IGP Musa Hassan and AG Gani Patail Witness what happened to former Deputy Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim by Police Chief. CHARGE THEM for not reporting

If Muhyuddin and Nazri could not say anything sensible, they should just shut up. There is no need to embarrass the country. Come to think of it, that is good advice for all our leaders. I wonder if Nazri and Muhyuddin have a daughter; how they would feel if she were to be abused by her husband. The ministers’ utterances were at best boorish; at worse, reprehensible.

Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department Datuk Mohamed Nazri Abdul Aziz’s statement that the doctrine of separation of powers is alive and kicking in the country ought to be taken with a pinch of salt.Taken with a pinch of salt? You may need more than a pinch. You will need a ton of salt. That applies to anything said by the UMNO shitbrain Minister

By Thomas Soon (The Edge)

That “cases before the courts were not intervened by any quarters” and that “there were cases where the judgments were not in favour of the executive” do not equate to the doctrine in practice.

(Phrases within quotation marks taken from a Bernama news report attributed to Nazri who was speaking during the question-and-answer session in the Dewan Rakyat recently.)

Furthermore, the doctrine is a means and the end is the protection of the rakyat secured through the upholding of the sanctity and independence of the judiciary. Either way, as things stand, the credibility of the Barisan Nasional (BN) government and the judiciary has hung in the balance over the past two decades.

The doctrine, which calls for checks and balances between the three estates of government, has been dead in the country’s system of political governance since 1998.

That was when former prime minister Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad, backed by a solid two-thirds majority in parliament, made the judiciary a subordinate estate.

It stemmed from one of the most crucial amendments of the Federal Constitution that has caused much angst and deliberations among jurists.

Many saw the amendment as having taken away the judiciary’s inherent common law jurisdiction and the check against abuse of executive power, be it arising from administrative measures or via substantive laws.

In essence, the amended provision — Article 121 (1) — took away “judicial power of the federation” from the judiciary, which shall only “have such jurisdiction and powers as may be conferred by or under federal law”.

In practice, judges have more often than not become subservient to parliament, which is under the control of the executive, and their ability to deliver justice according to common law and even basic principles of rule of law is shackled.

For instance, there have been many cases whereby judges had been unable to deliver justice in ISA detention cases but for procedural irregularities. The interpretation and context of national security is solely the domain and judgment of the minister.

That is what the doctrine of separation of powers promises to curb — the concentration, arbitrary use and abuse of executive power.

At least two chief justices during their respective tenure have alluded to the fact that the doctrine is amiss in the country.

Under former prime minister Tun Abdullah Ahmad Badawi’s administration, the then chief justice, Tun Abdul Hamid Mohamad, said in June last year that the move by the government to amend Article 121(1) “shows that an amendment made in anger as a reaction to a decision of the court could last for one generation”.

That was when Datuk Zaid Ibrahim was the de facto law minister, who claimed that his efforts to initiate legal reforms largely failed due to strong resistance from within Umno.

Referring to the government’s purported intention to revert to the original provision, Abdul Hamid had said: “Water finds its own level. We believe in separation of powers.

“The principle must apply equally to the three branches — the executive, the legislature and the judiciary — of the government.”

He was also reported as saying that there should not be any double standards in favour of either of the three branches at any one’s convenience.

Another former chief justice, Tun Ahmad Fairuz Sheikh Abdul Halim, in a public speech in Singapore three years ago, laid out the conflicting thoughts and struggle of jurists with Article 121(1) but did not provide any definitive answers.

However, he did acknowledge that pursuant to a literal interpretation of the provision, “the judiciary is subservient to the wishes of the legislature in which the executive under the system of responsible government has to a large extent control of what legislation to enact”.

He even cited the concerns expressed by the International Bar Association on the effect of the amendment.

The association had at that time said: “It seems to us that this amendment has had the effect of eliminating the inherent powers and jurisdiction of the courts. It therefore fundamentally disturbs the concept of the separation of powers and affects the ability of the judiciary to enforce fundamental rights. It tends to make the judiciary an arm of the legislature, an instrument of the executive.”

The International Commission of Jurists was also cited: ‘‘The formulation of 121 of the Constitution makes the High Courts’ jurisdiction and powers dependent upon federal law, ie the court has no constitutionally entrenched original jurisdiction.

