Saturday, June 5, 2010

Dakwaan Biden Flotila Bawa Senjata Karut..

KUALA LUMPUR 5 Jun - Dakwaan Naib Presiden Amerika Syarikat, Joe Biden yang mengatakan konvoi enam kapal bantuan kemanusiaan (Freedom Flotilla) kepada penduduk Palestin di Semenanjung Gaza membawa bekalan senjata tidak berasas sama sekali.

Pengerusi Biro Antarabangsa KEADILAN, Mustaffa Kamil Ayub berkata kapal Mavi Marmara yang dulu diserang komando rejim Zionis-Israel yang menyebabkan sembilan sukarelawan dan berpuluh lagi cedera dalam serangan itu.

"Misi bantuan kemanusiaan itu adalah gabungan warga 40 buah negara dunia dan konvoi tersebut juga membawa ahli parlimen United Kingdom serta pemenang Nobel.

"Serangan itu menunjukkan rejim Zionis itu mengisytiharkan perang kepada seluruh warga dunia.

"Sehingga ke hari ini, rejim Zionis itu telah melanggar lebih 80 resolusi Pertubuhan Bangsa-Bangsa Bersatu, maksudnya ia langsung tidak menghormati undang-undang dunia, " tegas beliau.

Biden, ketika ditemubual dalam rancangan "Charlie Rose" oleh stesen penyiaran American Public Broadcasting Service Rabu lalu mempertahankan tindakan Israel yang menahan kapal menuju ke Gaza bagi mencegah penyeludupan senjata.

Beliau berpandangan tidak ada keperluan untuk berkeras supaya bekalan itu disampaikan terus kepada penduduk Semenanjung Gaza.

Biden kemudiannya memberi alasan kononnya Israel bimbang dengan isi kandungan yang dibawa kapal tesebut.

Ditanya mengenai pendirian KEADILAN, Mustaffa berkata Pakatan Rakyat melalui Ketua Pembangkang, Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim telah menghantar surat kepada pegawai Kedutaan Amerika Syarikat di sini untuk diserahkan kepada Presiden Amerika Syarikat, Barrack Obama.

"Pegawai tersebut berjanji akan menyerahkan surat tersebut minggu depan kepada Obama.

"Dalam surat itu, Pakatan Rakyat meminta agar beliau mengambil kesempatan untuk memperbetulkan keadaan itu," ujar Mustaffa lagi.

Umno-BN Perlekeh Pergorbanan Sukarelawan Malaysia, Turki Anggap Wira

June 5, 2010
KUALA LUMPUR 5 Jun - Pengerusi Biro Antarabangsa KEADILAN , Mustaffa Kamil Ayub kesal dengan tindakan kerajaan Umno-Barisan Nasional yang tidak mengiktiraf pengorbanan sukarelawan yang terselamat dalam misi bantuan kemanusiaan ke Semenanjung Gaza Isnin lepas.

"Faktor alasan kewangan tidak dapat diterima sama sekali sedangkan komitmen kerajaan Turki lebih tinggi berbanding negara-negara Islam yang lain termasuk Malaysia.

"Saya berasakan ini berkemungkinan mempunyai hubungkait dengan kontrak yang dimeterai antara kerajaan Umno-BN dan Apco.

"Kerajaan di bawah pimpinan Perdana Menteri, Datuk Seri Najib Razak nampaknya seperti terikat dan mengikut telunjuk untuk mendapat perhatian Presiden Amerika Syarikat, Barrack Obama.

Menurut Mustaffa lagi, ini mungkin mempunyai kaitan dengan kezaliman terhadap Ketua Pembangkang, Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim dan kes pembunuhan Altantunya.

"Kita juga sangsi dengan respon Najib yang begitu lambat bertindak berhubung serangan komando rejim zionis Israel terhadap kapal Mavi Marmarra yang menyebabkan 9 aktivis dan berpuluh lagi cedera.

"Kontrak yang dimeterai Najib dengan syarikat Apco Worldwide menjadi satu sebab kerajaan Umno-BNl bersikap sederhana terhadap sukarelawan Malaysia yang terselamat," ujarnya ketika dihubungi Suara Keadilan.

Sebelum itu, media melaporkan Menteri Pertahanan, Datuk Seri Dr Ahmad Zahid Hamidi dipetik berkata Angkatan Tentera Malaysia tidak akan mengadakan penerbangan khas untuk membawa pulang 12 sukarelawan dan media Malaysia yang dibebaskan dari tahanan tentera Israel.

Ahmad Zahid memberi alasan penerbangan itu akan membabitkan kos yang tinggi dan setakat ini tiada permintaan daripada kerajaan Umno-BN untuk membawa mereka pulang menggunakan pesawat tentera.

http://kerabubersuara.blogspot.com

Tuesday, June 1, 2010

KEADILAN Seru Masyarakat Antarabangsa Kutuk Kekejaman Rejim Zionis Israel


PETALING JAYA 1 Jun - KEADILAN mengutuk sekeras-kerasnya tindakan komando rejim zionis Israel yang menyerang sebuah daripada enam buah kapal yang dalam perjalanan menghantar bantuan kemanusiaan di Gaza.

Pengerusi Biro Antarabangsa Mustaffa Kamil Ayub berkata tindakan kejam komando rejim zionis itu telah menyebabkan ramai aktivis yang tidak bersalah terbunuh.

"Kapal tersebut tidak melakukan apa-apa kesalahan dan masih berada di dalam perairan antarabangsa dan pihak berkuasa Israel tidak mempunyai hak untuk menaiki kapal tersebut.

"Alasan bahawa aktivis di dalam kapal tersebut telah menyerang komando Israel itu dahulu boleh dianggap menghina kerana mereka yang sebenarnya yang telah merempuh naik kapal itu.

Tambah Mustaffa, insiden ini merupakan satu lagi contoh bahawa Israel melakukan jenayah kejam ini di mana tindakan pihak berkuasa Israel itu sendiri yang sebenarnya mengancam kedaulatan mereka sendiri.

