When someone does you wrong, forgive but don’t forget, says the old homily. The point being that you forgive the wrongdoer (after all, you yourself might have earlier wronged that person, or someone else) but you should not forget the wrong, to ensure that it does not inflict you again.When a society opts to follow the law of the jungle – by definition – the man ceases to be a man and becomes instead an animal. We have good knowledge of our rights and scant regard to our responsibilities towards others. We take pride in pulling a ‘fast one’ on others, we revel in cheating, we keep our house clean and streets dirty. A country is not just political boundaries within which her people are confined – for those boundaries can change. A country is what her citizens are. Forget the constant brain washing of shouting,ONE NAJIB MALAYSIA and instead introspect. This country has not been BEEN SAINT in recent past, nor is it likely to be in future: unless MALAYSIAN learn a bit of discipline.It is an irony that the very practice which Rais condemned as “uncultured and disrespectful of individual rights and democracy” was actually innovated by his party Umno when its members stomped on the photo of Gerakan president Tan Sri Dr Koh Tsu Koon last year. We didn’t hear Rais condemning the action of the Umno members then, did we?
I am not at surprised by such a contradictory reaction, given the fact that such sheer hypocrisy is generally prevalent among many so-called leaders, including one who wrote a doctoral thesis condemning the ISA and then endorsing the oppressive legislation as an acceptable law.Malaysian politics has obviously degenerated into a shallow gutter type within the current poor squalid social environment where respect and honour for the dignity of persons have been flushed down the expedient drain of power game and while I am at it, I would also want to highlight the increasingly disturbing indifference and lack of indignation among our people on the deficiency of moral quality and integrity among our leaders, including religious ones.The lack of guilt and shame among the morally tainted and soiled leaders is perhaps one glaring example of how low our moral outlook has degenerated to.For example, leaders known to be corrupt, immoral and untrustworthy are allowed to continue to lead with the popular endorsement of the people.
The concept of “Competence, Accountability and Transparency” (CAT) initiated by Penang Chief Minister Lim Guan Eng should be adopted as a matter of government system as well as a private sector practice.
Until and unless we start arresting the moral decline in our country, the disintegration of our nation is inevitable.
Of all people to talk of “political consciousness inciting racial hatred and splitting people in the country”. Just your 2 “achievements”, threatening bloodshed with a keris and outright support for the cow head scums, will beat all others combined.
Hisham knows too well how to take advantage and exploit the method of instill hatred in people and divide and rule the community to Umno’s benefits with the clandestine collaboration of his Umno colleagues . Just do not understanding his austere proclamation of such a theory without a tinge of compunction and regret that he is among the schemers.
We heard too often this double talk and double cross to portray his uprightness to veil the ultra and narrow minded agenda
In this welter of accusations and counter-accusations, the real truth of racialist sluror of almost any other traumatic episode – is forgotten. And that truth is that MALAYSIA is a ‘soft’ state, and fundamentally susceptible to acts ofMISUSE AND ABUSE OF POWER and breakdowns of law and order.
Malaysia has often been described as a functioning anarchy. We are, by nature, an anarchic lot. And proud of it. If proof were needed, just look atTHE BARISON VVIPS Make barisan own rules as you go along.
And this is true for everything we do.Disorder, disobedience of rules and norms – indeed, an openlydisplayed contempt of rules and norms – seem to be ingrained in us. We revel in being above the law, and boast about it
Home Minister Datuk Seri Hishammuddin Hussein said that there was a political consciousness inciting hatred and splitting the people in the country over the past seven months. Fortunately, the people were aware of it and were not affected.
He called on the people to abandon such a political trend that incites hatred. He promised that the government will treat all the people equally, regardless of skin colour, wealth and background.
The home minister’s words are impressive. But what is hatred politics and who is inciting hatred politics? We must open our eyes and look carefully.
Hatred politics is always hidden under the cloak of racism to give it the moral high ground and political legitimacy. Those who advocate “my racial group is always right” have only their racial group in mind. They believe that they are right in everything related to recognition, unity and integration, while others are totally wrong. It applies to politics, culture, economy, education, as well as religion.
