Just when the dust had begun to settle on his previous and unfortunate attempt to create chaos and seize government in the ensuing confusion in Malaysia in 1998, Anwar Ibrahim appears once more to have gravely miscalculated his moves. Demonstrating a mercenary ‘the devil may care’ attitude in his unquenchable lust for power he steps out of the shadows once more hand in hand with another episode of controversy.

The sheer audacity of Anwar’s putsch this time is only dwarfed by the enormity of the arrogance of the man’s ignorance. Using an outdated apocryphal document he calls Video Korupsi Tun Datuk Fairuz dan VK Lingham, Anwar seeks to revive his faded, jaded, personal and political reputation and his leadership aspirations with a sensational policy free campaign. His campaign has at its core, the dissemination of misinformation, mischief and outright defamation aimed at individuals he blames for his spectacular downfall in the Mahathir government.

THE VIDEO (Video Korupsi Tun Datuk Fairuz dan VK Lingham)

All that this now outrageous video is evidence of is nothing more than a mere clandestine recording of what is claimed to be a private conversation between the Chief Justice of Malaysia (at the time) and a lawyer (identified in the video as VK Lingham) if that is what actually occurred when the recording was made.

The tape is nothing more than video footage of a male person (said to be VK Lingham), engaged in a monologue over a telephone, complete with a bottle of unopened Penfold’s red between the camera lens and the man.

There is no evidence of a telephone dialogue. We hear no   other voice from the telephone on that video soundtrack. We see no one else in that video except for glimpses of the individual in the room with Lingham suspected of having set up the recording purportedly on Anwar’s behalf.. There is no evidence that there is anyone at the other end of that telephone line, least of all the former Chief Justice of Malaysia, Tun Fairuz. It is speculated to be Tun Fairuz former Chief Justice of Malaysia at the other end of the Lingham phone conversation (or at least a reference or references to him) which is purely speculation in the absence of evidence to corroborate that claim.

There is no proof that he Tun Chief Justice Fairuz is present in any form in that monologue or that he reciprocates, responds or accepts any proposition being put by the male purported to be Lingham on the video.

The video is in no way by any stretch of anyone’s imagination proof of corruption as claimed by Anwar Ibrahim and members of the Malaysian Bar. More important, the video offers no real evidence capable of corroboration of the claim, leading to proof that either the then Chief Justice Tun Fairuz or VK Lingham were part of any conspiracy to pervert the course of justice or to corrupt the judiciary in Malaysia.

On the other hand by their claims, and if we look deeper and more critically into them, not only at the video, but also at Lingham’s accusers, there is evidence that Lingham’s accusers Anwar Ibrahim and Latifah Koyah have little regard for privacy, nor respect for the law as it is evident from their conduct over the matters relating to this video.

There is less that can be said for respect for the judiciary or the courts of Malaysia by Anwar Ibrahim, LAteefah Koya or the Malaysian Bar in general. What surprises many is the attitude of the Malaysian Bar and its very vocal supporters in the media, who are the drivers of this witch hunt against the Chief Justice Fairuz; and through him their attacks on the Barisan government. Their collective indifference to the lack of any probative value in evidence from the video, the dangers it presents as a piece of documentary evidence in context and, the way they present it to the world. It simply leaves a lot to be desired of the  Malaysian Bar, Anwar and the others in tow involved in advancing the call for prosecution of Lingham and the Chief justice Fairuz.

The video and the allegations that flow from it, and more importantly its impact on justice and the law in Malaysia (if it is admitted into evidence) is not questioned or analysed by those who have a duty to do so. The Malaysian Bar immediately comes to mind in this regard. Instead we find the Malaysian Bar unquestioningly accepting the video as proof of the commission of an offence by Lingham and chief justice Fairuz, to further their own personal and political agendas.


