Beggars, Prostitutes, Secret Societies, Capitalists, Colonialists and Ali Babas

Those who seek public office must first be made to sit for a history test. Only when they pass the test should they be allowed to become ministers, political secretaries, press secretaries, etc. This will avoid them making stupid statements like what many of the Umno people are now doing.

NO HOLDS BARRED

Raja Petra Kamarudin

Now a new controversy has erupted. And it’s about the statement that the Indians came here as beggars and the Chinese as prostitutes. Actually, if you were to really study Malayan and Malaysian history over the last 500 years or so, you will find that this country’s history is not just about beggars and prostitutes. It is about much more than that.

Malayan history has to be dissected into many periods. And each of these periods saw immigration involving almost all the races in Malaysia, save the Orang Asli (the Original People). In New Zealand, these Orang Asli would be the Maoris and in Australia the Aborigines. Therefore, anyone who is neither a Maori nor an Aborigine is a ‘pendatang’ or immigrant.

The Arabs and the Indians (Muslims from Gujarat) came to Malaya more than 500 years ago as traders and merchants. These were the people who brought Islam to this country. At that time, the locals were mostly Hindus while those from Negeri Sembilan were Buddhists, plus many who worshipped trees, the sea, rivers, mountains and whatnot. The coming of the Arab and Indian merchants exposed the locals to Islam.

In those days, the people followed their Rulers. Therefore, when the Rulers converted to Islam the people followed -- although they may not have believed in Islam or understood the religion. In fact, many till today still do not understand Islam after more than 500 years.

Then along came the Chinese and many were actually Muslims as well. Islam first reached China around 100 years after Prophet Muhammad. This means Islam had ‘migrated’ to China about 1,300 to 1,400 years ago, 800 to 900 years earlier than Islam in Malaysia. Of course, in the northern states bordering Thailand it was earlier than that. (Refer to the Batu Bersurat discovered in Kuala Berang in Terengganu).

Is it not ironical that Malays call Chinese Muslims ‘mualaf’ when the Chinese were Muslims almost 1,000 years before the Malays even heard of Islam?

Okay, now take my family as an example. The Selangor Sultanate was founded in 1745. The first Sultan, Raja Lumu, migrated here from the Riau islands in Indonesia. By then, of course, the Arabs, Indians and Chinese had already been here 200 to 300 years, some even longer.

But these Arabs, Indians and Chinese were traders and merchants, not warriors or fighters, whereas the Bugis from Riau only knew one occupation - fighting and plundering. In short, they were pirates, which was a noble profession back in those days where even Queen Elizabeth the First knighted those English pirates who plundered Spanish ships.

In fact, the Bugis came here because of a sort of civil war in their home country. There was a fight over a girl and the son of the local Ruler was killed in that fight. So the offending party was exiled and had to leave Riau. And that was when they came here in the 1700s and founded the Selangor Sultanate.

Do not members of the Selangor Royal Family fighting with their Ruler and going into exile sound very familiar to you? Yes, 300 years ago this was the ‘tradition’ and still is in my case.

Invariably, the Bugis, being fighters, took Selangor as their territory by the sheer force of its ‘army’. None of the traders, who although were here earlier, would dare resist the Bugis who enjoyed killing (some Bugis still do today, as you may well be aware). But Selangor was under Perak patronage. So Raja Lumu had to make a trip to Lumut in Perak to get crowned as the First Sultan by the then 17th or so Sultan of Perak. (Can’t remember if it was the 15th or 17th but it was around that). And he took the name of Sultan Salehuddin Shah.

Selangor eventually grew in prosperity. Actually, tin had already been discovered even before Raja Lumu became Sultan in 1745. And it was the Chinese who were working the tin mines. But now, since Selangor had a ‘government’, all the land in Selangor became ‘state property’. And therefore the Chinese had to get permission from the Sultan before they could mine for tin.

Around 100 years later, only when Sultan Abdul Samad took over as the Fourth Sultan of Selangor in 1859 (he was born in 1804) did they properly organise the tin industry. New areas were opened up in Ampang, Rawang, Kajang, and whatnot. And of course, all these tin mines were owned by the Sultan and members of his family -- brothers, sons, nephews, etc.

The Malays, however, did not want to work those mines. Conditions were hard and diseases wiped out entire communities. Those who survived these brutal conditions were the exception rather than the rule. So they needed people who were desperate enough to work those tin mines and were prepared to take the risk and probably lose the ‘gamble’.

And who else to talk to if not the Chinese who had already been working those mines for hundreds of years?

So members of the Selangor Royal Family went into ‘joint venture’ with the Chinese, just like they did in Perak, another rich tin state. The Malay Royals would 'arrange' for the tin concessions and the Chinese would provide the labour force to work those concessions. In a way, you could say that the Selangor Royal Family were the first to ‘invent’ the Ali Baba system back in the 1800s, long before the New Economic Policy in 1970.

Anyway, to reach Ampang and those other surrounding rich tin areas, they had to travel up the Klang River. Raja Abdullah and Yap Ah Loy led the first expedition and they landed on the site where the Gombak River and Kelang River meet. The place where they landed is the site of the famous Masjid Jamek in Kuala Lumpur.

From there they marched overland through the jungle into Ampang. And thereafter Kuala Lumpur was never the same again. It prospered and continued to prosper over more than 200 years from the 1800s.

Yap Ah Loy bought up a lot of land in Kuala Lumpur and built his business empire. He opened bars, brothels and all sorts of businesses, legal as well as illegal (illegal by today’s standards though). Even the British Colonial ‘masters’ would patronise Yap Ah Loy’s brothels to sample the latest ‘China Dolls’ brought in from the mainland.

Of course, the normal customers would have to pay for these vices. The British masters, however, could enjoy all these services for free. Yes, even back in the 1800s the Chinese businessmen were already bribing the government officials.

Now, while Yap Ah Loy has been entered into the history books as the ‘Founder of Kuala Lumpur’, Raja Abdullah is never mentioned. The only thing associated with Raja Abdullah is that road in Kampong Baru that carries his name. Yap Ah Loy may have been the capitalist who opened up Kuala Lumpur. But he was only able to do so because he had a ‘sleeping’ partner, Raja Abdullah, who gave him all this land to develop.

Okay, that is the Chinese story. So, yes, some did come here as prostitutes working for Yap Ah Loy. But that was incidental. Whenever frontier land is opened up the girls servicing these frontier-men follow -- like in the Wild West of America. Would you say that the White immigrants to America were all prostitutes?

Now, over to the Indians. As I said, the Indian (and Arab) traders and merchants first came here more than 500 years ago and even brought Islam to this country. But the ‘other’ Indians, the workers, came at about the time that Yap Ah Loy and Raja Abdullah were turning Kuala Lumpur into a thriving metropolis.

At that time, the British planters were in Ceylon (Sri Lanka today) growing cocoa. Then a plant disease spread throughout the island and all the trees died. But this disease not only killed all the trees but contaminated the land as well. This means the land was now useless and it was not a matter of just replanting.

Then the British looked at Malaya and decided that the conditions (land, climate, etc.) in Malaya were the same as in Ceylon. So they relocated their cocoa estates to Malaya. But there was no way they could get the Malays to work these cocoa estates. Furthermore, the Ceylonese workers were well trained and had been doing this work for years.

So, in the mid-1800s, the British brought the now unemployed Ceylonese cocoa workers to this country to work the Malayan cocoa plantations.

Then disaster struck. Brazil over-planted cocoa and this triggered a worldwide glut. It was no longer economical to plant cocoa. The price you would fetch for your cocoa was lower than your production cost. The British had no choice but to close down the cocoa plantations.

Around that time, the British, who had mischievously smuggled rubber seeds out of Brazil (which was a crime then), successfully grew rubber trees in the Kew Gardens in London. They also did some research and discovered a better way of planting rubber trees where the trees would give a better yield compared to the trees in Brazil. Rubber planting in Brazil was haphazard and not properly organised.

Since Malaya had to close down all its cocoa plantations and it now had idle plantation land and surplus Ceylonese workers, the British planters decided to switch over to rubber. And because the British took advantage of research and technology, the Malayan rubber trees were more productive and profitable. Eventually, Malaya dislodged Brazil as the top rubber producer in the world.

So, from the mid-1800s to around 1920, Indians and Chinese came to Malaya in great numbers. This was more or less the second wave of mass migration. And it was for economic reasons and to provide the labour for jobs that the Malays would never do. But there were earlier and other migrations as well.

For example, around the late 1800s and early 1900s, the British set up English medium schools for Malays. One such school, the Malay College Kuala Kangsar, was a school exclusive for sons of Royalty and the Malay elite. Invariably, they needed schoolteachers who were proficient in the English language. And India offered a good source of English medium schoolteachers (Malays could not speak English yet at that time).

On the commercial side, there were many Indian businesses, workers and whatnot. But there was no way they could qualify for loans from British owned banks. So the Indians from the Chettiar community came here to set up money-lending businesses to service their community.

When the Malayan rail network was being developed, where else to get the workers if not from the country with the largest railway in the world, India?

And so on and so forth.

That is the history of Malaya’s immigration. As I said in an earlier article last month, those who seek public office must first be made to sit for a history test. Only when they pass the test should they be allowed to become ministers, political secretaries, press secretaries, etc. This will avoid them making stupid statements like what many of the Umno people are now doing.

I can go on and on. But let me stop here, as this article is already getting very lengthy as it is. I trust, however, that this brief history of Malaya can enlighten you on the truth. Never accept what Umno says without first checking with me.

ADDENDUM

Rubber in Malaya began with Hugh Low

RUBBER is one of the most important commodities in Southeast Asia and is an important natural resource for export. Rubber has been in the area for more than 150 years, however the rubber tree is not indigenous as it originates from the South American continent.

If you ask people about how the rubber industry arrived in Southeast Asia, they will probably mention the name Ridley. Henry Nicholas Ridley (1855-1956) is often called the "father of Malaysian rubber industry". Although Ridley well deserves the credit for promoting the cultivation of rubber as a commodity, it was actually Sir Hugh Low Jnr (1824-1905) who introduced South American rubber to Malaya some ten years before the arrival of Ridley.

Low had a distinguished career in government service, but is also remembered for many botanical achievements. His father, Hugh Low Sr, ran a nursery near London and in 1844 sent his 19-year-old son to Malaya and Borneo to collect plant seeds. This was the start of extensive botanical studies, beginning with orchid collections from Johore.

Low Jr then went to the Riau Islands where he collected Pitcher plants (Nepenthes) as well as nutmeg, mangosteens, butterflies and animal skins. From Riau, he moved on to Borneo where he discovered many new species of Nepenthes, orchids and rhododendrons. Because of Low's efforts, orchids became a specialty in his father's nursery.

In 1847 Low was made Governor of Labuan and became Consul-General for Borneo. He stayed in Labuan for 27 years. Then, following James Birch's assassination in November 1875, he became British Resident in Perak in 1876. He remained in Perak until 1889 when he retired and returned to England.

During his years in Malaya, Low maintained a keen interest in economic horticulture, conducting experiments with coffee, cinchona, pepper, tea, sugar, rice and rubber. He is remembered for the introduction of the Balinese pomelo, and Jersey and Alderney cattle into Malaya. And of course rubber.

There are differing stories about how rubber left Brazil. One says that in June 1876, 70,000 seeds left South America — about 1,900 of those plants went to Ceylon, others went to Singapore but were dead on arrival and the rest went to Low's nursery. The following year more went to Singapore, where they did well.