These people are unable to tolerate any difference. They love only those who are exactly the same like them. They will only treat those who are recognised by them in terms of culture, politics, education, economy and religion like brothers and sisters. Otherwise, those who are not in the same group with them should receive second-class treatment.
Hatred politics is terrible as many genocides in the history were triggered after politicians manipulated racial issues and stirred up racial hatred, which eventually led to massive tragedies. If a racial group always has hatred in mind, it will always be eager to seek revenge. As a result, it will bring harm to all.
Taiwanese political critic Wang Hsing-ching, who goes by the pseudonym Nanfang Shuo, wrote an article four years ago where he brought up the following points:
1. The inseparable “conspiracy political theory” and “hatred political theory” are indeed a tool that is very cheap and good to use.
2. “Conspiracy political theory” is a “delusive rhetoric” that is caused by “persecution mania”. It is terrible because of the mentality of “whatever I do, it is always right”. Once there is a conspiracy theory, it will become the question of taking stands. Under the priority of the stand taken by my people, I must stand beside them. Otherwise, I’ll be considered as standing on “their evil” side.
3. As the twin of “conspiracy political theory”, “hatred political theory” is a kind of group excision based on skin colour, racial group, region, class, gender or age. Once they find any contradiction, they will immediately cut it into two pieces and classify them as “you” and “me”. Then, they will throw all the unwanted characteristics to the other side and keep all the benefits to themselves.
In Malaysia, isn’t it true that “hatred” and “split” have been made “superb” too by politicians and bureaucrats? The contents of Biro Tata Negara (BTN) “look similar”, the struggles between political parties “look exactly the same” while internal fights “appear indistinctly”. There is no other reason, it is just because it is “a tool that is very cheap and good to use”! — mysinchew.com
Remembering COW HEAD demolition will only make our internal social fabric weak by widening the distrust between muslims and nonmuslims. Muslims in MALAYSIA should have just given away that structure to Hindus as a goodwill gesture as they were not using it anyways, they could have built bigger temple which they would use in a better way. Politicians played around and made a national issue of a complete non-issue. But anyways, the bottom line is, its in malaysia’s interest that cowhead episode be forgotten and we lay the foundation of betterMALAYASIAN co-operation and try avoid giving politicians a chance to widen the gap we already have.
Remembering SODOMY ONE NOW SODOMY TWO and makes us realise how vulnerable we are as divided group of people.
The government has always failed us in protecting the law (even the constitution). Be it PERAK attack,
Very aptly said. As a nation collectively we don’t demonstrate any "systems thinking". True many might attribute this to illiteracy, oppression etc., however being organized and teamwork is inimical to us and is not a natural preference. 50+ years of democracy is good enough empirical evidence to prove we get what We waste a lot of time on unproductive and negative things. If we want to change something in our system then we have to believe in doing good deed. One should write on the plight of the victims of these tragedies. Or how much money has been spent for the well being of these victims or their families. One should not highlight much the wrong doer or that bad event. So many wrong doer after doing the wrong deed when they come in the newspaper or TV for interview their purpose is solved to be in the limelight. We should avoid these things.we deserve and reflects who we are!!
we can make some money.” I got very upset. Then he said, “Relax. Why don’t you say that you brought some girls and boys for him.”
Fernando: Did you provide limousine services to Dato’ Seri Anwar?
Jamal: Yes, every time he visited Washington DC.
Fernando: Did you yourself drive these VIP’s around?
Jamal: Yes.
Fernando: In September 1998 did you go to the Malaysian Embassy in Washington?
Jamal: Yes, I did.
Fernando: Did you meet a Malaysian diplomat by the name of Mustapha Ong?
Jamal: Yes.
Fernando: During that meeting what transpired?
Jamal: He asked me to go to New York for business.
Fernando: When?
Jamal: The following day, at 6.00 am.
Fernando: In your limousine?
Jamal: No, in my private car, a Cadillac.
Fernando: What transpired during the journey?
Jamal: We drove off and just before the Delaware Bridge, he asked me if Dato’ Seri Anwar had made any sexual passes at me. I told him, “You must be joking!” Then he said, “You can make some money.”
