According to legend, Puru Maharshi did meditation at the hill, where the temple of Shiva now stands. It was a dense forest in those days; hence its name Puruvanam, which became peruvanam. The rishi brought the image of Shiva, the Lingam, a half cylinder, to be installed on top of the hill. Afterwards, the upper half of the hill, leaving the small area where the Lingam was placed, was razed down to its present size, making a vast plane, with the central high ground standing tall (MADATHILAPPAN) which is protected by massive walls on all sides, with twin temples of Eratteppan and Madathilappan, the latter standing tall, with a number of granite steps leading to the sanctum, from where, you get a sky view of the surrounding landscape. I am never tired of watching it, from childhood days, as my mother’s home was near the southern Gopuram (gate).

There were several venerable, old trees in the compound, including peepal tree and one perillamaram (meaning- tree without name, as it was a stranger there), all looking very old and about to die. New trees have replaced them.

 The big koothampalam, where chakyar koothu was a regular ritual in those days, is rare in the other temples.

The koothu is a sort of mono act and Ramayanam is the theme. The Chakyar will make fun of any body among the audience, however high his status!

Once, the chakyar came very near to the man, a VIP who had just entered the hall, stood there  for a few seconds, and commented: a real monkey, only the tail is missing!

 One is supposed to suffer and grin, never retort.

Every year, for one month or so, there is thevaruseva, when there will be feasting, both times in the day, only for Brahmins. The dining hall is very long, some four feet in height, cut into three segments to allow devotees to pass through. As children we had difficulty in jumping up on to the dining place.

Throughout the year, there is simple food served to brahmins which we avoided as something below our status. Tamil Brahmins made use of this facility. My maternal grandfather’s brother lived at the western gopuram, eating the free food.

The circular sanctum of Eratteppan ( there is one big lingam and one small lingam by its side, hence this name) is very spacious, with a circular covered veranda, allowing the poojary to go from Shiva in the west to Parvathy in the back of the sanctum. In Keralam, Shiva is alone; in rare cases, where she is allowed inside, she is at the back of the temple.

The eastern entrance, where the gopuram was destroyed by the soldiers of Tippu Sultan, leads to the broad sloping arena, where seven elephants can stand side by side, during pooram festival. Farther down is the spacious temple pond. All the villagers take bath in this waterhole, with steps to climb down and a pucca shed on one side, where the poojary takes bath before entering the temple.The pond will not dry up even in summer, in rainy season it will be full.

Mekavil Bhagavathy is near the western gopuram. Oorakath Ammathiruvady, Thiruvullakavu Sasthavu, and several other temples are in the vicinity.

The location of the temple is twelve KM from Trichur, on the road to Triprayar temple of Lord Ram.

（时间：2009-11-17 来源：风云时报 作者：詹运豪）

林甘短片被撤销指控显示了政府会保护那些“大鱼”。尽管讲了很多要打击贪污的话，但是在现实中，他们只会对“小鱼”采取行动。

林甘短片

我时常记得一个银行家朋友的笑话。根据他的说法，如果你欠银行1000万令吉，你不需要还，因为银行负担不起你破产，他们会对你很好，并且帮助你重新安排这笔债务。但是，如果你欠银行100万令吉，那么他就会让你破产，也不会和你谈判。

换句话说，如果你是“大问题”，他们就会保护你，如果你是“小问题”，他们就会压碎你。

在林甘短片中，很明显的如果他们继续起诉林甘，那么前大法官就会被审讯，你可以想象他会告诉你什么秘密吗？马来西亚的司法制度不受各界人士的关注是个事实。你能够想象如果林甘被控上法庭，他将会揭发什么贪污？

最后，只是显示了政府并不是真正的想要改革，事实上我可以告诉你，政府如果真正改革，就意表国阵政府的死亡。国阵政府在位52年，贪污和滥权的数量是大到他们无法公开的。如果他们打开档案，那么整个国阵就会倒台，而整个“马来主权”只是显示了他们掠夺国家资源的理由。

