Lingam tape - de facto kamsia, de jure kow tim

I wasn’t surprised, no, not the least bit, when Malaysiakini reported that the ACA has dismissed the explosive Lingam videotape as being of dodgy authenticity.

In fact I had expected it as I blogged in Lingam tape - Anwar Ibrahim & the missing 6-minutes!

… vintage Anwar - a man too clever by half, where he has now through his 'cleverness' allowed the Head of the ACA to seize the initiative by stating the Lingam videotape is inadmissible evidence because the footage had been edited. The ACA boss questioned the veracity of the video clip, which is the only evidence in the case.

And if we keep an open mind, it would be damn difficult to fault the Head of the ACA on this ..... though of course we could still argue till the cows come home

Though I have a low opinion of the general judiciary (with some exceptions), and I personally lean towards the allegations of dodginess, I am quite curious about those missing 6 minutes of the Lingam videotape.

There is no doubt the government has been a hopping, a skipping and a jumping, and rather clumsily and heavy-handedly, which is why I am personally inclined to believe in the authenticity of the tape …..

Then, in a subsequent posting De facto defeat I explained to visitor kittykat46 why I wasn’t at all impressed by Anwar’s handling of the tape:

Look at Anwar’s handling of this videotape – a tape that could have ripped powerfully into the rotting judiciary if it was handled with clinical and non-grandstanding care, as Lim Kit Siang would have done.

Instead he wanted to grandstand and exploit the shocking revelation for his (Anwar’s own) interest.

What Anwar had done that annoyed me - and I better declare my stand for newcomers to my blog, that I haven’t been impressed by Anwar Ibrahim for a long time - had been his usual teasing tantalizing titillating promises, which in this case has been harmful to the tape’s “authenticity”, in that it has given the ACA an opening to question its fidelity.

Look at what Anwar had been stating ever since we came to know of the explosive Lingam tape and its potential to expose the rottenness in the judiciary:

(1) He has more to show (in remaining portion of tape) that would further implicate the CJ.

As I commented, if that portion could implicate the CJ why not show it all? Why tease the audience, already captured, captivated and craving for the coup de grâce?

(2) He also said that revealing all would imperil the whistleblowers.

But if so, why boast of the remaining tape which would ‘further implicate the CJ’? Why not keep quiet about a remaining 6 minutes, and instead just surrender the 8-minute portion to the ACA in the first place, BUT with a copy released to the media (or to be more precise, Malaysiakini).

One of my uncles, who discussed with me the current Lingam videotape made shambolic by the ‘man man’ nonsense, told me of a situation many many years ago involving the late Tan Sri Dr Tan Chee Khoon who was known as Mr Opposition.

A disgruntled RMN anon sent a parcel of secret documents involving the alleged dodgy purchase of naval vessels to him. What did Tan Chee Khoon do?

Did he grandstand or ‘man man’-rize the opportunity?

No, Tan didn’t even read the documents the very moment he saw the ‘Secret’ classification on them. He immediately dispatched them to the authority (in those days the bureaucracy was still highly regarded) with a covering note that the military procurement documents were sent to him by some unknown person.

Now of course, today, one questions the allegiance of the Police and the ACA, which was why I suggested that after sending the Lingam tape to the ACA or Police, a copy could have been released to Malaysiakini or the international media (no 'Secret' classifiaction, so it's OK to do so) to prevent the tape’s burial in the secret archives of the government.

But no, there had to be the political grandstanding, which in the end, after much bravado about protecting the whistleblowers and thus not surrendering the remaining tape to the police, and marshalling the usual mob for support, the whole affair fizzled out to a tame surrender which wasn’t even accorded the dignity of an ACA acceptance.

The core issue of Anwar Ibrahim’s original defiance to protect the ID of the whistleblowers, abandoned in his eventual preparedness* to surrender the tape, was conveniently swept aside by spinmeisters who now blamed the ACA for not turning up. The argument has been cleverly shifted across from the so-called sanctity of protecting whistleblowers to who (Anwar or ACA) should have call upon whom - sheeesh! No, I am not prepared to grant him that deft tip-toeing through the tulips away from his assertion to protect the whistleblowers.

* From Malaysiakini article, the following on Anwar Ibrahim:

Asked to explain if “giving them what they want” meant that the ACA would receive the 14-minute version, he replied: “Yes, that is between me and them because to me, this thumb drive is only meant for them.”

Waving the thumb drive which was strapped tightly around his right wrist, he then said: “I want to see their reaction before I release it to the public.”

“We don’t want to give an impression that we are not giving co-operation (to the authorities),” he said.

Malaysiakini reported:

The report goes on to say that PKR officials have been “stonewalling ACA officers” ever since a report was lodged with the agency on the clip.

According to the paper, the ACA had already taken statements from “everyone related to the case” including those from a “senior judge”, who is likely to be Ahmad Fairuz.

As such, the report adds that the ACA is expected to hand over its findings to its prosecution unit soon for further action.

The source also revealed that the ACA would be briefing a government established three-member panel, which is also probing the video clip’s authenticity, on its findings on Monday.

Do you imagine for one instant the government cares two hoots about how you and I (already lost votes to them) would see the ACA’s dismissal of the authenticity of the Lingam videotape?

Go on, rave and rant, it already has the necessary ‘goods’, provided by the ACA, to show to the 'heartland’about the ‘lack of fidelity’ of tampered evidence and an uncooperative Opposition person.

The painful truth of the unnecessary grandstanding but shambolic handling of the tape which has allowed the fish to slip through the net may be unpalatable to the faithful and sympathizers, but in the end it's a story that has to be remembered as one concluding with:

Kamsia, kamsia! Semua kow tim! Semua beres!