Another report says that in 1876 the first seeds of this tree were smuggled out of Brazil by Henry Wickham and brought to Kew Gardens in London, where they were planted. About 22 seedlings were sent from Kew to Singapore. It was probably Low himself who took the 1877 batch to Singapore. He had gone to England in 1876, soon after the seeds arrived there and began to germinate.

In October 1877 Henry Murton of the Singapore Botanic Gardens took 10 Hevea brasiliensis plants which had been obtained from Ceylon to Kuala Kangsar in Malaya, and 9 of these were successfully planted in the Residency garden. Low probably accompanied Murton, as it is Low who is accredited with introducing and planting the first rubber in Malaya.

The seedling flourished, grew into healthy trees and in their turn produced seed. In February 1879 Low reported his trees to be 12 to 14 feet tall. In 1880 a tree flowered, aged two years. From then on, Low continued to collect and propagate the seedlings, and make test plantings in different parts of the state.

He obviously saw the economic importance of the new crop. The vulcanisation of rubber had already been discovered, in Brazil in 1839.

Whilst in Perak, and even before that in Labuan and Borneo, Low had been looking into indigenous Asian rubbers, but the South American type turned out to be much better. Low visited England in 1884-1885 and left his stand-in, Swettenham, with 400 seeds to plant out. It was these seeds which ultimately produced the trees for the rubber plantations of Malaya.

Ridley meanwhile had arrived in Singapore in 1888, where he took up the post of Director of the Botanic Gardens, from 1888-1912.

He was proud of the small collection of rubber trees and continued the planting of rubber and initiated the first really successful tapping in 1889.

Ridley was the first man to conceive the possibilities of plantation rubber as a prosperous industry, and he used to visit the coffee-planters and urge them to plant his seeds. One of his first recorded visits to Malaya was in 1889 when he went to Batu Caves and the nearby coffee plantations.

Some planters took them as curiosities. Few planters however took Ridley seriously, and among the planting community, he was generally referred to as "Mad Ridley".

Ridley acknowledged Low's work in horticulture when he wrote in 1911, "Sir Hugh Low was indeed a great agriculturalist and must rank next to Raffles as the greatest man we have had there".

So in fact both Low and Ridley contributed hugely to setting up the rubber industry in Malaya, and both should be remembered for their respective roles in making this natural resource such an important part of the area's economy.

The Brunei Times

DUN Perak bakal dibubar? PR-BN mula gerakkan jentera

Mahkamah Persekutuan bakal mengumumkan penghakiman terhadap kes "Menteri Besar Perak yang sah" pada 9 Februari yang akan datang.

Qin Lang, Merdeka Review

Politik mula bergolak di negeri Perak berikutan desas-desus pembubaran Dewan Undangan Negeri sejak kebelakangan ini. Pada hakikatnya, khabar angin ini tersebar sejak rampasan kuasa pada 6 Februari 2009. Tetapi, pengalaman lalu yang berakhir dengan "satu lagi pembohongan", telah menghakis harapan orang ramai. Namun, kemungkinan khabar angin ini menjadi kenyataan amat tinggi untuk kali ini.

Mahkamah Persekutuan bakal mengumumkan penghakiman terhadap kes "Menteri Besar Perak yang sah" pada 9 Februari yang akan datang. Ini merupakan saluran terakhir Menteri Besar Pakatan Rakyat (PR) di Perak, Mohd. Nizar Jamaluddin (gambar kiri) untuk merayu melalui sistem kehakiman sejak dilucutkan dari jawatannya.

Seandainya Mahkamah Persekutuan menyetujui penghakiman Mahkamah Rayuan, maka Menteri Besar Barisan Nasional, Zambry Jamaluddin adalah Menteri Besar yang sah. Maka, Nizar Jamaluddin gagal memulihkan jawatannya sebagai Menteri Besar melalui saluran kehakiman yang lain. Sebaliknya, seandainya Mahkamah Persekutuan menolak penghakiman Mahkamah Rayuan, Nizar Jamaluddin akan kembali menjadi Menteri Besar.

Menurut maklumat dari sumber PR, penghakiman oleh lima orang panel ini memihak kepada PR. Oleh itu, PR yakin bahawa mereka akan menang dalam perbicaraan ini, malah berjanji akan menghadap Sultan untuk memohon agar DUN dibubarkan.

Pengumuman langkah BN yang mesra rakyat

BN dikhabarkan tidak mempunyai keyakinan penuh untuk menang dalam kes ini. Lebih-lebih lagi BN dikatakan berniat untuk membubarkan DUN, tetapi menunggu saat-saat yang terbaik. Situasi ini menjurus kepada peningkatan kemungkinan pembubaran DUN.

Oleh kerana niatnya untuk memburu kesempatan terbaik agar mengembalikan sokongan rakyat, BN terpaksa mengakur kepada hasrat rakyat sejak rampasan kuasa. Selain pengumuman langkah-langkah yang "mesra rakyat", kerajaan BN sanggup memberi laluan dalam isu yang dibantah atau diperjuangkan oleh rakyatnya. Setidak-tidaknya, ini jarang berlaku semasa zaman pemerintahan kerajaan negeri BN dahulu.

Kebelakangan ini, pengumuman peruntukan dana, tanah menjadi lebih kerap daripada kerajaan negeri BN, malah memperlihatkan keberkesanan yang tinggi. Segala-gala ini merupakan cubaan untuk menawan hati rakyat.

Bukan itu sahaja, BN yang kini memegang kuasa untuk membubarkan DUN, mengambil sikap yang lain daripada dahulu, ketika berdepan dengan khabar pembubaran DUN kali ini. Ramai pemimpin memberi reaksi secara berasingan, bahawa "khabar angin ini diada-adakan oleh PR", "dakwaan yang menghina mahkamah". Bahkan, EXCO kerajaan negeri BN, Hamidah Osman mengadakan sidang media khas untuk memberi reaksi kepada khabar angin ini.

MCA bersungguh-sungguh mengembalikan kerusi

Satu lagi hujah mendakwa bahawa parti komponen BN mahu membubarkan DUN, tetapi tidak dipersetujui sesetengah pemimpin UMNO. Untuk MCA yang hanya tinggal dengan satu kerusi, Gerakan dan MIC yang tidak mendapat satu kerusi pun dalam PRU ke-12, menganggap hanya dengan pembubaran DUN, barulah mereka berpeluang untuk mendapatkan lebih kerusi.

Khabar angin di atas belum pasti kebenarannya. Yang pastinya, kedua-dua pihak BN dan PR telah mula menggerakkan jentera kempen untuk pilihan raya, sebagai persiapan seandainya PR diputuskan menang oleh Mahkamah Persekutuan, dan pembubaran DUN yang menyusul selepasnya.

Pemimpin BN peringkat pusat akan melawat ke Perak untuk menunjuk kekuatan, setiap kali khabar pembubaran DUN tersebar, terutamanya pemimpin MCA yang akan mengunjungi "kubu" mereka, menunjukkan kesungguhan untuk merampas kembali kerusi yang dimenangi PR dalam PRU ke-12.

Ahli Majlis PBT

Oleh kerana masih memegang kuasa kerajaan negeri, Mah Hang Soon (gambar kanan) yang memegang portfolio Kesihatan, Kerajaan Tempatan, Hal Ehwal Pengguna, Alam Sekitar, Pengangkutan Awam & Hal Ehwal Bukan Islam telah mengarahkan agar Ahli Majlis Pihak Berkuasa Tempatan (PBT) mengangkat sumpah jawatan sebelum 5 Februari. Ini mencungkil syak wasangka bahawa langkah ini sebagai persiapan terhadap penghakiman yang bakal diumumkan pada 9 Februari.

Pada tahun lalu, Ahli Majlis Perbandaran Taiping PR telah mengangkat sumpah jawatan sebelum rampasan kuasa pada 6 Februari. Jadi, BN terpaksa memeras otak untuk memaksa Ahli Majlis PBT meletak jawatan selepas itu. Walaupun mungkin ada yang menerima realiti bahawa "tukarnya pemimpin, maka tukarlah anak buahnya", namun tindakan BN kali ini tidak disenangi. BN telah dilihat merampas kerajaan negeri Perak dengan kuasanya di peringkat persekutuan. Paksaan mereka terhadap ahli majlis PBT PR mencerminkan imej gelojohnya mereka terhadap kuasa.

Setelah mengambil pengajaran daripada pengalaman yang lalu, BN kini lebih celik dengan menghabiskan upacara angkat sumpah jawatan di 15 majlis PBT, empat hari sebelum penghakiman diumumkan. Niatnya walaupun tersirat, tetapi disedari umum.

Bilangan kerusi dijangka tak banyak berbeza

Ceramah untuk mendedahkan selok belok rampasan kuasa telah bermula, sejak kerajaan PR ditumbangkan pada tahun lalu. ADUN PR telah membongkarkan penyelewengan BN di kawasan pengundian masing-masing, berjaya menyebarkan mesej bagaimana BN berkomplot untuk merampas kuasa.

Seandaianya DUN Perak dibubarkan dan pilihan raya diadakan, PR dijangka akan menghangatkan sentimen ketidakpuasan komuniti Cina, malah India terhadap BN dengan imej Nizar Jamaluddin yang baik di mata komuniti Cina. Namun demikian, dari kaca mata masyarakat Melayu, Nizar pula digambarkan sebagai pengkhianat Melayu dan boneka DAP. Ini mungkin kelemahan yang ada pada Nizar.

Tidak pelik seandainya Zambry meraih sokongan masyarakat Melayu dengan penguasaan sumber dan kerajinan beliau untuk turun ke kampung Melayu. Di masyarakat Cina pula, tidak kira berapa langkah yang memanfaatkan rakyat, beliau tetap dengan imejnya sebagai ketua rampasan kuasa BN. Beliau dijangka tidak disenangi pengundi Cina.

Namun, setelah tiga orang ADUN keluar dari PR, maka PR telah memiliki 28 kerusi seperti BN, dengan jumlahnya 59 (28vs28+3). Seandainya pemilihan semula mengekalkan perbezaan bilangan kerusi pada satu atau dua, dipercayai rampasan kuasa (peralihan kuasa) mungkin akan berlaku lagi. Ia mungkin tidak terhad kepada tarikh 8 Mac dan 6 Februari.

*Qin Lang ialah penulis khas MerdekaReview, edisi Cina. Diterjemah dan disunting oleh Lim Hong Siang.

Ramasamy: Tan a foe of CAT governance

Written by Regina William, The Edge

Nibong Tebal MP Tan Tee Beng, who recently hit out at Chief Minister Lim Guan Eng, had never raised the issue of getting yearly constituency allocations for small development projects in his constituency with Lim.

Penang Deputy Chief Minister 2 Prof P Ramasamy said Tan was in fact a foe of the CAT (competency, accountability and transparency) governance in Penang.

In a statement, Ramasamy said the Penang state exco had on its own initiative discussed over the previous 18 months the issue of the state government giving allocations to Penang Pakatan Rakyat (PR) MPs for small development projects.

"However this proposal was opposed by the previous State financial officer and state secretary. The state legal advisor had also expressed similar sentiments. There were also concerns expressed that the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission would use this issue to harass the PR state government and its representatives.

"Finally to accommodate the objections, the exco decided to channel the allocations to the respective state assemblymen.

