Despite the continuous drizzle in the evening, they all came to partake of the small celebration. Total turnout was estimated to be about 500 people. Thank you all for making the evening a success.
Dear Friends and Supporters,
I have been informed by my colleague Dr. Eric Kwan that you have expressed wishes to purchase photographs of our campaign activities.
Those who would like to order the photographs are welcome to send an email to Dr. Eric Kwan at topgunretrievers@gmail.com and liaise with him.
He has also gracefully agreed to supply the photo prints from 4R - 10R size "at cost" for each print. You can pick your photos from the Contact Prints featured here. Thank you.
Contact Print 1 (click on pix for larger view)
Contact Print 2 (click on pix for larger view)
Contact Print 3 (click on pix for larger view)
(Post your comment here.)
The Royal Commission of Enquiry ON the Video Clip Recording which contains images of an Advocate & Solicitor talking over the phone with regard to the Appointment of Judges
This is the Written Submission prepared for and on behalf of Mr. Thirunama Karasu A/L Kandar Velupillai.
Honourable Commissioners
The Commission’s terms of reference are as follows:
1. To enquire and ascertain the authenticity of the video clip;
2. To enquire and identify the speaker, the person he was speaking to and the persons mentioned in the conversation;
3. To enquire and ascertain the truth of the content of the conversation;
4. To determine whether any act of misbehaviour has been committed by persons identified or mentioned in the clip; and
5. To recommend appropriate action against those found to have committed any misbehaviour.
It is submitted that item 3 of the above term is wide enough for the Commission to investigate into the contents of the conversation. Unfortunately, the hearing proceeded under very much restriction. All other important witnesses had to submit statutory declarations for the Commissioners to consider before testifying except for Dato V K Lingam, Tun Eusoff Chin, Tun Ahmad Fairuz, Tan Sri Vincent Tan, Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamed and Tun Mohamed Dzaidin.
A. To enquire and ascertain the authenticity of the video clip
In relation to this term of reference we submit that the man in the video clip is Dato’ Kanagalingam Veluppillai (Dato’ V K Lingam).
Our submission belies the following salient facts:-
1. The evidence of Mr Loh Mui Fah (CW3) that Dato’ V K Lingam had invited him (Mr Loh) to his home. (Please refer to Notes of Proceedings (“NP”) Day 1 page 4).
2. The evidence of Mr Loh Gwo Burne that he had gone to Dato’ V K Lingam’s house on 20 December 2001 with this father Mr Loh Mui Fah (NP Day 6 page 2).
3. The evidence of Mohd Zabri Adil bin Talia from Cyber Sekuriti that
b. That the unknown voice comes from the same source as the known voice. (NP Day 2 page 26).
5. Mr Thayalan himself had admitted to the question of the Honourable Commissioner Dato’ Mahadev Shankar that he did not in any of his questions suggest that the evidence of Mohd Zabri Adil was wrong. (NP Day 9 page 7)
6. The evidence of Chua Lay Choo (NP Day 12 page 4) that it was Dato V K Lingam who had told her that the Chinese man in the video clip was Mr Loh Mui Fah (NP day 12 page 3 & 4). It is our submission that surely if Dato V K Lingam can recognize Mr Loh Mui Fah in the video clip, he can recognize himself as well.
7. The evidence of Mr Thirunama Karasu A/L kandar Velupillaiwho had said that he recognizes the man in the video clip as Dato V K Lingam from the body language and his voice. Thirunama Karasu A/L kandar Velupillaiwho is the brother of Dato V K Lingam had said that Dato V K Lingam gets excited when talking on the telephone (NP Day 13 page 4).
8. The evidence of Ms Jayanthi, who was the personal secretary of Dato V K Lingam, that the man in the video clip is Dato VK Lingam (NP Day 17 page 17).
9. The evidence of Mr Ramachandran, who was the personal driver to Dato V K Lingam for 6 years, that the man in the video clip is Dato V K Lingam (NP Day 17 page 23).