只有在换政府的时候，才能有更高层次的贪污被揭发。现在槟城和雪兰莪在在野党的手里，我们就会看到他们会渐渐揭发国阵政府的弊端。

贪污的政府

并没有比更换政府跟为有效的揭发弊端，我们在很多国家都看到这种情况，看看我们的邻国印尼，当苏哈多在1998年倒台，他所有的贪污都被揭发了。即使到今天，在独裁者倒台后的10年，印尼人依然在尝试找出他贪污的证据，他可能在掌权的30年内搜括了10亿美元。

国阵不能真正的改革，也表示贪污不但会加剧，而执法单位如反贪污委员会和警察，会被更频繁地使用来攻击那些尝试揭发他们滥权的人。政府会追击任何揭发他们贪污的人，更严重的，他们会为了保护他们的利益，更加破坏司法制度。

在这样的情况人民可以做什么？人民有很多的无力感。很多平民百姓认为现有的体系太强大，他们不能做什么。

答案很简单，普通的马来西亚人并不能反抗尝试隐藏贪污的政府。普通市民只能记得所有的贪污事件和在下届大选投票。记住，唯一揭发贪污的方法是只有当其他一方介入。

请不要相信政府的宣传，即这个政府可以在新的领导层下改革。问题并不在于领导层，问题在于过去。新的领导层无法让过去被揭发，他们既然无法揭发过去和惩罚涉嫌贪污的人，那么他们就会继续做恶。

Remember the quote – “it looks like me, it sounds like me but it is not me” from a character called VK Lingam? Well, there are not limits to what Malaysian politicians can do to top such stupid statements.

(Morally wrong is ok not matter how serious it is! says the self appointed clown Minister in Parliament)

Malaysiakini reported the Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department Mohd Nazri Abdul Aziz as saying that what VK Lingam did was “morally wrong but he was legally clean”.

Malaysian Insider then reported:-

Nazri also suggested that Lingam breached no laws as he might “have just acted to fix the appointment of judges as if he was brokering the appointment of senior judges to impress people”.

“I am not denying that it was Lingam in the tape. But I am also saying that there are a lot of conmen in this world. Who knows he might have just acted when he was calling the so-called judges to impress,” said Nazri in his ministerial winding-up speech on the 2010 Budget debate.

So, it looks like Nazri, who is well known for past acts of putting his foot in the mouth, have done it again.

With a simple sweeping statement, Nazri have cleared VK Lingam of any wrongdoing and at the same suggested that VK Lingam (whilst still calling him a conman) may have just acted to impress people. With people like Nazri around to make such statements, then why waste time and money on Royal Commissions and reports to police and MACC (who by the way had cleared the 2 characters of any wrongdoing) on the Lingam’s case, right?

Let’s reflect back to the words “morally wrong but legally clean”.

I still recall when I was in law school and we had to deal with the issue of morality and legality. It was an interesting topic with many possible conclusions. Sometimes what it seems to be morally wrong may not be legally wrong and vice-versa.

One interesting case study that our professor threw at us to study and argue was this case:-

In a case that raised far-reaching political and moral questions, two former East German border guards were convicted today of having shot and killed a fleeing refugee in February 1989.

The verdict set a legal precedent, establishing that officials from what was once the Communist state of East Germany could be punished for actions that were not only legal under East German law, but which were compulsory for them to carry out.

That was an interesting case indeed, and one was on the other end of the straw, if using Nazri’s words, “morally wrong but legally clean”. In this case, the border guards were only legally permitted to shot the fleeing refugee but they were also compelled to shot under strict orders.

The defendant accused of firing the fatal shots, 27-year-old Ingo Heinrich, told the court “at that time I was following the laws and commands of the German Democratic Republic.”

But the judge, Theodor Seidel, said as he pronounced the sentences, “Not everything that is legal is right.”

Mr. Heinrich was sentenced to three and a half years in prison on a charge of manslaughter. He was ruled to have fired the shot that killed 20-year-old Chris Gueffroy as Mr. Gueffroy dashed across the “death strip” that separated East and West Berlin.

If Nazri have been the judge in the court that day, he would have probably allowed the charged border guards to be let off free. After all, does all they did was morally wrong but legally clean?

Of course, such nonsense was not shared by the real judge on the day. Law students may argue for both cases – that in one case, one should not allow any issue of the morality or personal notion of justice to interfere with the strict reading of the law (this is following Nazri’s arguments). But on the other hand, isn’t the law of the country was formed on the basis of morality (for example the law against incest), justice and fairness?