"For instance, the Balik Pulau parliamentary constituency, the development funds in the state constituencies are handled by Penang State Speaker Datuk Abdul Halim Hussain.

"So far no DAP or PKR MPs had asked for yearly constituency allocation from the Penang state government, including Nibong Tebal MP Tan Tee Beng.

"In fact Lim had expressed his discomfort that Tan met him to discuss about matters that do not conform with the Penang PR core governing principles of CAT.

"To date, Tan has still not responded to MP Jeff Ooi and state assemblyman Ng Wei Aik's challenge to come clean on his (Tan's) attempted intervention in the rental of a Penang Development Corporation (PDC) shophouse in Chow Thye Road to his uncle," Ramasamy added.

He added that the state government was also aware that Tan was unhappy with the constituency allocations in Nibong Tebal because of his inability to get along with the two assemblymen in his area, Sungai Bakap's Maktar Shapee who is also the PKR Nibong Tebal division chief and DAP's Jawi state assemblyman Tan Beng Huat.

He said Tan Tee Beng had several times publicly criticised both Maktar and Tan Beng Huat in the media.

"The real problem is Tan Tee Beng's pettiness that has damaged his relationship with the two assemblymen. Furthermore, if Tan Tee Beng had got what he wanted from the Penang Chief Minister, would he have openly criticised him?" Ramasamy asked.

He said the CAT governance has won praise for Penang from Transparency International and allowed the state government to turn a projected budget deficit of RM35 million in 2008 to a record surplus of RM88 million.

"The chief minister has said that he is willing to lose friends and risk them becoming foes if this is the price to pay to enforce CAT governance in Penang. Unfortunately, Tan Tee Beng has become one of the many foes not only of Penang chief minister but also of CAT governance".

Meanwhile, Jelutong MP Jeff Ooi and state exco Chow Kon Yeow have both refuted allegations that even DAP leaders in Penang were unhappy with Lim.

At a press conference, Ooi said he would never be a "yes" man to anyone.

"I have always expressed my views, argued and even criticised when I disagreed with the chief minister but never see that as a rift or begrudge anyone as I raise them up for the sake of Penangites.

"At the end of the day, when decisions are made, we abide by them as we all have a much more important task ahead, to reform and enhance Penang's economy.

"Only stupid politicians will say such disagreements during brainstorming sessions are rifts," Ooi said.

At a separate press conference, Chow, the Penang DAP chairman denied that veteran DAP leaders were sidelined by Lim as alleged by former DAP municipal councillor Tham Weng Fatt who joined Parti Cinta Malaysia.

"I am a veteran and I am an exco, so are Lim Hock Seng (Bagan Jermal) and Phee Boon Poh (Sg Puyu).

"Only those who do not understand the party principles would leave the party and make such statements," Chow added.

Malaysia's Anwar faces trial

Anwar Ibrahim – Konspirasi nombor dua

Turut didedahkan pada Rabu 25hb Jun 2008, sehari sebelum serangan seksual terakhir pada hari Khamis keesokan harinya, Saiful telah bertemu dengan pegawai polis berpangkat tinggi Penolong Kanan Komisioner SAC Rodwan Mohd Yusof (waktu iti Timbalan Pengarah Jabatan Siasatan Jenayah Pasukan Polis DiRaja Malaysia, sekarang Ketua Polis Melaka) di Hotel Concorde, Kuala Lumpur di bilik bernombor 619.

Sivarasa Rasiah

Hanya sebelas tahun semenjak Anwar Ibrahim dipecat dari jawatan timbalan perdana menteri, beliau menerima tamparan dengan dakwaan liwat dan seolah-olahnya tuduhan rasuah (penyelewengan kuasa). Beliau berdepan dengan dua perbicaraan yang dikutuk seluruh dunia sebagai perbicaraan tidak adil dan bermotivasikan kepentingan politik pihak tertentu. Hasilnya beliau menghabiskan enam tahun dalam tahanan di Penjara Sungai Buloh, dikurung bersendirian selama pemenjaraan hanya dibenarkan bertemu dengan ahli keluarga dan para peguam sahaja. Akhirnya bekas Perdana Menteri Dr. Mahathir Mohamad mendapat hukuman setimpal dengan berat hati dipaksa bersara pada bulan Oktober 2003. Kemudiannya Anwar dibebas dan dilepaskan pada 2 haribulan September 2004 pada tahap terakhir rayuannya di mahkamah mengubah penghakiman kes liwatnya.

Sekarang mimpi ngeri itu bermula lagi. Pada 16 Julai 2008, Anwar ditangkap atas tuduhan kes liwat yang baru, selepas suatu laporan polis dibuat oleh Saiful Bukhari, pembantu berpangkat rendah dalam pejabatnya pada 28 Jun 2008. Anwar berkata tuduhan ini, sekali lagi bermotifkan politik, sebagai cubaan terbaru untuk menghalang kerjaya politiknya yang kembali bangkit mendadak kegemilangannya. Ramai orang di dalam dan di luar negara bersetuju dengan penilaian ini.

Kes terbaru ini hanyalah ulang tayang skrip lama dengan para pelakon yang baru - skrip sekarang ini juga menampilkan episod-episod campurtangan politik, kecurangan dan penyelewengan para pegawai di pejabat Peguam Negara dan pihak polis, penipuan bukti-bukti yang muncul daripada suatu konspirasi politik untuk menghentikan kerjaya cemerlang politik Anwar.

Kes hairan yang benar-benar pelik

Terdapat banyak fakta terhadap dakwaan yang dibuat Saiful dan tindak tanduknya yang sudahpun berada dalam pengetahuan orang ramai. Fakta-fakta ini bercakap dengan sendirinya. Secepatnya ia menunjukkan betapa tidak kukuhnya kes yang direka-reka ini, selain bertujuan menjatuhkan Anwar.

Saiful mendakwa dalam laporan polisnya bertarikh 28 June 2008 di Hospital Kuala Lumpur ("HKL") yang dia diliwat Anwar pada tengahari Khamis 26 Jun 2008 di sebuah kondominium di Bukit Damansara. Saiful bercerita kepada pihak polis dalam kenyataannya yang mendakwa dia telah diserang paksa sebanyak 8 ke 9 kali tanpa kerelaan hatinya oleh Anwar sepanjang dua bulan yang berlalu itu. Dalam laporan polisnya dua hari kemudian pada 28 Jun 2008, dia mendakwa kejadian liwat ini memang berlaku tanpa kerelaan hatinya. Cerita Saiful ini menimbulkan kecurigaan kenapa dia sebagai kononnya "si mangsa"yang dipaksa liwat 8 ke 9 kali tanpa kerelaan hatinya, selama dua bulan tetapi tidak membuat sebarang aduan kepada pihak berkuasa. Sepanjang waktu itu dia berhubungan secara biasa dengan Anwar dan kesemua kakitangan di pejabat Anwar Ibrahim.

Turut didedahkan pada Rabu 25hb Jun 2008, sehari sebelum serangan seksual terakhir pada hari Khamis keesokan harinya, Saiful telah bertemu dengan pegawai polis berpangkat tinggi Penolong Kanan Komisioner SAC Rodwan Mohd Yusof (waktu iti Timbalan Pengarah Jabatan Siasatan Jenayah Pasukan Polis DiRaja Malaysia, sekarang Ketua Polis Melaka) di Hotel Concorde, Kuala Lumpur di bilik bernombor 619. Apabila ditanya wartawan tentang pertemuan ini, Rodwan tidak memberikan sebarang komen. Rodwan telah memainkan peranan penting bersama pasukan polis dalam kes Anwar tahun 1998/99 dahulu. Rodwan terkenal dengan peranannya mengambil sampel darah Anwar untuk ujian DNA tanpa mengikut lunas undang-undang. Dia juga terkenal dengan tuduhan meletakkan kesan DNA yang direka-reka pada tilam yang diusung ke mahkamah. Sewaktu perbicaraan pertamanya pada tahun 1998, bukti DNA tidak dapat dipakai hinggakan hakim Augustine Paul yang jelas berat sebelah terpaksa membuang bukti tersebut daripada membantu kes pendakwaan.

Umum juga telah didedahkan "si mangsa" ini telah juga bertemu dengan Perdana Menteri sekarang (waktu itu masih Timbalan Perdana Menteri) beberapa hari sebelum kejadian yang didakwa itu berlaku. Apa yang lebih menarik lagi tentang pendedahan ini Najib pada awalnya menafikan pertemuan dengan Saiful kepada pihak media, tetapi kemudiannya mengakui, menjelaskan pertemuan itu berlangsung kerana Saiful (gagal dari universiti, tidak habis belajar) meminta bantuan Najib untuk mendapatkan biasiswa. Selepas itu barulah Najib memberi tahu pihak media bahawa Saiful diliwat Anwar dan dalam pertemuan tersebut Saiful kelihatan cukup traumatik.

Tindak tanduk Saiful selepas kononnya dipaksa liwat pada hari Khamis turut menimbulkan tanda tanya. Pagi besoknya, Saiful ke pejabat Anwar seperti biasa. Dia tidak mengadu kepada sesiapapun dan muncul dalam keadaan yang normal.Pada sebelah petangnya dia menghadiri acara anjuran Anwar Ibrahim Club di rumah Anwar, yang mana Anwar sendiri turut hadir. Di sana dia membantu menghidangkan kopi kepada sedozen orang yang hadir, tanpa memperlihatkan tanda-tanda takut atau cemas, dia mampu berdiri dan duduk tanpa menunjukkan tanda-tanda ketidak selesaan.

Pada hari Sabtu berikutnya, pada sebelah tengahari, kira-kira jam 2 petang, Saiful memutuskan untuk pergi ke hospital swasta Pusat Rawatan Islam (PUSRAWI) di Jalan Tun Razak. Di situ, dia mengadu kepada Dr. Osman yang dia merasa sakit di dalam lubang duburnya selama beberapa hari dan kelihatannya dia merasa seperti ada bahan "plastik" yang dimasukkan. Pemeriksaan protoskopi (menggunakan alat protoskop yang bertujuan memeriksa hujung lubang dubur) oleh Dr. Osman menunjukkan tidak ada tanda-tanda penembusan atau kemasukan dan keadaan normal dubur dan rektum hujung usus.

Selesai pemeriksaan, dia memberitahu Dr. Osman yang dia diliwat oleh VIP (orang kenamaan) dan Saiful telah dinasihatkan untuk mendapatkan pemeriksaan di hospital kerajaan. Meskipun HKL hanyalah terletak di seberang jalan, Saiful mengambil masa selama dua setangah jam untuk sampai ke sana. Di HKL, dia melaporkan yang dia diliwat, dia kemudiannya diperiksa oleh oleh tiga orang doktor pakar, yang mana bukanlah suatu prosedur yang biasa. Ketiga-tiga doktor tersebut dalam laporan rasmi mereka menyebut, "tidak ada rumusan hasil pemeriksaan klinikal yang dengan pasti dapat mencadangkan penembusan ke dalam lubang dubur ..." sekali lagi ia menguatkan kesimpulan yang dibuat Dr. Osman.

Sesiapapun yang menjadi penyiasat dengan sifat waras akan memahami bahawa pertuduhan liwat tidak akan ke mana-mana dalam keadaan bukti perubatan sejelas itu. Tiada seorangpun penyiasat yang waras akan meneruskan kes pendakwaan. Di sini kita melihat perkara yang sebaliknya berlaku. Pasukan penyiasat bersungguh-sungguh, biarpun bukti perubatan menunjukkan tidak ada penembusan terhadap lubang dubur. Sifat hasad berniat jahat dalam penyiasatan mengukuhkan lagi kewujudan motif politik disebalik tindakan mereka.