"Kita kesal dengan kegagalan beberapa negara mengutuk tindakan jahat rejim zionis Israel ini, termasuk Amerika Syarikat yang hanya meluahkan "kekesalan yang amat sangat" sementara United Kingdom, Kanada dan Australia pula membisu.

"Kerajaan negara-negara tersebut gagal menyampaikan isyarat perasaan majoriti rakyat mereka," ujar beliau.

Justeru itu, Mustaffa juga menyeru supaya komuniti antarabangsa mendesak Israel menghormati hak asasi manusia seperti yang terkandung dalam resolusi Pertubuhan Bangsa-Bangsa Bersatu berkaitan dengan Palestin.

http://suarakeadilan.com

Saturday, March 13, 2010

The Policies of Pakatan Rakyat ..

1. Transparent and Genuine Democracy

Constitutionalism and the Rule of Law
Separation of Powers
A Clean, Free and Fair Electoral System

2. Driving a High Performance, Sustainable and Equitable Economy

High-Performance Economy
Democratic and Transparent Economy
Decentralisation and the Empowerment of the State Economic Management
Affirmative Action Policies based on Need
Labour
Social Safety Net
Housing
Infrastructure and Public Facilities
Environment
Sustainable Growth and Green Development

3. Social Justice and Human Development

Unity and Social Justice
Religion
Education
Women and the Family
Youth
Security
Healthcare
Culture

4. Federal-State Relationship and Foreign Policy

The Federal System
Sabah and Sarawak
Foreign Policy

PEOPLE’S CONSENSUS ...


Pakatan Rakyat hereby put forward a policy agenda to lead the people and this nation out of the current worsening crisis.

The people’s development agenda has been derailed due to a narrow understanding of race, divisive hate politics and authoritarianism. The recessive economy caused by the loss of moral conscience, the greed of corruption and archaic policies are causing Malaysia to be left behind compared to other vibrant economies in the region.

The unjust economy is all the more apparent in the widening gap between the rich and the poor, between the urban and the rural population, and between the Peninsular and Sabah and Sarawak.

The rising crime rate threatens lives and property because the police force has been used for narrow political ends. The integrity and independence of the judiciary continues to be damaged by political interference and business interests.

After half a century of sovereign independence, Malaysia should have matured. This should have been realised when the people from various races, breaking down narrow and obsolete mindset, and manifest a new spirit to reject the perversion of power, the spread of corruption, the plunder of the nation’s wealth and the repression of the people’s rights.

In appreciating the people’s aspirations, Pakatan Rakyat therefore declares our commitment to fully internalise and carry out an agenda of new politics by mobilizing the people’s power from the various races, religions and cultures as one force.


Further, we have confidence; we can change our policy framework from narrow racial approach to principles based on religious faiths, humanism, ethical and human rights, and equality before the law regardless of status, race or group. The policies that are derived from adherence to the Constitution and universal principles of justice will safeguard the rule of law and the independence of the judiciary, which in turn will guarantee that the human rights and dignity of the people will continuously be defended and upheld.

Pakatan Rakyat is confident that the Malaysian economy can be driven at a faster pace through a market based economy that is humane, leading towards a more holistic human development. Economic policies should make Malaysia competitive, maintain a healthy investment climate, implement progressive taxation, but firm in its desire to realise justice through the equitable economic distribution especially for the poor and marginalised.

Pakatan Rakyat rejects policies that allow for corruption and other financial crimes and abuse of power. In order to ensure sustainable growth, oppressive policies that had only enriched the few should be replaced with a policy that ensures that the poor are assisted regardless of race.

As such, we invite the Malaysian people to create a new consensus that is founded on principles of justice for all and Constitutionalism. This is the agenda that must be done if we are to regain the nation’s respect, freedom and dignity. Only by providing justice for all can the people live prosperously and in unity.

Monday, February 8, 2010

Anwar's Trial: Speech By Michael Danby


Michael Danby, Federal Member for Melbourne Ports and Chair of the Australian Parliamentary sub-committee on Foreign Affairs

Tonight, I want to speak out on behalf of fellow democrats around Asia, who are flabbergasted at events unfolding in Kuala Lumpur. I refer to the trial which began today of the Malaysian Opposition Leader, Dato Seri Anwar Ibrahim. For the second time, the Malaysian leader of the Opposition, Anwar Ibrahim is on trial for what they call in ancient grating English, ‘Sodomy’. For the second time, the Malaysian legal system is being manipulated by supporters of the incumbent government to drive Malaysia’s best known leader Anwar Ibrahim out of national politics. For the second time, documents are being forged, witnesses are being coerced, evidence is being fabricated.

This trial, like the first trial of Anwar Ibrahim, is a disgrace to Malaysia, a country that aspires to democratic norms, where parties change power peacefully and political opponents are not persecuted by organs of the state. Perverting the legal system for political ends by charging Anwar with sexual offences is an affront to human rights. In the first place, the offences with which Anwar has been charged that should not be on the statute book. Australia abolished its laws punishing consenting adult homosexual acts decades ago, as did most advanced countries. It’s long past time that Malaysia also repealed these laws, which it inherited from British colonial times. If these laws did not exist, they could not be used for political purposes as we are currently seeing.

In the second place, everyone in Malaysia, and everyone in the international legal community, knows that Anwar is innocent of these charges. This week the Wall Street Journal published a first-hand account of how the Malaysian Special Branch police fabricated the charges that led to Anwar’s first trial in 1998. Munawar Anees recalled how he had been starved and beaten into signing a false confession which implicated Anwar. Now it’s happening again. These are the lengths to which the corrupt elements within the Malaysian ruling party are willing to go to frame Anwar and remove his threat to their power.

Malaysia is a long-time friend and ally of Australia. Over the past 40 years Malaysia has become an increasingly prosperous and successful multi-cultural society. We continue our friendly and mutually beneficial relationship with Malaysia, which is a deep economic, strategic and cultural relationship.

