"correct, correct, correct" - morally wrong, legally clean !

Minister in the Prime Minister's Department Mohd Nazri Abdul Aziz struck again today. This time over the VK Lingam issue.

According to the de facto law minister, the prominent lawyer, famed for his "correct, correct, correct" phrase, had not broken the law.

The statement is the latest in a series of conflicting views over the matter, with the last coming from Home Minister Hishammuddin Hussein who told Parliament on Oct 29 that the infamous video clip was still being probed by the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC).

Nazri, who had opposition MPs up in arms with his remark, told the Dewan Rakyat that Lingam's alleged brokering of judges may be morally wrong, but there are no specific laws against it.

"His actions can undermine and erode the integrity of the judiciary, but things must be viewed from a legal perspective…moral and legal must be separated," he said.

The minister said that the recording of the telephone conversation involving Lingam may have just been an act or an attempt to show off on the lawyer's part.

"Lingam can say that he wants to help someone get appointed, but we don't know if he had actually gone to the (then) prime minister and instructed him to appoint a certain judge," he said.

- Malaysiakini

A video footage showing Lingam allegedly brokering the appointment of judges was released by Opposition Leader Anwar Ibrahim in 2007.

Lingam was said to be talking on the phone with former chief justice Ahmad Fairuz Sheikh Abdul Halim, but the latter denied this.

The video clip unleashed a furore in Malaysia and subsequently a five-member inquiry commission was set up to probe the matter found it to be authentic and implicated prominent personalities.

The Royal Commission said that the evidence presented and chronology of the judicial appointments being discussed in the video clip proved that:

• It was prominent lawyer Datuk V.K. Lingam on the telephone in the clip,
• It was former Chief Justice Tun Ahmad Fairuz Sheikh Abdul Halim on the other end of the line, and
• The process of judicial appointments was open to manipulation by the Executive and private citizens.
• It was a joint operation of Lingam, Tengku Adnan and business tycoon Tan Sri Vincent Tan as persons responsible for ensuring the late Tan Sri Dr Abdul Malek Ahmad did not become Chief Judge of Malaya.

Panel finds judicial conspiracy

In Malaysia's legal system, the chief judge recommends candidates for senior judicial appointments and promotions to the prime minister, who can accept or reject those names.

Malaysia's judiciary has long been plagued by claims of favouritism and influence-peddling. Prime Minister Abdullah Ahmad Badawi announced last month an independent panel would be established to help select new judges as part of legal reforms.

A high-level inquiry found evidence that prominent government and judicial figures, including former Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad, were involved in a conspiracy to manipulate the appointment of judges, Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department Zaid Ibrahim said today.

The revelation deals a major blow to the reputation of Malaysia's courts and bolsters allegations by many lawyers and opposition leade rs that judicial corruption has tainted verdicts stretching back more than a decade.

Law Minister Zaid Ibrahim said a panel that investigated the video found that it was authentic, and that Lingam apparently conspired with his allies in the judiciary, government and corporate world to broker the appointment of judges.

The Cabinet told the Attorney General's office Friday to undertake immediate investigations into the "possibility that offenses against the law have been committed," Zaid told reporters.

The report by the Royal Commission of Inquiry into the Lingam video clip will be made public as decided by the cabinet Friday. The cabinet also ordered that the Attorney-General's Chambers begin immediate investigations into allegations against the individuals named in the report

The video — filmed by a visitor to Lingam's house — shows him talking about ways to help Ahmad Fairuz become Malaysia's top-ranking judge with the help of business tycoon Vincent Tan and Tengku Adnan Tengku Mansor, a former Cabinet minister.

The inquiry's report said "there was conceivably an insidious movement by (Lingam) with the covert assistance of his close friends (Tan and Tengku Adnan) to involve themselves actively in the appointment of judges."

"In the process ... Mahathir was also entangled," the report added. "Actions of the main characters concerned have the effect of seriously undermining and eroding the independence and integrity of the judiciary as a whole."

