Malaysian politics is changing. “Produce results that will benefit the country and we will support you,” is the thinking of the Malaysian voter today.
The effectiveness or impact of the UMNO can only be decided retrospectively. However, what is clear is that Malaysian voters are now pushing for a more accountable and result-oriented system. This was why, despite difference of opinions about the political execution ofAnwar Ibrahim , we all appreciated all that Anwar was doing. From, nationalist-politics in the 1960s and 1970s, to identity-politics in 1980s and 1990s, the Malaysian democratic ethos is now about development-politics.
It is clear that if theUMNO is failing in their duty to deliver basic goods and necessities to her people then we will push back to government through movements (in the passive ways) or else through violence (in extremist ways), ultimately, making it difficult for the government to survive. It is not that UMNO has a death wish that is making their survival difficult now, but the awakening of the Malaysian populous that unless the government provides better services, this cannot be tolerated.
Datuk Seri Najib Razak’s testimony is crucial to the Sodomy II trial, veteran lawyer Karpal Singh argued today, saying it could shed light on the disposition of Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim’s accuser in the days leading up to the alleged incident.
Karpal asserted that as the prime minister had met Mohd Saiful Bukhari Azlan on the night of July 24 — two days before the latter accused Anwar of sodomising him — Najib’s account of the meeting would “go a long way” in assisting the court.
Anwar’s lead defence lawyer pointed out that Najib’s affidavit had stated that the PM had advised Saiful then to lodge a police report, after the political aide had alleged on July 24 that Anwar had sodomised him.
Karpal noted that Saiful had failed to heed Najib’s advice, and instead went on to subject himself to the “alleged sodomy on him by Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim, two days later on June 26, 2008.”
“It is necessary to obtain evidence from the prime minister with regard to SP1’s (Saiful) state of mind, and whether he was frightened, or whether the prime minister would have expected SP1 to follow his advice,” Karpal said today.
“Surely, one would follow the advice of a personality of no mean rank, namely a (then) deputy prime minister whose advice was sought.”
COMPLAINANT SAIFULHISTORY OF LIES AND INCONSISTENCIES AND FARAH AZLINA LATIF SEX WITH MOHD SAIFUL‘RUINS CREDIBILITY OF THE THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL’S CHAMBERS
Najib and Datin Seri Rosmah Mansor’s lawyers argued earlier today the two were not relevant witnesses to Anwar’s ongoing sodomy trial, and said that the duo would not be able to offer any material evidence to the court.
Datuk Hisyam Teh Poh Teik, one of the lawyers representing Najib and Rosmah in their joint application to avoid testifying, said that the opposition leader has failed to furnish proof that the two were relevant witnesses.
The lawyer said Anwar’s application to compel Najib and wife to testify was merely a “fishing expedition” to seek information.
While Najib admitted to meeting Saiful on June 24, 2008, the PM’s lawyers stressed that the meeting was not related to alleged events on June 26.
“The prime minister must have discussed other matters with SP1 (Saiful) during this time. The first respondent wants to know from the prime minister in court, when issuing the sapoena, of what transpired during the interview,” Karpal said.
“The first respondent asserts the prime minister had declined to be interviewed; there was no other way but to issue the subpoena.”
Anwar, in his affidavit-in-reply, claimed that Rosmah was in a position to give relevant evidence which would assist the court in proceedings against him.
He said that his lawyers had interviewed Rosmah’s associate, Datuk Mumtaz Begum Jaafar, and that she said there was a meeting between Saiful’s close friend, Muhamad Rahimi Osman and Rosmah.
“It is submitted, what transpired between Datin Seri Rosmah and Muhammad Rahimi would be relevant and material in the defence of Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim,” Karpal said.
Judge Datuk Mohd Zabidin Mohd Diah said he will deliver his decision on Thursday.
The trial resumes tomorrow, when the defence will interview Lim Kong Boon, the director-general of the Chemist Department.