Gary Gentile in the Advocates stated this:-

Law is a reflection of society’s code of morality.

The repercussions from the VK Lingam’s case has a far reaching impact. It is for one implies that appointment of judges can be manipulated by persons on the outside. Malaysian Insider further reports:-

Bukit Gelugor DAP MP Karpal Singh said what had transpired in the recording was tantamount to sedition as it had brought the country’s judiciary into disrepute and Lingam, he suggested, could be charged under the Sedition Act.

Even if the ‘conman’ as implied by Nazri, was just acting, it does bring a wrong impression on the judiciary as whole. Morally, it is wrong but so does legally.

An open-air Hindu Lingam from Lepakshi

The shivalingam is probably the most important Shaivite symbol. The symbol may take many forms, most usually a post with a rounded top. This form makes the pouring of sacred fluids such as milk or water easy. Though many shivalingams are man-made, some are natural. Naturally occurring oval stones from the Narmada River are often used in worship. Some temples also have natural shivalinga, among the most famous being the Amarnath temple, which has a natural ice lingam.

There are many symbolic meanings to the shivalingam. The oval shape represents the universe. The shivalinga is sometimes depicted with four faces. This form is known as the Panchamukha, or five faced shivalingam; the fifth face is said to be invisible and looks directly upward to the heavens. The panchmukha Shiva is a form of sadashiva or eternal Shiva.

The Natural ice Shivalingam at Amarnath temple

To Shaivites the Shivalingam represents the parashiva or formless shiva. The parashiva is equivalent to the Nirguna Brahman (Brahman without qualities) of Advaita philosophy. When we contemplate and worship the shivalingam we contemplate Shiva’s pure form, which permeates the whole of creation. The Parashiva is transcendent and cannot be described in words. Yogis who have experienced Shiva in this form talk of ultimate bliss, the all loving reality, the ultimate cause of the universe.

A nepalise stone Panchamukha linga

By using the symbol of the shivalingam we can represent the unmanifest as a concrete symbol, just as the murti (devotional statue or icon) represents Shiva’s manifest forms.

The veerashaiva sect of shaivism solely worship Shiva in the form of the lingam. They believe that Shiva has no manifest form, so murtis are not used. They wear a personal linga or ishtalinga at all times. For this reason they are known as lingayatas.

The Nandinatha Sampradaya’s Kailasa Parampara has a large naturally occurring crystal shivalinga,  which will one day be installed at the Iraivan Temple in Hawaii.

What the Shivalingam is not

Since Freud some westerners see phallic symbols in almost anything

The shivalingam is not a phallic symbol. The origins of the shivalinga are as an oval representation of the universe, or as a column without beginning or end.

Westerners were quick to characterise the lingam as a phallic symbol, but the same could be said (and has been said) about church towers, Egyptian pylons and many more things.

The situation is confused by the fact that some left-hand trantric Shakti sets do use the shivalingam as a phallic symbol. It is unclear whether this symbolism was used before Westerners introduced the concept of phallic symbols; certainly in earlier temples they used explicit images rather than symbols.

by Daniel Albert

The refusal by the Attorney-General’s Chambers to take any further action or proffer charges against any of the six named individuals involved in the Lingam video clip fiasco has received scathing criticism from the public – and rightly so.

This pre-mature attempt to close official investigations into this matter is an affront to the judiciary and a slap in the face to us all.

The refusal to prosecute in effect means that the implications of blatant judicial manipulation and improper interference surrounding this affair, which were reinforced by the findings of the royal commission, will be left to linger and fester without any finality or conclusion.

Despite the public fury stirred by the contents of the video clip, no basis or reasons were given for the AG’s decision. Only a blanket statement was offered to the effect that investigations into the affair had failed to turn up sufficient evidence to bring charges.

So smug are our government officials and leaders that despite the decision going completely against the findings and recommendations of the royal commission, no attempt has been made to provide any further explanation or give reasons for their decision to the rakyat.