But Malaysia is also a country of 28 million people who have lived ever since independence more than 50 years ago under the rule of the same party, the United Malay National Organisation or UMNO. UMNO has stayed in power by playing on the Malay fears of the Chinese and Indian minorities. So long as Malaysian politics were polarised even subtlety along racial lines, so long as the Malays voted loyally for UMNO, then the self-perpetuating UMNO oligarchy, who have grown rich through long years of power and through their cozy links to business, would be safe.

That’s why Anwar Ibrahim is such a threat. For the first time Malaysia has a charismatic Malay opposition politician able to appeal to Malay voters and pose a real threat to UMNO’s hold on power. At the 2008 elections Anwar’s People’s Justice Party and its allies won 60 seats away from UMNO and its allies, creating a viable two-party system for the first time. As a result, Abdullah Badawi was deposed as Prime Minister and replaced by Najib Razak, but the threat from Anwar’s coalition continues to grow. So even though the first attempt to frame Anwar on these spurious charged had failed, the corrupt forces within UMNO have decided to try again.

I recently had the privilege of meeting Anwar Ibrahim when he was in Melbourne for the Parliament of the World’s Religions in December. He is an intelligent and articulate and passionate democrat. He is committed to a thorough reform of Malaysian government, to rid it of the cronyism, corruption and authoritarian tendencies that have gained ground since Mahathir Mohammed became Prime Minister in 1981. He is a great, although not uncritical, friend and admirer of Australia. If he were to become Malaysia’s Prime Minister our relationship with Malaysia would become even stronger.

I am pleased that in the last few hours the judge has suspended the case against Anwar for a day. I hope Prime Minister Najib and his ministers are not involved. The best way for them to prove that they are not is to intervene and have these charges withdrawn, and those responsible for fabricating them punished. Malaysia is a great country, and an emerging power in our region. It can do without the embarrassment that these disgraceful proceedings are undermining its newly won democratic credibility.

Michael Danby


Saturday, January 30, 2010

Malaysian Hindus celebrate festival amid tensions


Hundreds of thousands of people _ many with hooks pierced through the skin of their backs _ thronged temples Saturday to celebrate a Hindu festival amid tensions surrounding attacks on houses of worship in Muslim-majority Malaysia.

Eleven churches, three mosques, two Muslim prayer rooms and a Sikh temple have been attacked since early this month following a court ruling that allowed non-Muslims to use the word "Allah" to refer to God.

The verdict upset some Muslims and the government, which argues "Allah" is exclusive to Islam and its use by others could confuse Muslims into converting. Though damage in most of the attacks was minor, the incidents raised fears of religious tensions in this multiethnic nation, where about a third of its 28 million people are Buddhist, Hindu or Christian. Ethnic Indians account for 8 percent. Addressing Hindu devotees at a temple complex outside Kuala Lumpur late Friday, Prime Minister Najib Razak called for mutual respect between all religions. Muslim Najib is only the second prime minister to visit the Batu Caves temple complex during the Thaipusam festival _ following his father some 30 years ago.

"I want to stress here that respecting each other's religion is not only a key virtue that we must defend in this country, it is also one of the principles in Islam," he was quoted by the national news agency Bernama as saying.

Some 60 percent of Malaysians are ethnic Malay Muslims. Religious minority groups have frequently complained of institutionalized discrimination. But the government dismisses claims it favors Malay Muslims. Police deployed more than 1,000 officers to ensure the celebrations at Batu Caves go smoothly and devotees and tourists are safe, said district police chief Abdul Rahim Abdullah.Every year, Hindu devotees across the country march to temples in colorful processions for the Thaipusam festival to give thanks for vows fulfilled and show penance.

At Batu Caves, men _ with lemons fastened to their backs with metal hooks _ carry heavy kalvadis: frames decorated with feathers and beads. Many dance in a trancelike state to drum beats before ascending the steep staircase to the main temple entrance. Women and children _ their faces smeared with white paste _ balance brass pots with milk up the stairs. Tourists are drawn to the festival to watch.

By JULIA ZAPPEI
Associated Press

Amnesty urges Malaysia to drop sex charge against Anwar


Agence France-Presse
First Posted 16:52:00 01/30/2010

KUALA LUMPUR—Human rights group Amnesty International has urged Malaysia to drop a "politically motivated" sodomy charge against opposition leader Anwar Ibrahim, ahead of the trial due to start next week.

Anwar lost his final appeal on Friday for access to the government's evidence in a case which could see him jailed for up to 20 years if convicted of sodomising a male former aide. Anwar was sacked as deputy prime minister and jailed a decade ago on separate sodomy and corruption charges.

"The Malaysian authorities have resorted to the same old dirty tricks in an attempt to remove the opposition leader from politics," Sam Zarifi, Amnesty Asia-Pacific director said in a statement issued late Friday.

"Malaysia's judiciary should throw out these charges."

Amnesty said it is "seriously concerned" over a fair trial for Anwar, especially after Friday's ruling which the watchdog described as an infringement of international fair trial standards.

"Anwar's case has rightly raised doubts among the international community and investors about Malaysia's commitment to justice and the rule of law," Zarifi added.

Anwar spent six years in prison after he was convicted in 1998 but the sex charge was eventually overturned. Amnesty had considered him a prisoner of conscience before his release. After being freed Anwar reinvigorated the opposition and rallied it in 2008 to achieve its best ever results in national elections, when it won a third of parliamentary seats.

Anwar has accused the Malaysian government of seeking to convict him quickly as part of efforts to deflect attention against its own woes.

Malaysia's Anwar defends innocence before sodomy trial


MANILA, Jan. 30 (Xinhua) -- Former Malaysian deputy prime minister Anwar Ibrahim on Saturday defended his innocence in a brief visit to the Philippines, three days before being tried for sodomy in a Malaysian court, the second such accusation against him in less than a decade.