“This undermines the separation of powers and presents a subtle form of influence over the exercise of judicial power. This makes the operation of the High Court dependent upon the legislature and is a threat to the structural independence of the judiciary.”

As argued in this column previously, the country cannot afford to leave the rule of law and democracy to chance. The Malaysian executive branch and the judiciary would never garner credibility and earn trust from the people until and unless transformation is made.

Make no mistake, the powers bestowed on the state under the Sedition Act and Internal Security Act as well as other draconian legislation are wide ranging and are susceptible to arbitrary use.

The Home Ministry, which is in the midst of reviewing a few such legislation, must take the opportunity to do the right things towards unshackling the judiciary from the executive’s grip.

Only then can his colleague and fellow minister, Nazri, declare with a certain pride that a democratic country like Malaysia upholds a doctrine as sacrosanct as the separation of powers.

M. Bakri Musa

“Apologies – at the very least – are called for.” So began an editorial, “Feast of Lies,” that appeared in the New Straits Times on April 27, 2009. Its pontificating tone continues, “… scandalous allegations are leapt on and gnawed to the bone without even a perfunctory attempt at verification, ….”

What triggered the righteous indignation of the paper’s editorial writers was the alternative media’s widespread reporting of the shenanigans of the Kelantan royal family. Today, thanks to a brave Malaysian, Kadar Shah Sulaiman, and the professionalism of Singapore’s police personnel, the Kelantan Prince’s estranged wife, Manohara, is now free. As the world now knows, her nine-month royal marriage was anything but a fairy tale, at least according to Manohara, which is what matters.

While her husband may be a prince, she discovered too late that he was of the Neanderthal variety. Perhaps her kiss was not powerful enough; the frog still remains in him.

I would have thought that the folks at The New Straits Times, of all people, would not be strangers to royal mischief. All they have to do is review their archives of the late 1980s and early 1990s.

What prompted the sanctimonious editorial was the appearance of the young royal couple at a wedding reception in Kota Baru where they were (or at least she was) seen smiling happily. Any editor who could have been so easily hoodwinked by a “photo op,” well, he or she could also be easily swayed by a mere phone call from someone powerful. So much for being “hardnosed” journalists!

However, this commentary is not on the credibility (or the lack thereof) of The NST. I need not add anything on that matter; the paper’s declining circulation is proof enough of the current sorry state of this once proud publication.

Instead, I cannot help but wonder what would have happened had Manohara tried her escape not from a Singapore hotel but one in KL. Three points worth pondering; the first two relate to the professionalism of Singapore’s public service, in this particular case, its Police Force. The third concerns the humanity of one Malaysian who tipped Manohara’s family that the Prince and his wife would be in Singapore and thus was instrumental in her escape.

First, the Singapore police rightly pointed out to the Prince and his hangers-on that they risk being jailed for interfering with police work or obstructing Manohara’s movements. Second was the revealing comment of that taxi driver to the effect that Manohara and her family had nothing to fear from the Singapore police. That such a compliment would come from a taxi driver reflects the integrity of the republic’s police.

Had the Manohara episode happened in Kuala Lumpur, our Chief of Police would be kissing the Raja Temonggong’s hand and asking for forgiveness for “interfering” with royal affairs. The Chief would also probably give Manohara some fatherly “advice” to return to her husband and be a “good” and “obedient” wife.

Alas, we see this blind royal genuflection even among the highest echelon of our leadership. Despite the horrifying details related by Manohara, Deputy Prime Minister Muhyuddin saw fit to comment that the Malaysian government does not want to get involved. “I think this is more of a personal matter,” he was reported to have said. “We should not be dragged into this situation so we want to just leave it as it is,” he continued.

Muhyuddin as Deputy Prime Minister ought to know that once a crime is committed, or alleged to have been committed, then that is no longer a private matter. The state must have an interest in that. That is our Deputy Prime Minister for you. He had so quickly forgotten that he was sworn to uphold the laws of the country. A crime is a crime regardless of who had committed it. And spousal abuse is a crime.

Then there is Nazri Aziz, Minister in the Prime Minister’ office; he is still waiting for a formal complaint! Obviously he did not read his party’s paper, the NST! Poor Aziz would wait till it snows in Malaysia if he were to think that Manohara would trust our institutions well enough to lodge a police report here! This monkey of a minister just refuses to see anything until it is pointed out to him. It did not occur to his thick skull that he should be the one to direct the police to investigate. If nothing else, to protect the integrity of the palace if indeed Manohara were fabricating her allegations.