10. Honourable Commissioners, there is no contrary evidence denying the authenticity of the video clip.
11. The closest denial, if ever it was to be considered as a denial is the lame excuse by the Dato’ V K Lingam that the man in the video clip “looks like me and sounds like me but I am not sure if it is me.”
11.1 Further, during cross examination on the telephone conversation in the video clip, Dato’ V K lingam has testified that he can say what he like in his house and that he could also said that he was talking to President Bush.
11.2 It is clear from this evidence in paragraph 11.1 above that Dato’ V K Lingam has indirectly admitted that it was him who was speaking on the mobile telephone in the video clip.
12. Dato V K Lingam is the one who had identified Mr Loh as the Chinese man in the video clip. He gave the personal particulars to Ms Chuah Lay Choo the ACA investigation officer. Mr Loh admitted in his evidence that he was the person in the video clip. Surely this would mean that the Indian man in the video clip who “looks like and sounds like Dato V K Lingam, has to be Dato V K Lingam.
13. Further, there was no evidence from any other experts contradicting the evidence of Mohd Zabri Adil though learned counsel for Dato V K Lingam, Mr Thayalan had informed the Commission that the would be making an application to introduce another expert evidence, which will prove that the it was not Dato’ V K Lingam talking on the hand phone in the video clip.
14. It must be noted that at the end of the hearing Mr Thayalan did not make the application to introduce expert evidence. Mr Thayalan did not produce any evidence to challenge the expert evidence of Mohd Zabri Adil.
B. To enquire and identify the speaker, the person he was speaking to and the persons mentioned in the conversation
I submit that the speaker talking over the telephone to the person, in the presence of Mr Loh Mui Fah and Mr Loh Gwo Burne on 20.12.2001 was Dato V K Lingam. This submission is based on the evidence referred to in the above paragraphs.
I further submit that the speaker on the other end of the telephone, to whom Dato V K Lingam was speaking to, was definitely Tun Ahmad Fairuz, the former Chief Justice. This, we say, can be established from the events that were mentioned by Dato V K Lingam in the telephone conversation as well as the events that happened thereafter. We elucidate the events hereinbelow:-
1. In the telephone conversation Dato VK Lingam had said that he liked the way Tun Fairuz answered the press ie that he was working hard and that he would leave it to God. (Refer to C8 page 5).
2. The Sunday Star on 11/11/2001 had published an article which quoted Tun Ahmad Fairuz saying the same words. (NP Day 8 page 6)
3. We submit that the fact that Dato V K Lingam was repeating the words of Tun Ahmad Fairuz which appeared in the Sunday Star to Tun Ahmad Fairuz himself and saying that he (Dato V K Lingam) liked the statement of Tun Ahmad Fairuz shows that Dato V K Lingam was talking to Tun Ahmad Fairuz.
4. Dato VK Lingam had in the said teleconversation said that he would see to it that the speaker on the other end of the telephone would be bestowed the “Tan Sri” title soon. The words that where spoken were as follows: “ I will also get Tan Sri to remind PM to put your Tan Sri ship this year lah” (Refer to C8 page 5).
5. It was in evidence that Tun Ahmad Fairuz was bestowed the title Tan Sri in June 2002. (NP Day 8 page 6)
6. Tun Dzaiddin had given evidence that he did not recommend the Tan Sri ship for Tun Ahmad Fairuz. In fact it was the evidence of Tun Dzaiddin that Tun Ahmad Fairuz had told Tun Dzaiddin that the “Tan Sri-ship” which he would be getting was recommended by Tengku Adnan and that he (Tun Dzaiddin) was disappointed. (NP Day 11 page 12).