"I don't think the defense is difficult at all. If they go by the facts of the law, there can not be a conviction," said Anwar, adding that state prosecutors won't be able present a witness when the trial opens on Tuesday and by now medical evidence is "conclusively" in his favor.

The 63-year-old politician is being accused by his young male aide of sodomy, a crime that can lead to 20 years in prison in Malaysia. It is the second time this de-facto Malaysian opposition leader faces sodomy charges. He was convicted once in 1999 but was released from prison four years later after the Federal Court overturned the conviction upon hearing his appeal.

At a meeting with his "old friend"-- deposed former Philippine president Joseph Estrada, Anwar told reporters that he felt he had not given fair treatment as a sexual assault case defendant and authorities seem to want to rush the case.

"This is probably my last overseas trip and maybe the last meeting with any foreign friend in a foreign country," Anwar said. "There is no basis but they just want to proceed. Yesterday the Federal Court rejected our application for documents, a right of the defendant required by the law. So how would you deal with it?"

Anwar was in town for a lecture at the University of the Philippines College of Law. He is scheduled to return to Kuala Lumpur Saturday afternoon. Anwar said he is also a family friend of late former Philippine president Corazon Aquino and this time was able to meet her son Benigno "Noynoy" Aquino. Both Estrada and Aquino are running for presidency in this May's general elections.

http://news.xinhuanet.com
Editor: Lin Liyu

Thursday, January 28, 2010

ANWAR IBRAHIM – SODOMY: THE SEQUEL

It is almost 11 years since Anwar Ibrahim, newly sacked as deputy prime minister, was first slapped with trumped-up charges of sodomy and corruption (abuse of power), and subsequently put through two trials which were condemned around the world as manifestly flawed and politically motivated. He spent six years in detention, in solitary confinement throughout, after his conviction on the first (corruption) charge, but at the final level of appeal against conviction on the charge of committing sodomy, he was acquitted and released on 2 September 2004. The two cases were interrelated, although tried separately: the corruption charge was that he had abused his position to direct the police to halt investigations into his alleged sexual misconduct.

Now the nightmare is starting all over again. On 16 July 2008, Anwar was arrested on a new charge of sodomy, after a report was lodged by a junior aide in his office. Anwar claims that the charge is, again, politically motivated, a renewed attempt to scuttle his political career which has revived dramatically, against all the odds, since his release. Most people both inside and outside the country agree with this assessment.

The new case – its facts and the way it is being conducted by the authorities – looks alarmingly like the earlier ones. These were marked by: political interference; falsification of evidence; blackmailing of prosecution witnesses as well as several of Anwar’s close friends and associates; harassment of defence lawyers and also several civil servants who did not speak, report or act according to “instructions”; the court’s or judge’s rejection of documents, and refusal to allow witness testimony, which was favourable to the accused; and a string of unfair or questionable rulings and decisions by the judges both during the course of the trial and in the ultimate judgment of the cases, which often put a premature end to the defence counsel’s line of questioning.

SOME WORRYING FACTORS IN THE NEW CASE

  1. In both cases, the charges came at a time when Anwar was a serious contender to take over the premiership.
  1. Just like the 1998 cases, the present case is being pursued despite the glaring absence of solid evidence.
  1. The present case, like the earlier one, alleges commission of sodomy, a clear attempt to destroy his reputation as a good Muslim. Even the corruption charge in 1998 was related to sodomy, since it alleged that Anwar abused his position to halt investigations into alleged sexual misconduct. Although he was later acquitted of the charge of committing sodomy, his political enemies, notably ex-PM Dr Mahathir, have kept it alive in the intervening years via insinuating public statements, and Anwar has steadfastly insisted that the charges are fabricated. Very few Malaysians believe the allegations.
  1. As a result of the police report against him, Anwar was asked to present himself at the police station for his statement to be recorded, and, through his lawyers, had promised to give full cooperation. Despite being given until 2 pm on the day in question to go himself to the police station, he was arrested at about 1 pm in dramatic style by balaclava-clad members of a special police unit near his house, and then had to spend the night in the police lock-up. Trying to sleep on the bare concrete floor with just a thin blanket to cushion him, Anwar suffered renewed intense pain in his back – his spine was damaged in an assault by the chief of police hours after his arrest in 1998. The overly dramatic style of arrest exactly mirrors the way he was arrested in 1998.
  1. The present case arose out of a police report made by a former aide, Mohd Saiful Bukhari Azlan (Saiful). Defence lawyers were for some time denied a copy of the police report despite its central importance to their mounting an effective defence. The unwillingness of the prosecution to supply that police report inevitably invites speculation that its details were still being adjusted (to avoid having to make changes during the trial, as in the earlier case – this would be much more embarrassing as it would be in an open court).
  1. This suspicion is supported by the fact that, besides filing the police report, Saiful has also sworn an oath at a mosque and made several press statements. The details of his story have been adapted from one public statement to another. Saiful’s story to date (before the trial even starts) has been marred by inconsistencies and less-than-credible claims, not to mention twists and turns (whom he met, when, whether the alleged act was consensual or he was “raped”).
  1. Just one day after he met a senior police officer and reported he had been “raped”, Saiful attended an Anwar Ibrahim Club event at Anwar’s house, at which Anwar was also present, yet he showed no signs of fear or anxiety, neither did he appear to be experiencing any pain in his rectum, as claimed. The subsequent medical examination showed he is not a habitual homosexual, and in any case, if the alleged act was consensual, why was Saiful not charged along with Anwar?
  1. The following day, Saiful was examined by a total of four specialist doctors at two different hospitals, after complaining of pain in his rectum. At the first hospital he did not say he had been sodomised until after the examination had been completed, and the doctor then advised him to go for an examination at a government hospital, since that was the required procedure in what would be a criminal case. Despite the second hospital being in close proximity to the first, it took Saiful two and a half hours to get there. At the second hospital, where he reported that he had been sodomised, he was examined by no less than three specialist doctors (who all happened to be instantly available). All four doctors from the two hospitals, in their official reports, stated that there was no sign or mark of any kind that indicated penetration (essential in proving commission of sodomy).