Penyiasatan kes ini diteruskan biarpun hasil laporan pemeriksaan perubatan telah diserahkan dengan serta-merta kepada para penyiasat polis. Spesimen yang diambil dengan pengelap daripada Saiful menimbulkan syak wasangka kerana ia mengambil masa dua hari untuk sampai ke makmal untuk dianalisa. Sekarang kita tahu bahawa pihak pendakwaan akan bergantung kepada bukti DNA dalam cubaan untuk membuktikan Anwar terlibat dalam tindakan meliwat Saiful tanpa kerelaannya.

Bagaimana seorang tua dengan sakit belakang dapat memaksa seorang jejaka yang tinggi dan tegap berusia 24 tahun, boleh menjadi soalan yang menarik untuk dijawab para pemerhati politik sepanjang perbicaraan ini.

Soalan lain yang menarik ialah dalam keadaan bukti kukuh perubatan yang menyatakan pemeriksaan klinikal tidak menemui malah untuk mencadangkan penembusan, kurangnya wibawa laporan DNA yang cuba menunjukkan DNA Anwar ditemui didalam lubang dubur Saiful. Perlu diingatkan bahwa bukti DNA sangat mudah untuk direka atau ditambah-tambah, khususnya jika kerja-kerja mereka-reka tambah bukti ini dilakukan oleh para penyiasat yang sama dalam perbicaraan 1998 dahulu.

Contoh-contoh bukti yang direka-reka bagi mengenakan Anwar

Ini bukan kali pertama, kes yang melibatkan Anwar untuk fenomena bukti yang direka-reka muncul. Kes 1998 dan 1999 penuh dengan kejadian pengakuan yang dirancang, bukti DNA yang direka-reka dan penyembunyian bukti pada pihak polis dan para pendakwa kanan yang terlibat.

Beberapa contoh dapat diberikan. Gani Patail merupakan salah seorang Pendakwaraya Kanan dalam kes Anwar pada tahun 1998 telah didedahkan pada tahun ini sebagai mereka-reka bukti perubatan dalam bentuk laporan perubatan. Ianya berhubung penyiasatan serangan terhadap Anwar pada malam 20 September 1998 bilamana Anwar telah diserang secara ganas oleh Rahim Noor. Setelah dunia melihat mata lebam Anwar, wujud desakan dan barulah diikuti dengan penyiasatan polis. Pegawai Penyiasat dalam kes tersebut, Dato Mat Zain telah mengesahkan hal ini dalam suratnya kepada SPRM (Suruhanjaya Pencegahan Rasuah Malaysia) bertarikh 15 April. Menurut surat itu, Gani Patail dengan bersungguh-sungguh mereka-reka bukti laporan perubatan dengan dibantu Musa Hassan (sekarang Ketua Polis Negara) dalam cubaan untuk cuba mencadangkan kecederaan Anwar dilakukan oleh dirinya sendiri. Dr. Mahathir kemudiannya mengumumkan kepada awam tentang kecederaan tersebut dilakukan oleh Anwar sendiri.

Pembentukan bukti rekaan terhadap Anwar juga berlaku dalam kes-kes dan orang-orang yang lain. Gani Patail didakwa terbabis mengancam Nallakaruppan dengan hukuman bunuhbagi memaksa dirinya memberi keterangan palsu terhadap Anwar. Hal ini didedahkan dalam akuan bersumpah yang dibuat peguam Nallakaruppan, Manjeet Singh Dhillon yang merupakan saksi langsung cubaan mengugut oleh Gani Patail bagi mendapatkan bukti palsu terhadap Anwar.

Hakim Mahkamah Persekutuan Steve Shim dalam kes Zainur Zakaria lawan PP [2001] 3 CLJ ada menyatakan bahawa permohonan Anwar untuk membatalkan Gani Patail dan Azahar sebagai pendakwaraya kanan kerana penglibatan mereka dalam mengancam Nallakaruppan dengan hukuman bunuh bagi mendapatkan bukti rekaan yang diinginkan:

”Dalam keadaan ini, apakah beliau ("Anwar") dianggap tidak wajar atas asas ianya melampaui keraguan munasabah untuk membuat aduan bahawa tindak tanduk Peguam Negara (Gani Patail) sewaktu pertemuan pada 2 Oktober 1998 dalam cubaan memaksa Nalla untuk mereka-reka bukti bagi menyempurnakan tuduhan terhadap Anwar untuk kes kesalahan seksual yang lain?"

Namun Hakim Augustine Paul tidak bertindak untuk membatalkan kelayan Gani Patail dan Azahar. Malah Augustine mendapati peguambela Anwar, Zainur Zakaria bersalah sebagai menghina mahkamah kerana memfailkan permohonan pembatalan kelayakan tersebut dan menjatuhkan hukuman 3 bulan penjara. Gani Patail terus mendaki puncak kekuasaan menjadi Peguam Negara. Azahar pula menjadi Hakim Mahkamah Tinggi. Malaysia Boleh!

Sukma, adik angkat Anwar, ditangkap pada September 1998 dan ditahan tanpa ada perhubungan dengan peguam dan keluarga selama 14 hari. Permohonan peguamnya untuk bertemu dengan Sukma ditolak. Dia disiksa secara mental dan fizikal sehinggalah dia membuat pengakuan melakukan liwat dengan Anwar. Pegawai polis yang dinamakan dalam penghakiman Mahkamah Rayuan sebagai bertanggungjawab dalam penyiksaan ini ialah Musa Hassan, sekarang Ketua Polis Malaysia. Pemeriksaan fizikal oleh Dr. Zahari Noor menunjukkan tidak ada bukti penembusan - laporan ini diketahui oleh pihak pendakwaraya yang menyembunyikannya daripada pengetahuan mahkamah, saat Sukma mengaku "bersalah" hanya berasaskan pengakuan yang dipaksakan itu. Peguam yang dilantik keluarga Sukma tidak dibenarkan bersuara mewakili anak guamnya setelah dibantah oleh pihak pendakwa raya (Gani Patail and Yusuf Zainal Abiden).

Mahkamah Rayuan dalam penghakiman bertulisnya pada Jun 2006 dalam kes Sukma Darmawan Sasmitaat Madja v PP [2007] 4 CLJ 697] menyatakan:

"Di sini kita ada kes kelakuan sumbang pihak pendakwaan dengan secara sengaja menyembunyikan bukti yang memenangkan pihak pembelaan. Tidak ada lagi kes ketidak adilan sejelas ini, apabila pengakuan bersalah didakwa didapatkan dengan cara tekanan yang tidak sah di sisi undang-undang."

Penangkapan dan penahanan Dr Munawar Anees juga sama seperti yang terjadi kepada Sukma, dia ditahan tanpa dapat berhubung dengan peguam dan keluarga, disiksa dan dipaksa membuat pengakuan palsu melakukan liwat dengan Anwar. Malang bagi dirinya, kesemua mahkamah yang dirayu tidak memenangkan kesnya.Hakim-hakim seperti Low Hop Bing J di Mahkamah Rayuan bersama hakim Zaki Tun Azmi ( Ketua Hakim sekarang), Zulkefli Makinudin J. dan Nik Hashim J di Mahkamah Persekutuan telah memastikan permohonan Dr Munawar untuk mendapat keadilan dan membolehkan kesnya dibuka semula telah ditamatkan. Mereka memastikan Dr Munawar tidak berupaya untuk mendedahkan pengalaman pahitnya pada tahun 1998 di tangan pihak polis, pendakwaan dan mahkamah dalam suatu perbicaraan yang baru. Permohonannya untuk menimbal semula keputusan Mahkamah Persekutuan telah ditolak baru-baru ini pada 28 Desember 2009 oleh panel Mahkamah Persekutuan yang dianggotai Arifin Zakaria J., Raus Sharif J. dan Mohd Ghazali Mohd Yusuf.

Pergeseran yang jelas di antara layanan dalam kes Sukma dan kes Munawar pada peringkat rayuan kepada mahkamah yang lebih atas cukup terang dan nyata. Di dalam sistem perundangan jenayah manapun, apabila pengakuan dicabar atas sebab dilakukaan tanpa kerelaan, pihak tertuduh secara automatiknya dianugerahkan peluang mendengar viva voce (melalui saksi-saksi) berhubung dengan kesukarelaannya. Pendinding perundangan ini menjadi amat penting kerana apabila pengakuan bersalah direkodkan berdasarkan pengakuan tanpa rela. Cukup disesalkan mahkamah tertinggi di Malaysia tidak nampak prinsip-prinsip asas keadilan sistem kehakiman ini. Melalui tindakan tersebut, mereka telah mengesahkan jenayah serius yang dilakukan pihak polis dan pendakwaraya terlibat apabila dia ditangkap, ditahan dan disiksa bagi mendapatkan pengakuan palsu dan dipenjarakan selama enam bulan hanya kerana untuk memburukkan nama Anwar dengan perkaitan hubungan perkenalan.

Konspirasi hasad niat jahat dalam kes sekarang ini

Gani Patail sekarang merupakan Peguam Negara di Malaysia. Musa Hassan ketua pasukan polis negara. Kedua-dua nama, secara khususnya Gani Patail, telah didedahkan oleh Mat Zain sebagai mereka cipta bukti palsu, suatu jenayah yang serius, bagi mengenakan Anwar dalam penyiasatan ke “mata lebam” Anwar.

Penyiasatan kes sekarang ini dibawah kawalan polis yang mendapat arahan dari Musa Hassan. Hasad jahat penyiasatan menjadi cukup nyata apabila anggota polis bersenjata dan bertopeng menangkap Anwar kira-kira jam 1 tengahari di rumahnya pada 16 Julai 2008 – ini terjadi kira-kira dua setengah minggu selepas laporan dibuat Saiful. Penangkapan itu sebenarnya langsung tidak perlu dibuat. Ini disebabkan para peguam Anwar sedang mengiringi beliau ke Ibu Pejabat Polis Daerah Kuala Lumpur pada jam 2 petang hari yang sama bagi menghadiri temujanji yang telahpun diatur sebelum itu dan dipersetujui oleh pegawai polis yang ditugaskan merekod kenyataan Anwar.

Namun, beliau ditangkap umpamanya beliau seorang penjenayah yang sedang melarikan diri. Anwar ditahan semalaman di lokap, sekali lagi ianya tidak perlu dan cukup jelas menunjukkan hasad jahat. Beliau dipaksa tidur di atas lantai simen yang dingin, menambah burukkan kecederaan lama bahagian belakangnya. Alasan yang diberikan polis untuk menahan Anwar selama semalaman adalah kerana mereka perlu menyelesaikan untuk mengambil kenyataan beliau – namun permintaan beliau untuk pulang pada waktu yang dijanjikan telah ditolak. Sekarang ia menjadi amat jelas bahawa Anwar ditahan semalaman dilokap kerana percubaan untuk mendapatlan sampel DNA dari tubuh beliau.