If Muhyuddin and Nazri could not say anything sensible, they should just shut up. There is no need to embarrass the country. Come to think of it, that is good advice for all our leaders. I wonder if Nazri and Muhyuddin have a daughter; how they would feel if she were to be abused by her husband. The ministers’ utterances were at best boorish; at worse, reprehensible.

Second is the reputation of Singapore’s police in the eyes of the island’s taxi drivers. “… [T]he police would definitely protect us regardless of who we were, whether we were foreigners or locals, whether we were rich or poor,” one driver told Manohara’s family. I wonder what our taxi drivers think of our own police force if we were to engage them in candid conversations.

Here would be some realistic samples. “The last time those bastards stopped me they demanded no less than RM200!” Another: “That huge mansion on the hill, that’s the police chief’s second house!” These supposed comments are not figments of my florid imagination. Witness what happened to former Deputy Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim at the hands of the Police Chief. Anwar was even cockier and more certain of his power than Muhyuddin could ever hope to be. Yet that did not protect Anwar.

M. Bakri Musa

“Apologies – at the very least – are called for.” So began an editorial, “Feast of Lies,” that appeared in the New Straits Times on April 27, 2009. Its pontificating tone continues, “… scandalous allegations are leapt on and gnawed to the bone without even a perfunctory attempt at verification, ….”

What triggered the righteous indignation of the paper’s editorial writers was the alternative media’s widespread reporting of the shenanigans of the Kelantan royal family. Today, thanks to a brave Malaysian, Kadar Shah Sulaiman, and the professionalism of Singapore’s police personnel, the Kelantan Prince’s estranged wife, Manohara, is now free. As the world now knows, her nine-month royal marriage was anything but a fairy tale, at least according to Manohara, which is what matters.

While her husband may be a prince, she discovered too late that he was of the Neanderthal variety. Perhaps her kiss was not powerful enough; the frog still remains in him.

I would have thought that the folks at The New Straits Times, of all people, would not be strangers to royal mischief. All they have to do is review their archives of the late 1980s and early 1990s.

What prompted the sanctimonious editorial was the appearance of the young royal couple at a wedding reception in Kota Baru where they were (or at least she was) seen smiling happily. Any editor who could have been so easily hoodwinked by a “photo op,” well, he or she could also be easily swayed by a mere phone call from someone powerful. So much for being “hardnosed” journalists!

However, this commentary is not on the credibility (or the lack thereof) of The NST. I need not add anything on that matter; the paper’s declining circulation is proof enough of the current sorry state of this once proud publication.

Instead, I cannot help but wonder what would have happened had Manohara tried her escape not from a Singapore hotel but one in KL. Three points worth pondering; the first two relate to the professionalism of Singapore’s public service, in this particular case, its Police Force. The third concerns the humanity of one Malaysian who tipped Manohara’s family that the Prince and his wife would be in Singapore and thus was instrumental in her escape.

First, the Singapore police rightly pointed out to the Prince and his hangers-on that they risk being jailed for interfering with police work or obstructing Manohara’s movements. Second was the revealing comment of that taxi driver to the effect that Manohara and her family had nothing to fear from the Singapore police. That such a compliment would come from a taxi driver reflects the integrity of the republic’s police.

Had the Manohara episode happened in Kuala Lumpur, our Chief of Police would be kissing the Raja Temonggong’s hand and asking for forgiveness for “interfering” with royal affairs. The Chief would also probably give Manohara some fatherly “advice” to return to her husband and be a “good” and “obedient” wife.

Alas, we see this blind royal genuflection even among the highest echelon of our leadership. Despite the horrifying details related by Manohara, Deputy Prime Minister Muhyuddin saw fit to comment that the Malaysian government does not want to get involved. “I think this is more of a personal matter,” he was reported to have said. “We should not be dragged into this situation so we want to just leave it as it is,” he continued.

Muhyuddin as Deputy Prime Minister ought to know that once a crime is committed, or alleged to have been committed, then that is no longer a private matter. The state must have an interest in that. That is our Deputy Prime Minister for you. He had so quickly forgotten that he was sworn to uphold the laws of the country. A crime is a crime regardless of who had committed it. And spousal abuse is a crime.

