses or whistleblowers, how are Malaysians to be assured that Nazri could not be equally wrong with regard to his earlier claim that the Chief Justice, Tun Ahmad Fairuz Sheikh Abdul Halim had allegedly denied that he was the person that senior lawyer V.K. Lingam was talking to in the now infamous 8-minute Lingam Tape on the perversion of the course of justice concerning the fixing of judicial appointments, court judgments and getting a Tan Sri award?
In fact, the long thunderous silence of Ahmad Fairuz in not personally making such a denial in the most public and unmistakable a manner for the past three weeks since the revelation of the Lingam Tape by Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim has reinforced public doubts about the authenticity of NazriÂ’s claim, now that Nazri has proven to be so mistake-prone in his various public statements and assertions.
What will Nazri have to say if Ahmad Fairuz should deny that he had ever made such a denial as claimed by the Minister or if the Chief Justice proved to be the person at the other end of the Lingam Tape conversation?
What is incontrovertible about NazriÂ’s histronics is that his asking the Cabinet to provide protection for Lingam Tape makers after claiming that they are fully protected is that he has furnished a powerful argument why a Royal Commission of Inquiry is urgently needed as the Abdullah government is not serious or sincere in wanting to restore national and international confidence in the independence, integrity and meritocracy of the judiciary after an uninterrupted series of ravages in the past 19 years.
L.K.S -
Originally posted by dumbdumb!:haha this time no one say malaysia boleh?
-
It's time for the "plumbers" to patch up the leaks.