Tuduhan Saiful diperkuatkan lagi dengan Saiful mengambil bahagian dalam acara “sumpah lakhnat” di Masjid Negara Kuala Lumpur pada 15 Julai 2008 dengan kehadiran Ustaz Ramlang bin Porigi, salah serang imam di sana. Kemudiannya pada bulan Ogos, Ustaz Ramlang mendedahkan yang dia diarahkan oleh Ketua Jabatan Agama Islam Wilayah Persekutuan Kuala Lumpur (JAIWP) Dato Che Mat bin Che Ali untuk hadir sebagai saksi saat sumpah tersebut berlangsung. Disebabkan dia membuat pendedahan umum berhubung perkara ini, Ustaz Ramlang kemudiannya ditukar ke bahagian “kewangan” (JAIWP). Beberapa bulan kemudiannya dia dikenakan tindakan disiplin.

Campurtangan politik juga ditunjukkan dalam pengendalian aduan qazaf yang difailkan oleh Anwar ke atas Saiful kepada pihak JAIWP pada 9 Julai (qazaf merupakan kesalahan dibawah undang-undang syariah kerana memberi kenyataan fitnah terhadap orang lain, khususnya dalam hubungannya dengan kesalahan seksual). Jabatan penguatkuasaan JAIWP telah menyelesaikan penyiasatannya dalam masa beberapa bulan dan telah merekod kenyataan dari Anwar, Saiful dan saksi-saksi yang relevan. Sehingga ke hari ini JAIWP masih belum mengisytiharkan tidak ada kesalahan yang dilakukan Saiful. Dalam masa yang sama, tidak ada pendakwaan terhadap Saiful yang cuba dibuat. Para pegawai JAIWP telah diarahkan oleh Menteri Persekutuan bertanggungjawab dalam hal ehwal agama Islam untuk tidak mengambil sebarang tindakan terhadap Saiful, atas alasan kes liwatnya masih belum habis berlangsung. Hal ini adalah salah kerana perundangan kedua mahkamah ini adalah terpisah dan indipenden dan sekali lagi ia menunjukkan campurtangan politik.

Hasad jahat dan berat sebelah di pihak pendakwaan; memegang dokumen daripada pihak pembelaan; perbicaraan tidak adil

Perhatian yang serius patut diberikan terhadap hasad jahat dan sikap berat sebelah di pihak pendakwaan. Gani Patail menandatangani sijil pemindahan kes Anwar dari Mahkamah Sesyen ke Mahkamah Tinggi. Yusuf Zainal Abiden, Pendakwaraya Kanan dalam pasukan pendakwaan kes sekarang juga terlibat secara giat dalam kes Sukma dan kes pendakwaan Anwar pada tahun 1998. Terdapat keprihatinan dengan memberikan sikap berat sebelah dan mala fide atau niat jahat yang ditunjukkan pihak pendakwaan dalam kes-kes sebelum ini, bahawa Anwar tidak akan mendapat perbicaraan yang adil daripada Pendakwaraya Kanan yang mendakwanya sekarang.

Beberapa tindakan berniat jahat telahpun ditunjukkan dalam persoalan pencarian dokumen-dokumen dan bukti dalam kes semasa ini. Permohonan beterusan dari barisan para peguam Anwar untuk mendapatkan dokumen-dokumen yang sesuai bagi mempersiapkan pembelaan seperti kenyataa saksi Saiful dan saksi-saksi lainnya tidak dilayan oleh Pendakwaraya Kanan. Anwar kemudiannya memohon dokumen-dokumen ini kepada hakim perbicaraan Mahkamah Tinggi. Hakim Zabidin Mohd Diah telah membenarkan permohonan Anwar ini. Pihak pendakwaraya pula merayu, yang menyebabkan Mahkamah Rayuan mengenepikan penghakiman Mahkamah Tinggi. Rayuan Anwar ke Mahkamah Persekutuan ditolak pada Jumaat 28 Januari 2010. Suatu keputusan yang tidak mengejutkan, dengan melihat pendirian politik yang diambil oleh hakim-hakim Mahkamah Persekutuan dalam kes Dr Munawar.

Fakta menunjukkan rayuan Anwar ke Mahkamah Persekutuan terhadap beberapa hal penting berhubung pengeluaran dokumen itu masih lagi menunggu keputusan. Namun demikian, hakim perbicaraan Mahkamah Tinggi pada 6 Disember 2009 muncul dalam keadaan tertekan untuk menetapkan tarikh perbicaraan lebih awal dan menetapkan perbicaraan dimulakan pada 25 Januari selama sebulan. Hakim yang sama pernah berkata bahawa tahun ini tarikh perbicaraan tidak akan ditetapkan sehinggalah perihal mendapatkan dokumen-dokumen itu ditentukan oleh rayuan ke peringkat mahkamah yang lebih atas.

Keadilan perbicaraan yang bakal dihadapi Anwar telah dipersoalkan dengan penafian dokumen-dokumen penting bagi persiapan pembelaan. Di dalam perbicaraan jenayah pada hampir keseluruhan sistem perundangan, pihak tertuduh akan diberikan, sebelum perbicaraan, kenyataan-kenyataan kesemua saksi dan keseluruhan dokumen yang dikeluarkan oleh kesemua saksi terbabit. Prosedur ini memastikan keadilan terhadap semua pihak, dan menghalang penangguhan perbicaraan. Meskipun terdapat peruntukan undang-undang sedia ada, namun perbicaraan Anwar akan berjalan seperti cara lama dengan serangan-serangan hendap penghujahan dan pembuktian. Setiap butir-butir perincian kes pendakwaan dan banyak dokumen-dokumen penting akan dilihat kali pertama oleh pihak pembelaan hanya sewaktu perbicaraan berlangsung. Ianya meletakkan pihak tertuduh dan para peguam belanya dalam keadaan tekanan yang tidak adil.

Konspirasi politik

Kunci kepada perbicaraan ini dapat dilihat dengan tindak-tanduk bermotif politik oleh pihak pendakwaan dan kepentingan pihak-pihak yang terlibat, secara khususnya Gani Patail (Peguam Negara sekarang) dan Musa Hassan (Ketua Polis Negara sekarang) serta Perdana Menteri hari ini.

Pakatan Rakyat dan Anwar telah mengkritik mereka secara habisa-habisan di dalam dan di luar parlimen – Peguam Negara Gani Patail dengan perlakuan jenayahnya sendiri di dalam kes penyiasatan “mata lebam”, kegagalannya untuk memastikan pendakwaan bagi banyak kes-kes rasuah yang serius, secara khususnya yang berkaitan dengan jenayah dan rasuah yang didedahkan dalam video klip VK Lingam; juga terhadap hubungan terhadap dakwaan-dakwaan berwibawa keterlibatan KPN Musa Hassan dalam tindakan jenayahnya berserta hubungan rasuahnya dengan ketua-ketua kumpulan kongsi gelap seperti BK Tan dan Goh Cheng Poh.

Kritikan terbuka Anwar terhadap keterlibatan Perdana Menteri dalam kes rasuah pembelian jet Sukhoi dan kapal Selam Scorpene oleh Kementerian Pertahanan telah menjadi rekod umum. Anwar juga berulang kali mendesak Najib membenarkan penyiasatan bebas bagi membersihkan namanya atas dakwaan berwibawa penglibatan dirinya dan isterinya Rosmah dalam pembunuhan terkenal model Mongolia Altantuya Shaaribuu.

Blog-blog di internet melaporkan bukti akuan bersumpaj yang dibuat oleh penyiasat persendirian Balasubramaniam yang mengatakan Altantuya memberitahunya yang dia mempunyai hubungan peribadi dengan Najib dan kaitannya dengan rundingan pembelian senjata yang sama serta tentang bagaimana DSP Musa Safiri, pegawai polis pengiring Najib memainkan peranan dalam penangkapan dan pelenyapan Altantuya. Musa Safiri malah tidak dipanggil sebagai saksi dalam perbicaraan kes pembunuhan Altantuya.

Anwar pada bulan Julai tahun 2008 dan pada Februari tahun lalu turut memfailkan laporan polis berkenaan Gani Patail dan Musa Hassan atas peranan mereka dalam mereka-cipta bukti terhadap diri beliau dalam penyiasatan kes “mata lebam” pada tahun 1998. Laporan itu juga turut mendakwa mereka bersubahat memfailkan laporan polis palsu pada malam 20 September 1998 dalam hubungannya dengan penangkapan Anwar di rumah beliau di Bukit Damansara. Tidak ada satupun laporan-laporan ini menghasilkan pendakwaan biarpun seorang bekas hakim Mahkamah Persekutuan berpendapat Gani melakukan kesalahan jenayah dalam kes penyiasatan “mata lebam”.

Penyalahgunaan lembaga-lembaga awam seperti pasukan polis, Pejabat Peguam Negara, Kehakiman dan institusi lainnya seperti yang pernah terjadi pada tahun 1998, sedang berlaku sekali lagi dengan kes terbaru ini. Ia bukanlah kes jenayah yang mudah. Apa yang sedang diperjudikan sekarang ini adalah penggunaan kes aniaya dan palsu sebagai senjata politik untuk menghentikan kemajuan Anwar Ibrahim dan gerakan politik Pakatan Rakyat yang dipimpinnya. Suatu kemajuan gerakan yang mengancam kewujudan dan masa depan kerajaan Barisan Nasional dan para pemimpinnya.

Pendakwaan Akan Buktikan Air Mani Anwar Ada Dalam Spesimen Saiful

(Bernama) - Pihak pendakwaan akan mengemukakan keterangan bahawa kesan air mani daripada spesimen yang diambil dari dubur Mohd Saiful Bukhari Azlan yang telah disahkan oleh Jabatan Kimia, milik Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim bagi membuktikan kesalahannya meliwat Mohd Saiful.

Peguam Cara Negara II, Datuk Mohd Yusof Zainal Abiden dalam ucapan pembukaannya berkata, selain keterangan langsung Mohd Saiful dalam perbicaraan, pihak pendakwaan akan mengemukakan keterangan forensik oleh doktor-doktor dan ahli kimia, di samping keterangan mengikut keadaan serta keterangan dokumentar.

Beliau berkata, pihak pendakwaan akan membawa keterangan bahawa pada 26 Jun 2008 kira-kira 10.30 pagi semasa di pejabat Anwar, tertuduh telah meminta Mohd Saiful, yang ketika itu pembantu khasnya untuk pergi ke Kondominium Desa Damansara lebih kurang 2.30 petang pada hari yang sama.

Pada 1.45 petang, Mohd Saiful keluar dari pejabat tertuduh menuju ke Kondo Desa Damansara dan tiba di kondo tersebut kira-kira 3 petang.

Di kondo berkenaan, Mohd Saiful kemudian pergi ke Unit 11-5-1, di tingkat 5. Apabila Mohd Saiful masuk ke unit tersebut, dia melihat tertuduh sedang duduk di meja makan seorang diri.

"Di unit itu, Mohd Saiful telah diliwat oleh tertuduh dan mangsa telah meninggalkan unit itu jam lebih kurang 4 petang," jelas Mohamed Yusof.

Seterusnya pada 28 Jun 2008, Mohd Saiful membuat laporan polis di Balai Polis Travers mengenai kejadian liwat tersebut.Pada hari yang sama, Mohd Saiful menjalani pemeriksaan di Hospital Kuala Lumpur berhubung kejadian liwat berkenaan.