Asked whether the individuals named in the report were involved in the offences stated, Zaid said: "No, I don't want to say they were involved. It was among the findings."

On the main allegations in the report, he said there were various offences committed against the Official Secrets Act, Sedition Act and Penal Code which needed to be investigated by the Attorney-General.

"We must remember that the report or recommendations are information. So, investigations have to be carried out."

Lingam claimed he may have been drunk when the video was shot. Ahmad Fairuz, who became chief justice in 2003 and retired last year, denied speaking to Lingam. Mahathir, Tengku Adnan and Tan insisted they were not part of any conspiracy.

In Malaysia's legal system, the chief judge recommends candidates for senior judicial appointments and promotions to the prime minister, who can accept or reject those names.

Copies of the Royal Commission's report will be sold to the public as published and handed in to the King last Friday.

Correct! correct! correct ? II

PKR leader Anwar Ibrahim releases another five-minute clip. This time senior lawyer VK Lingam implicates former chief justice Mohamed Dzaiddin Abdullah.

Pada hari ini saya menerbitkan segmen ketiga rakaman video lawyer VK Lingam yang diberikan kepada saya pada Jumaat lepas, 25 Januari. Klip ini memberikan bukti tambahan bahawa konspirasi yang kini sedang disiasat oleh Suruhanjaya Diraja melangkaui usaha melantik Ahmad Fairuz ke Mahkamah Persekutuan. Segmen 5 minit ini secara langsung mengaitkan bekas Ketua Hakim Negara Dzaiddin Abdullah yang didakwa menerima rasuah dari VK Lingam dan Vincent Tan agar beliau tidak mengkritik kedua-dua individu tersebut secara terbuka. Dzaiddin Abdullah merupakan Ketua Hakim Negara antara Disember 2000 hingga 2003. Di dalam video tersebut disebut VK Lingam menyatakan: “Dan kita telah memberikan beliau hadiah paling mahal. Jangan tanyalah apa bendanya. Saya telah beri kepadanya dan Vincent Tan telah berikan kepadanya.”

Meskipun pada awalnya penubuhan Suruhanjaya Diraja telah memberikan rakyat Malaysia harapan agar kewibawaan dan integriti Kehakiman dapat dipulihkan, kami belum yakin dengan prosiding dan keputusan prosedur yang dibuat para Pesuruhjaya setakat ini. Suruhanjaya Diraja mestilah dapat menjunjung ketelusan dan integriti agar tidak kelihatan merosakkan lagi imej sistem kehakiman negara. Saya dengan ini menyerahkan bukti terbaru ini kepada orang ramai dan menyatakan kesediaan bekerjasama sepenuhnya dengan prosiding Suruhanjaya selama ini.

ANWAR IBRAHIM

Transcript:

Lingam: The constitution judges said the constitution said, in the opinion of the prime minister he recommend. Who the prime minister recommend? So you are Dzaiddin, you are chief justice, you recommend 10 names, I consent, I said I want these 15 names, can’t do anything. He recommend to rulers, rulers only consulted, not approve, only consult. You Know?

[Voice off-camera]: Because if it goes up to the Court of Appeal…

Lingam: Now Dzaiddin wants to come through the PM because he wants his Tun-ship. So…he doing everything to please the PM lah, but he recommended five judges, three…three approved, which is Tun Eusoff Chin’s men, two not Eusoff Chin’s men which we objected. I prepared the report and rejected… but he wants to appeal again lah.

[Voice off-camera]: Can he appeal?

Lingam: He can appeal lah, but will be rejected lah.

[Voice off-camera]: I never know appointment can be rejected you know?

Lingam: No, recommendation can be rejected. The PM shall recommend so and so, after consulting so and so. So, PM suppose to consult Loh Mui Fah before he recommends. So Loh Mui Fah recommend 10 names, he in fact can say I disagree with your 10 names, I recommend Gurm…Lingam and so and so. Nothing you can do. You are only…you are supposed to be consulted, not to be approved. You see the point or not? The constitution said consult. I suppose to consult my father before I marry, I consulted him, he disagreed but still I married!