Then there is Nazri Aziz, Minister in the Prime Minister’ office; he is still waiting for a formal complaint! Obviously he did not read his party’s paper, the NST! Poor Aziz would wait till it snows in Malaysia if he were to think that Manohara would trust our institutions well enough to lodge a police report here! This monkey of a minister just refuses to see anything until it is pointed out to him. It did not occur to his thick skull that he should be the one to direct the police to investigate. If nothing else, to protect the integrity of the palace if indeed Manohara were fabricating her allegations.

If Muhyuddin and Nazri could not say anything sensible, they should just shut up. There is no need to embarrass the country. Come to think of it, that is good advice for all our leaders. I wonder if Nazri and Muhyuddin have a daughter; how they would feel if she were to be abused by her husband. The ministers’ utterances were at best boorish; at worse, reprehensible.

Second is the reputation of Singapore’s police in the eyes of the island’s taxi drivers. “… [T]he police would definitely protect us regardless of who we were, whether we were foreigners or locals, whether we were rich or poor,” one driver told Manohara’s family. I wonder what our taxi drivers think of our own police force if we were to engage them in candid conversations.

Here would be some realistic samples. “The last time those bastards stopped me they demanded no less than RM200!” Another: “That huge mansion on the hill, that’s the police chief’s second house!” These supposed comments are not figments of my florid imagination. Witness what happened to former Deputy Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim at the hands of the Police Chief. Anwar was even cockier and more certain of his power than Muhyuddin could ever hope to be. Yet that did not protect Anwar.

The scary part of that ugly Anwar incident was not the rogue Chief of Police rather that the assault occurred in front of at least two senior officers. They did not see fit to restrain their brute lawless chief; they also chose to remain silent when the subsequent controversy erupted. They witnessed a major felony being committed and chose not to stop or report it. They were guilty of being accomplices to a major crime as well as obstructing justice. Yet those two officers still serve His Majesty’s Government. That is the Royal Malaysian Police.

It is tempting to condemn Malaysians generally, as many are wont to, for the abject performances of our leaders and institutions. It is after all difficult to separate leaders and institutions from the people.

Seen in this light, the exemplary performance of Kadar Shah Sulaiman, UMNO’s Muar branch chief, deserves much praise and wider recognition. Clearly he saw his duty to a suffering fellow human greater than that to a sultan or sultan’s family. Kadar is truly a modern-day Hang Jebat; he makes us all proud.

The shenanigans of Malay royals are not news. As for the credibility and reputation of our mainstream media editors, now thatwould be news when they showed any! Currently their reputation may only be slightly less soiled than that of the sultans. Our leaders and institutions are not much better. Given such a milieu it is easy to be pessimistic. Yet amidst such gloom we can occasionally be pleasantly surprised. Kadar Shah Sulaiman’s action assured us that there still exists some humanity among Malaysians. It also shows that one brave soul can indeed make a difference.

As for our editors in the mainstream media, do not expect a mea culpa any time soon; they still delude themselves into thinking that they are doing a swell job. They do not bother with “even a perfunctory attempt at verification.”

They did not see fit to restrain their brute lawless chief; they also chose to remain silent when the subsequent controversy erupted. They witnessed a major felony being committed and chose not to stop or report it. They were guilty of being accomplices to a major crime as well as obstructing justice. Yet those two officers still serve His Majesty’s Government. That is the Royal Malaysian Police.

It is tempting to condemn Malaysians generally, as many are wont to, for the abject performances of our leaders and institutions. It is after all difficult to separate leaders and institutions from the people.

Seen in this light, the exemplary performance of Kadar Shah Sulaiman, UMNO’s Muar branch chief, deserves much praise and wider recognition. Clearly he saw his duty to a suffering fellow human greater than that to a sultan or sultan’s family. Kadar is truly a modern-day Hang Jebat; he makes us all proud.

The shenanigans of Malay royals are not news. As for the credibility and reputation of our mainstream media editors, now thatwould be news when they showed any! Currently their reputation may only be slightly less soiled than that of the sultans. Our leaders and institutions are not much better. Given such a milieu it is easy to be pessimistic. Yet amidst such gloom we can occasionally be pleasantly surprised. Kadar Shah Sulaiman’s action assured us that there still exists some humanity among Malaysians. It also shows that one brave soul can indeed make a difference.