"Sampel-sampel tisu termasuk dari bahagian luar dan dalam dubur Mohd Saiful telah diambil oleh doktor yang memeriksanya untuk ujian DNA," kata Mohamed Yus

Masalah tiga Z dalam KeADILan

Apa yang berlaku hari ini amat malang. Mesyuarat tertinggi parti yang seharusnya rahsia, dibocorkan kepada pihak yang tidak bertanggungjawab. Masalah sesama anggota keluarga dalam parti diceritakan kepada orang luar. Ketidakpuasan hati terhadap pucuk pimpinan ditulis dalam blog dan dibuat sidang akhbar.

Mohd Rashidi Hasan, Harakah

POLITIK Malaysia tidak pernah surut dengan krisis. Lepas satu krisis diatasi, timbul lagi krisis baru. Ia menyebabkan iklim politik negara sentiasa panas dan rancak.

Terbaru timbul krisis dalaman Parti KeADILan Rakyat, sehingga tiga orang pemimpinnya iaitu Ahli MPT, Dato' Zaid Ibrahim, Ahli Parlimen Bayan Baru, Dato' Seri Zahrain Hashim dan Ahli Parlimen Kulim-Bandar Baharu, Zulkifli Noordin dihadapkan ke Jawatankuasa Disiplin parti.

Sebelum penulis pergi jauh, penulis tidak berhasrat untuk mencampuri urusan dalaman parti sahabat. Penulis sekadar ingin memaparkan pandangan, supaya krisis-krisis ini dijadikan iktibar agar ia tidak menjejaskan aspirasi dan sokongan rakyat terhadap Pakatan Rakyat untuk jangka panjang.

Isunya di sini bukan KeADILan sahaja. Kes pelanggaran disiplin berlaku dalam semua parti politik. Sama ada Umno, PAS, KeADILan, DAP, MCA, MIC, Gerakan, PPP, semuanya wujud pergolakan dalaman.

Krisis berlaku bukan sekadar kerana, sesebuah parti itu sudah lama berpolitik. Parti baru yang dilancarkan Perdana Menteri, Dato' Seri Mohd Najib Tun Razak, seperti Makkal Sakhti pun juga menunjukkan perpecahan yang serius.

Tidak lama lagi parti baru iaitu Parti Cinta Malaysia (PCM) juga akan mengalami krisis kepimpinan. Kita tidak perlu buat apa-apa. Hanya tunggu dan lihat sahaja.

Masalah wujud dalam sesebuah parti ada banyak sebab dan puncanya. Ia juga bergantung kepada sejauh mana kebijaksanaan pemimpin tertinggi menyelesaikannya.

Namun, masalah dalaman parti akan menjadi rumit apabila ada pihak yang sentiasa 'menangguk di air yang keruh', iaitu media massa pro Umno-Barisan Nasional.

Media-media ini sentiasa mengambil kesempatan di atas kelemahan dan kealpaan Pakatan Rakyat. Masalah kecil akan diperbesar-besarkan. Sedangkan masalah besar dalam parti-parti komponen BN ditutup.

Salahnya bukan media. Media memang menanti dan mencari-cari isu untuk mencemarkan kredibiliti pemimpin dan parti gabungan Pakatan Rakyat.

Salahnya ialah ada segelintir anggota 'keluarga' Pakatan Rakyat yang terlalu celupar mulutnya, membawa masalah dalaman 'rumah tangga' mereka ke pengetahuan umum.

Tiap-tiap organisasi, parti, jemaah atau keluarga ada disiplinnya sendiri. Dan menjadi tanggungjawab bagi setiap anggota, mematuhi disiplin. Antara disiplin yang utama ialah menjadi anggota yang memelihara kerahsiaan sesebuah organisasi.

Apa yang berlaku hari ini amat malang. Mesyuarat tertinggi parti yang seharusnya rahsia, dibocorkan kepada pihak yang tidak bertanggungjawab. Masalah sesama anggota keluarga dalam parti diceritakan kepada orang luar. Ketidakpuasan hati terhadap pucuk pimpinan ditulis dalam blog dan dibuat sidang akhbar.

Mereka yang mencetuskan masalah ini bukannya bodoh. Mereka adalah ahli-ahli politik yang bijak pandai dan terpelajar dalam bidang masing-masing. Ada yang peguam, jurutera, doktor, exco kerajaan, Ahli Parlimen, Adun, Ustaz, Ustazah dan ada yang bergelar dato' serta mempunyai banyak pengalaman dalam politik.

Malangnya mereka-mereka ini di sebalik segulung pengalaman, tidak kurangnya, yang mampu mengelak daripada memperjuangkan kepentingan diri sendiri, kepentingan kepuakan dan kepentingan kelompok.

Malah, yang paling susah ialah, apabila mereka-mereka ini merasakan, idea, pandangan atau pendapat mereka sahaja yang betul. Pandangan pihak lain, mahupun dari partinya sendiri atau parti rakan, semuanya tidak betul.

Akibat keras kepala mereka ini, mendorong mereka melangkaui persahabatan, melangkaui persefahaman politik dan melangkaui nilai-nilai agama, sehingga menjadi parasit dalam perjuangan.

Tanpa segan silu (kononnya atas menegakkan yang hak), mereka menghentam sesama rakan, mengkritik pemimpin tertinggi mereka secara terbuka. Malah ada parasit yang terlampau sehingga membuat laporan polis terhadap rakannya sendiri.

Tanpa mereka sedari, mereka sudah terjerumus ke perangkap musuh. Mereka ini tidak sedar dan tidak pernah serik. Mereka seolah-olah gembira apabila gambar dan berita mereka terpampang di muka hadapan akhbar milik musuh.

Akhbar yang selama ini mereka caci kerana menyiarkan berita palsu, menganiaya dan memutarbelitkan kenyataan atau berita parti-parti Pakatan Rakyat, kepada akhbar itulah mereka sandarkan, sebagai senjata untuk menembak sahabat sendiri.

Dalam akhbar pro Umno-BN dengan angkuh mereka berkata, mereka tidak akan berganjak dengan pendirian, tidak akan menarik balik kenyataan mahupun ianya melanggar disiplin parti, malah ada yang terlampau sehingga secara terbuka mengatakan mereka sanggup dipecat daripada parti.

Dalam kes spesifik seperti KeADILan ini, biarlah kebijaksanaan pucuk pimpinannya menyelesaikan masalah dalaman. 'Budak-budak nakal' ini sudah membuat bising, terpulanglah kepada mereka menyelesaikannya.

Hakikat sebenar yang berlaku ialah mereka yang menjadi parasit ini, tergolong dari kalangan mereka yang gagal memahami perjuangan.

Kes tiga Z ini (Zaid, Zahrain atau Zulkifli) kecil sahaja. Mereka bukan prime mover kepada perjuangan. Ambil sahaja kes, bekas Timbalan Presiden Parti Keadilan Nasional, Dr Chandra Muzafar, Ketua Pemudanya, Ezam Mohamed Noor serta kuncu-kuncu yang lain seperti Zahid Mat Arip.

Mereka-mereka yang pernah menjadi perancang, penggerak atau dalam ertikata lain mereka mendakwa sebagai fountain head kebenaran, memperjuangkan keadilan, mengkritik kedurjanaan Umno-BN dengan lantang, semuanya sudah tersungkur, atas sebab-sebab tertentu.

Persoalan ketidakpuasanhati Zahrain terhadap Ketua Umum KeADILan, Dato' Seri Anwar Ibrahim dan Ketua Menteri Pulau Pinang, Lim Guan Eng, amat tidak diterima ramai penyokong KeADILan.

Ketidakpuasan hati ini mendorong kepada keceluparan mulut, yang akhirnya membawa fitnah dan keburukan kepada perjuangan. Memburuk-burukkan pemimpin dalam media pro Umno-BN adalah sesuatu yang tidak wajar dan tidak patut diterima sama sekali.

Penulis juga dapat fahami perbezaan antara Zaid dan Zulkifli. Kedua-duanya mewakili dua kutub yang berbeza. Akan tetapi ini tidak bermakna dua kutub atau aliran tidak boleh dalam satu perjuangan. PAS dengan DAP pun boleh berdamai, takkan dalam KeADILan tidak boleh? Apa pun akhirnya, dua kutub yang kononnya mereka wakili juga tercemar.

Jika kita mewakili grup Islam. Islam yang bagaimana? Dalam soal Islam seperti dalam isu spesifik mengenai kalimah Allah, ramai yang berpegang kepada pandangan Tuan Guru Dato' Nik Abdul Aziz Nik Mat dan Dato' Seri Tuan Guru Abdul Hadi Awang. Buat apa kita hendak pakai pandangan individu yang berlagak seolah-olah lebih alim dan warak dari kedua ulama besar ini?

Jika kita ada perselisihan faham, mengapa tidak menggunakan saluran perdebatan yang betul. Mengapa harus buat laporan polis terhadap Ahli Parlimen Shah Alam?

Dalam Pakatan Rakyat, kita meraikan perbezaan pendapat. Namun perbuatan membuat laporan polis kepada rakan parti sahabat sudah benar-benar tergelincir dari landasan perjuangan KeADILan dan Pakatan Rakyat.

Apa pun bukan Zulkifli seorang yang melakukan kesalahan. Zaid tidak harus lupa, dalam kes Dato' Dr Jeffery Kitingan, beliau juga mengkritik Anwar dan mengingkari dasar perjuangan KeADILan. Mengapa Zaid membisu dalam kes Jeffery? Mengapa Zaid tidak menggesa Jeffery dibuang? Walhal apabila Zulkifli melakukan kesalahan yang sama, beliau menggesa Anwar membuang Zulkifli.

Kesimpulan yang dapat diringkaskan di sini, pada pandangan penulis ialah, mereka-mereka yang menimbulkan masalah ini sebenarnya gagal memahami perjuangan KeADILan dan gagal merenung secara konsisten kepimpinan Anwar.

Malah mereka ini sebenarnya semakin menghakis kepercayaan rakyat terhadap diri mereka sendiri. Jika mereka tidak memperbetulkan tindakan atau tidak berhati-hati dalam membuat kenyataan, nescaya rakyat tidak akan menerima nama mereka, untuk tersenarai sebagai calon-calon Pakatan Rakyat bagi Pilihan Raya Umum ke-13 nanti.

On Howard Zinn and Malaysian history

Malaysia's history is written by those who are paid by the feudal lords or the sultans and the bourgeoisie class who have become an appendage to the modern neo-feudalistic Malay state.

A REPUBLIC OF VIRTUE

Azly Rahman

"From the start, my teaching was infused with my own history. I would try to be fair to other points of view, but I wanted more than 'objectivity'; I wanted students to leave my classes not just better informed, but more prepared to relinquish the safety of silence, more prepared to speak up, to act against injustice wherever they saw it. This, of course, was a recipe for trouble." - Howard Zinn, American historian par excellence.

On Jan 28, 2010 America mourned the passing on of one of her greatest historians whose 50 years of work pioneered not only the style of historicizing that put the oppressed, marginalized, disposed, victimized, and otherwise losers and forgotten in history - into center-stage and hailed as heroes.

Prof Zinn, an alumnus of Columbia University's History Department was a radical educator whose work inspired the Civil Rights movement, left a legacy of looking at history through the lens of critical pedagogy.

Zinn can provide a way Malaysian historians cn promote the teaching of Malaysian history.

Inspired by Howard Zinn

I was first introduced to Howard Zinn's work, in the early 1980s through a professor of mine who was a close friend of William Ayers, another radical educator whose work centered around the idea of education for social justice.

