You Don't Buy Cars From A Fishmonger

Things happen for a reason. Accidents happen either because of carelessness or faulty equipments or bad intentions. Flood happen because of heavy rain, or bad drainage etc. If I want something to happen, I would go to the person most likely able to make it happen or I would go to the person who knows the person most likely able to make it happen. If I want drugs, I wouldn't go to a fishmonger unless I know the fishmonger knows who can supply me the drugs.

In the RCI, Lingam has vehemently denied that he is able or has the power to broker the appointment of judges. Since he said it under oath we must believe that he is telling the truth. In reality taking an oath to tell the truth doesn't mean that whatever is told is the truth. There is always the possibility of an attempt at deception. So evidence must be put forth to show that what someone swore as the truth is actually a lie.

Let us go back to the Lingam case. As it is, his defence is strong. He said that he did not broker the appointment of judges. He also claimed that he could have been bragging because he is prone to bragging if he gets a little tipsy. How do we say he is lying then. It is not easy, unless of course he slips and says something else that he should not that could be tied up to the claim that he is lying when he denied his brokering history and ability.

I wasn't there to witness the whole proceeding. I am only able to read what is written about it. I am not a lawyer and therefore what I am going to say might not carry water but just for the sake of discussion lets study this premise.

Lingam claimed that a certain lawyer, Lazar, from the Bar Council had in the past approached him to be appointed to a high chair, thereby bypassing the normal route an aspiring judge should take to get to that chair. That was certainly a slap in the Bar Council's face, since it was one of the many parties calling for the setting up of this Commission in the first place.

My question is, if it was true what Lingam had claimed about Lazar, why did Lazar approach Lingam and not the late Christopher Fernando or the late Manjit Singh or Karpal Singh or any other senior lawyers. Is it possible to get that chair this way? There are many UMNO lawyers who are connected with the powers that be. He should have approached them or a very high up Judge with access to the powers higher up. Why did Lazar approach Lingam?

Could it be that Lingam is in fact able to do what Lazar had purportedly wished for or that Lingam knows someone who could fulfil Lazar's wishes? If Lingam could do what Lazar had wanted him to do then he was lying when he denied that he has brokerage ability. If he knows someone who could do it then he is also in the wrong by keeping quiet about it.

The fact that Dzaidin expressed shock at the leakage of classified information regarding the alleviation of judges and that this leakage comes from the mouth of Lingam himself could surely be linked. It is unthinkable that he was bragging about something that he doesn't know. Anyway, bragging means to show off about what one knows and who one knows and what is one's ability and what is one able to do. How come he has classified information, bragging or not. Is he in a privileged position where classified information regarding the judiciary is at his disposal? Why is it that he has these information? Could it be that these information would be helpful to him in 'helping' friendly parties to move up?

I think in his eager attempt to give one back to the Bar Council, Lingam has said too much. What puzzles me is that why wasn't there an attempt to even ask Lingam why Lazar approached him and not anybody else? Do all sides have things to hide?

I know those who know the law could tear me up in shreds but am I wrong asking these questions?