    It should be noted that, in the 1998 case, the doctor who examined Sukma (one of the alleged victims), also reported no signs of penetration. This report was, however, suppressed. Similarly, the reports by doctors who examined Anwar after the “black eye” assault, were replaced with one signed by a doctor who never examined Anwar.

  1. Puzzlingly, the doctor at the first hospital found no presence of any alien fluid in Saiful’s rectum, but the examination at the second hospital found fluid both inside and outside his rectum. This was on the Saturday, whereas the alleged incident had reportedly taken place two days earlier, on Thursday. Taken together with the long gap between the two examinations, the discovery of fluid only on the second examination looks highly suspicious.
  1. The defence team expects the prosecution to place major emphasis on purported DNA evidence. This was also attempted in the first case, but was bungled and had to be jettisoned. The defence lawyers expect them to be better prepared this time, and, significantly, a new DNA Law was rushed through Parliament recently.

    Anwar’s DNA was obtained (illegally) by the prosecution for the first case, and since DNA patent does not alter or deteriorate, there is no need to obtain new samples from a person who faces new charges at a later date. However, the obtaining of fresh samples was indeed ordered by former Prime Minister Abdullah Badawi and his son-in-law, Khairy Jamaluddin, before the former left office. This invites speculation that it could be used to plant evidence.

    Anwar’s overnight detention in the lock-up on his arrest last year may have been used to discreetly gather new DNA material – a person trying to sleep on a bare concrete floor will toss and turn and in the process shed some hairs from his head. There didn’t seem to be any other compelling reason to detain him overnight.

  1. In the earlier case, the prosecution was forced to change the details of the charge when Anwar was able to provide unassailable proof of alibi for the original date of the alleged offence. (It had to be changed yet again when it was found that the building where it had allegedly taken place was under major renovation at the time in question...)

    The new case shows signs of following the same pattern. Anwar has proof of alibi for the original date of the alleged one-off incident (as in the police report), and it is suspected that Saiful’s police statement, made after he filed the report, may have mentioned a whole series of incidents.

    Anwar’s proof of alibi should have been enough for the case to be abandoned by the prosecutors, but they have perversely ignored it and gone ahead with the prosecution. Anwar’s recent application to have his case dismissed, on this ground, among others, was rejected by the judge, who, in his judgment, hinted that the prosecution would be able to show compelling proof through DNA. The appeal against this decision is still pending.

  1. With the trial about to begin (25 January 2010), the defence team is still trying to get the prosecution team to provide them with a whole list of documents, including the list of prosecution witnesses, Saiful’s police statement (made after the police report), and the case notes for the two hospital medical reports on Saiful – all of these will contain vital details which will show the basis on which the charges have been built. The persistent denial of such key documents is obviously a serious hindrance to the defence team’s preparations.

    The defence’s appeal against the dismissal of their earlier application to obtain these documents will only be heard on 20 January. Even supposing that the judge orders the documents to be supplied to the defence, and that they are supplied immediately, the defence will only have four days to go through them.

    An affidavit filed by one of the present prosecution team (30 June 2009) claims that there was “no evidence favourable to the accused”.

    The earlier case was also marked by many instances of the defence being denied important documents. The judge in that case also refused to hear testimony from several important defence witnesses.

  1. Ominously, some of the same officials who masterminded the prosecution strategy in the 1998-99 cases are set to reprise their roles in the new case. This also perhaps goes some way towards explaining the similarities in strategy for the two cases. The two main players are Gani Patail and Musa Hassan, but in fact all members of the prosecution team were involved in some way in the earlier case. Some of them played only a supporting role, but they knew of, and kept silent about, the illegitimate acts perpetrated by the others. Anwar applied to have the entire prosecution team disqualified from hearing his case, but in a decision passed down on 1 December 2009, this application was dismissed.

    Gani Patail, formerly the senior prosecutor, has now been elevated to the post of Attorney General. He was involved (it was alleged in an affidavit filed by Anwar on 1 July 2007, which has never been challenged) in falsifying evidence and using blackmail to obtain “confessions” to implicate Anwar for the 1998 case.

    In February last year Anwar made a police report against Gani Patail and two senior police officers, including Musa Hassan, alleging the above offence. When Anwar was formally charged later the same year, he demanded that Gani be barred from having any role in this new case, due to his questionable role in the last one, as well as the fact that the police report would prejudice him against Anwar. The Prime Minister at that time, Abdullah Badawi, gave an undertaking, clearly reported in the press, that Gani would not be involved. No action has apparently been taken by the police on Anwar’s report; he has not been called to have his statement recorded.

    When the new case first began to be heard in the Sessions Court, and the judge almost immediately proved to be too independent, the prosecution applied to have the case transferred to the High Court. The defence argued strenuously against this, and the prosecution resorted to producing a transfer certificate (a directive which could not be argued against in court) which had been signed by the Attorney General, Gani Patail. The judge concurred with the defence objection to his involvement, but she was quickly replaced by another judge, who ruled that a Prime Minister’s promise has no standing in a court of law, being purely “political”. However, while rejecting the application, the judge observed that, “Based on the past record and event, the accused and the PP have had a bad relation[ship] and unresolved matters which require further investigation. There exists a reasonable perception that the PP has ‘an axe to grind’ against the accused”.

    After Anwar filed the police report about Gani Patail and Musa Hassan’s roles in falsifying a police report concerning his (Anwar’s) arrest on 20 September 1998, Anwar was not called to have his statement recorded, neither was any feedback given by the police regarding the progress of investigations, even after a reminder was sent by Anwar’s lawyers in April. However, a reply was eventually given to a question in Parliament, stating that a day after the report was lodged, the police had forwarded it to the Anti Corruption Agency (SPRM) for investigation, implying that the ball had been in their court all this while. However, the response to a letter subsequently sent to SPRM revealed that the latter had quickly decided the matter was outside their jurisdiction and had referred it back to the police immediately. Anwar made a fresh police report on 21 July about the duplicity of the police in this matter, even to the point of getting the Minister of Home Affairs to make a misleading statement in Parliament.