As part of a required reading for a graduate course in Education and Democracy, alongside seminal works such as John Dewey's Democracy and Education, Paulo Freire's Pedagogy of the Oppressed, Michael Harrington's Socialism, and a collection of key writings in Marxist theories of education and human liberation, Zinn's work provided a tour de force of American history.

I was introduced to the context of how history ought to also be looked at in relation to how those historied by history ought to be schooled, trained, and most importantly, educated and next, liberated.

I was introduced to the idea of 'a people's history of the United States" and how America was 'founded' as a consequence of the massacre of tens of thousands of Arawak Indians; those massacred a few year after the arrival of Christopher Columbus.

Subsequent epochs saw the wars, as Howard Zinn chronicled, that made America into an empire founded upon the idea that in order to arrive at peace, one must prepare for and wage war.

The war machine that is America progressed well in subsequent centuries with the advancement of technology and the culture of capitalism.

America was not only fuelled by what Marx would call "technological and economic determinism" but also by the experiment in the championing of a strange yet familiar idea of 'democracy'.

Zinn's heroes are the natives, the slaves, the workers, the Civil Rights leaders, and those who oppose war.

America the land of the free and home of the brave has evolved into a powerful military-industrial complex.

Howard Zinn's work became an inspiration in my teachings of The Foundations of Western Civilization and The History of the United States, among the more than 40 course I have taught in seven different departments, particularly in the United States.

Historicizing Malaysia

Malaysia's history is written by those who are paid by the feudal lords or the sultans and the bourgeoisie class who have become an appendage to the modern neo-feudalistic Malay state.

Malaysian history, a basis of the violently disseminated idea of Ketuanan Melayu, as an apology to the idea of economic dominance of the Malay-dominated National Front, favours the powerful and the wealthy as heroes of history.

Tun Sri Lanang, court writer for the Malay Annals or Sejarah Melayu, wove tales of the overblown glory of the Malacca Sultanate with phantasmagoric and avatar-like conception of heroism of Malay warriors with Chinese-sounding names, foremost among them was Hang Tuah, the epitome of a blind-follower of istana/royal court orders; one who can be categorized in sci-fi genre as a Malay drone with android characteristic created out of the need to showcase what idiotic pride means.

The narratives of Malacca was well-preserved and well-transmutated into what is now Malaysian history, claimed as "a body of historical facts" embalmed in Malaysian history textbooks to be devoured by the curious young minds of Malaysians; children whose minds are like filtered funnels ready to accept whatever the State deemed necessary and "Official Knowledge" not to be questioned but to be regurgitated as immutable facts at the end-of-year examinations.

Much of what is happening in Malaysian schools is the teaching of history devoid of critical historicizing let alone the reading of history written from the point of view of 'the people's history of Malaya'.

Missing from the textbooks, are chronicles of the natives enslaved by the feudal lords, narratives of the indentured serfs from China and India, stories of the robbery of land in Sabah and Sarawak, the chronicle of the struggle between the workers and the capitalist class, the real story behind the Communist insurgency, and in recent times the voices of liberation and freedom against the excesses of the modern Malaysian authoritarian state.

History has not been kind to Malaysians. Historians have been kind to the paymasters in history.

In the end, history textbooks not only become a literary graveyard for the losers in the historical march of Capital, but as post-modern blinders - for the closing of the Malaysian mind.

Rest in peace, Howard Zinn. Yes, we cannot be neutral on a moving train.

Another ominous Chinese New Year?

I do agree with Malaysia Today news portal editor Raja Petra Kamarudin that there are many undercover agents and spies, who are awaiting to stage “Troy”, in opposition parties, particularly PKR.

By LIM SUE GOAN/ Translated by SOONG PHUI JEE/ Sin Chew Daily

Former Prime Minister Tun Abdullah Ahmad Badawi made an announcement to dissolute the Parliament during the 2008 Chinese New Year while Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak announced that BN has regained the Perak state regime during the 2009 CNY. Would it be another tense CNY this year? It seems like the possibility is not low.

The hearing of opposition leader Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim's sodomy trial will be started Wednesday (3 Feb) while the Federal Court is going to deliver its decision on whether Datuk Seri Dr Zambry Abdul Kadir or Datuk Seri Mohammad Nizar Jamaluddin is the rightful Menteri Besar of Perak on 2 Feb. There is again an internal conflict within PKR and Anwar claimed that BN is going to rope in Pakatan Rakyat members within two weeks during the CNY. A PKR Member of Parliament has recently branded Penang Chief Minister Lim Guan Eng as a dictator while Malay papers is playing up the issue accusing that “Penang government has been supressing Malays”. All these incidents seem like a prologue to something terrible.

In fact, there were rumours spread through SMSs last year saying that “a major event will take place in Kelantan and Penang”. Later, Malay and English newspapers started to play up the issue accusing Kelantan Mentri Besar Datuk Nik Abdul Aziz Nik Mat to have involved in fraud while his son-in-law was investigated and Kelantan state government was facing internal problems. However, the effect was not as good as expected and now, they have shifted their focus to Penang.

Such an approach seems familiar. During former Prime Minister Tun Dr Mahathir's era, whenever they encountered difficulties that were hardly be solved, some issues would just “naturally happened” and drove the people's attention away. And now, we are all focusing on the political situation in Penang and who is still concerned about the “Allah controversy”, as well as the arson attacks on churches?

I do agree with Malaysia Today news portal editor Raja Petra Kamarudin that there are many undercover agents and spies, who are awaiting to stage “Troy”, in opposition parties, particularly PKR. Whenever they receive an instruction, they will come out to make troubles and attack party leaders to polarise Pakatan Rakyat. Even if they are blamed, they will not resign or quit the party as their job is all about making troubles.

Recently, two PKR MPs made accusations against Lim Guan Eng and together with Malay newspapers and non-governmental organisations who fan the flames, it is obvious that they are trying to make others to oppose Lim or polarise Pakatan Rakyat.

Sure Pakatan Rakyat leaders and Anwar know the trick as it is not the first time for them to face such a crisis. In order to ensure no split within the coalition, Pakatan Rakyat must maintain a higher degree of unity and party discipline.

Once Anwar is imprisoned, who is going to lead Pakatan Rakyat? If Pakatan Rakyat does not make an early arrangement, its fragile unity will become more vulnerable.

The battle between BN and Pakatan Rakyat has annoyed the people but unfortunately, some have not yet got tired of it. However, there must be a bottom line for political battles. Once they have crossed the bottom line, it may cause a trouble and even affect the country's image.

For example, it is not a racial issue when the Penang government takes actions against illegal hawkers. It should not be accused to be directed at Malays. A public bidding is a practice of transparency, as well as a progress. It should not be accused to have marginalised a particular racial group.

The BN government is currently working hard to implement various transformation plans to get the country out of the plight. These plans require a stable political condition, as well as the participation of foreign investments. Any political move that provokes sensitive issues and sparks sentiments may bring a great damage and affect the confidence of foreign investors. It may also destroyed the people's optimism which has just been built not long ago.

CNY is an auspicious festival and why can't we celebrate it harmoniously? When will politicians wake up? Just like you and everyone else, I have no answer for it.

Australian Financial Review – Malaysia’s Democracy

Download PDF

Read online

Interview With Ricky Carandang

Part 1

Part 2

Part 3

Violence Isn't Slowing in Sri Lanka

Repression and fear continue in the wake of President Rajapaksa's snap election win

Despite promises by the Sri Lankan government to ease curbs on civil rights and a new era of reconciliation following its defeat of the Tamil Tigers, human rights and press freedom organizations say little has changed. Repression and state-sponsored violence are continuing in the wake of a convincing victory by President Mahinda Rajapaksa in a snap election on Jan. 26 and if anything, anything, threats and intimidation appear to have accelerated, the rights organizations say.

Rajapaksa's electoral success was built on the government's crushing defeat of the Tamil Tiger rebels in May 2009, ending a 26-year insurgency by the island's minority Tamil population. The opposition, led by the former Army chief, Sarath Fonseka, has charged that Rajapaksa's landslide victory, by 57.9 percent against 40.1 percent, was characterized by illegal imprisonment and intimidation of opposition figures. In return Rajapaksa accused Fonseka, a former ally, of seeking to organize a coup, and ordered the arrest of some of Fonseka's army colleagues.

Fonseka, who called Rajapakse a "tin-pot dictator"and told the media he would scrap the executive presidency within six months, hold parliamentary elections and adopt a new constitution that would "uphold democracy, social justice and media freedoms,"had been endorsed by several opposition parties, principally the United National Party and Janatha Vimukthi Permuna. He rejected the results of the election, which has been called suspicious, and said it would challenge them in court.

In the wake of the election, poll monitors and human rights groups including the Hong Kong-based Asian Human Rights Commission cited counting irregularities, as well as blatant misuse of state resources by the Rajapakse government and intimidation of political opponents.

"Very clearly, the question as to whether Sri Lanka is any longer capable of conducting a free and fair election has been raised in this election,"the collective groups said in a statement. "It is not only the electoral process that is under challenge. The very process of receiving, preserving and counting the ballot at the commissioner's office itself is an issue that has been prominently raised."

Although the government insisted that the election was free and fair, the United States Department of State has asked for an investigation into the vote fraud charges.

Human Right Watch said some 11,000 people remain in indefinite detention in the wake of the civil war, which was notable for savage cruelty on both sides that left 80,000 officially dead and probably lots more and impoverished the island's 21.3 million people. An estimated 400,000 ethnic Tamils have fled the island, according to the CIA Factbook. Hundreds, perhaps thousands of desperate boat people have attempted to sail to Australia. (See A Boatload of Money, October 22, 2009) As many as 30,000 people simply disappeared and presumably were killed at the hands of the government, rights workers say.

The Asia Human Rights Commission, in its 2009 report, said that in the wake of the defeat of the Tamil rebels, "what exists in Sri Lanka today is a situation of abysmal lawlessness, resulting in the zero status of citizens. The word 'abysmal' is here used in its ordinary meaning to mean limitless, bottomless, immeasurably bad and wretched to the point of despair. Lawlessness of this sort differs from simple illegality or disregard for law, which to differing degrees can happen anywhere."

Journalists have been a major target and violence is nothing new (See Death of a Journalist, Jan. 13, 2009). According to the Committee to Protect Journalists, the country ranked eighth in the world for journalist deaths in 2009, with 18 reporters killed in connection with their jobs and another six for reasons that are not clear. Amnesty International Tuesday issued a statement saying that "journalists have disappeared, been arrested or threatened with death and opposition supporters harassed since the Jan. 26 election. Victory against the Tamil Tigers followed by an historic election should have ended political repression in Sri Lanka, but instead we have seen a serious clampdown on freedom of expression," said Madhu Malhotra, Amnesty's Asia-Pacific deputy director.

Some 56 journalists reported they face serious threats, including some working for state-run media institutions, according to Amnesty International. The organization called on the government to cease its crackdown on journalists, political activists and human rights defenders. Reporters Without Borders appealed to Rajapaksa to put a stop to arrests and intimidation of journalists working for privately-owned and foreign media.

"This wave of post-election violence could cast a lasting stain on the start of President Rajapaksa's second term and bodes ill for the political climate during the coming years,"said Reporters Without Borders.

The Centre for Monitoring Election Violence reported more than 85 post-election incidents, including two murders and several assaults, Amnesty International's Malhotra said: "Victory against the Tamil Tigers followed by a historic election should have ended political repression in Sri Lanka but instead we have seen a serious clampdown on freedom of expression. Threats, beatings and arrests mean that Sri Lankan human rights activists live in fear of the consequences of expressing their political opinions."