As for our editors in the mainstream media, do not expect a mea culpa any time soon; they still delude themselves into thinking that they are doing a swell job. They do not bother with “even a perfunctory attempt at verification.”

SHAFEE ABDULLAH: FIXING ANWAR IBRAHIM AND FINISHING OFF RAJA PETRA

SHAFEE ABDULLAH: FIXING ANWAR IBRAHIM AND FINISHING OFF RAJA PETRA

In this special police operations centre in Umno lawyer Shafee Abdullah’s law firm is a whiteboard and on this whiteboard are two names: Anwar Ibrahim and Raja Petra Kamarudin. Below these two names are all sorts of notes, scribblings and etchings.

NO HOLDS BARRED

Raja Petra Kamarudin

Very troubling reports have been published, which reveal the existence of a medical report of an examination done by a doctor on Mohd Saiful Bukhari bin Azlan a few hours before Saiful lodged a police report that he had been sodomised. The medical report apparently shows that there is no evidence that he had been sodomised by anyone.

Such reports raise some very serious questions that require immediate answers:

(1) Are the police in possession of such a medical report?

(2) Was the doctor concerned interviewed by the police and was he detained for any length of time?

(3) Is the doctor concerned facing any form of intimidation and, if so, by whom?

(4) Is there a medical report by another doctor that either confirms or contradicts the first medical report?

(5) If it is true that the medical report exists showing a lack of prima facie evidence, what then could have been the justification for the vigorous actions taken against Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim as well as the public call by the authorities for his DNA sample?

The answers to these questions are of paramount importance, as they bring into focus the integrity of our law enforcement system.

These latest disclosures regarding the investigations into the sodomy allegations are not the only ones to raise questions that need answering. There is, for example, also the issue of P. Balasubramaniam’s abrupt “disappearance” that has yet to be satisfactorily explained. No one can deny that the circumstances of his first and second statutory declarations are highly unusual. All these show a pattern of events that cause much disquiet to right-thinking members of the public.

The Malaysian people are deeply troubled. A country that truly believes in the rule of law should not be faced with so many disturbing developments and unanswered questions.

The credibility of the Malaysian justice system as a whole is therefore at stake. The integrity of professionals, be they doctors or lawyers, must never be interfered with. The public must be left in no doubt that the criminal justice system in this country will not be misused or abused. There must be nothing less than an open and thorough investigation into these cases. This calls for the courage and professionalism of all those involved to do the right thing no matter the consequences. And those who have shown such courage and integrity must know that they live in a country where it is safe to do so.

Dato’ Ambiga Sreenevasan
President
Malaysian Bar

*************************************************

What Ambiga said in her press statement above is certainly true and she has cause for concern. But she would be even more concerned if she knows what we know about this whole matter.

A special police operations centre was set up some time ago to coordinate all activities related to the Anwar Ibrahim sodomy crisis. No, the special police operations centre was not set up AFTER the alleged sodomy act took place on 26 June 2008. It was set up way before 26 June 2008.

Why the need to set up a special police operations centre BEFORE the date of the alleged sodomy act? Are they clairvoyant and did they peep into their crystal ball and ‘see’ the crime happen before it actually happened? Was the special police operations centre set up so that they could solve the crime? Or was the special police operations centre set up BEFORE the date of the ‘crime’ so that they could invent the so-called crime?

Yes, questions and yet more questions. But this is not yet the icing on the cake. The icing on the cake is that this special police operations centre is not located in the police headquarters. It is located in the meeting room of the office of prominent Umno lawyer Shafee Abdullah who possesses a notorious reputation for fixing cases such as those involving the people implicated in murdering Altantuya Shaariibuu or those alleged to have pinched the bottoms of cigar girls in the Havana Club in Kuala Lumpur.

Name me any questionable case and you will find the hand of Shafee Abdullah behind that case. And this same person is coordinating the Anwar Ibrahim sodomy allegation from the meeting room of his law office in Kenny Hills.

There are four police officers headed by an officer name Aziz who are based in this special police operations centre in the meeting room of Shafee Abdullah’s law firm. But why are they based in an Umno lawyer’s office instead of in the police headquarters? Is this an official police operation or is this a rogue operation? Yes, we have watched many Hollywood movies about the CIA’s Dirty Tricks Department. Have Shafee Abdullah and the Royal Malaysian Police also seen the same movie? It appears so because the special police operations centre in Umno lawyer Shafee Abdullah’s law firm looks like a plot out of these movies.