    Anwar made a second police report on the same day, also in connection with Gani Patail’s involvement in the new case: last 30 June, two senior officials of the AG’s Chambers filed an affidavit in which it was stated that the three High Court judges who recently heard the case alleging Gani’s wrongdoing in 1998 unanimously ruled that he had not committed any offence, whereas at least one of them dissented. This affidavit was used in court to support the argument that there was no reason to bar Gani from playing a role, with one of the officials giving evidence based on it during the hearing, under oath. Anwar’s report claims that it is impossible that the two officials who prepared the affidavit were not aware that the ruling was not unanimous, making their sworn testimony a lie: a serious misdemeanour.

    As AG, Gani is still playing a crucial role as the one who makes the decision whether or not to proceed with a case – and no exception is being made in Anwar’s new case.

    Musa Hassan was, at the time of the first trial, a senior detective, but has now risen to the top post of Inspector General of Police. The affidavit and police report mentioned above also detailed his role in the falsification of evidence.

    According to sworn testimony by lawyer Manjeet Singh, Musa was also the one who approached him to offer a deal to Dato’ Nallakaruppan, whom he was representing. Nalla, Anwar’s tennis partner, had been arrested for a minor firearms case – he had a firearms licence but had forgotten to renew it and had a small number of bullets in his possession. Shockingly he was detained under the ISA (detention without trial), and was, through his lawyer, threatened with the death penalty. The deal was, you will be let off the hook if you agree to make a statement incriminating Anwar in sexual misconduct.

    Musa is also believed to have been involved in coaching and intimidating some of the key prosecution witnesses. Azizan Abu Bakar, the complainant on whose police report the 1999 case was based, was not blessed with great intelligence, and he stumbled through cross-examination, actually admitting at one point that he had not been sodomised, and had to have words deftly put in his mouth by the chief prosecutor to save the prosecution’s case. This was allowed by the judge, despite vigorous objections by the defence.

    Saiful (of the new case) is a more intelligent young man, albeit a college dropout. Yet already, he has had meetings with Musa Hassan as well as another senior police senior who has worked closely with Musa in both cases (and again, has been promoted since the first one, to Director of the CID), Rodwan Mohd Yusof. Why would such high-level meetings be necessary if the case is a straightforward allegation of sodomy?

    It is worth noting that both Gani Patail and Musa Hassan were present at the police headquarters at the time when Anwar was viciously assaulted by the chief of police. They knew about the assault, who did it, and that Anwar was grievously injured as a result. They connived in the cover-up of this event.

  1. For the 1998 cases, elaborate preparations were made well ahead of Anwar’s arrest. More than a year before, rumblings and rumours alleging sexual misconduct had begun making the rounds, and a sleazy book entitled “50 Reasons Why Anwar Cannot Become Prime Minister” was circulated at the 1997 UMNO General Assembly. A number of senior UMNO politicians were later identified as masterminds of this concerted effort to get rid of Anwar.

    Disgruntled and/or greedy individuals were found to play various roles in the fabricated story which would be used in court. Soon after this, senior police officers who had all along had a good working relationship with Anwar, suddenly, and without reason, became hostile. Arrests of Anwar’s close associates took place just before and after his own arrest, indicating that they had all been identified beforehand. The mainstream media also played an important role in supporting The Story, with Dr Mahathir, who had earlier claimed the allegations were just slander, stating publicly that he was convinced Anwar was guilty and had incontrovertible proof of it. When the trial got under way, however, he declined to share it in court.

    There have already been signs of political interference in the case, adding fuel to the high-level political conspiracy theory.

    1. It has transpired that Saiful had been in contact with the prime minister, the chief of police and another senior police officer before he made the police report (and some of them even before the date of the alleged offence). The excuses he gave for these meetings are hardly credible: he said he met the PM to ask about getting a scholarship (the college drop-out..; other aspiring students simply apply through the relevant government agencies), and met the police officers to seek protection against Anwar’s advances (other people would make a police report at the nearest police station, but Saiful only did that a day after he met the senior police officers). Coordination between the main players has not been perfect: Najib at first denied ever having met Saiful, but was then forced to admit that he had.
    2. The chronology: Monday, Saiful meets Najib; Wednesday, he meets CID chief Rodwan; Thursday, the alleged offence takes place; Friday, Saiful, apparently in good spirits and health, attends the AIC event at Anwar’s house; Saturday, he is examined at two hospitals, with more than two hours’ gap between, and subsequently lodges a police report against Anwar.
    3. It has been ascertained that, well before he joined Anwar’s staff, Saiful had had frequent contact with Najib’s private secretary. He only joined Anwar’s office about three months before he made the report against Anwar, when, following the General Election in March 2008, Anwar was short of staff since several of his aides had won seats in the election. This suggests that Saiful was deliberately planted in Anwar’s office.
    4. Since Saiful made the police report against Anwar, he has been running a blogsite which regularly makes what can best be described as political attacks on Anwar.
    5. Although senior lawyers in the AG’s Office had advised that there was no ahead with the prosecution. It is as if evidence is just a secondary concern.
    6. An assistant imam of the mosque where Saiful swore his oath subsequently held a press conference stating that he had been forced against his will to represent the mosque management at this controversial event. He was sacked almost immediately.
    7. As mentioned above, the judge who was originally assigned to hear Anwar’s case in the Sessions Court was quickly replaced when she began to make decisions which were inconvenient.
    8. A DNA Bill has recently been rushed through Parliament. It seems likely that the hearing of the case was held back to enable the Bill to be passed, so that it could be used for this case.
    9. Anwar filed a complaint of Qazaf (giving false evidence related to a sexual offence) in the Federal Territory Shari’ah Court, against Saiful. It is understood that the FT Religious Authority, under whose jurisdiction the Shari’ah Court comes, did indeed make investigations and were ready to charge Saiful. However, at this point they were apparently instructed not to proceed with the case. A new application to proceed with the case has been made by Anwar early this year, and the hearing is set for 13 January.