BOTH FATHER AND SON ARE IN THE WRONG BUSINESS ASSHOLE FOR HIRE ABETTED BY UMNO IN COLLABORATION WITH MAINSTREAM MEDIA
by Terence Netto
COMMENT If the court allows the subpoenas on Prime Minister Najib Razak and his wife, Rosmah Mansor, in Sodomy II to be set aside today, it would be the second time the couple is allowed to disconnect from a case they are linked to inadvertently, or otherwise.
In the Altantuya Shaariibuu murder case, there were undisputed records of a mobile phone communication Najib had with one of the initially accused, Abdul Razak Baginda , in which the then deputy prime minister had urged Razak Baginda to stay cool in the teeth of an ongoing police investigation into the Mongolian woman’s murder.
The advice was offered just as Najib was going to keep an appointment with the Inspector-General of Police. Still, the courts did not find it necessary to call Najib to testify, neither his wife despite members of her security detail eventually being charged and found guilty of the murder.
‘Cool’ is a word that’s now in vogue, given the PM’s campaign to win over Malaysia’s young voters – reputedly making up 25 percent of the present 12 million electorate – to the Barisan Nasional’s side.
‘Cool’ is not really cool if it seeks to evade pressure. “Grace under pressure,” was Hemingway’s famously pithy definition of courage. Tweak the description – “Unperturbed in duress” – and you would get an accurate, if less limpid, sense of what is ‘cool’ is.
The public is now familiar with the PM’s affinity for what’s in vogue, like liberalising measures towards electoral reform, participatory democracy, and race quota removals. But it is not sure if he is really knows both text and texture of what he considers to be in vogue.
Certainly, he is not like the authoritarian Humpty Dumpty – “A word is anything I say it means”; but he could use an understanding of the meaning of some Hemingway advice for a friend: “Don’t confuse movement with action.”
Certainly, he is not like the authoritarian Humpty Dumpty – “A word is anything I say it means”; but he could use an understanding of the meaning of some Hemingway advice for a friend: “Don’t confuse movement with action.”The PM’s moves towards creating the “best democracy” are in danger of becoming merely feints in that direction rather than full-blown forays if he omits to go the distance, like submitting to testimony in a case to which he is linked.
If he does he will become only the third sitting PM, or DPM, or former PM, to submit to due process of law.Deputy Prime Minister Musa testified in Merdeka University case
The first instance was when Deputy Prime Minister Musa Hitam (right) appeared in court in the case Chinese educationists brought against the government in the Merdeka University controversy in 1982.
Musa, then the DPM, was called to testify because he was the education minister when the move by Chinese educationists to petition to set up a private university where Mandarin would be the main medium of instruction was rejected by the government.
In that case, Musa testified with aplomb, submitting to examination by Michael Beloff, a Queen’s Counsel hired by the Chinese education movement to espouse their brief.
Mahathir’s memory lapsesThe second instance of when a top political personage submitted to due process was when former PM Dr Mahathir Mohamed agreed to testify before a royal commission in the VK Lingam videotape affair. It was not a full-fledged court hearing but royal commissions are close to court proceedings because witnesses called to testify do so under oath.
In typically combative style, Mahathir (left) conveyed through his counsel that he was willing to submit to questions, within or outside the RC’s terms of reference, and then proceeded, upon testifying, to suffer memory lapses when responding to questions that incommoded him. But at least, he submitted to testimony.Nobody expects Najib to submit to testimony in Sodomy II the way Musa Hitam did with panache in 1982 in the Merdeka University case. But at least, he could do ‘a Mahathir’ vis-à-vis the Hadier Royal Commission on the Lingam tape and that would count as “action” which would not be merely “movement” in the Hemingway sense.
For Najib, it’s not enough to be merely in vogue. In order to lead from the front, one must be in earnest.
PKR leaders slammed as "an absurd argument" the line taken by Prime Minister Najib Razak and his wife Rosmah Mansor that they did not need to take the witness stand because they could not give "relevant" evidence about the sodomy despite meeting with complainant Saiful Bukhar Azlan two days before he lodged the police report that led to the current trial.