He told me, “If you can say that he made sexual advances at you, we can make some money.” I got very upset. Then he said, “Relax. Why don’t you say that you brought some girls and boys for him.”
I said, “Look here Mr Ong, leave me alone; I don’t care about Malaysia, I don’t care about nobody right now. We are going to New York for business. Let’s finish the business and I don’t want to hear the subject no more!”
When we drove on New York, he tried to convince me further and in the meantime I was thinking to myself, do I know two Anwar Ibrahim? He (Ong) told me, “There is a videotape in Malaysia everybody by now knows Anwar Ibrahim from the videotape; why don’t you say so.”
I said if you have a videotape, why the heck do you want me for?” He replied, “So that the Americans will know too!
When we arrived in New York, I dropped him off at a diplomat’s apartment. I think it was on the 13th street, East Side. The Malaysian diplomat came down holding a very small booklet and passed it on to Mustapha Ong and they were talking in Malay. I did not understand them. Ong put his hand on my shoulder, trying to convince me to spend the night there. I refused. I wanted to go back to Washington. Mustapha showed me the booklet and asked, “Why dont’t you sign this and we can make up to US$ 200,000. Don’t be crazy.”
I said: “You are looking at the most crazy man in the world. That’s me.” And I told him: “You change the name from Jamal to Mustapha Ong and say that Anwar Ibrahim made sexual passes … made love to you. Say anything and you make the money!” I then said, “Have a good day!”
I left and went back to Washington DC … straight. Then I went to see the Malaysian Ambassador, one Dato’ Dali.
I told Dato’ Dali what transpired during the journey. He was very upset. He said, “Jamal, I assure you I have nothing to do with it. The Embassy has nothing to do with it.” And he was very upset; I could see the fire on his face. He said, “You should have slapped him on the face.” I said, “I should have done that.”
He told me to forget the whole thing. Three months passed and the whole thing kept coming to my mind. I wanted to get if off my chest. I went to see one Sheikh Thahar, a friend of Dato’ Seri Anwar.
He is the president of an Islamic University in Northern Virginia. Leaders from all over the world go to see him. He is a friend of Faruqi (a world-reknown Islamic scholar). I made three attempts to see him but was not successful. Then I made a phone call. I told him I wanted to see him. He said, “What for.” I told him, with respect to Dato’ Seri Anwar. “How fast can you come?” he said.
Subsequently I drove down from Washington and met him at 2 pm. I told him what happened. He told me, “Why don’t you see the Malaysian Ambassador.” I told him I had seen him (the Ambassador) three months previously. He said, “I will get in touch with you tomorrow”. The next day, he phoned me and asked me if it was okay with me, I could make an affidavit before a lawyer about what happened.
Then I said to him, “What you want me to do, I will gladly do.” I went with his son to see a lawyer and told the lawyer what happened and he wrote it down. The lawyer asked me if I was prepared to take a lie-detector test. I said, “If you want me to take a lie-detector test, I take a lie-detector test, if you want to put me to sleep I’ll go to sleep.”
Fernando: Did you sign an affidavit?
Jamal: Yes. Then I left.
Fernando: Then what happened?
Jamal: I think Sheikh Thahar got in touch with somebody in Malaysia subsequently. Then Sheikh Thahar asked me, “Are you willing to go to Malaysia if you can.” I said, ” I am willing, if I can.” Sheikh Thahar thought I was afraid. I said, ” I am not afraid of anyone. I have fear only for God.”
Fernando: Did Sheikh Thahar say anything about religion?
Jamal: He said, “If you shut out the truth, you are the devil’s brother!”
Fernando: Did Dato’ Seri Anwar make any passes at you or sodomise you at any time?
Jamal: No sir, he did not, he never did and never will!
Fernando: So this man wanted you to fabricate this evidence, did he not?
Jamal: I think so.
Fernando: On the way to New York from Washington, did Ong ask you to meet anybody or propose to meet anybody?
Jamal: Yes, he did.
Fernando: What did he say to you?
Jamal: He asked me to meet somebody from Abdullah Badawi’s staff so that I can collect the money but I refused.
Fernando: Why did he want you to see somebody from Abdullah Badawi’s staff?
Jamal: I understood, by that, if I say what they wanted me to say, I will get the money.