7. It must be noted that Tun Dzaiddin was so sure that Tun Ahmad Fairuz had told him (Tun Dzaiddin) that it was Tengku Adnan who had recommended the Tan Sri ship. The words used by Tun Dzaiddin were as follows: He (meaning Tun Ahmad Fairuz) categorically stated that it (meaning the Tan Sriship) was recommended by Tengku Adnan.
8. Tengku Adnan himself is no stranger to Dato V K Lingam. The fact that Tengku Adnan was close to Dato’ V K Lingam and therefore was in a position to make such a recommendation is seen in the evidence of Ms Jayanthi who confirmed that Tengku Adnan made regular calls to Dato V K Lingam. (NP Day 17 page 16).
9. We submit that it is improper for a member of the executive branch of the Government to make a recommendation for conferment of title to a member of the Judiciary. To put it mildly, it was a serious indiscretion both on the part of Tengku Adnan and Tun Ahmad Fairuz. Such act would have definitely compromised Tun Ahmad Fairuz’s position as a judge.
10. Then there is another statement made by Dato V K Lingam which directly establishes Tun Ahmad Fairuz was the person to whom Dato V K Lingam was speaking. At page 6 exhibit C8, Dato V K Lingam was saying:
“You suffered so much, so much you have done. You know, for the election petition, Wee Choo Keong, everything. How much, nobody would have done all these.”
11. It is a well known fact that in 1995 the Election Petition Judge for the Election Petition was none other than Tun Ahmad Fairuz. In this Election Petition Tun Ahmad Fairuz saw it fit to disqualify Wee Choo Keong as the duly elected MP for Bukit Bintang and Tun Ahmad Fairuz went further to appoint the loser in the 1995 General Election as the duly elected MP for Bukit Bintang. The Tun AHamd Fairuz’s said decision was not based on legal principle and contrary principle of democracy where MP is elected by the voter.
11.1 At the hearing of the Royal Commission, Wee Choo Keong did offer himself to give evidence but the Commissioners denied him the right to give evidence. The Commissioners must have came to the own conclusion based on reason best known to time that although the Election Petition against Mr Wee Choo Keong was mentioned in the video clip, it was however very irrelevant. I humbly submit that it was a very strange ruling.
12. Later when the Chinese man (Mr Loh Mui Fah) asks Dato V K Lingam who was he (Dato V K Lingam) talking to over the phone, Dato V K Lingam had replied that it was the Chief Judge of Malaya Tun Ahmad Fairuz and that it was he (Dato VK Lingam) who had “put him up there” (see C8 page 6) implying that Tun Ahmad Fairuz was a Chief Judge because of Dato V K Lingam.
13. During examination in chief by counsel En Sallehudin, Tun Ahmad Fairuz was asked to clarify what he meant by the telephone conversation in the video clip was a monologue. Tun Ahmad testified that: “sebab suara saya tidak boleh didengar.”
14. From the above facts, the surrounding circumstances in which the conversation took place and the events thereafter, it is crystal clear that person that Dato V K Lingam was talking to on the other end of line was definitely Tun Ahmad Fairuz.
C: To enquire and ascertain the truth of the content of the conversation
In this part, I shall divide my submission to two parts. Firstly the truth of the conversation in relation to judicial brokering that was spoken about by Dato V K Lingam to Tun Ahmad Fairuz.
Secondly, I shall also submit that through the evidence of Mr Thirunama Karasu, Ms Jayanthi (Lingam’s secretary) and Mr Ramahandran (Lingam’s driver), it is clear that Dato’ VK Lingam had a relationship with Tun Eusoff Chin that surpassed ordinary lawyer-judge relationship.
The 1st Issue: about the truth of the conversation in relation to the judicial brokering that was spoken about by Dato V K Lingam to Tun Ahmad Fairuz.
1. Dato V K Lingam was speaking on the telephone about the proposed appointment of three (3) judges namely Dato’ Heliliah, Dato Ramly Ali, Dato Ahmad Haji Maarop and the rejection of two (2) other names namely En Zainuddin Ismail and Dr Andrew Chew. The said proposed appointment and rejection of those persons named above, was spot on and confirmed in the letter between the then Prime Minister and Tun Mohamed Dzaiddin.