"This is exactly why Najib must be put on the witness stand for - to establish what it was that he and Saiful spoke about and allowing examination of him in open court by Anwar's lawyers," PKR vice preisdent N Surendran told Malaysia Chronicle.
"This cannot be determined by filing frivolous affidavits to set aside the subpoena. It will only undermine the criminal justice system. Najib's desperate attempts to avoid giving evidence is highly unusual and suspicious."
More controversial and eye-catching than before
related articlehttp://engagemalaysia.wordpress.com/2010/02/13/to-asshole-leaders-of-barison-national-who-think-nothing-but-asshole-since-sodomy-i-to-sodomy-11accept-my-little-ang-pow-
related articlehttp://engagemalaysia.wordpress.com/2010/02/13/to-asshole-leaders-of-barison-national-who-think-nothing-but-asshole-since-sodomy-i-to-sodomy-11accept-my-little-ang-pow-
Lawmakers from the US to the UK, Canada and Australia have condemned the trial as political persecution and British tycoon Richard Branson had also said the manner in which the judiciary was being bent by the Najib administration tarnished Malaysia's image.
Nonetheless, brazen-faced or otherwise, the first couple have shocked the nation with their refusal to co-operate in the case, drawing rebuke for their apparent lack of repsonsibility and civic-mindedness. Their refusal has also boosted suspicion that they were guilty as charged by Anwar.
On Monday, their lawyers submitted an application to the court to set aside the subpoena filed against them by Anwar's lawyers to appear as witnesses in th trial. The court is due to deliver its decision on Thursday.
“I cannot give any relevant evidence on what has been brought up by the first respondent (Anwar),” lawyer Hisham Teh read from Najib's affidavit.
Rosmah's affidavit contained the same clause.
Mind-boggling
"Najib's assistance was sought. His evidence would be material as being a devout Muslim when he went to Permatang Pauh in August 2008, he denied anything to do with the death of Altantuya," said Karpal referring to a murdered Mongolian translator allegedly connected to a corruption case involving Najib.
Karpal also pointed out that Najib’s affidavit had stated that the PM advised Saiful to lodge a police report, after the political aide alleged on July 24 that Anwar had sodomised him.
Yet, Saiful failed to heed Najib’s advice and instead went on to subject himself to the “alleged sodomy on him by Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim, two days later on June 26, 2008,” said Karpal.
“It is necessary to obtain evidence from the prime minister with regard to Saiful's state of mind, and whether he was frightened, or whether the prime minister would have expected Saiful to follow his advice. Surely, one would follow the advice of a personality of no mean rank, namely a deputy prime minister whose advice was sought,” Karpal added.
Karpal also said that there was a meeting between Rosmah and Saiful's friend Rahimi Osman and this would be material in the defence of Anwar.
Karpal cites DSP Jude Blacious Pereira as having said he had taken a statement from Rosmah. "This was not denied by Rosmah," added Karpal.
Fishing expedition
Meanwhile, Hisham accused Anwar of wanting to bring both PM and wife on a "fishing expedition" to seek information.
“However, we would like to argue that the meeting on June 24 has no nexus, no connection to the incident on June 26, 2008. The first respondent wants the PM to clarify. This clarification, confirmation on what happened on June 24 is not connected to the primary act, which is the charge... the incident was on June 26, not a day before or after,” Hisham told the court.
“They have no legal right to call any person not in possession of material or relevant evidence. Where is the connection to the charge?”
But as legal pundits have put it, if the courts accepted Hisham's argument, then Anwar and all other accused standing trial in Malaysia might as well go straight to jail.
"This is not at all about fishing for information. The timing that the first couple met Saiful is just two days before he complained about the sodomy to the police. So this is indeed material. If Najib's and Rosmah's words were accepted as gospel truth, then what is the meaning of a trial? It is for them to tell the court what happened and for Anwar's lawyer to question whether they are speaking the truth and for the judge to then decide. And this is what a trial is about - discovering the truth," PKR veteran Eddie Wong told Malaysia Chronicle.
No comments:
Post a Comment