The existence of another
six-minute sequel to the eight minutes of Lingam Tape released by Anwar
Ibrahim is true as I have seen it, where Lingam in a post-call conversation
said the person he was talking to was Ahmad Fairuz, at the time Chief Judge
2008 Budget Debate Speech
by Lim Kit Siang
The three-man Haidar Panel to
determine the authenticity of the Lingam Tape has come out with a shock
decision to submit three separate reports to the government.
This is the explanation given by the Panel Chairman Tan Sri Haidar Mohd
Noor for this extraordinary turn of events: “In view of the time
constraints, it would not be fair to load one member with the task of
preparing the report. That is why we have decided to submit separate
Even a school-child can see that Haidar is not telling the truth, and that
the real reason is that the three-man panel cannot reach agreement on its
finding and recommendation.
As no witness had appeared before the Haidar Panel, which had only the
report of the Anti-Corruption Agency (ACA) to go by, what is the heavy
task about preparing the report which Haidar is talking about? It must be
the easiest report in the nation’s 50 year history for any inquiry
committee to write, as there is very little to say – since all that is
required of the Panel is to determine whether the Lingam Tape is authentic
There are only three possible answers to the very narrow and restricted
terms of reference of the Haidar Panel, that the Lingam Tape is authentic,
not authentic or no way to establish either way.
If all the three members are agreed that the Lingam Tape agreed on anyone
of these three answers, and that is all they want to say, then there is no
need for three separate reports.
It is only when there is disagreement among the three members that there
is need for three separate reports.
I can envisage the following scenarios to warrant the writing of three
Scenario One – The three-man Panel divided into two camps, whether two-one
or one-two, with one camp holding a position on these three variations
different from that of another.
Scenario Two – The panel divided into two camps – one holding that
although the Panel cannot determine whether the tape is authentic, the
government should nonetheless, in view of overriding national interests,
establish a Royal Commission of Inquiry into it and the serious
allegations of perversion of the course of justice on fixing of judicial
appointments, particularly in view of the recent proceedings of the 14th
Law Conference and the opening speech by the former Lord President and
Perak Sultan Azlan Shah calling for return of the judiciary to its former
golden days. The other camp objection to such a recommendation.
It is possible that there is a member of the Haidar Panel who felt that
the panel should not be used to justify any government “cover up” of the
Lingam Tape scandal, so as not to probe the shocking disclosures about the
perversion of the course of justice which had done so much harm in
undermining public confidence in the independence, integrity and quality
of the judiciary.
It is ridiculous that those in authority are insisting on getting the
original copy of the Lingam Tape. Why isn’t a copy of the tape adequate
for the purpose? When Osama bin Laden occasionally emerged from his
hideout to issue dire warnings to the United States government in his
videotapes, no one from the White House, FBI or CIA would take the
position that unless Osama or some witness surface to vouch for their
authenticity, or unless the original tape is produced, the tapes concerned
would be regarded as fakes!
As the MP for Bukit Glugor, Karpal Singh had pointed out in this House, a
copy of the Vijandran tape was adequate in the past and a Japanese expert
could testify in court as to its authenticity.
In determining the authenticity of a tape, there should not only be
forensic investigation on voice and image matching, but also content
analysis as to whether it is consistent or reveals contradictions or
anomalies to show doctoring and tampering. Why was this not done with the
Lingam Tape? A content-analysis of the Lingam Tape will show that they
were consistent with the facts, whether with regard to Fairuz’s promotion
to Court of Appeal President and later Chief Justice of Malaysia or his
being conferred as a Tan Sri.
Why didn’t the Haidar Panel undertake a content-analysis, including
calling up the witnesses including the senior lawyer involved, V.T.
Questions have been raised whether the Lingam Tape revealed by Datuk Seri
Anwar Ibrahim really lasted 14 minutes, with six minutes not yet made
public, or whether there were only eight minutes.
I can vouch the existence of another six-minute sequel to the eight
minutes of Lingam Tape released by Anwar Ibrahim is true as I have seen
In the six minutes, Lingam had finished the telephone conversation and it
recorded a conversation between Lingam and another person who asked who
was Lingam who he was speaking to on the phone, and Lingam distinctly
answered that he was talking to Ahmad Fairuz, at the time Chief Judge
In the six-minute tape, Lingam mentioned that former Chief Justice, Tun
Dzaiddin had wanted Justice Abdul Malek Ahmad (who died on 31st May 2007
as Court of Appeal President) to be the Chief Judge of Malaya but this was
averted in a “power play” which resulted in Ahmad Fairuz being appointed
the Chief Judge of Malaya instead.
Justice Abdul Malek was five years senior to Ahmad Fairuz in the
judiciary, as he was appointed High Court judge in January 1985 while
Ahmad Fairuz was appointed High Court judge only in August 1990.
The government should be reminded that it should not procrastinate any
further and establish a Royal Commission of Inquiry into the Lingam Tape
and the crisis of confidence in the judiciary, or a judicial crisis will
become a crisis of confidence of the entire government.
Opposition Leader, MP for Ipoh Timur & DAP Central Policy and Strategic
Planning Commission Chairman