2. These were confidential matters as testified by the former Chief Secretary to the Government Tan Sri Shamsuddin Osman (NP Day 3 page 16).
3. In fact Dato Mahadev Shanker made the observation that he himself was puzzled as to how Dato V K Lingam had access to these confidential matters. (NP Day 3 page 17).
4. We submit that the statements made by Dato V K Lingam to Tun Ahmad Fairuz were all true. It was a fact that three (3) judges were appointed and two (2) were rejected. Dato V K Lingam had very specific knowledge that there was a letter sent to Tan Sri Dzaiddin (now Tun) about this matter (see C8 page 1).
5. The former Chief Secretary confirmed that there was such a letter sent to Tun Dzaiddin concerning the appointment of the three judges and the rejection of the two proposed names. This letter was dated 5.12.2001 (Exhibit C41).
6. Dato V K Lingam was talking about this letter to Tun Ahmad Fairuz about this letter on 20.12.2001.
7. The fact that Dato V K Lingam was talking about such confidential matters on the hand phone would go to show that Dato V K Lingam and the person at the other end of the phone shared a common interest on these matters that were discussed in the telephone conversation as shown in the video clip.
8. Further Dato V K Lingam himself admits that he had a hand in these matters. He says this in the video clip:
“Ah, as per our memo, I….I discussed with Tun…aa….Tun Eusoff Chin and we sent the same memo to PM.” (see C8 page 1)
9. Dato V K Lingam himself also said that it is very important that “… key players must be there …”
10. Dato V K Lingam had also said that he had asked Tan Sri Vincent Tan to speak to the former Prime Minister Datuk Seri Mahathir Mohammad (now Tun) to appoint Datuk Ahmad Fairuz as CJM (see C8 page 3)
11. At the end of the conversation with Tun Ahmad Fairuz, Dato V K Lingam then told Mr Loh Mui Fah that when Tun Dzaiddin recommended the late Tan Sri Malek Ahmad to be Chief Judge of Malaya, Tengku Adnan and Dato V K Lingam had gone to see the Prime Minister to influence the Prime Minister to reject this recommendation and appoint Tun Ahmad Fairuz as Chief Judge.
12. Tun Dzaiddin did confirm in his testimony that he had recommended the late Tan Sri Malek as Chief Judge but eventually it was Tun Ahmad Fairuz that was appointed as Chief Judge. These were matters that were spoken about by Dato V K Lingam to Tun Ahmad Fairuz in the video clip and these are true facts.
13. It was a fact that Tun Dzaiddin had suggested that Tan Sri Malek Ahmad be appointed as the Chief Judge Malaya and it was a fact that this recommendation was rejected. It was a fact that eventually Tun Ahmad Fairuz was appointed as a Chief Judge. It was also a fact that later Tun Ahmad Fairuz became the acting PCA.
15. These were matters that Dato V K Lingam had talked to Mr Loh Mui Fah. Dato V K Lingam had also told Mr Loh Mui Fah that he had put up Tun Ahmad Fairuz as Chief Judge and later as Acting PCA.
16. We submit that it was obvious that the reason for Dato V K Lingam to broker the appointment of Tun Ahmad Fairuz as the new CJM was because Tun Eusoff Chin was no longer in power. Dato V K Lingam needs a Chief Judge to fit cases for him or for person or businessman closed to him.
17. Dato V K Lingam had informed Mr Loh Mui Faht that “knowing the law doesn’t give you winning the emperor…(unclear)…..You must also kun tow with the Emperor. (see C8 page 8).
