I refer to the Malaysiakini report Lingam: I was 'bullshitting and bragging' .

It was bound to come, this clash between the minimalist and maximalist approaches in the ongoing royal commission of inquiry into the Lingam video clip.

The commission yesterday opted for the minimalist approach when it stopped counsel for the Malaysian Bar, Robert Lazar, from pressing on with a line of questioning probing lawyer VK Lingam’s ‘closeness’ with former chief justice Eusoff Chin.

It wanted Lazar to confine his questioning to a trip to New Zealand in 1999 by Eusoff and Lingam in which both appeared to be very close. The two claimed the trip was happenstance and not by design - contradicting the story that emerges from a clutter of witnesses’ testimonies.

The minimalist approach could be described as an attempt to settle a dispute in the midst of a disagreement or uncertainty over fundamental questions that underlie it.

This is the approach that only wants to know the identity of the persons in the Lingam video clip, nothing more

The maximalist approach, the one the Malaysian Bar has tended towards from the outset of the hearing is that the Lingam video clip is a symptom of a larger malaise - the progressive decay in the Malaysian judiciary going back to the sacking of top judge Salleh Abas in May 1988.

The two approaches were in neat juxtaposition last Monday when Lingam’s lawyer, R Thayalan, applied to expunge the testimony adduced thus far about the New Zealand trip because it was outside the terms of reference of the royal commission.

In any event, the commission told Lazar that he could continue to question Lingam on the New Zealand trip but he could not take the implied ‘closeness’ between Lingam and Eusoff to the extent of linking favourable judicial decisions awarded to Lingam by panels presided over by Eusoff, circa the 1990s, even though Lingam is seen as saying in the video clip that when Eusoff was chief justice (1994-2000), he could get things done ‘pom, pom, pom’.

That is equivalent to saying that the South African justice system’s expected inquiry into Jacob Zuma’s financial footprints should not be linked to his qualifications for the presidency of the country especially after his thumping victory for the president’s post in the ruling African National Congress party election last December.

Royal commissions of inquiry are only established when the King, advised by the prime minister, perceives that there is an issue of major concern roiling public affairs.

No less than Chief Justice Abdul Hamid Mohamed, in remarks made when he was elevated to the top judicial post on Dec 11, said that he assumes the post at a challenging time, ‘that is, when public perceptions of the judiciary are disturbing, when the integrity of the courts in the administration of justice is doubted, when appointment and the behaviour of judges and their commitments in the discharge of duties, are all being questioned.’

To use an ornithological metaphor the minimalist approach in the inquiry belongs to the ostrich, the maximalist one to the eagle.