In the Lingham video affair there are two key issues Anwar and the Malaysian Bar seek to exploit and advance in favour of their own political agenda.  Judicial misbehaviour and judicial misconduct on the one hand. The other being Lingham’s alleged involvement in the role of an interloper in the appointment of judges in Malaysia. Both issues are supported in the Malaysian Bar’s and Anwar’s arguments by what’s from hereon referred to as the Video.


*Like the word corruption judicial misconduct and judicial misbehavior has no universally defined meaning. Instead these are malleable terms that can and often are selectively applied to situations that are controversial. Add to it the term corruption or misbehaviour and the conduct enters in new a dimension sounding so reprehensible as to deserve legal sanction. Where judicial misbehaviour is concerned it is noteworthy that many jurists and politicians in common law countries appear not to be in favour of a statutory definition of what constitutes removable misbehaviour, misconduct, incapacity or what divides removable misbehaviour from non-removable misbehaviour in the context of judicial misconduct and judicial misbehaviour. There is widely held opinion amongst internationally renowned jurists and academics that the term misbehaviour or misconduct  as far as judicial officers are concerned should be used in a way that meets the ordinary definition of those terms and should not to be restricted to misconduct in office or to conduct of a criminal nature. A considerable degree of leeway is thereby offered for debate and interpretation as to what constitutes misconduct and as to whether, in any particular case, it constitutes a “hanging offence”.  It will be recalled that the Commissioners in the Lionel Murphy affair, (Lush, Blackburn and Wells) were to some degree in unison about notions such as conduct judged by contemporary standards which casts doubt on a judge’s suitability to continue in office;

  • conduct which, being morally wrong, demonstrates the unfitness of the judge to continue; and
  • behaviour which represents a serious a departure from the standards of proper behaviour by the judge that it must be found to have destroyed public confidence in the judge.

Perhaps the last of these categories as propounded by Lush, Blackburn and Wells is what Anwar was alluding to. But the manner in which he presented his case and his credentials as the future leader of Malaysia behind the veneer of the tapes leads to more questions being asked about Anwar’s credibility, his capability and his character (his character is an issue when he attacks the character of his opponents) than it does of Lingham. World renowned legal commentator and professor of law, Tony Blackshields of Macquarie university Australia, notes that in the Federal context, (applicable in the Video affair (my opinion)), “Misbehaviour is essentially a political rather than a legal notion”. It was further argued or submitted in the Lionel Murphy matter that the distinction between criminal and non-criminal behaviour is not necessarily going to be very helpful.  For example, while a conviction for a lower or medium level drink driving offence or a minor assault may not be regarded as sufficient for the removal of a judicial officer, non-criminal behaviour such as persistent failure to produce timely judgments or repeated serious rudeness to litigants and/or lawyers could be.*  ( *adapted from the Sallman Paper on Judicial Misconduct 2005)

Anwar did not allude to any of these notions, principles or suggestions in any of his arguments or submission he put forward in this matter. And fatally for their own reputation, neither did the Malaysian Bar. Instead the two went on a rampage clinging on to an outdated, questionable and sensational document  to defame and to vilify two prominent individuals by attacking them personally and by attacking the integrity of those public institutions  Anwar and the Malaysian Bar both have an overriding obligation to protect.  Anwar as a parliamentarian, the Malaysian Bar as officers of the courts of Malaysia.


There are universally accepted forms of judicial misconduct which occur with great frequency in Malaysia and elsewhere. One of these is the failure of judges to provide written judgements and to provide them on time. There has been much debate and evidence provided on this subject even from the otherwise lame self serving Malaysian Bar. On the face of repeated complaints where proof is readily available from the record and from the Malaysian Bar, for persistent failure to produce timely judgments or repeated serious rudeness to litigants and/or lawyers.

Anwar and the Malaysian Bar would have been better off  and closer to the money by submitting these as examples or proof of judicial misconduct that so concern them, rather than to rely on a feeble sensational Video to make their case against the judiciary, then fall on their swords in the process. Instead they have collectively gone on a frolick of their own embarking on what Anwar does best, vilifying and defaming individuals with his sensational rants and raves, his threats, his pathetic martyr image, all of which appeal to his followers for pity.