In this special police operations centre in Umno lawyer Shafee Abdullah’s law firm is a whiteboard and on this whiteboard are two names: Anwar Ibrahim and Raja Petra Kamarudin. Below these two names are all sorts of notes, scribblings and etchings. There are also charts and strategies on how both Anwar Ibrahim and Raja Petra Kamarudin can be implicated in various crimes and incarcerated until their teeth fall out of their gums.

Yes, the police report to Umno lawyer Shafee Abdullah. And Shafee Abdullah coordinates this special police operation with the IGP and AG. And the purpose of this special police operations centre in the meeting room of Umno lawyer Shafee Abdullah’s law firm is to explore how to incarcerate Anwar Ibrahim and Raja Petra Kamarudin. And the special police operations centre has to be in Umno lawyer Shafee Abdullah’s office and not in the police headquarters because, officially, the IGP and AG are not involved in the Anwar sodomy case, as announced by Prime Minister Abdullah Ahmad Badawi.

Shafee Abdullah is no ordinary man. In fact, he is not even a man; he is a devil. But he is Malaysia’s first and foremost sodomologist, a specialist in crimes of sodomy. And that is why the Pusrawi doctor’s report was rejected. He is just a normal doctor, a GP, argued the government. The prognosis of a normal doctor can’t be accepted as evidence in a sodomy case, never mind if he has been practicing medicine for two decades or more. They need the prognosis of a sodomy specialist, a sodomologist, and Shafee Abdullah is Malaysia’s first and foremost sodomologist.

That is why Senior Assistant Commissioner (SAC) II Mohd Rodwan Mohd Yusof did not meet Saiful in the police station or at the police headquarters. The special police operations centre is not in the police station or at the police headquarters. It is in the meeting room of Umno lawyer Shafee Abdullah’s law firm. So it would be dangerous to meet Saiful in this law firm lest someone finds out. That is why Rodwan met Saiful in room 619 of the Concorde Hotel.

Okay, so Rodwan met Saiful one day before the alleged crime took place. But then maybe Rodwan is clairvoyant or he has a crystal ball and he ‘saw’ that a crime of sodomy was going to take place the following day. Some people do have this gift of ‘foresight’. Nevertheless, whether the timeline appears a bit out of sync or not, they still have the ‘evidence’ to work on to ‘prove’ that Anwar did sodomise Saiful the day AFTER Saiful met Rodwan in room 619 of the Concorde Hotel.

One such crucial evidence was supposed to be the doctor from Pusrawi’s medical examination of Saiful at 2.00pm on Saturday, 28 June 2008. But then the doctor said that he had examined Saiful and found no evidence of sodomy. This report has since surfaced and the doctor has gone missing so, now, there is no way they can use this evidence.

The next evidence was supposed to be the second medical examination done at the Hospital Kuala Lumpur (HKL) at 4.00pm on Saturday, 28 June 2008. But then the outpatient department of the HKL was closed at 4.00pm on Saturday, 28 June 2008. So how could a second medical examination have been done? Yes, that’s right. No second medical examination was done and the doctors at the HKL refuse to doctor a medical report to say that the second medical examination had been done, when none had been done, or to say that they did find evidence of sodomy, when they did not.

Since none of the doctors at Pusrawi or HKL are cooperating with the police, the last piece of ‘evidence’ will have to be Saiful’s underwear. Okay, Saiful’s underwear does not really have Anwar’s semen stains on it. But this is a small matter. As long as someone from the Chemistry Department is prepared to testify that they did examine Saiful’s underwear and they did find Anwar’s semen stains on it, then that would be good enough. They will be able to build their case against Anwar and charge him for sodomy based on this ‘evidence’ from the Chemistry Department.

No, the Chemistry Department has NOT come out with their report yet. There is no report from the Chemistry Department that says they found Anwar’s semen stains on Saiful’s underwear. This is because they first of all need Anwar’s specimen so that they can plant it on the underwear and so that the Chemistry Department can then ‘discover’ it.