18. At page 2 & 3 of exhibit C8, Dato V K Lingam exclaims albeit proudly that “... sometimes Tan Sri Vincent say half the time we are talking about judiciary rather than doing the work. But if I do this part … my work will be useless. Hah! Hah! Hah! Hah! … ah… yes… Correct … Correct … Correct … Correct”. It is clear from this part of the conversation that if Dato’ lingam does not indulge in judicial brokering then his “work will be useless”.
18.9 Therefore, it must follow suits that fixing of judicial appointment was for the specific purpose of the judge to fix court decision in Dato’ Lingam favour.
19. From the above, it is my humble submission that there are more than enough evidence to show that Dato V K Lingam was actively involved in brokering of the appointment of judges.
The 2nd Issue: Dato V K Lingam had a hand in brokering of appointment of judges because of his “more than close relationship” with Tun Eusoff Chin.
I substantiate the about submission on the following facts:-
1. Dato V K Lingam had told Mr Loh Mui Fah that he was extremely close to Tun Eusoff Chin.
2. Dato V K Lingam had also told Mr Loh Mui Fah that when Tun Eusoff Chin was in power, I (meaning Dato V K Lingam) can straight “get Pom, Pom, Pom, Pom…..” Basically this meant that Dato V K Lingam can get whatever he wanted when Tun Eusoff Chin was in power.
3. DAto’ V K Lingam and family, and Tun Eusoff Chin and family went on a holiday trip to New Zealand together and they took the same flight from Singapore onward and they were also traveling together in New Zealand. There were more than enough evidence to show that New Zealand trip was pre-planned by Dato V K Lingam and Tun Eusoffe Chin.
4. The fact that Dato V K Lingam was close to Tun Eusoff Chin has now become a known fact. We submit that the relationship between Tun Eusoff Chin and Dato V K Lingam is not merely a close relationship but this relationship was the starting point for Dato V K Lingam to put his fingers and meddle in the matters concerning the judiciary.
5. Ms Jayanthi had given evidence that Tun Eusoff Chin used to call Dato V K Lingam’s direct line and that Ms Jayanthi would pick up these calls when Dato V K Lingam was not in the office. Ms Jayanthi had given evidence that she knew that the caller was Tun Eusoff Chin because Tun Eusoff Chin would introduce himself as such. (NP Day 17 page 16).
6. Ms Jayanthi had also given evidence that the two drivers namely Mohan and Mr Ramachandran had told her that they had taken Dato V K Lingam to Tun Eusoff Chin’s house on numerous occasions. (NP Day 17 page 16).
7. In fact, even Mr Thirunama Karasu A/L Kandar VelupillaiA/L Kandar Velupillai had given evidence that he had heard from Mr Ramachandran and Mogan that they had also driven Dato V K Lingam to Tun Eusoff Chin’s house (NP Day 13 page 5).
8. The evidence of Ms Jayanthi clearly corroborated the evidence of Mr Thirunama Karasu A/L Kandar Velupillai who had given evidence as follows:-
Is Thirunama Karasu A/L Kandar Velupillai insane?
Honourable Commissioners, at this juncture it is important for us to highlight that Dato’ VK Lingam had tried to discredit Mr Thirunama Karasu A/L Kandar Velupillai as an insane person. It is submitted that Mr Thirunama Karasu A/L Kandar Velupillai is sane, has a memory of that of any “elephant” and is a truthful witness. I make this submission based on the following evidence:
To determine whether any act of misbehaviour has been committed by persons identified or mentioned in the clip
Honourable Commissioners, it is clear that Dato V K Lingam and Tun Eusoff Chin are guilty of misbehaviour. The late night meetings between Dato V K Lingam and Tun Eusoff Chin were most scandalous. The delivery of the handbag and a brown envelope by Mr Thirunama Karasu A/L Kandar Velupillai to Tun Eusoff Chin’s house also borders on scandalous behaviour. Tun Eusoff Chin cohorting with Dato V K Lingam in all of these matters has also brought disrepute to the high office of Chief Justice which he held at that time.