If this is Anwar’s and the Malaysian Bar’s idea of proof of corruption and proof of the truth to their assertions, then that unfortunate video at one time in circulation, purporting to show Anwar’s good wife engaging in an intimate encounter with a white male in an unidentified hotel room, (an Australian or American journalist by the commentary), is by these same standards he applies to Fairuz and Lingham, evidence of his wife’s infidelity and his party’s immorality. If not then by implication, at least expressly so. 

His wife was then the president of Parti Keadilan Rakyat. That video purported to be of Anwar’s wife which no one should condone or accept for its capacity to inflict undeserving and irreparable damage to her and her reputation, an unsuspecting individual (like Lingham) in the exercise of her private rights ( if it is in fact her), is not proof of her alleged infidelity or immorality.

Nor can that video likewise be said to be a document of public interest or public benefit. Nothing of value turns on it without the benefit of an open trial and testing of the evidence to corroborate the assertions made in that document. In fact it ought never to be tried as what it purports to convey does not constitute an offence if true. Such is the impact and an example of the dangers of cheap entertainment and an immoral political stunt when used to defame and destroy a person, is submitted as proof of offence, as Anwar and the Malaysian Bar are attempting with the Lingham Video.

Anyone who supports such a stunt without the benefit of a proper investigation, procedural fairness and conclusive proofs of the assertions made is equally at the very least morally culpable.


Clearly the Malaysian Bar has a credibility problem. It ought to have unequivocally condemn Anwar’s pernicious theatrics in this regard. It has instead chosen by its membership to publicly and unquestioningly support prosecution of Lingham based on the Video as its primary piece of evidence to justify prosecution. In remaining silent observers and indolent spectators on the sidelines, approbating and reprobating on the issue when convenient, in the face of such an unprecedented assault on the judiciary, the dignity of the office of the Chief Justice and that of the courts, the Malaysian Bar and its is guilty of a gross dereliction of their duty as officers of the courts.

Politics  cannot interfere with such a duty. It is a duty the Malaysian Bar must discharge impartially as is expected of them always. Lawyers by their training are expected to be forensic and detached, not partial and biased. The law cannot operate fairly in an environment where fairness, truth and merit are casualties, whilst mediocrity and bias are the criteria  of the day.

This is an assault on the integrity of the entire legal system which includes lawyers as its largest constituent component. Lawyers ought to know that it is for the courts (and that includes them as officers of the courts) to dispense justice rather than for an individual like Anwar to dispense with justice with their tacit support, in pursuit of purely personal and political objectives. What’s  perhaps most disturbing in this affair is the lack of open discussion or  debate about those critical legal issues of evidence, probity, political and moral integrity, that will eventually impact on all of us, if Anwar and the Malaysian Bar get their way with government on this issue.

The Malaysian Bar for their part, appears to have conveniently ignored these issues with their silence and their selective arguments. They have in the process also conveniently sought to trample on the rules of evidence and justice. Either out of ignorance, professional incompetence or recklessness they now seek to set a new paradigm in the rules of evidence  in Malaysian law.


The Video purporting to show VK Lingham engaging in a conversation with Chief Justice Fairuz is by all accounts designed to bring the reputation and credibility of the bench and the courts of Malaysia into disrepute.

The Malaysian Bar must remember that the bench is made up of individuals who rise to that position from the ranks of their own esteemed members. Their character as an organization is indelibly stamped on the bench. Interference through breaching the privacy of an individual, using untested perhaps even manufactured evidence, which Anwar and the Malaysian Bar rely on,  is reflective of the extent to which a delusional narcissistic Anwar and his cohorts at the Malaysian Bar will go to in pursuit of their political ambitions.