It is significant that the findings of the royal commission were not merely made by lay individuals devoid of any knowledge of the law. The panel was headed by a former Chief Judge of Malaya and also included a former Chief Judge of Sabah and Sarawak, a former Court of Appeal Judge and a former solicitor-general. The panel was not only highly proficient in the law, but in addition, possessed valuable experience in the workings of the judiciary and AG’s Chambers.

Their specific findings that there was “sufficient cause to invoke the Sedition Act 1948, the Prevention of Corruption 1961, the Legal Profession Act 1976, the Official Secrets Act 1972 and the Penal Code against some of the principal individuals involved” would therefore have been made with a thorough understanding of the application of these laws and the requisite burdens and standards of proof entailed in invoking these laws.

Identities of witnesses not shrouded in secrecy

It is also significant the entire process that led to the commission’s findings were transparent and open to public scrutiny. The identities of the witnesses called were not shrouded in secrecy. Neither was witness testimony extracted behind closed doors by unknown means. Evidence presented was adequately tested by a host of lawyers that represented the interests of all parties concerned. The quality of the inquiry conducted and the evidence obtained as a result was apparent to all.

Over and above all this, what is of utmost significance is that there was basis provided for the findings of the commission. The reasons for their findings were detailed in a report that was disclosed to the public. Their findings were not bare averments. The conclusions and recommendations made were justified with their interpretation of the evidence obtained.

All this adds credibility to the findings of the commission; a quality sorely lacking in the AG’s decision. What investigations were carried out? Were they sufficiently thorough? What was the outcome of these investigations? What kind of legal expertise were used? Surely, the rakyat is entitled to such answers. It is absurd that a matter of this significance is now being swept under the carpet in such cavalier fashion.

Should we be surprised by such action? Sadly, no. The manner in which this matter had been dealt with, from the very start, was indicative of the fashion by which it would be concluded.

When the video clip was first disclosed, whilst the rakyat were livid at the contents of the clip, our then prime minister instead chose to warn those that reported the video clip that action will be taken against them if the allegations that surfaced as a result of the video clip were proven untrue.

Calls for a royal commission were immediately rejected. Instead, a cabinet appointed panel was instead set up. The legal basis of this panel was vague and it was unclear if the panel had the necessary powers to conduct a proper fact-finding inquiry.

Thereafter, the focus was skewed towards identifying the maker and source of the video clip; the contents were made secondary. Curiously, whilst their identities were fastidiously pursued, all mention of the lead actor and his likely conversation partner was carefully avoided by the authorities. Continued calls for a royal commission to be set up fell on deaf ears. The entire time, the de facto law minister had the gall to maintain that the matter had been blown up and there was no crisis within the judiciary.

A royal commission was only set up after almost two months of unabated public outcry and more footage of the video clip revealed – and even then, the terms of reference of the royal commission were exceedingly confined.

Whilst the motivation for such conduct is open to speculation, it is clear that the integrity and sanctity of the judiciary has taken a back seat. As opposed to immediately making every effort to fully investigate the allegations surrounding the video clip and thereafter undertaking the appropriate remedial measures to restore the integrity of the judiciary and public confidence, there have been concerted efforts to play down and where possible avoid the issue all together. Avoiding the issue does not resolve the issue. This however is a solution our leaders seem quite content with.

Scant regard for judicial institution is nothing new

This scant regard for the judicial institution is sadly nothing new. This willingness to prostitute the judiciary has been consistently demonstrated time and time again by our leaders. The integrity and independence of the judiciary is simply not a priority. In fact, it does appear that many of our politicians perceive a strong judiciary as plain trouble.

These sentiments have manifested in the form of continued attacks by our leaders on the judiciary. Attacks, whether by means of controversial appointments and removal of judges or ousting the court’s jurisdiction so that certain governmental action is beyond judicial scrutiny, have undeniably led to the continued erosion and decline of the judicial institution and the state of affairs present.

It was against this backdrop that the Lingam video clip was disclosed. Hence, the public distrust and immediate presumption that many of the allegations surrounding the video may be credible. The hue and cry that ensued and demands for the video clip to be thoroughly investigated was understandable. Had the video clip been disclosed against a backdrop of a strong independent judiciary with a sterling track record, perhaps the AG’s decision, given without reason, would be easier to swallow.

