The government's obsession with pursuing the whistleblowers while meticulously avoiding mention of the two principal alleged culprits - lawyer VK Lingam and current Chief Justice Ahmad Fairuz Sheikh Abdul Halim - is the surest sign that the 'Lingam tape' is not only authentic, but is also known to the government to be authentic.

Significantly, three full weeks after the exposure of this explosive recording on Sept 19, revealed political manipulation and illicit fixing of senior judicial posts, both alleged culprits have not openly denied the serious charges, and have also steadfastly remained incommunicado and invisible to the public.

Instead of going after the alleged culprits, de facto law minister Mohd Nazri Abdul Aziz warned that "a probe into the clip will come to nothing if the whistleblower does not come forward to verify its authencity". He added that if the witness fails to appear, "we can conclude that they are lying".

It defies all logic when the evidence is the video clip itself. Authenticity should be built primarily on a technical analysis of the footage - whether the person in it is Lingam or an impersonator, or whether the voice is that of Lingam or a voice-over.

This can be ascertained by analysing Lingam's mannerisms, voice, tone, accent, linguistic expressions and vocabulary, and compared with the clip. But unless Lingam claims that the clip is a fake, there is no necessity to even go into exhaustive technical details.

In the absence of a challenge from Lingam, Nazri's insistence in hinging the whole investigations on the appearance of the video-maker is all the more unreasonable, for there is still the question of credibility of any self-claimed video-maker that may emerge.

If a person emerges to claim he films the video, can we take his word as proof that the clip is authentic? Of course not, we still have to go through the technical analysis, if Lingam insists it is a fake. Finality is rested with the technical analysis, in case of dispute. Then why turn the video- maker's appearance into an absolute pre-requisite for the investigation?

That the original whistleblower's identity is not even relevant to the uncovering of a major scandal was amply illustrated in the Watergate scandal in US in the early 1970s when the scandal was finally resolved with the resignation of President Richard Nixon.

Throughout the lengthy investigations, the identity of the anonymous whistleblower codenamed 'Deep Throat' was never revealed, and yet this did not prevent a fruitful conclusion of the entire investigations.

What a contrast in the way a genuine democracy handles a major government scandal with that adopted by a corrupted pseudo-democracy like Malaysia! The former honours its whistleblowers and punishes the culprits (even the chief executive of the nation), while the latter punishes its whistleblowers and protects the culprits.

Why footage is genuine

Why did I say earlier that the video clip is genuine and that the government knows that it is so? The answer is apparent from the conduct of the alleged culprits and from the government.

The alleged culprits have chosen to remain in hiding and have refused to publicly declare their denial or admission in a serious allegation. If this prolonged silence is not prompted by guilt, what else is involved?

All the top political leaders including the premier, his deputy, Nazri and other ministers, the ACA, police, and even the three-member panel of investigators have meticulously avoided mentioning Lingam and Ahmad Fairuz. Why? Shouldn't these two alleged players be the first target of enquiry - unless everyone already knows the answer?

Nazri's earnestness in seeking the video-maker to the extent of offering plastic surgery reveals his subconscious acknowledgement that the source is a genuine video-maker capturing the Lingam conversation.

Prime Minister Abdullah Ahmad Badawi has joined the chorus, being quoted on Sept 7 as saying that the video-maker would know a lot more about the footage, and it could enable the authorities to secure more comprehensive information and evidence for a fair investigation. Pak Lah appealed to the whistleblowers to co-operate with the authorities ( Sin Chew Daily , Sept 8).

Now, if that is not an acknowledgement that the clip is genuine, then what is? Or is it conceivable that Pak Lah was persuading a con video-producer to tell the truth to the government? Hadn't Pak Lah already pre-supposed the authenticity of the video clip?

Lame-duck panel

Since in reality no one is in doubt, then why appoint an 'independent' panel to investigate the authenticity of the clip, if it is not actually an exercise to cover up the ugly truth?

The lame-duck morally-deficient panel hardly concealed its role as a stooge of the ruling power Umno at its first press conference on Oct 3. Apart from confirming its lack of legal power to carry out its task properly, such as compelling evidence, panel leader Haider Mohd Noor emphatically rejected the suggestion to call Lingam to testify. When pressed, he said: "If he wants to come .I don't know".

Isn't that amazing? The investigator is fighting shy of calling Lingam when the latter should have been the most urgently sought witness to answer the prime question of whether he (Lingam) did or did not make that incriminating phone call! Haider's telling response leaves one with no room for doubt as to whether he already knows the answer.

At the same press conference, Haider invited the public who have knowledge of the video clip to come forward to give evidence. But that invitation was swiftly slammed down by Deputy Prime Minister Najib Abdul Razak who directed that the panel was not to interview anyone, but to receive reports from the ACA, police or other government agencies. With no power to investigate and no access to witnesses, the panel's superfluous function is self-evident.

With Najib ( photo ) deliberately setting up a dummy panel on one end and Nazri frantically and irrationally pursuing an elusive whistleblower at the other, we are left with no alternative but to conclude that the entire government strategy in dealing with the present crisis is imbued with dishonourable intentions - to cover up the scandal at all costs to preserve the status quo.

If that is not the case, an honourable government would have set up a fully empowered Royal commission of inquiry in the first instance so as to get to the bottom of our judicial scourge, as a prelude to full judicial reform.

And that is what all patriotic Malaysians must fight for, if we are serious about restoring independence and integrity to our fallen judiciary. You could make history by signing a petition to the King to appoint a Royal commission of inquiry.

KIM QUEK is a retired accountant who joined PKR in August 2007.