Anwar and the Malaysian Bar demonstrate an embarrassing inability to distinguish fact from fiction, evidence from proof or a simple understanding of the law and how it works. They demonstrate a level of culpability and recklessness reinforcing the perception they are clearly people with little regard for the law. Some in the media like Malaysia Kini, The Nutgraph and the Malaysian Bar on the other hand willingly and irresponsibly assist Anwar to muster a misguided public in manufacturing consent on the issue of corruption in the Lingham affair.


In legal proceedings of this nature (allegations of criminal conduct) it is generally accepted that there must be some subject matter which falls into an accepted and recognized category at law for determination. And there must be some immediate right, duty or liability or relief to be ascertained and determined by a competent court hearing all the admissible evidence in the process.

In order to establish that an offence has been committed there has to be prima facie evidence of the commission of the offence (ignoring for the moment the magnitude of the offence complained of) based on facts. That ought to be be the first course of action.

Anwar and the Malaysian Bar may like us to believe that they are being chivalrous by their behaviour by being cavalier. Their actions though tend to belie a somewhat more sinister objective, designed for what is by their own implicit admission, a campaign of retribution en route to their ultimate destination, alternative government.

Anwar appears to be totally naive about the dangers of relying on video recordings (second hand hearsay) (a case of sex lies and videos or is it life imitating art?) purporting to show what is clearly uncorroborated ‘evidence’ of proofs that the events complained of occurred. If there was something in the form of inappropriate or unlawful conduct at the primary level which could have been the basis of seeking to admit this Video to corroborate that conduct, then the Video would have served its purpose at law and in fact. Maybe. But to make the Video the primary piece of evidence to draw proof from, to support the contention that either Lingham or Fairuz is guilty of corruption, is of itself criminal. And the Bar appears oblivious to that fact.

In such a vain, villainous attempt to grab power through sensational, unsubstantiated, uncorroborated claims of corruption, it may be useful for Anwar to examine the reasons why courts in common law jurisdictions do not allow for the admission of these types of material against an accused, save in exceptional circumstances and even then only where it is permitted by law.


The highly popular animated film Babe is an Oscar winning film, depicting barn animals speaking effortlessly in English with flawless lip sync, seamless edits and the unmitigated use of computer software generated graphics make it all seem believable.

The film cleverly uses animals in animation to reinforce a cryptic moral message so convincing to its audiences. It provides the most compelling example of the dangers of using the sort of recorded material as the Video in evidence and why the use of such material as the Video is unreliable and dangerous when presented as unimpeachable evidence of proof of anything other than the existence of the document itself.

With the advent of computer film technology now available in “off the shelf” software to anyone desirous of creative or damaging mischief, anyone with half a brain can concoct what Anwar and the Malaysian Bar rely on for their seemingly conclusive and judgemental statements about the Judge and Lingham.

This is not to suggest that Anwar or the Malaysian Bar concocted the Video. That of itself is a subject matter open to conjecture and further investigation. Its provenance is unknown. The point is that it is possible for someone with the necessary tools to create such a Video. The US and Britain have regularly used such means to discredit their enemies from Gandhi, Mao, Ho Chi Minh and of course more recently Islam as a religion and its rebellious icon in some circles Osama Bin Laden.


If a pig, a horse and other barn animals could be made to speak  and conduct very human dialogues so convincingly in clear precise English, with the use of hi tech tools used in Babe, then the Video Anwar and the Malaysian Bar rely on to secure a conviction against their enemies could also have possibly been the product of the same science. And till all the relevant evidence is tested in open court, the Video ought not to be used as the crucifix to nail Fairuz or Lingham on.

Critically even before the admission of any material as the Video is brought before the courts, the law should be changed, if it is to be admissible as evidence against the two. Existing rules of evidence have no provisions for the admission of such material to reinforce a mere suspicion of criminal behaviour in the context of what Anwar and the Malaysian Bar’s allegation against Fairuz and Lingham are. This is precisely the reason why competent courts do not and are under  an obligation to  exclude such evidence without proper cogent corroborative supporting proofs.