Datuk V K Lingam seemed to be privy to classified information under the Official Secret Act.
To recommend appropriate action against those found to have committed any misbehaviour
1. ACA TO REOPEN INVESTIGATION INTO THE ACTIVITIES OF TUN EUSOFF CHIN, DATUK V K LINGAM, FORMER AG AND OTHER JUDGES (INCLUDING ONE SITTING JUDGE) IMPLICATED BY THE EVIDENCE TENDERED BEFORE THE COMMISSION OF INQUIRY.
The said activities of both Tun Eusoff Chin and Dato V K Lingam must be further investigated by the ACA based on the overwhelming evidence produced at the inquiry. It must be noted that at the material time the then Attorney-General (AG), the late Tan Sri Mohtar Abdullah, was heavily implicated in the ACA investigation and yet he saw it fit to clear Tun Eusoff Chin, Dato’ V K Lingam of other from corruption charges and closed the ACA investigations on the matter. During the Inquiry, photograph was produced as exhibit showing the late Tan Sri Mohtar Abdullah was on a holiday trip to Spain with Tan Sri Vincent Tan, Dato V K Lingam and their respective spouses and then they proceeded to Morocco. Please see: exhibit C-58 [the group photo taken in Spain]. Dato’ V K Lingam has admitted that he went on a holiday to Spain with Tan Sri Vincent Tan, Tan Sri Mohtar Abdullah.
Therefore, it was most improper for the then AG to close the investigation and clear Tun Eusoff Chin and Dato’ V K Lingam of charges of corruption and corrupt practices when he was heavily implicated in the said investigation. No one should be a judge of his own cause.
1st Recommendation
Based on the above glaring facts, the Honourable Commissioners are duty bound to make a recommendation that the ACA to reopen its investigations into the charges of corruptions and corrupt practices involving Tun Eusoff Chin, Dato’ V K Lingam, the late Tan Sri Mohtar Abdullah, and other judges like Datuk Mokhtar Sidin, Datuk K L Rekraj and Datuk Low Hop Bing, who is still a sitting judge in the Court of Appeal, as there are more than sufficient evidence to warrant an in-depth investigations into their closed relationship with Dato’ V K Lingam.
2. TUN EUSOFF CHIN, TUN AHMAD FIRUZ AND DATO V K LINGAM SHOULD BE CHARGED UNDER SECTION 191 PENAL CODE – GIVING FALSE EVIDENCE/PERJURY.
Tun Eusoff Chin and Dato V K Lingam should be charged for giving false evidence/perjury. There was more than enough evidence to show that both of them have been lying through their teeth when they testified before the Commission. Both of them denied that the New Zealand holidays trip were preplanned and both of them testified that they met by chance in Singapore Changi Airport when there was ample evidence to show otherwise. Air plane tickets (exhibit C-69 [1-15]) for both families of Dato V K Lingam and Tun Eusoff Chin were purchased from the same travel agent, Holiday Tours Sdn Bhd. Many photographs of both families were produced as evidence. Tun Eusoff Chin travel manifest from Holiday Tours Sdn Bhd was sent to Ms Jeyanthi, Dato V K Lingam’s secretary.
Further, in 1998 Tun Eusoff Chin was quoted by the press to have said that he and Dato V K Lingam met each other by chance in a zoo New Zealand.
Both of them denied that they are closed buddies and yet there was evidence of Dato VK Lingam buying expensive gifts for Tun Eusoff Chin and Dato V K Lingam visited Tun Eusoff Chin in his house at late at night un til past mid night on several occasions. There was evidence from Ms Jeyanthi and Mr Thirunama Karasu A/L Kandar Velupillai that Tun Eusoff Chin used to call Dato’ V K Lingam on his mobile phone and direct line in the office. In fact, Mr Thirunama Karasu A/L Kandar Velupillai (Dato’ V K Lingam’s brother) could have produced more evidence to show extremely closeness between Tun Eusoff Chin and Dato’ V K Lingam but the Honoourable Commissioner saw it fit to limit Mr Thirunma Karasu A/L Kandar Velupillai testimonies to only 4 incidents of extremely closeness when he could have produced more.