And at what costs is this to the rakyat? Most significantly, the decline of our judiciary has resulted in its inability to function as an effective watchdog on the executive and legislative.

The doctrine of separation of powers dictates that all three organs of the state (executive, legislative and judiciary) act as watchdogs on each other to carry out a process of ‘check and balance’. This is a safeguard to ensure that none of the organs abuses its constitutional power or oversteps its mandate. The reality however is that because the composition of the legislative (Parliament) and executive (government) overlaps and both organs are effectively controlled by the prime minister, the process rarely is effective. This emphasises the role of the judiciary.

Ills of corruption allowed to fester

This failure of the judiciary to carry out this process has allowed avoidance of accountability and transparency in the country’ governing. The ills of corruption, abuse of public funds and excesses of power have been allowed to fester and become constant features in our political landscape.

The disclosure of the video clip presented a golden opportunity to our leadership reform the judiciary; to clean up everything that was wrong and perceived to be wrong with the judiciary and start afresh. Sadly, this now looks unlikely.

It is clear that unless and until there is sincere political will for reform, things will not change. We, the rakyat, must provide the impetus for that change in political will. We need to make clear to our leaders, regardless of political divide, that a strong judiciary is a priority and we will accept nothing less. It is for this very reason we cannot allow this matter to be put to sleep quietly.

*This is an article by a good friend of mine, Daniel Albert. Reproduced from Malaysiakini.

The last time Bala revealed what he knew, he was left all alone, all by himself.

That was a big screw up on the part of PKR.

How can you let a key whistleblower go away unprotected?

That was probably why Bala did a U-turn, and jumped out of town, if not, jumped over to the other side.

So, please, PKR, please do not screw up again.

Please make sure you protect the witness properly, so that Lingam and Co can be nailed, once and fore all.

916 Movement

.

Malaysian Mirror: Lingam case: Witness willing to come forward

Monday, 26 October 2009 20:09

KUALA LUMPUR: R Sivarasa (PKR-Subang) caused a stir when he revealed that a witness would be introduced to the House to keep the VK Lingam case open.

“We propose to bring the witness to Parliament to show to the MACC that there is such a witness and we are in contact with the witness,” he told reporters at the Parliament lobby on Monday.

The witness, believed to be a woman, would be brought to the House to dispute the then Anti-Corruption Agency’s claim that it could not locate the key witness to Lingam’s holiday trip to New Zealand with former Chief Justice of the Federal Court, Eusoff Chin.

The ACA is now the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC).

Sketchy details about witness

Sivarasa slammed the MACC, saying its excuse was “totally not acceptable” and showed its “unwilling attitude and inaction” in locating the witness.

When pressed for details about the witness, Sivarasa declined to elaborate.

Loh Gwo-Burne (PKR-Kelana Jaya) who was at the press conference said: “We just spoke to the witness and she is willing to come forward. She is not in Kuala Lumpur but is willing to travel down.”

Earlier, Sivarasa quoted from the Royal Commission of Inquiry reports saying that “a compelling inference can reasonably and conceivably be drawn that Datuk V.K. Lingam was actively involved in the appointment of Tun Ahmad Fairuz as Court of Appeal president, with the possible aim of his further appointment to the post of Federal Court Chief Justice.”

“The Najib (Prime Minister Najib Tun Razak) administration has given the reason that no evidence was found to prove abuse of power in judicial appointments, but the Royal Commission in its report has stated otherwise,” he said.

A-G closed case

The Attorney-General (A-G) has closed the case which implied the brokering of judges in a phone conversation featured in a video clip.

Last week, Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department Nazri Abd Aziz said in a written reply to Lim Guan Eng (DAP-Bagan) that investigations showed no criminal offence had been committed in the appointment of judges.

Nazri said that the case was later classified by the A-G as “no further action” as there were no suspects who could confirm the handling of documents in the appointment of High Court judges.

The video implicated five people, including Lingam, former chief justices Eusoff Chin and Ahmad Fairuz Sheikh Abdul Halim, tycoon Vincent Tan and the then Deputy Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department Tengku Adnan Tengku Mansor who was in charge of legal affairs.