Anwar as a politician. The Malaysian Bar, the peak professional body of lawyers are two personalities with a considerable degree of experience in the intimate workings of government and the law at its highest levels. Their smear and defamation of the bench is inexcusable, unforgivable, deliberate and without proper cause. It is politically motivated.

If this were the rantings of the ‘man on the street’, then the making and publishing of such defamatory material, labeling it so confidently as evidence of corruption could be tolerated and to some extent excused. However when presented so confidently as proof by someone of Anwar’s and the Malaysian Bar’s caliber, their mischief becomes criminal, deliberate, seditious and amounts to treason.

In Anwar is an individual who so readily points the accusing finger of corruption, malice and inequity towards his colleagues, his partners in crime with whom he once shared a common goal, acting as a repository of the trust of Malaysians.


Except for his coterie of rabid fanatics, ignorant legal advisors and sycophantic admirers, it is likely that he Anwar will once more be made an example of by the law. If the judiciary is corrupt, then let due process prevail, based on admissible evidence and due process of law.

The general suspicion is that too many within the legal profession themselves find this ‘expose’ of corruption too close for comfort. It is perhaps the reason their silence is deafening and whatever their contribution on the subject, it has been half hearted.

The more pressing problem is the question of whether members of the legal fraternity in Malaysia have the requisite skills or  degree of competence to prosecute or bring an action against those they ‘suspect’ of corruption without revealing a tainted hand. Anwar has tarnished the image of Malaysia’s courts and its judicial institutions to an extent it can only be remedied by locking him up after an open trial and throwing away the key, bad back or not.

The same applies to his legal advisors. In his own words and by implication of what he conveyed at his press conference on revealing the Video, Fairuz is in his cross hairs for revenge because Fairuz he claims was part of a ‘conspiracy’ to destroy him. That’s not good enough a reason to hold the nation and its political and legal institutions to ransom. Or does Anwar and the Malaysian Bar see this as fair game in pursuit of a wider political agenda? Clearly the nation and its people are dispensable commodities where Anwar’s and the Malaysian Bar’s political ambitions are concerned.  

Gopal Raj Kumar

  1. ICE says:

    GR Kumar, you are a sick man…


  2. satD says:

    well said Gopal…..

    How do you see the evolution of the bar council…will they always see the world in the ‘opposition’ centric manner?

    BTW how do they operate….from policy n public statement perspectives…is it collective or decided by the representative which may not represent the view of its members?

    thank you


    • grkumar says:

      The Bar Council ought to publicly disclaim the statements of its high profile members who belong to either political party in and out of parliament as a starting point. The must do this so that they are not emrboiled in or tainted by the statements (very controversial in most instances) of their individual high profile members including their former president who have all publicly involved themselves in party politics and continue to do so to the detriment of the Malaysian Bars stated position of independence, transparency and fairness.

      Lawyers are officers of the courts. The courts are one of the three arms of government. They the courts are however not elected institutions and their officers not elected officials. As such they occupy a special place in government and are the repositories of trust off the people which they must solemnly prtoect and guard. They must discharge their obligations as officers of court and as lawyers without partiality. They may only achieve this by being forensic and detatched in all matters that come before them as lawyers and as officers of court. They do not.

      There was a time when non Bumi puerta lawyers especially Indian Malaysians dominated the profession and were believed to be naturally born into that profession. Today of course and without meaning to sound racist the vast majority in that class do a disservice to the profession, to the public and to themselves. Malaysia is indeed a tolerant country.

      There is a misguided view held by many in the Bar that a lawyers perspective is often unimpeachable, it is somehow right, correct and lawful. The Malaysian Bar ought to take a stand and draw the line or be subject to an impatient government finally taking control of the Bar and its members limiting their activities to the non subversive.

