The Special Independent Panel - An Exercise in Futility?

I don’t understand the workings of the Special Independent Panel task with verifying the authenticity of the Lingam video clip. First of all, does “authenticity of the video clip” means that the video in itself is authentic? This means the said video is an actual video taping an actual event. It is not a “doctored” clip. It is not, say, Saudara Tian Chua working in his Tian Chua Industrial Light & Magic studio, taking background footages of The Sound of Music, and superimposing moving images of VK Lingam, and adding Kermit the Frog voice-overs, creating this Emmy-worthy controversial clip. If this is what “authenticity” means, then it is (mind my language) akin to starting a sexual act without finishing it. What if the Panel finds that the video is “authentic”? Is the Panel’s job’s done? I think what the public wants to know is whether the contents in the video is “authentic”, i.e. did VK Lingam actually said all those things, did he actually say it to the so-called Senior Judge, and whether all that was said is true. It is not whether the video (in its technicality) is authentic, it is whether the contents of the video is true and accurate.

Coming back to the authenticity of the clip. I think there are a few ways to verify this. One way is to just ask VK Lingam. If he says yes, it was him in the video and all that was seen actually happened, then the video is authentic. It’s as easy as that. Or the Panel can ask the person who took the video (if he/she is unintelligent enough to come forward) as to whether the video is authentic or a product of Tian Chua Industrial Light & Magic. If the answer is yes, it is authentic, then I guess the Panel would have to conclude just that. Or perhaps, the Panel can get a technical expert from Lucas Industrial Light & Magic (as opposed to Tian Chua) to give an expert opinion as to whether the video has been “special effected”. Perhaps, the Panel can do all three. And if all three is in the affirmative, then the video is authentic. Is that then the end of the issue? That’s what I’m confused. If it is, then we all been hoodwinked!

The next step (if there is allowed to be one) would be whether the contents in the video is authentic. This is what I have stated earlier, whether what VK Lingam said is true. This, I think, is the tricky part. VK Lingam speaks to the phone. Who he is speaking to, we don’t see and we don’t know. How can one verify? Well, again ask VK Lingam. If he says yes, then the job is made much easier. But what if he says (like what everyone has predicted) that he is only practicing his acting skills. There is actually no one on the other side. What he actually says is all made up fantasy. How can the Panel verify this? It is his word against …. nothing. So, VK Lingam says he is drunk and doing play-acting, and the Senior Judge either denies or keep mum. How then? Now unless there is a corresponding video clip on the other end of the spectrum that shows Mr. Judge on his cell-phone, and hopefully audible enough to piece a talk-and-reply conversation, this appears to be an exercise in futility. But hey, is the Panel empowered to ask, or perhaps compel Telekom/Maxis/Celcom/017/013 etcetera etcetera to do the following :-
a) release VK Lingam’s land line/cell phone numbers and monthly statements
b) check the call history
c) release all of Mr. Senior Judge’s phone numbers, be it office, house, cellphones etcetera etcetera

Can the Panel do a “CSI”, draw some analogies, conclude and make a presumption of “guilty as charged”? Or perhaps as what I have said, the Panel’s duty is to only check on technical authenticity only. Possible outcome by the Panel :-

1) we cannot conclude anything because VK Lingam says it is not him, the Judge says it is not him, the film-maker did not come forward, and George Lucas says he is too busy to attend our sittings.

2) yes the video is authentic because VK Lingam says it is him, film-maker says he was the one, and the Lucas Report show no tampering on the video. But our job ends here. It says so in our terms of appointment.

3) yes the video is authentic ……… But VK Lingam says he is drunk, he doesn’t know any judges, he doesn’t know Vincent Tan, and his childhood dream is to be Rajnikanth. Mr. Judge says he don’t know any lawyers, he lost his voice that whole year and he has never owned a phone his whole life. Therefore the accuracy of the contents and allegations in the video cannot be confirmed. Oh yes, being merely a Panel with no powers, we did not ask anything from Telekom or the other phone companies.

Oh, how will this all turn out? So many questions, so many issues, so many possible outcomes. I’m now officially sleepy.
Good night.