Last Updated on Tuesday, 27 October 2009 12:0

Source: http://malaysianmirror.com/homedetail/45-home/16720-lingam-case-witness-willing-to-come-forward

PR: wait… I: wait… L: wait… LD: wait… I: wait… wait… Rank: wait… Traffic: wait… Price: wait… CY: wait… I: wait… YCat: wait… I: wait… Top: wait… I: wait… L: wait… C: wait…

Mantan perdana menteri, Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad kecewa kerana kes pita video Lingam telah ditutup, dan oleh itu tidak memberi beliau peluang untuk membersihkan namanya.

“Beliau (peguam Datuk VK Lingam) tentunya merasa lega, Tetapi bagaimana dengan laporan suruhanjaya (diraja), mengenai pengaruhnya ke atas saya dalam pemilihan hakim-hakim?” soalnya.

Menurut Dr Mahathir, beliau sedang menunggu untuk hadir di mahkamah bagi mempertahankan dirinya berhubung isu tersebut, yang ‘meletup’ sewaktu pentadbiran Datuk Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi.

“Ada banyak perkara yang hendak saya cakapkan mengenai percubaan untuk mempengaruhi saya dalam pelantikan hakim-hakim,” tulis Dr Mahathir dalam blognya.

“Oleh kerana Lingam tidak ada kes untuk dijawab, jadi bagaimana ia memberi kesan terhadap tuduhan yang saya dipengaruhi olehnya, di mana pita itu adalah mengenai dakwaan perbualan telefonnya dengan individu-individu lain.

“Adakah dia kata saya memintanya bercakap dengan orang-orang berkenaan? Adakah nama saya terbabit dalam panggilan telefon itu?

“Persoalan-persoalan ini akan kekal dalam minda orang ramai yang membaca kesimpulan suruhanjaya tersebut. Jadi bagaimana sekarang?” tambahnya.

Dr Mahathir juga berkata, beliau telah dimaklumkan bahawa pada waktu “rejim lalu”, semakan terperinci dibuat untuk mencari contoh-contoh di mana beliau telah menyalahguna kuasa atau menerima pemberian secara salah ketika menjadi perdana menteri.

“Nampaknya, tiada apa yang ditemui. Mungkinkah salah satu cara untuk kenakan saya ialah dengan menuduh saya dipengaruhi oleh Lingam dalam pemilihan hakim-hakim oleh saya?”soalnya.

“Tidak ada kesalahan jenayah’

So, what was the use of having the Royal Commission?

The Commission’s findings have been thrown out of the window.

Of course, they had no choice then.

But now, they are hoping that we would have forgotten.

Oh, no, we have not forgotten.

How could we have forgotten?

We could not have forgotten Lingam with his “correct, correct, correct, …”

We could not have forgotten Lingam’s secretary revelation that she had typed up judgments for the judges.

We could not have forgotten how the Commission was hastily ended after Lingam’s secretary revelation, and it was just before GE12.

We could not have forgotten so many things.

We remember …

We remember many things …

We will remember to boot out UMNO and BN come GE13.

As we have always said, no matter what, UMNO and BN must be booted out come GE13.

Even if there is Pakatan crap.

It is only after UMNO and BN are booted out that they will really realise that they cannot hoodwink the Rakyat.

It is only after UMNO and BN are booted out that all the cosmetic reforms we are made to see now will stop.

It is only after UMNO and BN are booted out that they will realise that the only way forward is complete transformation.

So, please, please continue to give us such crap!

We can heck it!

After all, we have been able to heck all this crap for so many years already, so, what’s a few more?

Just you wait and see!

Guys, let us continue to spread the word around, that we must see UMNO and BN out at GE13!

916 Movement

.

NST: Lingam tapes: Case closed

Posted by admin

Thursday, 22 October 2009 10:57

(NST) – KUALA LUMPUR: Legal action will not be taken against prominent lawyer Datuk V.K. Lingam for lack of evidence and testimony in the findings of the Royal Commission of Inquiry into the Lingam tapes.

Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak told Parliament the findings of the probe were not substantial enough to initiate legal proceedings. In a written reply to Lim Guan Eng (DAP-Bagan) in the Dewan Rakyat yesterday, he said there were several factors tied to the issue that had thwarted efforts to move ahead with the case.