But Anwar is being bloody silly. He is being extremely pigheaded and stubborn. He refuses to hand over his specimen. How can they plant Anwar’s semen on Saiful’s underwear when Anwar refuses to let them take his specimen? The Chemistry Department can’t prepare its report saying that it found Anwar’s semen on Saiful’s underwear until the police are able to plant it there. But Anwar does not want to voluntarily hand over his specimen so this plan is being upset a bit.

But never mind. As soon as Parliament convenes later this month they will rush through a new law that will make it mandatory for you to hand over your specimen if the police demands that you do so. Refusing to hand over your specimen when the police demand you do so will soon become a crime and you can be sent to jail. They will try to pass this law before Merdeka Day of 31 August 2008 and they will try to backdate the law and make it retrospective so that any ‘crime’ committed before the passing of this law will also be covered.

Soon they will get Anwar once the DNA Act becomes law and Anwar can no longer refuse to hand over his specimen. Then, once they have obtained Anwar’s specimen, the Chemistry Department will be able to ‘discover’ it on Saiful’s underwear. Then they will be able to arrest and charge Anwar. And, who knows, they might even be able to convict him as well.

Yes, this Shafee Abdullah the sodomologist is good. He has names, charts, notes, scribbling and etchings all over his whiteboard in the meeting room of his law firm. This meeting room has been the special police operations centre for quite a while now. It was set up long before the alleged sodomy crime took place on 26 June 2008. It was set up not to solve the sodomy crime. It was set up to create the crime.

But, thus far, they lack one very crucial piece of evidence. They lack Anwar’s specimen that they need to plant on Saiful’s underwear. But they will get it as soon as the new DNA Act becomes law and they can use this law to force Anwar to hand over his specimen. Then Anwar is finished and they can close down the special police operations centre in the meeting room of Umno lawyer Shafee Abdullah’s law firm and once again use this meeting room for fixing legal cases.

*************************************************

Lawyer: Abdul Razak Baginda ‘is completely unimplicated’

Abdul Razak Baginda, a prominent political analyst, knew the murdered Mongolian model. His lawyer, Shafee Abdullah, said he wouldn’t “go so far to say” that Abdul Razak had a relationship with Altantuya Shaariibuu, but would say that “he knows the lady.”

He said he met his client Wednesday morning and heard his side of the story. “I am extremely relieved from my conversation … I am totally convinced of his innocence .. he is completely unimplicated.” [Associated Press via International Herald Tribune]

*************************************************

Anwar verdict puts Malaysia’s justice system on trial
Report by Tim Lester
ABC Online; 14 April 1999

MAXINE MCKEW: Well, to our own region now and the most publicised trial in Malaysia’s history ended today, with Anwar Ibrahim — the man once groomed to lead the nation — jailed for six years, after a judge found him guilty on four counts of corruption.

Asian leaders have joined human rights groups in denouncing the severity of the sentence. In Malaysia, there have been clashes between police and protesters in the wake of the judgment, suggesting widespread scepticism with the verdict. So, did the system succeed in catching a wayward politician, or did it dance to the tune of an opportunistic leader who wants a political enemy behind bars?

TIM LESTER: Conviction day for Anwar Ibrahim.

As his supporters took to the streets around Kuala Lumpur’s High Court, few doubted the outcome of the marathon corruption trial. For seven months now, they’ve watched Anwar battle to keep alive his shot at the country’s top job.

They’ve heard him say repeatedly the system was being used against him. Many Malaysians, perhaps most, believe it. They believe Anwar Ibrahim’s conviction was orchestrated to suit the PM and several of his close colleagues.

BRUCE GALE: There is a feeling among a large number of Malaysians that the trial wasn’t fair.

TIM LESTER: Singapore analyst Bruce Gale sees this perception — whether right or wrong — as a problem for the Mahathir Government.

BRUCE GALE: If you have large sections of the population believing that somehow the judiciary is not fair or impartial, then this is a very serious situation. It’s an undermining of a major national institution.

GURBACHAN SINGH: We could have easily shown by irrefutable evidence the involvement of several top politicians to bring Anwar Ibrahim down politically.

TIM LESTER: Among Anwar’s nine defence lawyers, there is deep frustration that many witnesses, documents, even tapes they had ready didn’t make it to evidence, because the judge wouldn’t allow them.

GURBACHAN SINGH: There was evidence of the involvement of the PM, as well, that he knew this process of political conspiracy was going on — he did nothing to stop it.