      If they choose to partake in politics, then that objective of theirs ought to be a stated objective passed in a resolution by those entitled to vote at a properly constituted meeting of members.



  3. Rahmat says:

    Great writing GRK.
    It’s sad to know how this man’s lust for power could destroy peace & harmony with the help of lawyers who have political ambitions.


    • grkumar says:

      Thank you. We are glad you find the article interesting. We hope it is interesting enough for you to pass on to your colleagues and friends. � Anwar and these lawyers are not alone it would seem. They are supported by a fraternity of bloggers who help spread their one sided and often distorted message to the world which is fine in a democracy.

      � It is not so when these blogs deny people with a contrarian view to that expressed by their editors, by Anwar and Raja Petra Kamaruddin to express themselves freely. Especially�where these views are critical of their pin ups like Anwar and Raja Petra Kamaruddin. �


  4. reek says:

    Wrong, Najib.

    Doubts about opposition rule is nothing compared to the people disgust at Umno rule.

    Your deputy has never heard of 1Malaysia.

    Your home minister displays sickening partisanship.

    Your judiciary pretends it doesn’t know how to read the Perak constitution.

    Your MACC goes on baseless witch-hunts against opposition politicians rather than fight real corruption.

    Your police force prioritises suppressing peaceful gatherings than fighting crime.

    Your AG practises selective prosecution.


    • grkumar says:

      Who are you talking about? unless you are more specific here I must conclude you are referring to a situation common in most countries.



  5. fargowin says:

    According to the Malaysian Employers Federation (MEF) quoted in the story, there are 785000 Malaysians who work overseas, and an estimated two out of every three among them are likely to be professionals.

    Now we can quantify brain drain.

    1000 experienced engineers equates to RM10 billion investment. 2 out of 3 of 785000 professionals working overseas is ~ RM5400 billion.

    What was Najib budget for 2010? RM200 billion?

    So, it is equal to 25 times of national budget.


    • grkumar says:

      Your arithmatic is a bit suspect. A budget is more of a political statement in our veiw than it is the actual fiscal management of the nations wealth. Professionals working overseas tend to remit their earnings or a good part of it back to their home countries. That of itself is a positive inflow of capital you cannot ignore. It is foreign exchange in what used to be called “invicibles”. It contributes significantly to a nations coffers.

      In the 1980’s when Indians were the vast majority of workers in the middle east (because the Arabs then and now would not work even on an iron lung) at its peak, they contributed up to US$12 Billion a year to the national treasury in Delhi. This helped India to finance what it has now achieved in world status having developed it over its more wealthy European counteparts and its naturally wealthy neighbours like Australia and New Zealand.

      So brain drains are not altogether a bad phenomenon. Its all about the allocation of resources to available opportunities.


  6. ruyom says:

    UMNO is only good at spinning and deceiving the people, in particular the malays. The younger generation of malays now are smarter than their forefathers. The smart malays are shying away from UMNO because UMNO has deceived them for far the last 30 years. UMNO has brought harm onto themselves.


    • grkumar says:

      Okay if you are Malay lets see you hand the country over to non Malays like the Singaporeans did all those years ago. You may end up richer and with better job prospects. But don’t expect your dignity or identity to be left intact. Such change overs and conversions come at a price. The Wolves are at your door. The choice is yours.


  7. aston says:

    If you are innocent, you must fear MACC – Malaysia All Corrupted Cops – and keep away from them.

    Otherwise you would land up dead or your leg injured. Reason – you are not of the same kind.

    Malaysia government motto: Kill the innocent and protect the corrupted.


  8. vesewe says:

    Remember Raja Petra said: More than 90% of malays were actually non-Muslims, because they don’t follow the teaching of Islam.

    I firmly believe, when I die and go to hell, I will meet many “Malaysian Muslims” there, all the munafik who used Islam not for them to be closer to God, but for their idiotic, selfish and vicious self interest.

