VK Lingam, the lawyer at the centre of the 14-minute video clip on alleged judicial fixing, today answered questions on the New Zealand holiday he took with former chief justice Eusoff Chin in 1994.

Taking the stand for the second time in the inquiry, Lingam denied that his holiday was planned in conjunction with Eusoff’s holiday.

Bar Council representative Robert Lazar (photo) was permitted to continue questioning Lingam on the holiday, prior to a decision as to whether the New Zealand holiday is relevant to the inquiry.

On Tuesday, lawyers had debated the relevance of that holiday with some arguing that the holiday provided evidence on the close relationship between Lingam and Eusoff.

After this morning's session with Lingam, the commission decided that the New Zealand holiday was relevant in investigating the allegations of judicial fixing as alleged by the telephone conversation secretly filmed in December 2001.

Lingam appeared calm throughout the one-hour interrogation and answered each question in a firm voice.

Lazar: When we stopped on Monday, I had asked you if you were extremely close to Tun Eusoff Chin and your answer was “Not extremely close”. I had asked you if you two were close and your answer was “Not close” and (I had asked) did you go on holiday to New Zealand in 1994, at which point I have been (now) allowed (to proceed). Datuk, can we hear your answer to that?

Lingam: In December 1994, I met Eusoff Chin and family at Singapore Changi airport in the course of boarding a flight, New Zealand Airways flight from Singapore to Auckland.

Lazar: On that day, you and your family flew Kuala Lumpur to Singapore on a Singapore Airlines flight.

Lingam: That is correct.

Lazar: Was Eusoff Chin and family on the flight?

Lingam: No, they were not on the flight.

Responding to questions from Lazar, Lingam testified that his family and Eusoff’s family travelled from Singapore to Auckland and within New Zealand on the same flights. Lingam however denied staying in the same hotels as Eusoff.

Lazar: Did you meet up with Eusoff Chin in New Zealand?

Lingam: We first met him and his family at the zoo, which I believe is in Auckland if I am not mistaken.

Lazar: Was that the only place?

Lingam: And in Christchurch.

Lazar: No, (we are talking about) Auckland.

Lingam: Besides the zoo, the bird park and we took a ride in the same vehicle from the zoo to the bird park.

Lazar: On the same day?

Lingam: I think so, to the best of my recollection.

Rejecting Eusoff’s earlier testimony that Lingam had “tagged along” with him on the entire trip, Lingam told the inquiry that they each had their own programme.

Lazar: Was that the only time you met in Auckland?

Lingam: I want to make it clear that I did not tag along. We had our own programme. Eusoff Chin had his own programme.

Commission chairperson Haidar Mohamed Noor: (interrupting) Answer the question.

Lingam: Yes, there were a few times.

Lazar: So, is it correct to say that you spent most of your time with Eusoff Chin (in Auckland)?

Lingam: That is correct.

Lazar: Did your family take any meals together?

Lingam: Not in Auckland.

Lazar then questioned Lingam based on a travel itinerary previously shown to Eusoff.

Lazar: You spent about four days in Auckland, from Dec 22 to 26. You arrived in Auckland on Dec 22.

Haidar: Show him the exhibit (the travel itinerary). [See travel itinerary]

Lazar: But Tan Sri Chairman, that is Eusoff Chin’s exhibit.

Haidar: Make it easier for him (Lingam).

Lazar: Please have a look at exhibit C54 (the travel itinerary) tendered by Eusoff Chin. This is not your itinerary. So you arrived in Auckland on Dec 23, I understand it was an overnight flight. Next on the itinerary, there was a flight from Auckland to Christchurch on Dec 26. So you would have been in Auckland for three days? Now Datuk, can you confirm that you flew Auckland to Christchurch on the same flight as Eusoff Chin and family?

Lingam: That is correct.

Lingam: My family stayed in a hotel but I cannot remember where Eusoff Chin stayed. (Perhaps) in an inn he had pre-booked, I can’t recollect and I had pre-booked my hotels and paid for it.

