The ladies would then come out roaring that the phrase “a bit pregnant” is typical male ignorance, because the subject is either pregnant or not pregnant.
Well, the posting I have in mind is almost like that, though not quite as serious as ‘pregnancy’.
It’s that Lingam videotape – it’s either a videotape capturing evidence of tampering of judicial appointments or a videotape that doesn't or haven't captured any evidence - In other words it can't be "a bit pregnant".
Thus, by logical extension, if it’s 14 minutes, then it can’t be 8 minutes.
… which has been why I have been wondering about Anwar Ibrahim’s assertion one month ago that the videotape allegedly compromising Chief Justice Fairuz was a 14-minute clip of which he was releasing only 8 minutes of it as its first part - implying there's a second part coming.
In fact, I will show in a short while, based on a Malaysiakini report, that Anwar Ibrahim did make such a promise, that he would show the second part of the videotape.
But now, his coyness with that second part has led to the ACA threatening him with arrest if he doesn't hand it over to them.
Why hasn't he in the first place just say, hey, here’s a damning 8-minute videotape of one of the Chief Justice's dodgy buddies in a compromising telephone conversation – full stop!
Indeed a filmed videotape could be of any length, like 8, 14, 21, etc minutes. Who would be any wiser that there was another 6 minutes on the Lingam tape?
So why had Anwar Ibrahim made that elaborate description of the release being an 8-minute of a 14-minute tape?
OK, here's the reason. As I recall it, on 01 October 2007 Malaysiakini reported Anwar Ibrahim as saying:
On Sept 19, Anwar revealed an eight-minute video clip purportedly made in 2002. It recorded a phone conversation by senior lawyer VK Lingam, who made reference to brokering judicial appointments.
Anwar had initially said that portions of the 14-minute tape had been removed to protect the identity of the person who recorded it.
On Saturday, however, he claimed to be waiting for the “right time” to reveal the remaining footage, which he said would further implicate current Chief Justice Ahmad Fairuz Sheikh Abdul Halim as the other party on the telephone line.
Saturday in above last paragraph would be 29 September 2007. So, if Anwar has been “waiting for the ‘right time' to reveal the remaining footage, which he said would further implicate current Chief Justice Ahmad Fairuz Sheikh Abdul Halim as the other party on the telephone line", why is there now his reluctance or coyness in releasing the remaining tape?
C'mon, Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim, let’s see the rest of tape, so as "to further implicate" the alleged tainted Chief Justice Fairuz.
So, if you did plan to release the second (6-minutes) portion of the tape, as you announced (as reported by Malaysiakini), "to further implicate the Chief Justice", why are you showing reluctance now?
Surely it can't be the identity of the whistleblowers that you're concerned about, because your plan, announced at the end of September, had been to reveal the remaining footage to further implicate the Chief Justice! Now's hardly the time to claim that excuse.
But alas, instead he now argues that the remaining portion of the clip could not be revealed to protect the identity of the two whistleblowers, which leads me to ask again (perhaps ad nausem, but regrettably an inconsistency that demands asking): Why the hell did he promise to reveal it - to further implicate ..... yadda yadda yadda ...?
Looks like it's another of Anwar Ibrahim's 'man man'* promises.
* Chinese for 'slowly slowly' or also in certain context, 'soon, soon', implying a promise that would shortly be fulfilled - which, I regret to announce, of the many Anwar Ibrahim's 'man man' promises, we haven't yet realised one
He then claimed that the original copy was still with the two whistleblowers. As reported by Malaysiakini, he said:
“(The release of the remaining clip) is subject to the whistleblowers. They want to be protected, (and) I can’t protect their personal security.”
hahahahaha - 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.
Could it be, as I had scoffed earlier, one of Anwar Ibrahim's 'man man' promise, something to tease, tantalise and titillate you but without having any substance at all, like his 'man man' but uncompleted story of Najib's role in the Altantuyaa Sharibuu tragedy?
As I had blogged in Ijok - the final countdown: He first thrilled the Chinese crowd with a sexy ‘who’s dunnit’ - the Altantuyaa Shariibuu murder and its alleged association with Najib, cleverly sprinkled with Cantonese (or Mandarin) words such as a teasing man man (which context may be loosely translated as ‘slowly, be patient, wait a while for the more juicy bits’) to avoid telling the gossipy tale to its completion. Truly the hallmark of a good story teller, or a salesman.
Also see my post The Anwar style of campaigning.In other words, maybe there isn't any extra 6 minutes of missing tape! And surely it would be a bloody dumb pair of whistleblowers who hadn't removed that portion which identifies them before passing the tape over to Anwar Ibrahim.
Or, could it be that the missing 6 minutes showed something inconvenient, that is, yes, there was the alleged Lingam-ish fixing of judicial appointments but there was also far more than what Anwar had presented?
Unfortunately with Anwar Ibrahim, you can’t tell which is what, or what is which?
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, but you may bet one thing, the alleged (now I have to use the word 'alleged' here) yet-to-be-shown 6-minute videotape must be something far more interesting than just the identities of the whistleblowers.
Yes, what is Anwar Ibrahim holding back?