[Voice off-camera]: Because that is not final, ah.

Lingam: Right, consult is to discuss. That’s all. But if I must get my father’s approval before married, then different. Approval different from consult.

[Voice off-camera]: So, who is the lord president now?

Lingam: Now chief justice Dzaiddin.

[Voice off-camera]: Dzaiddin…

Lingam: But between you and me. We have taken Dzaiddin for dinner three times.

[Voice off-camera]: Three times already.

Lingam: And we have given him the most expensive gift. Don’t ask about it lah. I have given him and Vincent Tan has given him. So, he also cannot attack us. Tomorrow we go say we give you this this this. He cannot go and say you are a agent. Correct or not? So, he is neither here nor there lah. That’s all.

[Voice off-camera]: But… Chief Justice..

Lingam: But in the court when I argue with him. He said, Datuk Lingam you said you will take one hour. I said, my Lord, it is only 50 minutes, I got another 10 minutes. But…I appreciate. Thank you, thank you… He is very nice with me, very polite with me. I have been sending cakes every hari raya. Vincent has been sending. He can’t go and say he is very clean, correct or not?

[Voice off-camera]: But then he is…

Lingam: But he is playing his game lah. He got the job, that’s it. Now, September he is finished that’s all. Make sure he is not extended.

[Voice off-camera]: But, he may ask for extension.

Lingam: He is hoping… he told somebody that he likes the job very much. Then he likes…Let him dream lah.

[Voice off-camera]: Above him is the Lord President?

Lingam: He is the number one man, Dzaiddin.

[Voice off-camera]: Whose the Lord President?

Lingam: He is called… those days called lord president, now called chief justice, federal court.

[Voice off-camera]: Oh… it is the same title.

Lingam: Number two President Court of Appeal, that Wan Adnan, my personal friend. He was sick. Nobody knows he is close to me. Right, in fact, he never knew his name is going up until I told him. Then number three, Ahmad Fairuz, Chief Judge Malaya. Ahmad Fairuz is going to be acting, now acting…number two. Right? So, next minute, even Raja Aziz said he is going to be the next top job. He is…definitely number one lah. So, he told me I leave it all to you and you must help me and all…I said I’ll arrange for you to meet Tengku Adnan, Vincent and meet with PM lah…But this bugger is sometimes a bit scared. Ah…I must play shadow from the behind. Nobody should know I know you. Then you can help more. But people, see you know more, like Eusoff Chin, because I met him in New Zealand, became a problem. But if I didn’t meet him in New Zealand, it’s a… no problem. Correct or not? Unfortunate.

[Voice off-camera]: Then, in your…then they said you have taken photograph with him holidaying in…huh…huh…

Lingam: But unfortunately, I didn’t know. The worst thing I didn’t know Eusoff Chin put his hand like that! Alamak…so…I also didn’t know about it. What to do?

[Voice off-camera]: Then… then…

Lingam: Do you know, today one o’clock, Eusoff Chin having lunch in his house today. Hari Raya today. He called me and my wife to come. I told him we don’t go today, we make it another day. I don’t come but my wife and children will come. You know or not?
I told my wife to call…[unclear]… [phone rings]…

Lingam: Hello…Joe Ah…!

(Note: Because some parts of the recording are inaudible the transcript may not be 100% accurate.)

Malaysia tempts whistleblower with Plastic surgery and a new identity ?

Malaysia has offered plastic surgery and a new identity to try to draw out the anonymous whistleblower behind a video clip purportedly showing judicial corruption, reports said Monday.

Cabinet minister Nazri Aziz said a probe into the clip will come to nothing if the whistleblower does not come forward to verify its authenticity, and assured they would receive full witness protection measures.

"They will not only be protected but can also undergo surgery to change their look," he said.

Nazri said that if the witness failed to come forward, "we can conclude that they are lying."

"The government will give the witness a new identity. So what is there to be afraid of?"