He said no evidence was found to prove abuse of power in judicial appointments as presented in the then Anti-Corruption Agency’s investigation report on the issue.

“Hence, the Attorney-General’s Chambers ruled that there would be no further action (in the matter. Najib said investigations commissioned under the Official Secrets Act 1972 could not identify any wrongdoing by anyone in the handling of documents related to appointments of High Court judges. Investigations into former chief justice Tun Mohd Eusoff Chin’s New Zealand holiday were also hampered as a key witness could not be found, he added.

On alleged false claims for a hotel stay by former chief justice Tun Ahmad Fairuz Sheikh Abdul Halim, Najib said there was insufficient evidence to back up the allegation.

“The Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission’s Legal and Prosecution division director decided not to pursue the investigation. The investigation papers were not referred to the attorney-general.”

Najib explained that no action could be taken against Lingam based on the findings of four separate investigations scrutinised by the commission. The investigations were carried out under:
section 15 of the Anti-Corruption Act 1997 (before it was abolished) on alleged abuse of power in judicial appointments;

the Official Secrets Act 1972 on wrongdoings in the handling of documents related to High Court judicial appointments;

paragraph 4(a) of the Anti-Corruption Act 1961 (before it was abolished) on Eusoff’s New Zealand vacation; and,

paragraph 11(c) of the Anti-Corruption Act 1997 (before it was abolished) on alleged false claims for a hotel stay by Ahmad Fairuz.

The inquiry, which began on Jan 14, was set up to look into a 14-minute video clip which the commission said showed Lingam in conversation with Ahmad

Fairuz over judicial appointments. The commission found, among other things, that:

• The video clip was authentic;
• Lingam was in conversation with Ahmad Fairuz over judicial appointments;
• There was direct influence by Lingam in the elevation of judges, in particular in the appointment of Ahmad Fairuz as president of the Court of Appeal, with the possible aim of his further appointment as chief justice; and;
• Lingam had asked tycoon Tan Sri Vincent Tan and Datuk Seri Tengku Adnan Tengku Mansor to involve themselves actively in the appointment of judges,
in particular the appointment of Ahmad Fairuz as the Chief Judge of Malaya and subsequently, president of the Court of Appeal.

The commission identified six people to be investigated under the Prevention of Corruption Act 1961, the Sedition Act 1961, the Legal Profession Act 1976, the Official Secrets Act 1972 and the Penal Code.

They are former prime minister Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad, Lingam, Tan, Umno secretarygeneral Tengku Adnan, Eusoff Chin and Ahmad Fairuz.

Source: http://mt.m2day.org/2008/content/view/27993/84/

PR: wait… I: wait… L: wait… LD: wait… I: wait… wait… Rank: wait… Traffic: wait… Price: wait… CY: wait… I: wait… YCat: wait… I: wait… Top: wait… I: wait… L: wait… C: wait…

Many ignorants translate “Linga” as penis which is Wrong and this myth is spread by missionaries. and also tell its shiva’s own penis ..
The Linga has different meanings – shapeless, without organs, long drum like, etc…

Penis is called linga by some people due to its shape…the actual world for penis is “Shishna“
Shiva Linga here means, Shiva without form… it is like when we die our soul is called “Linga Sharira” now we never mean that after death we become Penis ??? or anything related to sexual transformation.

Shiva being worshipped as Linga means the Consciousness in its primordial form…where Consciousness is entering into the Eternal Energy (Shakti)…the yoni.
Thus shivalinga is the state of god, just before the manifestation of Universe, a little before big bang.

Shiva is worshiped as Linga…because that is the highest of all manifested gods, formless, attribute less…. simple Consciousness and Energy (shiva and shakti)

Shiva shakti where shiva is silence and shakti is moving particles. Here the “law of motion” applies.
Scientifically researched as “the string theory”.
Therefore shiva states nothing but silence, Let the fact (truth) remain as fact… Please don’t destroy it.

Live in divine bliss
Chandan Raikar

Selle SMP saddles are sponsoring our Fixed & Free Challenge from Singapore to Shanghai. These saddles are made with an eye for the anatomy of the human body. An interesting feature therefore is that while only one person sits on the saddle, two enjoy the comfort of it.

Selle SMP sponsored by www.veltec.com