I refer to the Malaysiakini report Chances 'slim' for Lingam's brother to testify .

The royal commission investigating the Lingam tape openly told the press that anyone could come forward to give evidence for their investigation. However, the impression given by the commission, especially chairperson Haidar Mohammad Noor, is different.

He seems to forget that he is sitting as a member of a royal commission and not as a judge in a court of law. Their duty is to investigate and recommend, period. They are not there to decide. Their job - in a broad sense - is to listen to the witnesses and not question their relevance unless absolutely necessary.

In this context, I would like to ask, is not witness V Thirunama Karasu relevant to the proceedings? The facts are very clear he has been interviewed by the ACA previously on matters relating to judicial corruption. He has also mentioned to the press that he is the one who was tasked by his brother to deliver handphones to some very high judicial personalities.

His lawyer Wee Choo Keong has asked that a subpoena be issued for Thirunama to appear before the commission but why are members of this commission hesitating? Is a subpoena so complex a document to issue or has the seal to certify the subpoena gone missing? What message are they trying to give to the Malaysian public? That he is not a relevant witness or his evidence has no bearing on what they are investigating?

Again, I am perplexed why was Anwar Ibrahim’s lawyer M Puravalen is required to prepare a statements from his witnesses before they can testify before the commission. The counsel has mentioned openly that the evidence of two of his witnesses can help ‘refresh’ the memory of the Tourism Minister Tengku Adnan Tengku Mansor and former prime minister Dr Mahathir Mohamad in relation to ‘judicial fixing’. I say just haul them in and listen to what they have to say.

Is the commission being selective in whom they want to hear? The Malaysian public is not stupid. As it is, certain members of the commission had been asked to recuse themselves on grounds of conflict of interest and likelihood of bias.

Looking at the shifty manner in which the commission is selecting the witnesses, there may be some substance after all in thinking that certain members of the commission may not be ‘whiter than white’ after all.