Lazar: You say you pre-booked your hotels and flights?

Lingam: That is correct.

Lingam was also quizzed on a trip from Christchurch to Queenstown which did not appear on the prepared itinerary.

Lazar: Did you not go to, I am told, Queenstown?

Lingam: Yes, we did.

Lazar: Was that pre-planned?

Lingam: It was pre-planned.

Lazar: On whose part was it pre-planned?

Lingam: On my part, for my family it was pre-planned.

Lazar: Now we have been told that you and Eusoff Chin and family hired a van from Christchurch to Queenstown. Is that correct?

Lingam: That is correct. We hired a van and shared expenses and went from Christchurch to Queenstown.

Lazar: Was that a day trip?

Lingam: I’m not sure about that.

Lazar: So this van trip, you said was pre-planned on your part. So how then did Tun Eusoff Chin end up in the same 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.

Lazar: And the discussion on going to Queenstown with Tun Eusoff Chin sharing the van, where did it take place? In Auckland or Christchurch?

Lingam: I can’t recollect.

Lazar: But there was discussion?

Lingam: Yes.

Lazar: So to say you tagged along with Tun Eusoff Chin was not really accurate as both of you had planned ... to visit Queenstown?

Lingam: When I say ‘tag along’ I mean tag along in the van from wherever to Queenstown. Tag along the ride in the van.

Haidar: Coincidental?

Lingam: Yes. Coincidental.

Apart from Eusoff’s and his family, Lingam revealed that his bodyguard, Tan Chong Paw, accompanied them on the trip.

Lazar: And now that I’ve refreshed your memory, was Tun Eusoff Chin on the same flight?

Lingam: Yes, he was on the same flight.

Lazar: And why is it you decided to fly back instead of...

Lingam: I can’t recollect now but we took the same flight from Christchurch to Auckland. I have copies of the tickets...

Lazar: Datuk, how many people flew on the flight?

Lingam: You mean total passengers? (Laughs from audience)

Lazar: The party, the party, Eusoff Chin’s family and your family.

Lingam: To the best of my recollection, all of us.

Lazar: Eight of you?

Lingam: To the best of my recollection.

Lazar: Besides your family, did anyone else join you?

Lingam: Tan Chong Paw, who was my bodyguard.

Lazar: So this entire trip, everywhere Tun Eusoff Chin went, you went?

Lingam: Not everywhere. As I made it clear, we had our own programme, Eusoff Chin had his own programme. We met at the bird park and a few places. Similarly in Christchurch, Eusoff Chin had his own programme and we had our own programme.

The spotlight then turned on who made the travel arrangements on behalf of Lingam.

Lazar: When would you have made these arrangements?

Lingam: I do not know when I would have made the arrangements. It was 13 years ago. We decided to go to New Zealand (but) I was very busy and my wife who runs a dental clinic, we decided that the best time to go was over Christmas holidays and one of my wife’s relatives went to New Zealand and suggested we go. But I cannot recollect when we decided to go.

Lazar: Could it be two weeks before that?

Lingam: I can’t speculate.

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 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.

Lingam was then shown a photocopy of a cheque he made to Holiday Tours and Travels, the same travel agent that arranged Eusoff’s travel plans.

Lazar: Did you have an account with the Bank of Nova Scotia?

Lingam: Yes, I did.

Lazar: Would you like to have a photocopy of the cheque? (Tendered a copy to Lingam)

Commissioner Steve Shim: I’m sorry is that in relation to the holiday in New Zealand?

Lazar: Yes. Can you (Lingam) please look and confirm that it is a cheque issued on your account that bears your signature on Dec 21, 1994 - that’s one day before your flight and it is written to Holiday Tours and Travel?

Lingam: That’s correct.

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.

Lazar: Let me make one thing clear, I don’t want you to misunderstand, I am not suggesting you paid for Tun Eusoff Chin... (interrupted)

Lingam: Let me make things clear...

Haidar: You wait.

Lazar: I am not suggesting... (interrupted)

Lingam: This is payment for my family and my bodyguard.

