Media Statement by Parliamentary
Opposition Leader and DAP MP for Ipoh Timur Lim Kit Siang in Parliament
on Tuesday, 15th January 2008:
Why RCI did not summon Lingam as first witness as his admission to
the authenticity of the tape would have saved time, money and resources
and allow the real issues impinging on the crisis of national and
international confidence in the independence, integrity and quality of
judiciary to be addressed frontally
I read the first day�s proceedings of the Haidar Royal Commission of
Inquiry into the Lingam Tape yesterday with dismay and disappointment.
Why wasn�t senior lawyer V.K. Lingam called as the first witness to give
him an opportunity to confirm the authenticity of the 14-minute video
clip which would have saved time, money and resources and allowed the
real issues impinging on the crisis of national and international
confidence in the independence, integrity and quality of the judiciary
to be addressed frontally.
If Lingam is prepared to admit upfront the authenticity of the video
clip, then the country can be spared the rigmarole of the completely
unnecessary testimony of Anti-Corruption Agency (ACA) officers going to
Lingam�s house in Kelana Jaya to take photographs of its living room and
compare it with the location in the clip, finding them to be one and the
same as well as other related testimony such as expert evidence from a
private laboratory in the Spanish capital, Madrid verifying that the
voice on the video clip matched that of Lingam.
In fact, if Lingam admits to the authenticity of the clip, there would
be no necessity to even summon businessman Loh Mui Fah who has surfaced
publicly to admit that the video clip was taken by his son sometime in
late December 2001 when he and his son had gone to Lingam�s house to
obtain legal advice on family and business matters.
This evidence to establish the authenticity of the video clip would only
be necessary if Lingam challenges the authenticity issue, in which case,
he should be stood down as a witness until the Royal Commission has
crossed the �authenticity� hurdle with all available verification
testimony.
If Lingam admits to the authenticity of the video clip, then the Royal
Commission can immediately dispose of the first term of reference �to
ascertain the authenticity of the video clip� and proceed to the other
four terms of reference, viz:
� To identify the speaker, the person
he was speaking to in the video clip and the persons mentioned in the
conversation;
� To ascertain the truth or otherwise of the content of the conversation
in the video clip.
� To determine whether any act of
misbehaviour had been committed by the person or persons identified or
mentioned in the video clip; and
� To recommend any appropriate course of action to be taken against the
person or persons identified or mentioned in the video clip should such
person or persons be found to have committed any misbehaviour.
Of course, should Lingam issue a flat
denial about the authenticity of the video clip when called as an early
witness and the Royal Commission of Inquiry reach a subsequent
conclusion that the video clip was genuine, the Royal Commission should
invoke the full punitive and penalty powers available to it to deal with
Lingam.
It is still not too late for the Royal Commission of Inquiry to change
strategy to summon Lingam immediately as a witness to offer him the
opportunity to admit to the authenticity of the video clip, which will
short-circuit the whole phase of calling witnesses for testimony to
establish the authenticity of the video clip � which will not only save
public money, time and resources but a smarter way of conducting the
royal commission of inquiry.
*
Lim
Kit Siang, Parliamentary
Opposition Leader, MP for Ipoh Timur & DAP Central Policy and Strategic
Planning Commission Chairman