I've heard every single method of hedging around the question in desperate attempts not to perjure oneself.
Or so I thought.
This is the first time I've ever heard anyone utter, "By golly, it looks and sounds like me, mate!!" upon seeing himself on tape.
Check out the highly amusing report in the Sun:
The commission also wanted to know the position taken by Lingam after the submission of evidence by two main witnesses - Loh and CyberSecurity Sdn Bhd forensics digital analyst Mohd Zabri Adil Talib - if the person in the video clip was the lawyer himself.
Commission member Datuk Mahadev Shankar asked Lingam’s lawyer, R. Thayalan, if Lingam admitted it was him who appeared in the clip.
"Is it your position that your client is not him in the clip?" asked Mahadev.
"He said it looks and sounds like him in the clip," replied Thayalan.
Mahadev pressed Thayalan further and asked if Lingam admitted the details which appeared in the transcript was uttered by Lingam.
"I have to take instructions from him, but his stand now is that it looks and sounds like him," replied Thayalan.
Commissioner Tan Sri Steve Shim Lip Kion also pursued the issue and asked Thayalan to explain his reply.
"What do you mean, look like him… can you explain," said Shim.
"The image is not clear ... let me get back to him … that was his stand," said Thayalan.
I'm sure there must be a very good explanation.
Severe amnesia, maybe? Along the lines of selective memory loss?
Poor bloke couldn't remember if it was him, in his own house, saying those words in his voice and accent and bombastic vocabulary ("correct, correct, correct").
Oh yeah, Malaysia boleh indeed.
1 comment:
The RCI should first summon Lingam to the inquiry, give him the benefit of doubts of what's he going to say about the video clip.
If he denies, then get expertise to verify that and if it's authentic, which means VK Lingam is lying, hence this is the matter of another day to deal with.
If he admits, great, cut short the inquiry time on other unnecessary inquiries and proceed to the next immediate issues, which is about the integrity of the judiciary system which looks like being taken for granted all these while, and in the end of the day, it's the responsibility and prerogative of RCI to propose the best recommendation to salvage the damage done towards the reputation of the judiciary system.
However, the way I look at this RCI, I wish I've high hopes on them, but it looks like yet-another-IPCMC, in which it's apparent that those who've testified are making a joke out of the RCI.
Period.
Post a Comment