      Although the Shari’ah courts in Malaysia deal mostly with family-related cases, Anwar’s filing of a complaint against Saiful is entirely within the jurisdiction of the Shariah Court, since Qazaf is a misdemeanour mentioned specifically in Islamic jurisprudence. It is also fitting because it is Anwar’s worldwide reputation as a Muslim leader which his enemies have targeted, both in the current case and in 1998.

    1. It is difficult to avoid the conclusion that senior officials in the police, the Attorney General’s Chambers and the judiciary are working in cooperation with top political leaders to ensure that a conviction will be obtained.

    The hearing of the main case is now set to commence on 25 January 2010. It remains to be seen whether the judge of this new case will follow in the footsteps of Justice Augustine Paul who presided at the first trial in 1998 – he repeatedly cut off defence attempts to argue along the lines of political conspiracy, exclaiming “Not relevant!” – a phrase which became an iconic if profoundly sad joke.

What is evident is that the chosen judge will face immense pressure to manage the case according to the script.

    International Bureau

    People’s Justice Party

    13 January 2010

ANWAR IBRAHIM: POLITICAL BACKGROUND ...

Formerly known as Malaya, a federation of Malay States in the Malayan Peninsula, it was later joined by the Borneo States of Sabah and Sarawak to form Malaysia (1963). The population consists of almost 60% Malays and other indigenous people, about 30% of Chinese descent, and about 7% of Indian descent.

Malaysia gained independence from Britain in 1957, and the Alliance, later to become to National Front (Barisan Nasional, or BN) has been in power almost continuously ever since. The BN, like the Alliance before it, is a coalition whose main component parties are each mono-ethnic, and from the beginning the Malay Party, UMNO, has always been the anchor or dominant partner of the coalition.

During the sixties, Malaysia was establishing the foundations of a new nation, and had the added burden of fighting a long-running communist guerrilla problem. The seventies saw solid achievements in important sectors such as agriculture, education and public health services. From there the eighties and nineties were able to work on building a more sophisticated and modern economy based on manufacturing, until Malaysia became one of the “Asian Tigers”. Dr Mahathir was largely responsible for this dramatic development, due to both his vision and his drive. But his leadership also had a darker side, because he also initiated and masterminded a systematic erosion of the principle of separation of powers, of democratic processes and of citizens’ fundamental rights, resulting in increasingly overt and widespread abuse of power by the government. A defining moment was reached when Mahathir sacked the Chief Justice in 1988 for clearly untenable reasons, and under his watch the state agencies – judiciary, police, elections commission, anti-corruption agency and others – all lost their independence; in addition, curbs, both overt and subtle were imposed on the media. Neither of the prime ministers since has seriously moved to change any of this.

Under Mahathir’s watch, corruption also became increasingly rampant, and failure to control it has resulted in the earlier economic gains being largely cancelled out, with Malaysia now overtaken by many of its former peers and even inferiors.

There have always been opposition parties in Malaysia, but apart from managing to take control of one or two states for certain periods, they had not generally been much of a force to be reckoned with until a few years ago. The long-standing opposition parties include the Islamic party, PAS, whose traditional support base has been certain parts of the rural Malay heartland, and the Democratic Action Party (DAP), which has long drawn support from middle and lower class urban Chinese. The BN has enjoyed, almost uninterrupted since independence, a two-thirds majority in Parliament, giving them unbridled power, and this they have largely abused.

By the mid-nineties Malaysians were growing increasingly unhappy with Mahathir’s autocratic style, and the continuing support for UMNO/BN was due to people’s expectation that his deputy, Anwar Ibrahim, would be allowed to take over soon. However, those who thrived on the traditional patronage system, with its massive earnings from corruption, were determined that this should not happen, since Anwar was determined to change to a system which was both more modern and progressive, and also based on ethics. 1997 brought the severe economic downturn felt especially harshly in Asia and fighting over the diminished pie intensified; moves to destroy Anwar’s political career were already under way. The ringleaders worked on Mahathir and finally succeeded in getting his cooperation.

Mahathir made a serious miscalculation (unusual for him) and overstepped the limits when he sacked his popular deputy, Anwar Ibrahim, in September 1998, and had him prosecuted and imprisoned on trumped-up charges. This shocking development brought thousands of angry Malaysians out onto the streets to protest, and these scenes were beamed around the world by foreign journalists. People’s outrage was further fuelled by a vicious assault on Anwar on his first night in police custody, leaving him badly injured – this was only known 9 days later when they were obliged to produce him in court. The subsequent trials, which were manifestly unfair, only hardened public opinion. Reformasi (Malaysia) had been born.

As a direct result of people’s reaction to this event, a few months after Anwar’s arrest a new political party was set up, called the National Justice Party, and was headed by Anwar’s wife, Dr Wan Azizah, formerly an eye specialist at a government hospital, but now propelled by events to enter the world of active politics. Her dignity and quiet determination in the face of gross injustice had quickly made her an icon of the Reformasi movement, and her leadership of the party, her serving for more than two terms as an MP and for a while as Leader of the Opposition, earned her admiration and support from Malaysians of all ethnic groups and walks of life, as well as from all over the world.

During the 1999 election, a hastily-formed grouping of opposition parties, including the Justice Party, campaigned as a loose coalition. Although impressive gains were made, it was not enough to break the ruling coalition’s two-thirds majority let alone take over power. With this disappointment, and with Anwar set to be in prison for many years to come (his original total sentence for two charges was 15 years), there was nothing much to sustain its momentum and keep it in tact.

The shocking episode of Anwar’s arrest had another important effect: it sparked the coming of age of a strong and broad-based civil society movement, which has grown exponentially ever since. Not only were new groups and movements formed, but all of them began cooperating on major issues as never before.