Eyebrows were raised when de facto law minister Nazri Abdul Aziz said the Witness Protection Bill would ensure the confidentiality of witnesses.

Mr Nazri, what witness protection bill? asks Malaysiakini.


Malaysian judiciary on trial

The authorities' reaction to this scandal has disappointed many who had hoped this would be a chance to restore confidence in the judiciary.
.
Confidence in the judiciary has been eroding since the late '80s, when former Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad had the Chief Justice sacked.
.
Instead, the government has reacted defensively, instructing the local media to play down the issue and questioning the authenticity of the video.

The authorities also say that it is not clear who the lawyer is talking to. However, the context of what is being said leaves no doubt about the identity of the person at the other end of the line.
.
It is worth noting that although more than a week has passed since the video's release, neither the lawyer nor the judge has come out to directly deny the allegations. However, Mr Nazri Aziz, a minister in the Prime Minister's Department, has issued a denial on behalf of the judge.
.
If the video is indeed fake, would one of the country's most powerful lawyers and one of its most senior judges not immediately deny the allegations and sue the people who released the video?
.
Why the silence?

Perhaps more disturbing is Mr Abdullah's attitude towards this scandal. "If the evidence shows what transpired in the video was not the truth, action should be taken against those who released the video, as well as all those who lodged ACA (Anti Corruption Agency) reports," he said.

Abdullah said: "I am disappointed. The video was released with the aim of getting the people angry with the country's judiciary system."

What Mr Abdullah should have asked himself, is if there are serious questions about the judiciary's integrity, why shouldn't the people be angry? Indeed, why shouldn't he?


Restore the Malaysian Judiciary's Independence

1. To set up a tribunal under Article 125 of the Federal Constitution and for the immediate suspension of the Chief Justice pending the hearing of charges of corruption against him.

2. Setting up of an Independent Royal Commission of Inquiry to investigate the overall state of the Judiciary including but not limited to the following:

· the judicial sacking of Tun Salleh Abas, Tan Sri Wan Suleiman and Datuk George Seah in 1988;

· the swift and questionable promotions of several Federal Court judges;

· the controversial decisions which include the criminal cases involving Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim, Sukma Darmawan and Munawar Anees; Lim Guan Eng; the Ayer Molek case; the Metramac case, the defamation cases involving V.K. Lingam; the Altantuya case and others, and;

· An investigation into former judge, Syed Idid's letter which implicates 12 judges by citing 112 serious allegations of corruption and malpractice.

3. Setting up of an Independent Judicial Commission on the Appointment and Promotion of Judges.

Endorsed by:

