Businessman Loh Mui Fah, who admitted that his son had recorded the controversial Lingam tape, told the royal commission of inquiry today that his son will return to Malaysia to testify.

On Saturday, Loh, 58, told Malaysiakini that he and his son Gwo Burne, 33, who is currently in China, were invited to lawyer VK Lingam’s house in late 2001 for dinner.

He also confirmed that his son secretly filmed the telephone conversation between Lingam and a person believed to be former chief judge of Malaya Ahmad Fairuz Sheikh Abdul Halim.

This morning, Loh told the commissioners that his son was prepared to testify and arrangements were being made for Gwo Burne to return to Malaysia.

Loh, who was represented by lawyer Americk Singh Sidhu, told the inquiry that although his son was with him during the conversation, he was unaware that the conversation was being recorded.

The businessman added that he only saw the video clip on the Internet after it was made public.

Testifying at the royal commission’s second day of inquiry, Loh said the footage was recorded on Dec 20, 2001 at Lingam’s house in Kelana Jaya.

Loh was repeatedly questioned over the model of the digital camera used and if the same camera was used to film the conversation and take photographs with, but he could not confirm this.

Commission chairperson Haidar Mohamad Noor then recommended that these questions be directed at Loh’s son when he testifies.

Photos produced

Apart from the full 14-minute clip, the commission was also shown two photos taken by Gwo Burne at Lingam’s house that night.

One of the photos showed a clean-shaven Loh at a table with Lingam and his sister (right).

According to Loh, Lingam’s sister stayed for half an hour before dinner to consult Lingam on a number of legal matters.

Another photo - featuring Loh, Lingam and deceased lawyer Manjit Singh - was taken after the telephone conversation took place that night. (below)

Loh also told the inquiry that Manjit, who arrived at Lingam’s house after dinner, was his counsel for the case he was discussing with Lingam.

Loh also denied knowledge as to who released the video when questioned by Lingam’s lawyer R Thayalan.

Thayalan: You said that it was not you who released the video. Do you know who (did)?

Loh: No.

Thayalan: Would your son have been (the one)?

Loh: I can’t speak for him but no, I don’t think so. He was overseas.

Thayalan: Did you ask him?

Loh: No, I did not.

The first eight minutes of the controversial video clip was first released by PKR adviser Anwar Ibrahim on Sept 19. Anwar revealed the remaining six minutes of the video on Dec 14, just two days after the royal commissioners were announced.

Other members of the commission are former chief judge of Sabah and Sarawak Steve Shim, former Court of Appeal judge Mahadev Shankar, former solicitor-general Zaitun Zawiyah Puteh and historian and Suhakam commissioner Prof Khoo Kay Kim.
Lingam identified

Lingam, the man at the centre of the controversy, made a brief appearance before the inquiry today.

A calm-looking Lingam brought into the courtroom for about two minutes and left after Loh identified him as the person he had dinner with that night and as the person shown in the video.

With Lingam standing near the door in the opposite side the witness stand, Anti-Corruption Agency prosecution chief Nordin Hassan asked Loh about the identity of the person featured in the video clip.

Nordin: Is this the person you refer to as Datuk VK Lingam in your statement earlier?

Loh: Yes.

Nordin: Is this the person you met on the 20th of December 2001 at his house?

Loh: Yes.

Nordin: Is this the person speaking on the telephone as shown in the video?

Loh: Yes.

Loh also confirmed that he was the person shown to be interacting with Lingam towards the end of the video clip, after the phone conversation was over.

Loh was seen inquiring the identity of the caller, whom Lingam identified as Ahmad Fairuz.

He also confirmed that it was Lingam who received the phone call allegedly from Ahmad Fairuz.

Loh said he complained to Lingam that the latter was constantly receiving phone calls, not just on that night, but each time they met.

The businessman told the inquiry that he came to discuss his legal matters with Lingam under the strict condition that Lingam does not make any phone calls.

In response, the businessman said Lingam apologised saying that he was not making any calls but was merely receiving them. This drew laughter from the those present in court.

Referring to the photo showing several bottles of wine and alcohol on the coffee table, Thayalan sought to suggest that the conversations in question transpired under the influence of alcohol.

However, the panel ruled out the possibility that either Lingam or Loh were intoxicated that evening.

Apart from Thayalan and Nordin, Loh was cross-examined for almost two hours by Ahmad Fairuz’s lawyer Syed Alwee Ahmad Alsree and Bar Council lawyers Ranjit Singh and Robert Lazar.

Summon Thirunama

Earlier in the morning, Wee Choo Keong, who represents Lingam’s estranged brother V Thirunama Karasu, requested that his client be summoned as a witness as a subpoena grants him more protection.

“(Thirunama) is prepared to come (before the inquiry) but it is important to grant him a subpoena,” said the lawyer-cum-politician.

Wee told the commissioners that Thirunama (left) is relevant to illustrate the alleged close relationship between Lingam and judges as it was Thirunama who allegedly drove Lingam to the judges’ houses and delivered mobile phones to them.

After a short deliberation amongst themselves, the commissioners did not oblige to Wee’s request saying that the commission will decide on this matter when the time comes.

Ambiguity over James

Ambiguity was also raised about one of the names mentioned towards the end of the telephone conversation.

Bar Council lawyer Robert Lazar questioned if the person named was James Kumar or James Foong, who is currently a judge in the Court of Appeal.

According to the transcript provided by opposition party PKR, the judge referred to was named 'James Kumar'.

Lingam: Eusoff Chin and I are extremely close. Because you know…Yeah. Eusoff Chin in power, I can straight and get in Pom! Pom! Pom! Pom! But now Dzaiddin is there. So Dzaiddin is attacking our cases. That means what? James Kumar is aligned to Dzaiddin. But Dzaiddin is retiring in 15th of September. He is finished.

When pressed, Loh answered that he thought the James in question may be James Foong.

The inquiry also heard that James Foong was the judge presiding over Loh’s case at the time.

Loh’s silence questioned

Doubts were also cast over why Loh had remained silent while inquiries into the authenticity of the video clip by a three-member panel took place last year.

Loh explained that he had sent a letter - dictated to his secretary - to the prime minister on Nov 5, 2007 offering himself as a witness in return for protection. [See letter]

His secretary had also emailed the previous panel on his behalf under the pseudonym Loiiss L on Nov 6 and Nov 14, with a copy forwarded to the Bar Council.

Loh said that while he received a letter of acknowledgment from the Prime Minister’s Department, he did not receive a reply from the panel.

Loh also told the inquiry that he was intercepted by ACA officers in Malacca en route to Singapore from Kuala Lumpur around Dec 28 last year.

Copies of the letter and emails were shown to the commissioners today.

Commissioner Mahadev sought to clarify that the previous three-member panel did not intentionally dismiss potential witnesses.

Mahadev reminded Loh that the previous panel had submitted their report on Nov 6, around the same time as the emails were said to be sent.

Mahadev also acknowledged that Loh was always available as a witness and acted in good faith.