Another vital development was the emergence of Internet media – ending the frustrations of all the people who could not stomach the BN propaganda which filled the mainstream media day after day. These Internet media have also provided urgently needed space for frank and thorough discussion and analysis, open to all views.

March 2004 saw another election, and the opposition, still weak, suffered further losses – the Justice Party, in particular, which had been the main focus of BN’s attacks, was almost wiped out, with only Wan Azizah retaining her seat.

Later the same year, Anwar’s long struggle for justice finally bore fruit when he was released on 2 September – exactly 6 years since he had been sacked from his post as Deputy Prime Minister. Soon after this he returned to active politics, playing a leading role in both the Justice Party (now the People’s Justice Party, after a merger with the long-standing People’s Party of Malaysia). He also worked intensively to pull together and strengthen the opposition coalition, now known as the People’s Pact (Pakatan Rakyat, or PR).

In a development well received by a large number of Malaysians, the Justice Party in particular, and the opposition in general, had started a process of radical change, moving from mono-ethnic and often fractious politics to a truly multi-ethnic system. This meant that rather than simply bargaining between the mono-ethnic parties, everyone discussed the issues directly together. The BN was aghast – they had always thrived on divide-and-rule politics.

The other issue which had increasingly angered Malaysians was the burgeoning growth of corruption. It was increasingly realised that most government initiatives were aimed not at benefitting Malaysians or stimulating the national economy but rather at enriching the leaders and their family members and cronies. Literally billions of the people’s hard-earned money , and also the national resources, were ending up in the pockets of the already-rich.

The Malaysian government claims that this country is democratic, citing the standard proof of holding free elections at regular intervals. Free they may be, and almost entirely free of violence, too. However, the electoral process leaves a great deal to be desired in terms of fairness. The electoral roll is badly flawed, there is quite a lot of multiple voting, and postal votes have been widely abused by BN to ensure victory in key constituencies. The BN parties make rampant use of government machinery during campaigns, and monopolise all the mainstream newspapers, TV and radio.

Opposition parties have few rights and are systematically pictured as anti-government, meaning, more or less, traitors to the country. As the opposition has become stronger, the government has stepped up its efforts to obstruct their progress, especially by abusing legal process – finding any excuse to charge top political and civil society leaders in court, if possible putting them out of the way in prison and ensuring that they will be disqualified from contesting in elections for some time to come.

They have employed many other methods of persecution, intimidation and obstruction, including keeping draconian emergency laws on the books (especially for this purpose). These, even if not actually applied, serve as a powerful weapon to instil fear. But at times when their power is threatened they use them freely.

Despite these daunting odds, the opposition PR managed to make a very impressive showing in the 2008 election, finally breaking BN’s precious two-thirds majority in Parliament, and taking control of five (out of thirteen) state legislative assemblies. The people had spoken.

Parliament, which before was devoid of serious debate, is now much more lively, although the Speaker tries to keep it to a minimum, especially on “sensitive” issues. However, the system long put in place gives few rights or privileges to opposition MPs, whether in the House or in their constituencies. The government openly channels most development and other funding to areas where it enjoys support, leaving the opposition-controlled areas to find their own sources of income.

The figure of Anwar Ibrahim looms large in the Malaysian political scene. Although he is now in the opposition, a large number of Malaysians are eagerly anticipating the day when he takes over the premiership. The deal comes with an approach and policies much more in keeping with contemporary universal standards of governance, with strong ethical roots. And of course, it will also be genuinely inclusive and multi-ethnic.

In a last-ditch and increasingly desperate effort to stop this trend in its tracks, the BN has decided on a sequel to the disgraceful affair of 1998: Anwar has once more been charged with committing sodomy. The aim: get him off the streets, into prison for a long, long time.

Sunday, January 24, 2010

Haïti Earthquake Flash Appeal 2010..





  • The Government has declared the search and rescue phase over. There were 132 live rescues by international search and rescue teams.
  • Humanitarian relief efforts continue to scale up in Port-au-Prince, Jacmel, Leogane and other affected areas.
  • The number of people leaving Port-au-Prince is increasing daily. More than 130,000 people have taken advantage of the Government’s offer of free transportation to cities in the north and south west.


CILCK IMAGE TO ENLARGE


Guide to Humanitarian Giving for the Haiti Earthquake

CLICK HERE.

GIF III: Zaid Ibrahim Corruption and Lawlessness..



Panellist Global Issues Forum:
Datuk Zaid Ibrahim,
PJ Civic Centre Auditorium, 9 Jan. 2010.
Click the video below.




GIF III: Ugly side of Malaysians and why corruption thrives..


Panellist Gobal Issues Forum: Tan Sri Megat Najmuddin Megat Khas,

at PJ Civic Centre Auditorium, 9 Jan 2010.

GIF III: WE HAVE TO SAVE MALAYSIA FROM CORUPPTION..!


Keynote:
Dato' Seri Anwar Ibrahim at PJ Civic Centre, 9 Jan 2010

GIF III: Use of the word Allah..!!


Keynote: Dato' Seri Anwar Ibrahim at PJ Civic Centre, 9 Jan 2010

Friday, January 22, 2010

Special briefing..

Special briefing on latest development on Anwar Ibrahim case and Malaysian current political scenario at De Palma Hotel, Ampang, 19 Jan 2010

Opening Speech by Chairman International Bureau, Mr Mustaffa Kamil Ayub

Panels: Mr Sivarasa Rasiah, Dr Muhammad
Nur Manuty, Dr Syed Husin Ali

Wednesday, January 20, 2010

LATEST DEVELOPMENT...

Special briefing on latest development on Anwar Ibrahim case and Malaysian current political scenario.

Date: 19 Jan 2010, De Palma Hotel, Ampang, 10-12am.

Opening Speech by Chairman International Bureau, Mr Mustaffa Kamil Ayub

Panels: Mr Sivarasa Rasiah, Dr Muhammad Nur Manuty, Dr Syed Husin Ali