1. Alaigal

2. Aliran Kesedaran Negara (ALIRAN)

3. All Women's Action Society (AWAM)

4. Angkatan Muda Parti Keadilan Rakyat (AMK)

5. Artis Pro Activ

6. Center for Independent Journalism (CIJ)

7. Center for Orang Asli Concerns (COAC)

8. Chinese Language Society University Malaya

9. Chinese Language Society University Putra Malaysia

10. Chinese Students Council University Technology Malaysia (CSC UTM)

11. Citizen Think Tank

12. Community Development Center (CDC)

13. Empower (Pusat Janadaya)

14. Food Not Bombs KL

15. Gabungan Anak Muda dan Pelajar (GAMP)

16. Gabungan Pekerja Kilang & Kesatuan(GPKK)

17. Gabungan Peneroka Bandar & Perumahan(GPBP)

18. Group of Concerned Citizen (GCC)

19. Institut Kajian Dasar (IKD)

20. Jaringan Rakyat Tertindas (JERIT)

21. Jawatankuasa Kebajikan Mahasiswa/i (JKMI)

22. Jawatankuasa Sokongan Masyarakat Ladang(JSML)

23. LLG Cultural Development Center (LLG)

24. Malaysian Trade Union Congress (MTUC)

25. Malaysian Voters Union (MALVU)

26. Malaysia Youth and Students Democratic Movement (DEMA)

27. RAKAN, UTM

28. Parti Keadilan Rakyat (PKR)

29. Parti Sosialis Malaysia (PSM)

30. Penang Watch

31. Persatuan Alumni PBTUSM Selangor

32. Persatuan Ibubapa SJK(C) Malaysia

33. Persatuan Masyarakat Selangor & Wilayah Persekutuan (PERMAS)

34. Persatuan Sahabat Wanita Selangor

35. Pesticide Action Network Asia and the Pacific (PAN AP)

36. Pusat Khidmat Pekerja Tanjung (PKPT)

37. Pusat KOMAS

38. Selangor Hokkien Association Youth Section

39. Sisters In Islam (SIS)

40. SOS Damansara Committee

41. Save OurSelves (SOS) Penang

42. Suara Rakyat Malaysia (SUARAM)

43. Tamil Foundation

44. Tenaganita

45. The Kuala Lumpur and Selangor Chinese Assembly Hall (KLSCAH)

46. The National Human Rights Society (HAKAM)

47. University Malaya Association of New Youth (UMANY)

48. Women Development Collective (WDC)

49. Writers Alliance Media Independence (WAMI)

50. Yayasan Kajian & Pembangunan Masyarakat (YKPM)

51. Youth for Change (Y4C)

52. Youth Section of The KL & Selangor Chinese Assembly Hall (KLSCAH-Youth)
(Source)

Malaysians urgently need whistleblower protection and FOI Act

Malaysians urgently need whistleblower protection and FOI Act
by CIJ, 5 October 2007

The Centre for Independent Journalism (CIJ) is deeply concerned about the Anti-Corruption Agency (ACA) threat to prosecute Opposition politicians Sivarasa Rasiah and Sim Tze Sin. The duo have been given a week to reveal the identity of a person who recorded a video implicating a senior lawyer in the fixing of senior judicial appointments.

English daily theSun, The Star and online daily Malaysiakini.com reported on 5 Oct that the duo were served notice by the ACA to reveal the identity of the person who recorded the video or face jail term or fine, or both under the Anti-Corruption Act 1997.

The ACA's main objective should be to investigate these serious claims, rather than investigating the identity of the whistleblower behind the video. Establishing the authenticity of the video is only one way of establishing whether the judicial appointment in question was subject to corrupt practices.

Further, there is no mention in the press that the ACA offered any protection for the whistleblower, while the investigation panel headed by former Chief Judge Haidar Mohd Noor lacks the power to protect any whistleblowers. This could be misconstrued as an attempt to expose the key person behind the video to potential danger.

Sivarasiah and Sim have cooperated with the ACA during questioning. The threat of jail is likely to deter potential whistleblowers, making it more difficult for the ACA to carry out investigations in the future.

We ask the ACA to publicly answer some serious questions that this move has raised, including why it is that the ACA has only exerted pressure on the whistleblower, while no action appears to have been taken against the people implicated in the video.

The public has high hopes that the ACA will uphold its responsibility to be independent, fair and transparent in its undertakings. We urge the ACA to immediately to answer and address the concerns raise above and institute measures for whistleblowers' protection before seeking to expose his/her identity.

Further, we urge the ACA to press the Government to pass both a Whistleblowers Protection Act and a Freedom of Information Act to institutionalise the protection of whistleblowers.

The Centre for Independent Journalism, Malaysia (CIJ) aspires for a society that is democratic, just and free, where all people will enjoy free media and the freedom to express, seek, and impart information.

Ends

Issued by

Centre for Independent Journalism


Meanwhile, accordilg to Malaysiakini, Gerakan has called on the government to “seriously consider” the setting up of a royal commission to investigate the explosive ‘judicial appointments fixing

The Bar Council has also reiterated its call for a Royal Commission of Inquiry to investigate the video clip of a prominent lawyer purportedly fixing the appointment of top judges.

Bar Council president Ambiga Sreenevasan said it has always been the stand of the Bar Councilset up recently "can only constitute the first step" in the wider process of ascertaining the facts and inferences. that an independent panel like the one that had been