The royal commission on the Lingam tape today rejected an application by lawyer VK Lingam to expunge evidence in regards to his holiday together with the former chief justice Eusoff Chin in December 1994.

The commission unanimously said it was allowing evidence to be adduced on the personal relationship between the two to be included in the inquiry.

Commission chairperson Haidar Mohamed Noor (photo) read the ruling after a short deliberation, saying that after considering counsel submissions, the commission was of the view that its five-point terms of reference be read with the subject matter of the video.

He said that the inquiry will be confined to investigating persons involved in the brokering of the appointment of judges particularly in the context of the video clip.

Lingam had applied to the commission to expunge the evidence pertaining to the holiday on the grounds that they were ‘irrelevant’.

Lawyers at the commission however argued on the relevance of the New Zealand holiday in relation to the inquiry’s five-point terms of reference.

Prior to the ruling made at noon, Bar Council representative Robert Lazar was permitted to continue his line of questioning on Lingam’s relationship with Eusoff and their 1994 New Zealand holiday.

Refreshing Lingam’s memory

Corroborating Eusoff’s earlier testimony, Lingam told the inquiry that he had met Eusoff Chin coincidentally at Singapore’s Changi airport.

When questioned based on Eusoff’s travel itinerary, Lingam did not deny that he visited several places in Auckland with Eusoff and his family - including the zoo and bird park where the two were photographed together.

Lingam also confirmed that they travelled on the same flights within New Zealand to Christchurch and Queenstown as well as the journey back to Kuala Lumpur via Singapore but said that they stayed at separate accommodations.

Lingam however rejected Eusoff’s statement that he had “tagged along” for the trip saying, “I want to make it clear that I did not tag along. We (family) had our own programme. Eusoff had his own programme.”

Nevertheless Lingam later did admit that he asked to join Eusoff on a trip to Queenstown by van.

Lingam: I did not say that the van trip was pre-planned. What I said was that my trip to Queenstown was pre-planned and it so happened that he also was going to Queenstown and he was hiring a van so I asked if I could tag along and we shared expenses.

Lingam also said that he had pre-booked hotels and flights for his family and bodyguard Tan Chong Paw who accompanied them on that eight-day holiday.

When quizzed as to when and which agent prepared his travel arrangements, Lingam calmly said that he could not remember.

Lingam appeared to anticipate questions from Lazar, explaining that there may have been two different travel agents involved.

Lazar: Can you remember your travel agent you made arrangements with?

Lingam: I can’t recollect the travel agent but looking at the tickets, my tickets were booked from Udara Travels and Tours Sdn Bhd and does not appear to be from Holiday Tours and Travels Sdn Bhd.

Lazar: You are anticipating my questions. (Laughs from audience)

Lazar: So you are saying that your agent is not Holiday Tours?

Lingam: What I am saying is from the tickets, (it is) Udara Travels and Tours Sdn Bhd but it is quite possible that payments were made to another company.

Haidar: You wait for the question.

Lingam: Alright.

Lazar: It is possible that you booked a trip through one agent and the ticket is issued by somebody else?

Lingam: Possible.

Lazar produced a photocopied cheque signed by Lingam to Holiday Tours and Travel - the same travel agency that issued Eusoff’s itinerary - dated Dec 21, 1994, a day before the scheduled New Zealand holiday.

Lazar: Now that you’ve seen the cheque, are you in a position to say that Holiday Tours and Travel was your agent.

Lingam: That is correct.

Lazar: You now confirm that Holiday Tours and Travel was your agent for this trip?

Lingam: That is correct.

Lingam also denied Lazar’s suggestion that his travel itinerary could have been prepared in conjunction with Eusoff’s travel plans. The inquiry was previously shown Eusoff’s travel itinerary which was addressed to Rohani/Jeyanthi.

When Eusoff took to the stand last week, he confirmed that Rohani was his secretary but did not know who Jeyanthi was.

Today, Lingam testified that Jeyanthi was indeed his secretary.

Lazar: Look at (the travel itinerary), can you see in the facsimile it is addressed to Rohani/Jeyanthi. Tun Eusoff Chin (photo) testified that Rohani is or was his secretary but he does not know who Jeyanthi was. Can you think of any reason why the name Jeyanthi appears?

Lingam: I can’t think of any reason, there are so many Indian women by that name Jeyanthi, I’ve never seen this document before the first time it was shown to me was by ACA in 1998 when they did investigation I gave the same answer, I’ve not seen this although I have secretary by the name of Jeyanthi.

Lazar: Can I suggest to you that the reason why Jeyanthi’s name is there was because this was a trip planned for you and Eusoff Chin.

Lingam: That is not true.

Throughout the hour-long questioning, Lingam remained adamant that the trip was a matter of coincidence.

Lazar: So are you telling the commission it was a coincidence that Eusoff and you used the same agent, your itinerary covered the same locations and the same dates for flights.

Lingam: There is nothing unusual about it. It was not pre-planned. It was coincidence.

Lazar: And your meeting Tun Eusoff Chin at Changi airport was a chance encounter?

Lingam: That is correct.

Lazar: Apart from New Zealand, were there any holidays that you and Eusoff Chin shared, either by coincidence or planned?

Lingam: None at all.



Case-fixing evidence thrown out

On Tuesday, the Bar Council had submitted that the royal commission investigate not only allegations of judicial appointments but decision fixing as well.

“The fixing of cases goes hand-in-hand with the fixing of judicial appointments. (We) can’t separate (these issues),” Lazar argued.

Lazar also interrogated Lingam on his cases that were heard before Eusoff around the time of the New Zealand holiday including a 1994 libel case against MGG Pillai where damages totalling RM10 million were awarded to business tycoon Vincent Tan and other claimants.

Lazar also attempted to question Lingam on another case involving Insas Bhd and Ayer Molek Sdn Bhd before the commissioners stopped him.

The commissioners questioned Lazar’s intentions of raising these cases, to which he replied that these cases “could potentially show some breaches (in conduct) that are out of the norms.”

Mahadev: It has got nothing to do with the appointment of judges in 2001. Our core focus is on the conversation taking place with the witness and allegedly Tun Ahmad Fairuz. That is the focus of the inquiry. Now you are going back to 1995...

Lazar: We are (using) the case to lend support to assertion that (in reference to the conversation) ‘When Tun Eusoff Chin was in power, I can straight get...’

Mahadev: So, we’ve come to the “Pom! Pom! Pom!” (Laughs from the audience)

It was at this point that the commission adjourned for a short break to deliberate on whether to include details of the New Zealand holiday and the cases highlighted by Lazar (photo).

Haidar then announced that the inquiry will include details of the New Zealand holiday but not the purported fixing of cases as proposed by the Bar Council.

This ruling was made before Eusoff’s newly-appointed counsel made their submission as to whether details of the holiday were relevant to the inquiry.

Zamani Ibrahim, representing Eusoff, told the commissioners that they were in the midst of preparing a submission for Friday.

Eusoff’s counsel were then asked to make their stand known or to align themselves to submissions made by other counsels on Tuesday to allow the inquiry to proceed.

“Our stand is that we align ourselves with Thayalan (Lingam’s counsel) and Kamarul Hisham (Kamaruddin, Ahmad Fairuz’s lawyer),” said Zamani.

It is unclear if Eusoff’s counsel will proceed with their submission on Friday but said that they will be raising issue with some “incorrect facts” in the transcript.