Thursday, November 22, 2007

VK Lingam & Bro-Mention of Mutiara handphones lends credibility to story

VK Lingam's brother has reported:

7) IN 1996 CASH WAS GIVEN TO ME BY MY BROTHER DATO V. KANAGALINGAM TO PURCHASE HANDPHONE FROM MUTIARA TELECOMMUNICATIONS SDN BHD LOT 1 LEVEL 1 SHAHZAN PRUDENTIAL TOWER AT NO 30 JALAN SULTAN SIMAIL KL. FOR TUN EUSOFF CHIN. THIS PHONE WAS DELIVERED TO TUN EUSOFF CHON'S HOUSE BY A FAMILY FRIEND MR FRANCIS KOK CHEE KHOON.
http://rockybru2.blogspot.com/2007/11/hes-my-brother.html


This account corresponds with the finding reported in the "Bowman papers" about how Vincent Tan who then owned and controlled Mutiara (now known as Digi) had special VIP accounts set-up to manage their Mutiara handphone bills .

Not something a mad man would dream up , me thinks....

Tuesday, November 20, 2007

VK Lingam and payments to judges:The case of a LA who was made the bag lady

Sometime between 1994 and 1996 , a matter went before the Department of Industrial Relations for reconciliation.
The matter was brought by a lawyer said to be named Geetha Menon (GM), who had been dismissed from her position as legal assistant (LA) at VK Lingam and Co.

GM claimed that she was sacked for refusing to personally courier a quantity of cash to a then sitting judge.

Seeking reinstatement before the Industrial Court (for that is the objective of hearings before the Court), she had first to attend a reconciliation hearing.

At this point, the dear girl fell into a trap of her own making. Representatives of VK Lingam and Co offered to take her back, to which her response was something along the lines of " I would never want to work or you again".
Needless to say, the Department then decided that the matter should not be referred to the Industrial Court.
The above information was gained from the so-called Bowman papers ( http://www.malaysiakini.com/news/1181) as well as then senior employees of the Department.

However, there is now this report lodged by VK Lingam's brother, Balan which in part reads:

2) IN 1995 I WITNESS MY BROTHER DATO V. KANAGALINGAM CORRUPTING A FORMER INDUSTRIALIST COURT CHAIRMAN MR SATCHI WHERE I SAW MY BROTHER HANDING OVER A CHEQUE IN THE SUM OF RM 50,000.00.
(http://rockybru2.blogspot.com/2007/11/hes-my-brother.html)

This raises the question whether Geetha Menon's matter not being referred had something to do with this payment.

Wednesday, November 14, 2007

Dear Dr M, glad to hear that you are recovering...now please explain..

In his speech at the UN General Assembly ....... Dr Mahathir had criticised the UN for "rather unusual practices", citing as an example, the choice of UN human rights commissioners.

Without naming anyone but obviously referring to (Datuk Param Cumuraswamy ), Dr Mahathir told the world body: "But the UN chose a person well known for his virulent attacks on the Malaysian judiciary to report on that institution".

"The UN then conferred on him total immunity against the laws of his country without reference to or consent of the country and the immunity apparently extends beyond his task of reporting his findings to the UN."
(UN RAPPORTEUR PARAM DENIES ATTACKING JUDICIARY.
1 October 1999,BERNAMA Malaysian National News Agency)


The cause of Mahathir's anger:
The High Court today held that United Nations Special Rapporteur Param Cumaraswamy of Malaysia is entitled to immunity from all legal processes with regards to words spoken or acts done during the course of his mission as a U.N. agent...With respect to costs, Nathan said the parties ought to bear their own costs as Param had not acted impartially regarding the statements made in International Commercial Litigation. Param's interview with the magazine entitled "Malaysian Justice on Trial" is the source of the defamation suits filed against him.

Param is facing another three defamation suits filed by MBF Capital and MBF Northern Securities, lawyer V. K. Lingam and business tycoon Vincent Tan's Berjaya Industrial and Berjaya Corp. (Cayman) based on the interview given.

(http://www.hrsolidarity.net/mainfile.php/2000vol10no08/652/)

It appears that Mahathir was taking all this personally for reasons perhaps best described by VK Lingam:

. But never-mind, I will do this, I will get Tengku Adnan to arrange for PM to call you and Tan Sri Vincent Tan for PM to call you. And you know why, actually, I am very grateful with Tan Sri Vincent Tan you know why, I brainwash you so much even I quarrel with him. One day I went to Vincent Tan house, I fire him at the night in his house. I said very hell if you don’t do this who will do it?
All these people Tun Eusoff Chin, Datuk Ahmad Fairuz, Tan Sri Zainon all fought for that. Then he called Tengku Adnan. Tengku Adnan he said, saya bukan Perdana Menteri Malaysia lah, you know. If the old man doesn’t want to listen to me, go to hell.

He quarreled with me. I said nevermind, nevermind, you talk to PM again tomorrow morning to put Datuk Ahmad Fairuz to CJM. So next day morning he went and he called me back 9.30 that he said PM has already agreed. So I said nevermind, we hope for the best. So I said no harm trying, the worst that it can happen is that you lose. Being the old man, he is 76 years old, he gets whispers everywhere, and then you don’t whisper, he get taken away by the other side. But, now PM is very alert because every time he gets letters from Tan Sri Zaidin, he called Tengku Adnan, he said discuss with Vincent, come and discuss.
We want to make sure our friends are there for the sake of the PM and the sake of the country.

Sunday, November 4, 2007

Some evidence of the authenticity of the VK Lingam tape




There is in the VK Lingam video recording a number of scenes where the source of lighting for the room in which the scenes were recorded is clearly visible.
In these scenes it can be clearly seen that the source of lighting is some type of fluorescent light fixed in that room's ceiling.

This light would be reflected of objects in the room,including a person moving around the room from a northerly aspect-ie the reflections would be consistent with the source being above the objects.

The VK Lingam video clearly shows light on the person in the video being reflected from a source above.
More important, the video shows that the intensity of reflection changes according to the position of the person relative to the light.

Therefore, it is unlikely that the person's image has been superimposed.
What is shown here are 3 images, the first shows a side profile, and with it an enhanced image in which the areas of highest intensity are coloured black.
The third shows the location of the light in the ceiling.