MAHATHIR MOHAMAD: I wish he hadn’t done this and he should have succeeded me and everything would be fine.

TIM LESTER: Political conspiracy — it was Anwar’s claim the moment Dr Mahathir dumped him as Deputy PM and his lawyers say it was vital to their defence of the four corruption charges. But Judge Augustine Paul ruled as irrelevant the suggestion that government ministers and officials cooked up the sex claims to ruin Anwar.

GURBACHAN SINGH: Most of the rulings where the judge could exercise discretion, went against us.

MUHAMMAD SHAFEE ABDULLAH: When the trial first started, I think at least for the first two months or three, there were often times, I thought, where the judge was giving a lot of leeway to the defence.

TIM LESTER: Former prosecutor Shafee Abdullah praises Judge Paul for refusing to hear Anwar’s conspiracy argument in relation to the four corruption charges.

WHAT DO YOU EXPECT FROM THE SMELLY DRANK...AUSTINE PAUL earned for himself a place in infamy.not by merits

MUHAMMAD SHAFEE ABDULLAH: Whether or not he committed those sexual offences have got nothing to do with the present charges.

TIM LESTER: So was Anwar’s trial fair?

Yes, says Shafee Abdullah. But even he admits Malaysians don’t see it that way.

MUHAMMAD SHAFEE ABDULLAH: There are a lot of individuals out there who feel that the whole trial has gone completely bonkers. Many individuals think that Anwar did not receive a fair trial.

TIM LESTER: The damage from the trial goes beyond perceptions about Government influence over the judiciary to the police force.

MUHAMED AZMIN ALI: They hit me physically and they stripped me naked and asked me to dance in the room, with my hand handcuffed.

TIM LESTER: Anwar Ibrahim’s private secretary of 11 years was among hundreds arrested at the height of anti-government protests last year. He’s now making a disturbingly common claim in Kuala Lumpur — that police used brutality and humiliation in the hope of recruiting him as a witness against Anwar.

MUHAMED AZMIN ALI: Oh, yeah, they asked me to admit that I was sodomised by Anwar.

TIM LESTER: Three of five people cited in sex charges pending against Anwar have now withdrawn their claims and turned on police.

GURBACHAN SINGH: And they were picked up and forced — tortured by the police — to make allegations against Anwar, to admit to sodomy, which they repeatedly said never happened. And they’ve gone on affidavits, they’ve gone on statutory declarations to that effect.

TIM LESTER: Add in Anwar’s black eye — Malaysia’s highest-ranking officer at the time hit him while he was blindfolded and handcuffed. In the process of convicting Anwar, Malaysia’s police have earned themselves an image crisis.

Among other claims that didn’t make it to court — the Washington limousine driver who says a Malaysian embassy official asked him to accuse Anwar of sexual misconduct while visiting the US.

JAMAL AMRO: Then he asked me — he said “Relax”. Then he told me, “Anwar — did you ever bring girls for him, or boys or anything like that?”

I said, “No”.

He said “C’mon, if you say ‘Yes’, we can make some money”.

TIM LESTER: Jamal says he was told he could make more than $250,000 by going along with the sex claims against the then Deputy PM. Public anger over Anwar’s treatment has helped his wife, Wan Azizah, win backing for a new political party and an opposition alliance to fight Dr Mahathir at the next election.

MUHAMED AZMIN ALI: The hatred against the present leadership is swelling because they can not believe the manner they handled this issue against Anwar.

TIM LESTER: This trial and the events around it have thrown up challenges the Mahathir Government didn’t anticipate. Now, there’s the possibility of a united opposition at the next national election due within 12 months.

A powerful threat for Dr Mahathir, but it’s still not likely. The groups Anwar’s supporters need to bring together would make unusual partners.

BRUCE GALE: It seems extremely difficult for me to believe that post-election, that this alliance could hold. The policies of these parties are so diametrically opposed to one another. Islamic fundamentalists want an Islamic State. To the Chinese, this is an anathema — something they would never accept.

TIM LESTER: Many Malaysians don’t like the way their government and judicial system dealt with Anwar Ibrahim. Today’s verdict will only fuel their suspicions.

But Dr Mahathir is still in the middle ground of Malaysian politics. His enemies have a giant task — trying to bring together opposition parties into an alliance needed to capitalise on anti-government sentiment.