Fernando then told the court that Anwar was placed in a most unusual situation where the defence had to prove his innocence instead of the prosecution having to prove his guilt.
THE CORRIDORS OF POWER
Raja Petra Kamarudin
The burden of proof is on the prosecution but was shifted to the defence instead
An accused person is not required to prove his innocence. Instead, his accusers have to prove his guilt. In Anwar Ibrahim’s case, however, he was placed in an unenviable position of having to prove his innocence.
Anwar was charged for ‘committing sodomy one night, at 7.45pm, between 1 January 1993 and 31 March 1993’. Even with such a wide and vague charge, Anwar still managed to provide alibis for all those 90 days except one.
Yet, the judge still insisted that Anwar had not established his alibi. But the judge was not able to say which one of those 90 days Anwar’s alibi had not been established.
“All an accused person has to do is to create reasonable doubt,” said Christopher Fernando. “He does not have to prove anything or establish his defence beyond a reasonable doubt.”
“He is not required to prove anything conclusively with respect to his defence of alibi. But the judge held he had to and the he had not proved it ‘conclusively’.”
“Conclusive proof is a standard even higher than beyond reasonable doubt.”
Fernando then told the court that Anwar was placed in a most unusual situation where the defence had to prove his innocence instead of the prosecution having to prove his guilt.
“This is most unusual; alien to the law,” argued Fernando
“All Dato’ Seri Anwar had to do was to raise reasonable doubt.”
“Between 4 February and 31 March 1993, Dato’ Seri Anwar managed to establish his alibi, except for 19 February 1993, said the judge.”
“There was no rebuttal at all by the prosecution to counter Dato’ Seri Anwar’s alibi.”
“The prosecution failed to observe this very basic principle of law.”
“Dato’ Seri Anwar had to prove he was not in the Tivoli Villa in the 90 days between 1 January and 31 March 1993.”
“Instead, it should have been the prosecution’s task to prove that he was there.”
The burden of proof was on the prosecution, argued Fernando. But in Anwar’s case it was the other way around.
“In spite of the monumental task to prove Dato’ Seri Anwar was not there (Tivoli Villa) the defence still managed to do so.”
“Yet the judge still insisted the defence did not establish his alibi.”
“But the judge did not say which one day over the 90 days the alibi was not established.”
“From 1 January 1993 to 3 February 1993 the apartment was under renovation.”
“So, from 4 February 1993 onwards, the alibi needs to be proven, and it was proven.”
“Witnesses were brought to testify and documents submitted to support the alibi.”
“The judge’s mind was cluttered. He was very confused and could not see the wood for the trees.”
“Tivoli Villa was not occupied. It had no furniture and was under renovation and the prosecution never rebutted this alibi.”
“The prosecution said Sukma had free access to the apartment but this was never proven.”
Azizan Abu Bakar had testified that he had been sodomised in the Tivoli Villa and that the act had taken place on a bed in a fully-furnished apartment, complete with carpets and all. He further testified that the act had taken place prior to 1993.
The defence, in turn, managed to prove that the apartment was under renovation from 1 January 1993 to 3 February 1993, and that from 4 February 1993 to 31 March 1993 Anwar was never in the apartment.
“The judge tried to buttress the evidence. He was trying to prop up a case that was so weak and unconvincing.”
“He said Azizan’s evidence is as strong as the Rock of Gibraltar.”
“Preposterous is too mild a word to use.”
“No judge in the history of this nation has gone this far to build up the credibility of a witness such as this – a witness who has no credibility whatsoever.”
Fernando explained that if there is any benefit of the doubt, it should have been given to the accused, not the prosecution. Instead, it was the opposite in Dato’ Seri Anwar’s case.
“This is a basic fundamental principle of law.”
“Azizan should have been impeached. This is not difficult as clearly he lied.”
“If Azizan had been impeached, the hearing would have ended then and there as the entire trial hinged on Azizan’s testimony.”
Shafee Abdullah: Fixing Anwar Ibrahim and Finishing Off Raja Petra
SHAFEE ABDULLAH: FIXING ANWAR IBRAHIM
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.
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.
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.
l
No comments:
Post a Comment