On Jan. 29, Amnesty International said, "police officers from the Criminal Investigation Department (CID) raided the office of newspaper Lanka Irida and arrested chief editor Chandana Sirimalwatte, who remains in detention."Lanka Irida had openly campaigned for Fonseka during the elections. The office was raided again the following day.

The government suffered a rare loss Tuesday when the country's Supreme Court ruled that Rajapaksa's new six-year term in office won't begin until Nov. 19. The reason for the decision, which runs against practice in most countries covered either now or previously by Commonwealth law, wasn't given.

At the end of the war, according to Amnesty International, more than a quarter million Tamils were placed into government-run camps to be screened for rebel ties as their home villages were cleared of mines. Some 100,000 civilians still live in those camps. Those with suspected Tiger ties are held in separate facilities the government calls "rehabilitation centers."

The group also said it was concerned because a lack of information about the fate of detainees raised the possibility that some may have been tortured or mistreated or may have "disappeared."

Police Defend Firing Shots In Gombak Case

KUALA LUMPUR, Feb 3 (Bernama) -- Police on Wednesday defended their action in firing shots for self defence in a criminal case in Gombak near here on Oct 30 last year.

City CID chief Datuk Ku Chin Wah said in the 4.30am incident, policemen on patrol came across a car that was driven in a suspicious manner.

"Police ordered the car to stop but the suspects accelerated away in the direction of Selayang and onwards to Gombak.

"Police had to fire shots in the direction of the car when the suspects tried to mow down our men," he said in a statement here Wednesday.

He said the driver of the car and a female passenger were injured in the incident and were given treatment at the Kuala Lumpur Hospital (HKL).

Ku said checks on the suspect's vehicle showed it had been stolen and reported missing in Alor Setar, Kedah and also found in it were parangs, an axe, false registration plates, knives, a knuckle duster, screwdrivers, false road tax discs and a bunch of keys.

He said the case was before the courts and advised the public not to participate in any demonstrations that might be held pertaining to it.

"Police have not received any application for a permit to hold a demonstration at Bukit Aman Thursday," he added.

Anwar Invited Him To Have Sex Against Order Of Nature, Saiful Tells Court

KUALA LUMPUR, Feb 3 (Bernama) -- Mohd Saiful Bukhari Azlan revealed in the High Court here Wednesday that Opposition Leader Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim, whom he has accused of sodomising him, had invited him to engage in carnal intercourse against the order of nature.

The one-time Anwar special aide, who was the first witness in the sodomy trial, said the incident took place on June 26, 2008 after he and Anwar had finished discussing their work schedule at a unit of the Desa Damansara Condominium here.

Anwar had pleaded not guilty to the charge after it was read out to him before High Court Judge Datuk Mohamad Zabidin Mohd Diah.

The Parti Keadilan Rakyat (PKR) advisor and Member of Parliament for Permatang Pauh is charged with sodomising Mohd Saiful at Unit 11-5-1 of the Desa Damansara Condominium in Jalan Setiakasih, Bukit Damansara, between 3.01pm and 4.30pm on June 26, 2008.

He is charged under Section 377B of the Penal Code and can be sentenced to a maximum of 20 years in jail and whipping upon conviction. The trial takes place 18 months after Anwar was charged in court in August 2008.

During the examination-in-chief by Solicitor-General II Datuk Mohd Yusof Zainal Abidin, Mohd Saiful said Anwar's invitation came after he (Mohd Saiful) had handed over documents he had brought from the office.

Mohd Yusof: What did you do with the documents when you entered (the condominium unit)? Mohd Saiful: I sat across the table from Anwar and handed over the documents.

Mohd Yusof: You sat down, handed over the documents. Then what? Mohd Saiful: After handing over the documents, we discussed our work schedule. Then, he asked me a question.

Mohd Yusof: What was the question? Mohd Saiful: Can I f--- you today? Mohd Yusof: What was your response when he posed the question? Mohd Saiful: (I was) angry and afraid.

Mohd Yusof: Did you say anything? Mohd Saiful: I rejected the offer.

Mohd Yusof: What did you say when you rejected (the offer)? Mohd Saiful: I said I did not want to do it.

Mohd Yusof: Did Anwar say anything when you said you did not want to do it? Mohd Saiful: In an angry tone, Anwar said "what?" Mohd Yusof: What was your response? Mohd Saiful: I repeated myself.

Mohd Yusof: Then? Mohd Saiful: Anwar became very angry. I became afraid. Anwar ordered me to the master bedroom.

Mohd Saiful said he obeyed Anwar's orders, and Anwar followed him (into the master bedroom), drew the curtains and switched off the bedroom lights.

Mohd Saiful said Anwar then asked him to wash himself in the bathroom.

Mohd Yusof: Were you undressed then? Mohd Saiful: Yes.

Mohd Yusof: After washing yourself? Mohd Saiful: I fetched a towel from the bathroom. I came out and hung my white T-shirt on a cupboard handle.

Mohd Yusof: You were wearing a towel? Mohd Saiful: I was wearing a towel.

Mohd Yusof: When you emerged from the bathroom, did you notice where Anwar was? Mohd Saiful: I noticed Anwar at a corner of the bed, at the foot of the bed towards the right.

Mohd Yusof: What was Anwar doing then? Mohd Saiful: He was standing wearing a white towel, and ordered me to go towards him. Then, while standing, he hugged me.

At this juncture, counsel Karpal Singh, who was representing Anwar, applied to have the proceedings conducted in-camera.

The judge allowed the application for the hearing when it continues Thursday.

Earlier, Mohd Saiful, 25, said he had gone to the condominium in a van and arrived in front of the guard house at about 2.15pm and had only to utter the word "Mokhtar" to be allowed to enter.

Mohd Saiful said he had gone to the condominium previously to meet Anwar, at another unit owned by a friend of Anwar by the name of Hasanuddin.

"To get to Unit No.1152, I had to take a lift and use the intercom, and each time I heard the same male voice answering, before the doors of the unit opened," he said.

He said when the doors of the unit opened, he saw Anwar sitting at the dining table.

Mohd Saiful said he had worked for Anwar for four months, from early March 2008 to June 28 of the same year, and stopped being Anwar's special aide because he did not wish to be sodomised by Anwar any more.

Mohd Saiful, who was wearing a blue shirt and a dark blue jacket, said he did not give Anwar any resignation letter but informed him of his resignation via email sent through his BlackBerry smartphone on June 27, 2008.

In the email, he had given Anwar two reasons why he was resigning, that he was undisciplined because he always came late to office and he was under qualified.

Asked by Mohd Yusof why he had resigned, Mohd Saiful said he did not wish to be used as in the charge.

However, when asked a second time why he had resigned, he said he no longer wanted to used as in the charge.

Mohd Saiful said that as he had started work a week before the 12th general election, he was engaged as a volunteer to draw up the election campaign schedule of Anwar.

After working for two months, in April, he was appointed a personal assistant but he was not given any appointment letter, he said.

Mohd Saiful said that as a personal assistant, he had four tasks to perform -- arrange secret meetings for Anwar to communicate with agents of MPs who wished to switch parties; assist Ibrahim Yaakub, a special aide of Anwar, to draw up Anwar's schedule; file Anwar's confidential documents such as bank statements and monitor Anwar's personal mobile phone every morning, such as checking on the short messaging service (SMS) messages.

Mohd Saiful said he was paid an official salary of RM1,000 a month and given an allowance of US$1,000 and HK$10,000, depending on the trips he made.

Asked by Mohd Yusof of his level of education, Mohd Saiful said that in 2003 he had attended a foundation course in electrical engineering at Universiti Tenaga Nasional (Uniten), and was offered a degree course. However, he said, he did not complete his studies because he did not pass the examination.

"My results were very bad. I was embarrassed and under pressure and decided to terminate my studies," he said.

Mohd Saiful was asked by Mohd Yusof to recall the police report he had made on June 28, 2008, two days after the alleged incident.

When Mohd Yusof asked him to state who had taken him to the Jalan Travers police station, Anwar's counsel Karpal Singh asked the court to expunge the words "kejadian kali terakhir" (the latest incident) from the third line of the police report.

Karpal Singh said the words "kejadian kali terakhir" implied that there had been other incidents before June 26, 2008.

Mohd Yusof said the police report was recorded based on what had been conveyed by the complainant and the prosecution could not stop such a report being made.

Mohd Yusof said that though the police reports carried the words, the prosecution would only base the case on the charge.

Justice Mohamad Zabidin Mohd Diah allowed Karpal Singh's application to remove the words because they implied that there had been previous such incidents.

In his opening statement, Mohd Yusof said the prosecution would adduce evidence to show that the semen specimen taken from Mohd Saiful's anus was confirmed by the Chemistry Department to be Anwar's.

Mohd Yusof is assisted by seven deputy public prosecutors, namely Datuk Nordin Hassan, Mohamad Hanafiah Zakaria, Wong Chiang Kiat, Noorin Badaruddin, Farah Azlina Latiff, Mira Mirna Musa and Naidatul Athirah Azmad.

Anwar is represented by, besides Karpal Singh, Datuk Param Cumaraswamy, Datuk C.V. Prabakharan, Ram Karpal Singh Deo, S. N. Nair, Mohd Radzlan Jalaludin and Marisa Regina Fernando.

Press Release: Use of the ISA cannot be justified

The Malaysian Bar has persistently adopted the position that all laws that allow for detention without trial, including the Internal Security Act 1960 (ISA), should be repealed immediately. We have been in dialogue with the Government, advocating that it go beyond a mere review of the repressive ISA, to abolish it completely, and we welcomed the release last year of several detainees who had been held under the ISA.

The Malaysian Bar is therefore shocked and astounded that once again, the Government has resorted to this offensive legislation as a basis for arresting and detaining both Malaysians and foreigners, and is also brandishing it in respect of recent attacks against churches. We unequivocally denounce this approach. The alleged reasons for the detention are immaterial, as there can be no justification for this blatant transgression of the fundamental principle of justice.

It bears repeating that the detention of persons without trial is an unjustified infringement of universal principles of human rights, and a violation of the Rule of Law and the principles of a democratic Government. Among other reasons, detention without trial violates a person’s right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty and his/her right to a fair and public trial where he/she may be defended.

The ISA is not a solution to any perceived threat to our peace. In fact, we fail to see what threat there is to our peace that could possibly justify the use of the severely blunt instrument of the ISA. The avowed grounds of arrest are all matters that come within the purview of existing laws in the country. Furthermore, laws like the ISA do not allow for judicial oversight and are therefore susceptible to serious abuse.

The use of the ISA, far from relieving any perceived tension, has instead created far more uneasiness and unhappiness amongst right-thinking people in Malaysia.

Once again, the Malaysian Bar strongly calls upon the Government to repeal the ISA and all other laws that allow for the detention of persons without trial. Furthermore, the Government must immediately and unconditionally release all persons presently detained under such laws, and where appropriate, prosecute them in a public and fair trial.

We have said it before and we will say it again – if there are perceived offences, charge these people and give them their fundamental right to defend themselves.

Ragunath Kesavan
President
Malaysian Bar

Live - Anwar on trial, yet again

If “irrelevant” was the buzzword from the first sodomy trial, today’s testimony by key prosecution witness Saiful Bukhari provides a new, if off-colour, catch phrase.

Anwar is mobbed as he leaves court - Photo by Tian Chua