Haidar: What is your objective?

Lazar: The objective is to show...

Haidar: The agent is Udara?

Lazar: Udara issued the ticket. Once he saw the cheque, he recollected that his agent is actually Holiday Tours. Datuk, that is what you said...

Lingam: You are making a comment.

Lazar: No, Tan Sri Chairman asked me... I don’t want to put words in your mouth.

Lingam also denied suggestions that his travel plans were coordinated with that of Eusoff’s via their secretaries.

Lazar: Now is there a member of your staff named Jeyanthi?

Lingam: Yes, she was my secretary.

Lazar: Look at (the travel itinerary), can you see in the facsimile it is addressed to Rohani/Jeyanthi. Tun Eusoff Chin 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 a 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.

Lazar: So are you telling the commission it was a coincidence that Eusoff Chin 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: Can I suggest to you one of the reasons this is not a coincidence that in the first leg of the trip, it was deliberately planned that Eusoff Chin would go on Malaysian Airlines and you would go on Singapore Airlines so people in the airport would not have seen you both taking off together given that both of you are more well-known in Kuala Lumpur than in Singapore?

Lingam: That is not true. My agent booked my ticket.

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

Lingam: None at all.

Having examined the controversial holiday, Lazar then turned to Lingam’s cases that were heard before Eusoff. The Bar Council had previously argued that the allegations of judicial fixing exists “hand in hand” with the fixing of decisions of court cases.

Lazar: Prior to the New Zealand holiday, you had appeared before Tun Eusoff Chin when he was a judge in the High Court?

Lingam: That is correct.

Lazar: And how often would you have appeared before Justice Eusoff Chin, roughly?

Lingam: I appeared mostly in ... representing employees.

Lazar: So roughly how many appearances?

Lingam: I can’t recollect. You are talking about 14 years ago.

Lazar: So that is the only case you recall?

Lingam: To my best recollection, there was another case...

Lazar: Beyond appearing in court, you would not have had any form of interaction with Eusoff Chin?

Lingam: None whatsoever.

Lazar: But when you went on this trip, Tun Eusoff Chin was already the chief justice?

Lingam: I think so.

Lazar: Tun Eusoff Chin was appointed chief justice on May 21, 1994. Your holiday was in December ... just prior to this holiday, you did a matter that was or had very high profile. A libel suit in the High Court involving Tan Sri Vincent Tan?

Lingam: That is correct.

Lazar: Where Tan Sri Vincent Tan, for whom you acted, sued the late (journalist) MGG Pillai.

Lingam: That is correct.

Lazar: That case was started in 1994 and ended in 1994 with judgment delivered in Oct 22, 1994 after a full trial?

Lingam: That is correct.

Lazar: And in that judgment, damages totalling RM10 million was awarded in favour of Tan Sri Vincent Tan?

Lingam: The total for all claimants was RM10 million.

Lazar: You agree that this case attracted large publicity in the newspapers?

Lingam: That is correct.

Lazar: You agree that this case was much talked about?

Lingam: I know it attracted publicity, much talked about I don’t know.

Lazar: One of the reasons was ... the amount of damages?

Lingam: Yes, that is one view.

Lazar: Would you say it was a case that started a trend of mega damages?

Lingam: Possible.

Lazar proceeded to question Lingam on a 1995 case between Insas Bhd and Ayer Molek Sdn Bhd but was stopped by the commissioners who questioned the relevance of those cases. Lazar argued that these cases could potentially show “some breaches (that are) out of the norms)”.

Haidar: What is your objective?

Lazar: My objective is to show that soon after the holiday, the witness appeared before Tun Eusoff Chin.

Shim: My understanding is that you are trying to establish that he should have discharged himself? ... But this issue has been objected to and we can’t go beyond the fixing of judges.

Lazar: I am not aware that a ruling has been made.

Shim: I’m saying that there has been objection...

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!”

The inquiry adjourned and resumed with a decision to include the details of the New Zealand holiday but not the purported fixing of cases as proposed by the Bar Council.

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 said 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.