Tun Ahmad Fairuz should also be charged for giving false evidence/perjury because he also denied that he was closed to Dato V K Lingam and that he was not the person talking at the other end of the line with Dato’ V K Lingam as shown in the video clip. However, Tun Ahmad Fairuz told the Inquiry that it was a monologue conversation because “suara saya tidak boleh di dengar.”
2nd Recommendation
That Tun Eusoff Chin, Tun Ahmad Fairuz Sheikh Abdul Halim and Dato’ V K Lingam should be charged under section 191 of Penal Code for giving false evidence/perjury.
3. ANOTHER ROYAL COMMISSION OF INQUIRY SHOULD BE SET UPTO INVESTIGATE INTO THE ALLEGATIONS OF CORRUPTION OR CORRUPT PRACTICES OR MISCONDUCTS OF RETIRED JUDDGES AND ONE SITTING JUDGE IN THE COURT OF APPEAL.
In exhibit C - 95 there were many more incidents that were prohibited by the Hon Commissioners to tender were:
- many other matters of compromising nature were prohibited from producing before the Inquiry.
In the course of the investigation, matters that are not within the so-called purview of the Terms of Reference were either disclosed in evidence or totally bared from tendering before the Inquiry and such matters were of public importance. They are as follows:
Dato Wira Low Hop Bing, a judge in the Court of Appeal
Mr Tirunama Karasu A/L Kandar Velupillai did testify that he delivered a large brown bag to Dato Low Hop Bing house late at night that it was received by Dato Low personally.
Dato Mokhtar Sidinl, a retired Judge of the Court of Appeal
In the evidence of Ms Jeyanthi, she has testified that she was present and the secretary were made to type an amended Grounds of Judgment and that Ground of Judgment was subsequently delivered in a floppy disk to Dato Mokhtar Sidin’s house. The said amended Ground of Judgment became the official Ground of Judgment. In this case, the late Mr MCCG Pillai was ordered by Datuk Mokhtar Sidin to pay RM10 million damages to Tan Sri Vincent Tan. Mr Tirunama Karasu A/L Kandar Velupillai further testified that hand phones totaling five units were handed over to Dato Mokhtar Sidin at his house at the instructions of Dato V K Lingam.
In the evidence of Mr Tirunama Karasu A/L Kanda Velupillai, he testified that he was detained in a hotel and was forced by the 3 lawyers, Dato C Vijaya Kumar, Dato Kumarendran and Dato Sitambaram to retract the statement that he earlier made to the ACA. This piece of evidence if found to be true tantamount to interfering with the ACA investigation.
3rd Recommendation
I humbly submit that this Commission, which I would call it the MOTHER of all Commissions, should make recommendations that another Royal Commission with independent members with minimum connection with the judiciary should be immediately set up to further investigate into the alleged corruptions or corrupt practices, which evidence were directly or indirectly produced before the Commission, in general in the judiciary and the tampering/interfering with the ACA investigations.
Lastly, a new Royal Commission should also investigate into the fixing of decision of court cases involving Datuk V K Lingam, as the lawyer for the winning party and the judges that were named by Mr Thirunama Karasu A/L Kandar Velupillai, Ms Jeyanthi and Mr Ramachandran in this Inquiry.
Dated 5th March 2008
Wee Choo Keong
Counsel for Mr. Thirunama Karasu A/L Kandar Velupillai
This Written Submission is filed by M/s Wee Choo Keong & Faaiz, solicitor for the abovenamed witness, whose address of service is at Business Suite 19A-14-1, Wisma UOA-1, Jalan Pinang, Kuala Lumpur. Tel: 03-21619688 Fax: 03-21636733
(Post your comment here.)