    More classic examples of half-past-six mentalities displayed by the present so called leaders, ministers, and worst of all politicians (monkey brain), bad for the nation but good for those who knows how to take advantage of their stupidity.

    Religion alone can never help us to become more clever and smart, especially with the present attitude and style of the malays, who are going backwards more and more, and heading for the caves and jungles in time to come.

    In Malaysia the constitution is not the supreme document in law. It has been so trampled by the Umno gangsters; it has come to a point where these gangsters are a law unto themselves. To them the constitution is respected when it suits their intents and toilet paper when it does not.

    Mob rule is tolerated by the police when it is an Umno orchestrated mob. Non-Umno gatherings are an inconvenience and clobbered to pulp.

    Malaysia is dead as a nation. They are dying to call this land Tanah Melayu so we might as well let them destroyed it. It is no loss to the non-malays since they are treated as pendatang anyway.

    Let these gangsters plunder and rob their own kind. They are notorious for inbreeding in any case. They would probably enjoy devouring their own kind too. Crooks and hypocrites at the helm will never grow a nation. Only chaos and disaster beckon.

    I wish it were different, but I have long since decided they deserve what they get. No point in banging my head against the wall.


    • grkumar says:

      Who says you need religion to go to heaven or hell. Who on earth has proof either concept exists? The Jews will tell you religion does make you smart and they are there to prove it. The Hindus say the same and they have many in the US and in Indian to prove it as well. The Chinese in China say there is no god and they can prove thatsuch a belief in no god also makes them smarter too. As for Raja Petra Kamaruddin, well my friend I rest my case. How on earth can such a person with no credibility judge anyone?


  9. romsam says:

    Corruption in high places is so institutionalised that it has become a virtue.

    If you can get away with murder, it means you have the connections and power; if you can get away with cheating, it means you are smart; if you can get away with bullying, it means you are more equal than me; if you can get away for hijacking the established businesses of others, it is called the NEP.


    • grkumar says:

      Why is it called the NEP? Why not the Kuomintang which fits the bill of what you describe to a T? Why not Good American Christianity? Why not the VHP or Republicans?


  10. chris says:

    Are you saying .the royal commision that conducted the inquiry on the tape and came the verdict those people are quilty,indeed a waste of time?in that case , you are saying those sat in the commision are useless.Why drag Anwar when ,he brought to light what happened?Just take a look at the judges mentioned in the tape and see how they are carrying out their duty so dutifully.


    • grkumar says:

      Podah. Do you know what you are talking about? when judges give a verdict not acceptable to some like the Bar and Anwar they are considered corrupt. A Royal commission is another name for an inquisition or a witch hunt. The rules of evidence are not appliedd strictly and too liberal so as to be able to, when dove tailed with the terms of reference, produce any outcome one wants.

      Anwar raised the issue of a suspect tape as proof. He remains a fool and one who cannot be trusted.


  11. Wong Saikim says:

    I am new to your blog and so am cautious about accepting without question the veracity of the facts you present. But I will admit you make some very compelling arguments. I agree with all you have said about the Bar Council and its leaders. They pretend to champion the rights of the people, but in fact they are only advancing their personal and political interests.


  12. Gopal Raj Kumar says:


    Welcome to our blog. Be as cautious as you will. We do not compel or assert our will or our views on our readers.

    It is always a prudent thing to research those things that you have doubts about wherever they appear. We do not ask people to agree with whatever we write and publish on our blog. We welcome contrarian points of view and a good argument.

    There is a plethora of information on the world wide web to source from. There are alternative news sources as well that are independent and not aligned to one political party or the other.

    It is often difficult to determine which one of these are accurate considering each and everyone of them are driven and run by humans all of whom have their own opinions and political leanings too which in some ways reflect on the compelxion of their stories.

    We do our best to be as independent as we possibly can be. We do not censor the views of those who disagree with us providing they are able to articulate their differences with our opinions in a civilised manner.

    Where invectives and personal insults are the substance of criticism we delete them.



Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: