Political dangers and impact in jailing Anwar

Will Anwar’s jailing help BN retain power or will it do the opposite and boost the opposition’s chances? If the prosecution can prove an ironclad case the political fallout will be limited but if Anwar’s conviction is seen as a travesty of justice BN will pay a heavy political price.

By Kenny Gan, Harakah

As the trial of Anwar Ibrahim progresses under the scrutiny of the Malaysian public and the watchful eyes of the international community, we are once again faced with a disturbingly familiar repeat of the infamous events that transpired eleven years ago.

The dubious way in which the previous Anwar trials were conducted left the public seething at the crude parody of justice. It generated a political aftershock for BN and left a black mark in the nation’s history.

Many Malaysians believe the present charge against Anwar are politically motivated and the conduct of the prosecution has reinforced their doubts. Few believe that Anwar will get a fair trial.

Will Anwar’s jailing help BN retain power or will it do the opposite and boost the opposition’s chances? If the prosecution can prove an ironclad case the political fallout will be limited but if Anwar’s conviction is seen as a travesty of justice BN will pay a heavy political price.

To gauge the political effect of jailing Anwar it is instructive to recount the impact of the previous conviction and compare the different socio-political environment in the intervening twelve years.

Back to 1998

In 1998 when Anwar was charged for sodomy and abuse of power, Mahathir was the Prime Minister and he ruled over a Barisan National political machine which faced no creditable challenge by the then fragmented opposition. The premier’s authoritarian style earned him the label of ‘dictator’ and his liberal use of the ISA to quell dissent invoked a climate of fear.

Although Mahathir achieved his aim of jailing Anwar, the effect of Anwar’s downfall a decade ago could not have been what he had foreseen or desired. Despite the most heavy-handed and crude methods, he also failed to destroy Anwar politically or personally.

The twists and turns of the trial, the controversial rulings and the wholly disproportionate sentence convinced nobody. Anwar’s unfortunate beating in prison and his appearance with a black eye caused a public outcry. Despite the valiant attempts of the supine mass media to demonize Anwar, the majority of Malaysians believed that Anwar was a victim of political conspiracy after a fallout with Mahathir.

It created a political and social crisis which reverberates to this day. The U.S. State Department called the sodomy trial an abuse of human rights which was only one of a multitude of condemnations which poured in from overseas. The judiciary became the laughing stock of the international community.

Domestically, Mahathir’s reputation suffered serious harm with calls for him to resign. Demonstrations which were previously unknown in Malaysia broke out with cries of ‘Reformasi!’ and “Mahathir Resign!” They were forcibly suppressed but the anger in the hearts of the people and the disquiet created in civil society lingered to this day.

The social forces unleashed led to the birth of the National Justice Party which was later to become Parti Keadilan Rakyat. The party’s symbol is an eye against a light blue background to denote Anwar’s famous black eye.

The General Election of 1999

The injustice meted out to Anwar caused the three main opposition parties – DAP, PAS and Keadilan – to come together into an electoral coalition called Barisan Alternatif to harness the wave of the public anger. However, this failed to unseat BN or deny BN two-thirds majority in the general election of 1999.

There were many reasons for this, chiefly being the non-Malays’ fear of PAS as Islamic extremists which PAS did nothing to assuage and in fact foolishly exacerbated with calls for an Islamic State. Mahathir also courted the Chinese, aware that his relationship with the Malays was severely strained. About 650,000 newly registered young voters were prevented from voting on the specious excuse that there was not enough time to register them. Hundreds of pages of pro-BN advertisements were published in the one-sided mass media and the playing up of inter-ethnic fear ensured that there was no fair election.

In the end, it was the non-Malays who saved Mahathir from a humiliating loss of BN’s two-thirds majority, which would have forced his immediate exit. There was a significant Malay swing against BN and for the first time, Umno’s share of the Malay vote dropped below 50%.

PAS turned out to be the chief beneficiary, increasing its parliamentary seats from 7 to 27 and capturing Terengganu as it rode on the groundswell of Malay anger over the Anwar injustice. After the election, a joke circulating around at that time was that the difference between a Malay and a Chinese was that the Chinese supported Umno!

Mahathir announced his resignation as Umno President and Prime Minister in 2002, acutely aware that his relationship with the Malays was broken. The baton was handed over to Abdullah Badawi in 2003 and the following general election in 2004 saw BN winning its best performance ever with 90% of parliamentary seats, not because of Badawi’s popularity but because Mahathir was gone.

But the reverberations from the 1999 sodomy case did not end there. After Anwar was released from prison, he forged an electoral pact between PKR, PAS and DAP which resulted in the loss of BN’s two-thirds majority in Parliament and 5 states in the 2008 general election. From this stunning opposition gains, Pakatan Rakyat was born.

Socio-economic differences

Although all this is history, they are worth recounting because one can learn from the past in order not to repeat the same mistakes.

In 1998 the mass media was under much tighter control and the online world was at its infancy. The words ‘blog’, ‘facebook’ or ‘twitter’ had not been invented and Internet penetration was low at less than 15%. It has now exceeded 70%.

People are now far more connected than a decade ago with the proliferation of the online world with its news, blogs, discussion groups, social networking sites, e-mail, mobile phones and SMS. The trial proceedings will be reported in detail, analyzed and dissected. Nothing can be hidden, distorted or obfuscated.

No amount of spinning in the mainstream media will convince a public otherwise if injustice has been committed. It did not work in 1998 and it will not work now especially when the online world has reached mainstream status and there is a freer flow of information.

With the rise of Pakatan Rakyat, people’s expectations are higher and they are now more demanding of good and accountable government based on social justice and the rule of law. It is cavalier to think that Malaysians do not care about injustice and human right abuses as long as the economy performs well.

If Anwar can be convicted in a fair trial with his guilt proven beyond reasonable doubt, little political price need to be paid by the ruling regime but the existence of two medical reports that the accuser had not been sodomized has already tainted the prosecution’s case.

The believability of DNA evidence involves a strong element of trust in the efficiency, professionalism and impartiality of the law enforcement bodies. In a politically charged trial where a person is seen as the victim of the entire state apparatus the use of DNA evidence is less than convincing especially when an attempt was made to fix Anwar using planted DNA evidence in 1998.

We must also remember that the heady economic growth of the 1990’s engendered more tolerance for Mahathir’s autocracy while Najib has his hands full trying to keep the economy growing on the back of the world economic crisis.

We can hence expect deeper political and social consequences compared to 1998.

Political Consequences

The political ramifications this time around will be huge. Unlike 1999, the opposition parties have coalesced into a workable coalition and are ready to challenge BN for the seat of power, a far cry from just trying to grab as many seats as possible. A one party system has morphed into a two party system although BN is still in denial.

Non-Malays have also lost their fear of PAS and interethnic tensions have dissipated meaning that two powerful weapons that used to work with devastating efficiency to garner votes from the non-Malays have been lost.

With the non-Malays now overwhelmingly pro- Pakatan Rakyat, BN’s fortunes now depend on the Malays who are the very group likely to be incensed with any cruel and unjust treatment of Anwar.

It is worth noting that PAS’ gains in 1999 were in the rural Malay seats where it fishes in the same pond as Umno. With Umno now heavily dependent on the rural Malays to maintain its power, it seems reckless to put this voter base at risk with another clumsy and incredulous sodomy conviction.

A perception that Anwar had been unjustly jailed may create an anti-BN wave which the opposition can ride to victory and the non-Malays will not be saving BN this time around.

Social Consequences

Aside from the political consequences, a more insidious effect will be a crisis of public confidence in the law enforcement bodies which is already low. As these bodies need the cooperation and respect of the public to function effectively, this means their efficiency in tackling crime and corruption will be hobbled.

For example, the MACC has been seriously hobbled with the dive in public confidence following its one-sided investigations and Teoh Beng Hock’s death and will continue to be so until major revamps are made to instill back public confidence.

Society is traumatized by crude and offensive displays of injustice. The negative sentiment will affect private domestic investment which is already in decline and foreign investors will discouraged from investing in a country with a broken judiciary.

Unlike 1998 Anwar is now opposition leader. To jail him on a specious charge with a dubious trial will project the perception that an opposition leader has been jailed on sham charges to remove him from the political scene.

This will invite condemnations from the international community and put the country in the company of banana republics such as Myanmar and Zimbabwe. The negative image projected by the country will drive away tourists and discourage others from holding functions in Malaysia.

As for Najib, his hold on Umno will weaken with the decline in public support which may impair his ability to push through further reforms. Public support has a direct effect on his ability to control his party warlords whose personal interests do not always coincide with public interests.

What Now, Najib?

There is something called the law of unintended consequences. Instead of weakening the opposition by removing Anwar, the opposition may be rejuvenated instead and the public may rally around him as a martyr of injustice and a victim of abuse of power.

Mahathir harboured a deep personal animosity towards Anwar. He was willing to take any political risks to humiliate and destroy Anwar, even though general election was around the corner. The resulting social and political turmoil was acceptable collateral damage.

Without the cloud of personal animosity, Najib should act in a rational manner and weigh the political risks and social consequences against the uncertain gain.

A conviction which is widely perceived as unfair and a political conspiracy will fall squarely on Najib’s shoulders. Rightly or wrongly, he will be blamed so it is not just Anwar who is on trial but also Najib’s credibility and the Malaysian justice system.

It is to Najib’s interest that Anwar be given a fair trial and acquitted if there is no case. To push through a conviction on the basis of political expediency will unleash social forces which may sweep BN from power.

Please brace yourselves, should DSAI get prosecuted again

If we don’t lash out, they would make statements saying DSAI’s support isn’t that much, and since people don’t lash out, it shows that we agree DSAI sodomized. All in all, they either try to make us all retaliate, or make people believe in their lies. Either way, the result will be the same.

By avancc

Dear Malaysia Today,

After reading a series of articles all over the internet, I suddenly have this feeling. And recalling other issues we saw before, I can't help but feel this way.

I remember how DSAI’s supporters used to run on the streets with their headbands, screaming and allegedly burning rubbish bins, causing “vandalism” and fear among shops owners and rakyat as well.

I remember how a state's administration was forcibly taken. With the speaker taken away while still on his chair; with people having a gun in the state assembly; and someone holding a pepper spray. Yet no action were taken against them.

I remember how the court ruled in a flip-flop manner on who’s the rightful MB, with the decision of one judge easily toppled by another; but not the other way around. And how they waited for people to lash out at them, yet not taking remedial actions.

I remember how candlelight vigils were broken up, with arrests made although it was a peaceful gathering. Yet demonstrations were allowed for another party.

I remember TBH’s case, where the pathologist was threatened, and no action taken against. Instead they wanted to arrest another person for allegedly saying it’s a “murder”. And how they waited for our outburst.

I remember the cow’s head issue where they made “allowed” demonstrations and when condemned, claimed that we should be sensitive towards their feelings. Again they waited for our outburst.

I remember the recent “religious attacks” where they again waited for our outburst.

I remember also the sudden outburst by MPs alleging that some opposition leaders are dictators, etc etc. We see also some lashing out at their own ally. All out of no apparent reason.

I remember the 2 “Pendatang” claims where necessary actions were not taken.

Now, they sped up DSAI’s court case. With refusal to disclose evidence, refusal to dismiss the case etc. When evidence is clearly showing that it is a trumped up case, they went ahead with it.

Something’s ringing:
I suddenly realize that there’s a common ground for all the above cases. They all have similar characteristics

1) Issues created by them, with no valid reason.
2) Statements made by them to cause sentiments of hate and racism.
3) Issues were ignored and no positive actions were taken, even though it’s obvious.
4) Seemingly deaf over suggestions and complaints by rakyats.
5) Continuation of issues, no matter how obviously absurd it appears.
6) Contempt of court, intimidation of investigation, etc and done in an obvious manner.

All actions were done openly, and obviously. They don’t hide, are not ashamed to hide, and not afraid to do it.

We all can see it. It’s so obvious. You tell any human with a sound mind, and they’ll agree 100% with you. Yet, these people continue to do it.

If you watch TV, you would start cursing at the statements made by them to the public, yet appearing soooo “Innocent”; then the plan is already beginning to take shape.

Are they really so stupid to be so “immune” to complaints? Are they really so stupid to be planning sooo poorly? So obviously?

I think not. Remember how one retired man keeps writing and telling people something they know is wrong?

Now that I think of it, remembering how supporters of DSAI used to terrorize a place when he was first arrested years ago. It makes me believe now they are trying to make his supporters angry. They are trying in every attempt to provoke opposition supporters and start taking things to the streets, in a violenr way, out of anger over obvious injustice.

It appears as if they are running through things quickly, in a hasty manner, with lots of details “leaked”. However, it doesn’t seem to be such anymore.

I’m sure everyone would agree that with or without DSAI, we’ll still go on with the cause and kick them out in the next GE. Then, why do they still die-die continue with the case? And make it so obvious?

I also notice how many comments use angry sentences, how many people began cursing and swearing when we face one issue after another. And I see how more and more such trends are picking up lately.

Now, if they forcibly throw DSAI in jail and people got overly upset and demonstrated, they would be able to use that to their advantage again. Well, we know that our other leaders of the PR coalition will surely stand up on this, and it will then be taken as the excuse to arrest them all. Leaving PR full of people but no leaders to guide them. It will be havoc. What’s more with their “virus” plugged in as spies to create more problems? Well, at that time, they would be able to declare not only a state of emergency, but also call for fresh elections. With the havoc running in the opposition then, with capable leaders arrested, it is unlikely they would get enough support.

Worse still when the virus ran for elections. Even if PR could win, it would be useless as these “viruses” are just another tool and puppet for them. We’ll be wasting our votes, our time and money for all that then.

But if we don’t lash out, they would make statements saying DSAI’s support isn’t that much, and since people don’t lash out, it shows that we agree DSAI sodomized. All in all, they either try to make us all retaliate, or make people believe in their lies. Either way, the result will be the same.

It was a blessing we did not retaliate in the previous series of events to allow them to play it to their advantage. Now, they are making it more and more obvious, more absurd so that we’ll be angry over it. I believe it was not mere chance when LGE did not return the lashing of some “virus” against him.

So brace yourselves. We’re about to reach the peak of the roller coaster, and will soon run through a terrifying ride. But as long as we are steadfast, we will be able to survive it. As long as we don’t fall into their plans, they cannot play it to the full.

We’ll have to be careful with our actions, and activities. Continue to inform people, in a way that promotes unity, peace and justice. A way that tells people the need and importance of justice, peace and freedom. Give examples of cases we know. Cases that even the mainstream media revealed. Since they are controlled medias, we’ll use them to our advantage. I believe, there’s no crime in promoting peace, justice, unity and freedom, right?

Comment, complain, and make positive criticism over issues, but we should not be too emotional over it until we’ll have to shout and scream at people, or even take it out in the streets. Write and comment maturely. Face evil with virtue, and the wise shall be able to judge who’s making a scene.

They will continue with the harassing, and more drastic action will surface. There’s a lot of things we have to do to defend against their attacks, which may include the following

1) Cleanup of PR MPs personal life, and business dealings to prevent it being used as a tool to cause defection.
2) Continue waking people up to the issues they are facing, and the truth behind it.
3) Continue educating the public, to be more learned, more informed, and reason better.
4) Train up more capable leaders, to substitute anyone who may be taken down.
5) Monitor and eliminate “virus” members that try to destroy the coalition.
6) Reveal more and more dirty stuff and works of the “you know who”.
7) Have healthy activities for the rakyat, and taking that opportunity to radiate the “justice” message over to them.
8) Etc (feel free to suggest).

Again we shall foil their attempt ... and all subsequent attempts. May Allah be with us through the journey.

If this is an animal farm...

FEB 4 — Totalitarianism. Form of government that theoretically permits no individual freedom and that seeks to subordinate all aspects of the individual’s life to the authority of the government (Encyclopaedia Britannica).

Malaysians have to ask themselves whether they live in one, even if it is likelier a neo-totalitarian state. Both have the common thread of an absolutist government — seeking to sustain itself at the expense of its people.

When you live in a totalitarian state then your first principle, prime objective has to be to free yourself from that predicament. Either flee or defeat those who uphold that totalitarianism. Everything else comes secondary.

Democratic ideals can only prevail in their entirety when they have breathing space. Otherwise they are choked, twisted and ultimately denigrated as dangerous precedents which will lead to uncertainty, Western imperialism, religious extremism or godlessness (same-same really) and moral decadence.

Those accusations are not true by the way, but the control of political process, finance and “law” enforcement instruments enable those in power to portray things external to “their” reality as being counter to “our common good.”

Those living on the wrong side of the “Iron Curtain” for the most part of the 20th century can bear testimony when only a single paradigm reigned over peoples irrespective of their personal views on what constitutes better government.

But totalitarianism was not exclusively a malady of socialism, in fact socialism became the victim of totalitarianism. Many post-colonial nations are or were victims of it, because it is very tempting to rule by barring reason.

Whether it was Stalin’s communism, Kruschchev’ antagonism, Mao’s communalism through teacher barbeque, Tito’s Slavic assimilation or Mobutu Seko-Seko’s pro-democracy through local brutalisation (replaceable with Pinochet), ideology and theory are compromised in order to protect an elite.

That is obvious enough.

But looking at Malaysia, many fail to realise that even those who initiate opposition to the oppression are also victims of the system. They are products of a totalitarian system and our expectation for them to rise above the muck effortlessly is naive.

Bandar Kulim’s Zulkifli Nordin’s agitations are not remarkable if you have followed his open allegiance to religion above anything. The PKR men in Penang — Bayan Baru’s Datuk Zahrain Mohamed and Nibong Tebal’s Tan Tee Beng — associate funds with the ability to serve, one used to be Umno and the other the son of a Gerakan founder. Other grouses across the nation have been made by various people, and they won’t end anytime soon.

That is unsurprising. What is? The unequivocal sense of betrayal among Pakatan voters.

Many threaten to support BN if individuals inside Pakatan Rakyat cannot harmonise and act consistently with higher ideals.

The dudes act like that because the system has led them down that think.

They’ve been raised by parents working in the system, went to school with the system firmly in place and worked in an economy emphasising the dominant think. Odds are they swam downstream rather than fight the system every step of the way — they’d be in an asylum if they fought their way out of the womb and stayed fighting.

We are all guilty of it. We laugh at the brain-numbing indoctrinating elements in our social science subjects, but we did comply to get the grades. We condemn corrupt behaviour in government contracts, but these sub-contract jobs are taken up by us the SMEs.

Sure, we are forced into the situation, but we make those choices. And the list of things we do to live within the system will astound us one day when the systems have collapsed and we look back.

If we are vulnerable, why can’t others like us trying to fight the system also have that vulnerability?

The neo-totalitarian state is exacting. Sure you can read this column, but you are not going to find this news site printed on paper (mind the pun!) and reach the warong in Rawang. Or dare allow a free-TV station or radio station not belonging to a BN-ally. Even in Russia which is being accused of returning to authoritarian ways, there are neutral TV stations.

This is not to make excuses for the politicians, PKR or the entire Pakatan Rakyat. The matter is about our personal freedoms, your right not to fear pursuing democratic ideals along with other Malaysians.

The parties, coalitions and individuals opposing the totalitarianism today are your conduits to freedom. Their human frailties and failing do not mean the fight is wrong, or justifies the passing of our trust back to the guys pinning us down with a gigantic boulder of tyranny.

This political reality is upsetting because it is a nightmare, but it is our nightmare. Our frustrations and anger are compounded by our inability to overwhelm the situation in a single stroke.

That we have to cope with.

What you have to decide is whether you are in a neo-totalitarian nightmare. If you decide that you are, then there is one principle above everything else, seek the end of the totalitarian nightmare. Everything else comes after.

Game over for Pakatan Rakyat?

thenutgraph.com

Game over for Pakatan Rakyat?

WHEN speculation is rife about the possible disintegration of the Pakatan Rakyat (PR), not least via media reports, I cannot help but ask two questions: What could Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak possibly gain by this? And what weapons do parliamentary Opposition Leader Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim and the PR have in their arsenal to fight this?

Najib smiles as he displays the "BN-friendly" independents

It was one year ago at a packed press conference that Najib, who was then deputy prime minister, displayed three ex-PR lawmakers in Perak who had declared themselves "Barisan Nasional (BN)-friendly" independents. Najib must have believed that he had scored a powerful goal against his nemesis, Anwar. After all, just months before that Anwar was talking about his grand plan of federal regime change via defections. And Anwar succeeded in doing precisely that to the Sabah government in 1994.

If we could turn back time, I wonder if Anwar would still have boasted about his now infamous "16 September" plot, and if Najib would still have wanted to take Perak by force. Both are still paying dearly for their political misadventures. Their mistake? Getting stuck in old experiences and understandings of the world, when the world has clearly changed.

Anwar was trapped by his past success against Parti Bersatu Sabah (PBS) and probably believed that the defections game was inevitable. Instead of developing a defence against defection, like delegitimising crossovers, he chose an offensive strategy.

Press conference for 1BLACKMalaysia

And Najib was trapped by the BN's past successes in toppling state governments, from Sarawak (1966), to Kelantan (1977), and Sabah (1994). He did not expect that citizens would not take a federal coup lying down. Instead, they tore his "1Malaysia" public relations campaign to pieces in a show of civil disobedience.

No value added

Thus, the gains from defections may be more imagined than real. At the federal level, how does restoring its two-thirds control of Parliament benefit the BN beyond psychological symbolism? The significance of a parliamentary two-thirds majority was established in the 1950s when the then MCA president wanted to protect the Chinese community from any unilateral move by Malay nationalists to amend the constitution.

Zulkifli Noordin would be of limited value
to BN if he defectedBut what is left today in the constitution for the BN to amend? Even the PR, with its slightly more than one-thirds control of Parliament, cannot stop gerrymandering beyond preventing an increase of parliamentary seats. To put it crudely, parliamentarians like Parti Keadilan Rakyat (PKR)'s Zulkifli Noordin and Datuk Seri Zahrain Mohamed Hashim would add only limited value to the BN, should they defect.

At the state level, even if some executive councillors in Selangor are charged for corruption like what happened to the PKR duo in Perak, there could not possibly be a Perak-like coup in Selangor.

First of all, Selangor PR's comfortable 14-seat lead against the BN and BN-friendly independents is way stronger than the wafer-thin three-seat margin the Perak PR government once held. Second, Selangor is politically more developed and organised than Perak, which means an unpopular coup may trigger widespread unrest and paralyse the rest of the nation. Third, on 9 Feb 2010 the Federal Court will deliver its decision on Perak, so there is not much point in the BN forcing a coup which could possibly be denounced by the court.

Operasi Katak?And what about Penang or other PR-led states states? Well, Zahrain's attack on Chief Minister Lim Guan Eng may somewhat weaken PKR's urban Malay Malaysian base. Yet it could potentially pull in stronger overall urban support for the state government.

So, the only real gain from the second round of Operasi Katak is an overall demoralisation of the PR, in the hopes that it causes an exodus of leaders and supporters from the coalition.

What about Sodomy, the Sequel?

But in addition to the onslaught against the PR via threats of defections, the coalition also has to contend with a second round of Operasi Liwat. Will Anwar's sodomy trial decapitate the PR as many analysts once believed it could? Not after the "Allah" row.

Anwar's instrumentality to the PR was really his ability to bridge the secular DAP and Islamist PAS, thus facilitating a middle-path positioning.

But in the "Allah" controversy, it was crystal clear that PAS was at the forefront of defending the non-Muslims' right to use "Allah", not PKR. The icon for the defence of non-Muslims' rights was PAS's Shah Alam Member of Parliament Khalid Samad, not Anwar. And speaking of building bridges, even the DAP is becoming more Islam-friendly — the DAP-led Penang government has set up Malaysa's first governmental Syura Council.

Tengku Razaleigh HamzahSo, the PR does not really need Anwar to maintain its inclusive front. But what about leadership in general? If Anwar were to go to jail, who could replace him as parliamentary Opposition Leader? It might be a stretch, but why not consider someone like Umno's elder statesperson Tengku Razaleigh Hamzah?

Anwar and the PR do still wield a formidable weapon — public opinion. As long as the middle-ground voters can be convinced that Najib is a trouble-maker rather than a nation-builder, Umno's exit by the next general election will be on the cards.

But even a week is a long time in politics. What if elections come only in 2013? Would Malaysians "forgive and forget" by then? Well, Anwar's wife and party president Datuk Seri Dr Wan Azizah Wan Ismail will probably return to the limelight, as she did in 1999.

And, of course, with the current momentum, the PR will probably not allow Najib to take his own sweet time to dissolve Parliament. They will do all they can to dash the prime minister's hopes that voters and foreign investors will talk about his Government Transformation Programme. In fact, for many, what might be increasingly relevant is a "Government Transition Programme".

Pakatan Rakyat's weaknesses

Anwar needs to believe PR can survive
defectionsHave the PR and Anwar no weaknesses in the face of the BN's onslaught? Of course they do. Anwar's main weakness — which could be fatal — is his lack of confidence that his party and coalition can survive defections.

Besides, PKR's decision to call the more liberal Datuk Zaid Ibrahim before its disciplinary committee alongside Zulkifli and Zahrain sends an important message — PKR is still making concessions to its ultra-right leaders. The same can be said of PAS, vis-à-vis the party's harsher punishment for Khalid compared to Datuk Dr Hasan Ali.

If these problems persist, Anwar may increasingly look like former Prime Minister Tun Abdullah Ahmad Badawi in his handling of the Datuk Ahmad Ismail-"pendatang" saga, or even Najib in the "Allah" row. The public would probably not miss yet another indecisive leader, even if he were treated unjustly.

Malaysia’s Democracy on Trial

From Australian Financial Review

When Anwar Ibrahim walks into the Kuala Lumpur High Court today, he will at least know what to expect.

Anwar, Malaysia’s one-time deputy prime minister and now the de facto leader of the first credible opposition in Malaysia’s independent history, is facing the third incarceration of his life. The first was a 22-month detention when a student leader in the 1970s; the second a six-year stint in 1998 for sodomy (overturned in 2004) and corruption, during the administration of his one-time mentor, Mahathir Mohamed. Now, he faces another sodomy charge, and the potential of 20 years in jail. Locally the press are calling it Sodomy II, like a sequel. “They use the same script,” he tells the AFR in an interview in his Kuala Lumpur offices. “I’ll leave it to the lawyers. I don’t have any trust in the system.”

That’s no surprise. Anwar’s trial represents an enormously significant moment for Malaysia, because it could make or break the opposition movement at a time of intense racial tension on a scale the country hasn’t seen since the race riots of the 1960s. Malaysia, though a sometimes uneasy patchwork of a Muslim Malay majority and significant Chinese and Indian minorities, has for decades been amongst the most moderate and peaceful of Muslim nations. Yet in recent months it has become a place where churches are firebombed over the right for Christians to use the word Allah, and where cows’ heads are kicked around outside Hindu temples.

Some feel these forces have been inflamed by the country’s UMNO party, the leader of the ruling Barisan Nasional coalition, seeking to secure its hold on the Malay vote; Anwar calls it “desperate measures to frustrate this peaceful transition.” But at the same time Anwar’s own rise, with his multi-racial coalition securing one third of the votes and five out of 13 states in landmark elections in 2008, has become something of a catalyst for this expression of tension. “Yes, of course that is true,” he says. “You can see the press, controlled by UMNO, blaming me for causing this, for giving courage to non-Malays to express themselves. But I think the contrary: we are giving that right of expression to all. There is a new generation of Malays who are asserting themselves with greater confidence.”

Another jail term for Anwar could do one of two things. It could wreck his coalition, which despite its outstanding 2008 performance has widely been viewed as fragile: it unites a party formed by Anwar’s wife, Wan Azizah Ismail (who is still officially its president), during Anwar’s 1998 jail term, with a sometimes hard-line Islamic party and another whose key constituency is overseas Chinese. Lacking a charismatic leader to glue it together, the alliance could fail well before the next elections, due in 2013, although Anwar insists detailed contingency plans are in place among the three parties. “There is already an agreement what to do in the event – the unlikely event – I am convicted, yet again. The coalition will stay with or without Anwar.”

Alternatively, another conviction could unite opposition behind a cause and give it renewed momentum. It is also not likely to go down well overseas, where doubts over Anwar’s earlier conviction are already widespread; public figures who have already voiced their concern for him range from Al Gore to US Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O’Connor and, right up to his death, former Indonesian president Abdurrahman Wahid.

The uncertainty is not helping Malaysia, where foreign direct investment numbers are flagging even after accounting for recession: from M$62.8 billion in 2008 to M$12.6 billion in the first nine months of 2009. “Foreign investors are asking me about Anwar and the firebombings all the time,” says one foreign banker in Kuala Lumpur who deals with major foreign investors. “If Anwar ends up back in the slammer it’s going to have major negative consequences on Malaysia. Whether or not it will mean riots on the streets I don’t know, but it will certainly harm the government.”

Anwar is an appropriate figurehead for his country’s painful change. It’s easy to forget it now, but he was once the chosen one to succeed Mahathir: he was deputy leader and finance minister through the Asian financial crisis and was trusted so implicitly he was made acting prime minister for two months in 1997 when Mahathir took a holiday. But he wanted reform in governance and institutions, and when he started linking Mahathir with improper contracts and bailouts for family members and cronies, his time in the sun came quickly and brutally to an end. His 1998 trial raised concerns worldwide; Amnesty International considered him a prisoner of conscience, and the injuries incurred in jail cause him back pain to this day.

Because Anwar’s corruption conviction was never overturned, he was banned from politics until April 2008, and took to teaching in the US. Malaysia’s then prime minister, Abdullah Badawi, timed the 2008 elections to be just one month before Anwar’s ban expired, fearing his popular voice, but it didn’t work: Anwar simply canvassed for his wife’s party, and when his ban expired she surrendered her seat and he won it in a by-election. For a time his momentum seemed unstoppable: by September 2008 he was claiming to have secured 30 parliamentary defections that would give his coalition a majority. He demanded a vote of no confidence.

But then things stalled. First, he couldn’t force that vote, and he says he couldn’t expect his converts to declare openly until the moment of truth on the parliament floor – consequently, there’s no proof that he ever had the numbers at all. “In any democratic country we would have taken over by now, because we had the numbers, but there’s no way to go about it,” he says. “In this climate of fear and repression you can’t expect people to declare openly now except for the critical moment when the motion is tabled.” By this he is referring to the string of opposition figures, including a number of state leaders, who have been comprehensively investigated by federal institutions since the election.

Momentum was further derailed when in June 2008 a new sodomy charge, from a young aide called Saiful Bukhari Azlan, appeared with a convenience of timing that many have found deeply troubling: the taint of sodomy, illegal in this Muslim country, is considered a death knell to an aspiring politician. Whether people believe the charge or not, defending it has been time-consuming and helped to take the wind out of the challenge’s sails. And many events in the build-up to the case – the team of commandos sent to arrest him when he was on his way to the police station to make a statement, the dispute over whether the prosecution should have to let the defence see evidence prior to the trial, confirmation that Saiful visited current prime minister Najib Razak’s residence days before filing his police report – seem to bode badly for him.

But while Anwar is under pressure in the court, it’s the incumbent government, and in particular the UMNO party at its heart, that is struggling, and not just with those election results. Even in a country with a largely compliant mainstream press (but a vibrant alternative media), the government and the country’s other key institutions have found themselves mired in scandal: the death of opposition political aide Teo Beng Hock, who fell from a 14th floor window during questioning by the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC). There’s the murder of the Mongolian model Altantuya Shaariibuu, the mistress of Najib’s foreign policy advisor, who prosecutors claim was killed by government commandos in 2006 and whose body was destroyed by C4 explosives. There have been scandals over contracts for French submarines, jet engines that have gone missing, and a dispute over the legitimacy of a state government in Perak.

And most recently, a court case regarding the use of word Allah by non-Muslims has flared up. In December the High Court, in dealing with a long-standing dispute between the government and the Catholic Herald newspaper, ruled that the government had no power to prohibit the use of the word Allah or to make it the exclusive preserve of Muslims. Numerous acts of arson on Christian churches have followed the ruling, while the original debate has become a somewhat farcical exercise in semantics, with the government – which, incidentally, is in the middle of a major public relations tilt called One Malaysia aimed at promoting racial and religious unity – ruling that Christians in East Malaysia can use the word Allah when speaking Malay, but that those in West Malaysia cannot.

Many of Kuala Lumpur’s business community are increasingly alarmed. “You see Najib on one hand talking about One Malaysia and a multi-racial tolerant country, and on the other you see the complete opposite of that driven by the establishment,” says a banker, who like all commercial figures in this article wished not to be named for fear of damaging relationships with government. “This may sound over the top but I would describe Malaysia as almost anarchy at the moment, because all the institutions of government believe that their job in life is to restore BN back to its previous power. The judiciary believes its job is to prosecute the opposition. The police: that their mission is to prosecute the opposition. MACC, the same. The guys in power are stoking racial unrest because they believe it’s one way of supporting the Malay vote.”

Anwar – who took some strident positions on Islam himself in his youth – has sought to preach a less radical middle ground. “I have asked the world’s most renowned authorities on Islam and nobody, not one, disputes the fact that Allah can be used by anyone,” he says. “It’s been a non-issue for 1,400 years among the Muslims.” Even PAS, the Islamic party in Anwar’s coalition, normally known as the voice of those with a more traditional and inflexible view of Islam, has publicly said they have no problem with Christians using the word: the fact that the purely Islamic party is now on more moderate ground than the government has cemented a feeling that the government has been playing the race card to try to win back disgruntled Malay voters.

The government has not been blind to change and has taken some reformist measures itself. The most significant concern the New Economic Policy, the measures enacted in the 1960s – by Najib’s father – in support of the local Bumiputra (“sons of the soil”, or Malay) population. It guaranteed them, among other things, a certain proportion of civil service jobs, and a minimum share of any stock market float. While understandable in the context of its time, many, Malays included, have come to see it as a crutch that has become a hindrance, damaging competitiveness and breeding complacency. Late last year Najib began some modest repeals.

So does Anwar believe change can be effected peacefully in Malaysia? “Well for the first phase, the five states [in the March 2008 elections], it did,” Anwar says. And despite doubts about his coalition’s durability, he argues its very cross-faith existence is enormously positive. “It means that in Malaysia, if political leaders don’t continue to incite hatred and use the race card in politics, we can survive,” he says. “The problem is UMNO: they have become an obsolete party of the past.”

But Anwar is not a Mandela and will never quite be embraced in that way. For a start, there is the fact that, having started out a somewhat radical student and youth leader, he switched allegiances to Mahathir in the 1980s and made his name soaring through the ranks of the party he now dismisses as “the last refuge of scoundrels”. He argues that when he joined Mahathir in 1981 he did so because the leader was talking about reform, and that through much of the 1980s they were effective; it was when a more authoritarian style came into effect that he objected, at great personal cost. “But can I absolve myself from the entire policy, decisions, excesses? No I cannot. I have made that very clear to the people.” Did he ever engage in the money politics commonplace in UMNO at that time? “When I announced my candidature (as deputy leader) 80% of the UMNO cabinet members, all chief ministers, were with me. So I didn’t need to go beyond that. The culture on the ground, you have big fees, but nothing compared with this cash being paid [in UMNO now].”

Additionally, some accuse him of opportunism in his career, and of inconsistency: a chameleon quality (he uses the word himself), saying what the audience of the moment want to hear, which raises questions about how he would fare in office when there can be only one decision for all audiences. Some say he is disorganised too, and unable to give his closest staff a clear mandate. “He is a great politician inasmuch as his oratory skills are fantastic, and he can definitely speak to a crowd,” says one observer. “But he can’t administer and he can’t organise.” Another stresses that “what happened in the election was a vote against government, not a vote in favour of the opposition.” On top of that mainstream media is unlikely to take his side, though the advent of Twitter, Facebook and blogs have helped dramatically, and it is noticeable how much stronger his support in well-connected and tech-savvy urban areas is than in rural Malaysia.

Listening to him in English, fluent but understated and sometimes a little unclear, one wonders how the chameleon projects to the heartland.

The answer comes later that night at a rally in a community hall in the Kuala Lumpur suburb of Cheras. Here, in the local Malay language of Bahasa, the delivery is utterly different, voice playing the ranges from aggression to a whisper, arms expressively aloft, the audience by turns brought to laughter, indignation and applause.

For sure, this is a home team crowd, but it’s largely a Malay Muslim crowd, supposedly the very core of UMNO’s appeal, and they are packed 50 deep outside the hall exits, arms folded, listening intently. Some have brought their children, drooping flopped on shoulders; it is 11.45pm on a Thursday night.

He will do the same on alternate nights leading up the trial, campaigning steadily when an election could still be years away. Over noodles with his chief ministers and supporters, well past midnight, he tells the AFR about the forthcoming weekend rallies where he expects crowds far greater than the 1,000 or so who turned up tonight.

It’s no surprise he looks tired. Earlier the AFR had thanked him for his time, remarking how busy he must be. “Not busy,” he says. “Under siege.”

Don’t use ISA against Nasir Safar – more important to flush out all the closet Nasir Safars holding influential positions in government

Recently, the Home Minister Datuk Seri Hishammuddin Hussein warned that there are forces bent on derailing the government’s 1Malaysia concept.

Hishammuddin was referring to the recent spate of arson and vandalism at places of worship but he failed to realize that the enemies of Prime Minister, Datuk Seri Najib Razak’s 1Malaysia concept are to found closer home – in the very sanctum of the Najib premiership!

MIC leaders, from its President Datuk Seri S. Samy Vellu, are baying for Nasir’s blood and even demanding that Nasir should be detained under the Internal Security Act (ISA).

This is the last thing that should be done, for it will only make Nasir a martyr. Furthermore, the ISA detention-without-trial law is so iniquitous, unjust and undemocratic a legislation that I will not want to wish it on my worst opponents as its only proper destination is the scrapyard.

The strongest and most severe action must be taken against Nasir for his offensive, seditious and anti-1Malaysia outburst, labelling Indians and Chinese as “pendatang”, alleging that “Indians came to Malaysia as beggars and Chinese especially the women came to sell their bodies (jual tubuh)” and threatening to revoke the citizenship of Indians vocal about the subject cap for SPM examination.

There must be a clear and unmistakable message that 52-years after nationhood, such rabid and racist attitudes are just not acceptable or tolerable, especially under the 1Malaysia slogan. In this context, the resignation of Nasir is just neither adequate nor commensurate to the offence caused and Malaysians are right to expect the severest action to be meted out.

However, it is more important to flush out all the closet Nasir Safars holding influential positions in government as the Nasir Safar outrage is likely to be mere tip of an iceberg.

This is why Nasir’s racist remarks received quick defence from extremist groups including the 1Malaysia Youth Graduates Club.

Nasir Safar is the natural product of decades of brain-washing by anti-1Malaysia outfits like the Biro Tata Negara (BTN) and unless brain-washing apparatus like BTN are dismantled, closet Nasir Safars will continue to occupy key positions in important ministries and agencies.

Mohd Saiful Testifies In-camera On Day Two Of Anwar Sodomy Trial

KUALA LUMPUR, Feb 4 (Bernama) -- The sodomy trial of Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim enters its second day with Mohd Saiful Bukhari Azlan continuing his testimony in-camera at the request of Anwar's lawyers.

Anwar arrived at the court room at 10.02am and the hearing started at 10.30am.

Ramkarpal Singh Deo, who is among Anwar's lawyers, said Mohd Saiful was still under examination-in-chief by Solicitor-General II Datuk Mohd Yusof Zainal Abiden.

The one-time Anwar special aide was the first witness to take the stand when the trial opened before High Court Judge Datuk Mohamad Zabidin Mohd Diah inside a packed court Wednesday.

The in-camera session lasted for 30 minutes, after which the trial judge, prosecution and defence, including Anwar, left at 11.43am to visit the condominium where the alleged offence took place.

Mohd Saiful, accompanied by his lawyer Zamri Idrus, also joined them.

The trial is expected to resume in open court in the afternoon.

The 63-year-old 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.

Anwar's lead counsel Karpal Singh had asked for Mohd Saiful's testimony to be heard in-camera when the latter, under the prosecution's examination-in-chief, was describing what happened in the condominium that day.

Mohd Saiful, 25, told the court that Anwar had asked him for sex at the condominium after he went there to hand over documents to Anwar and discuss their work schedule.

In his testimony, he 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 want to be sodomised by Anwar any more.

BRAVE NEW WORLD : Going from dissent to defiance

The Star
BRAVE NEW WORLD
By Azmi Sharom

Fumbles and trips as one learns the ropes can be forgiven, but there is a difference between ineptitude and downright sabotage.

IN A soccer team there will always be someone who is not as good as the others. This is the chap who can’t dribble for more than two seconds without getting dispossessed; always passes to the wrong team and can’t ever kick straight.

However, usually the team puts up with him, because sometimes he has his uses. For example, if you kick the ball at him hard enough, it might just bounce off him into goal. I speak from experience here.

Pity and team spirit dictate that everybody can play. This should not be the case though when the player does something which is utterly destructive to the team; like taking the ball, turning towards his own goal and shooting past his keeper with all the force and venom of a World Cup penalty shoot out.

Now I know that the Pakatan Rakyat have been moaning and groaning that in the last general election, they had to field candidates who, shall we say, are a little under par.

In the rush to put out a team, some choices from the lower divisions had to be made. I am sure many of these greenhorns are wor­king hard, and perhaps their constituents can forgive them their fumbles and trips as they learn the ropes.

Having said that, there is a difference bet­ween ineptitude and downright sabotage. Pakatan has prided itself on being a more democratic organisation than their opposition, and dissent is tolerated.

This is well and good, but I think Zulkifli Nordin has gone beyond dissent to insubordination, and that can undermine his party and the coalition. Making a police report on his coalition partner Khalid Samad for essentially defending the coalition’s policy means that Zulkifli does not agree with the policy in question.

In a coalition that is well established perhaps this can be allowed to pass. But when we are talking about the fledgling Pakatan, which has yet to prove its cohesiveness to the public, it is folly of the utmost to do any­thing less than to throw the book at this person.

Pakatan’s stand has supposedly been one based on equality, non race-based affirmative action and respect for human rights.

When one of their own still spouts race-based rhetoric, supports supremacist ideology and has no understanding of the fundamental right to free speech, then he simply does not belong in the team anymore.

By enduring him, Pakatan shows itself to be at best weak and indecisive and at worst not totally convicted to the principles upon which it had built its platform and upon which it had won the biggest victory by op­­position parties in the history of our nation.

Look, if you want to be a racial supremacist and if you think equality is a bad thing, then by all means there are other parties and groups you can join up with.

Take for example, Tun Dr Mahathir Mo­­hamad, who has thrown in his lot with Per­­­kasa.

Perkasa’s agenda is a Malay agenda. Not a Malaysian one, a Malay one, and they have every right to be like that.

It is something that I would not want to be part of because I am sick and tired of the whole stupid idea of race-based anything, but hey, I’m weird like that.

I would like to close by talking briefly about the boar heads in the mosques incident because that too looks like a case of the purposeful own goal. At the time of writing I have no idea who the culprits are and what their motivation can be.

If they were doing it as some sort of revenge for the church burning issue, I have one thing to say: congratulations, you mo­­rons, you just ensured that a civil solution becomes that mu­ch harder.

When people resort to violence (and the pig head incident is an act of violence, albeit more on a spiritual level, just like the cow head incident of last year) then it does not take much to inspire more violence.

This sort of tit for tat action is counter pro­ductive and ultimately destructive and has to be condemned.

I do not believe that this country is all hunky dory and I haven’t bought into that loving multi-cultural propaganda for a long time, so the vile actions of a few did not come as a surprise.

However, it is not the ex­­­­­­istence of such people that matters but the reaction of the public at large as well as those playing a leadership role.

If we truly want a nation of united people with a common goal, then we must have cer­tain ideals, principles and aspirations and we must stick by them. Sometimes we can do it alone. Other times we may want to do it as part of a team; just make sure you are in the right one.

Dr Azmi Sharom is a law teacher. The views expressed here are entirely his own.

Saiful: I was angry & I refused… then I figured, what the hell?

by Nathaniel Tan

This isn’t my favourite topic to blog about, but seeing that so few people seemed to have done so (except the ever reliable Patrick Teoh)…. Also, please excuse the vulgarities ahead.

So yesterday Saiful testified something along the lines of: one day, Anwar was alone with me in a condo, and (out of the blue) asked me, “Can I fuck you?”

:|

:|||||||||||||||

Ah, but the implausibility doesn’t stop there. TMI reports that Saiful was angry, scared and defiant….. well, defiant right up to the point where he basically seems to decide: Err. Yeah. OK.

I mean. Options (assuming one values one’s presumed anal virginity) included running and/or physically resisting this sixty plus year old man with the bad back.

But I guess Saiful wants us to believe that he wasn’t sufficiently interested in avoiding being buggered. He didn’t seem to explain how his decision making process transitioned from a mentality of ’scared’, ‘angry’, ‘refuse to take money’ and ‘cannot bear to do it’ to what basically amounts to ‘I guess I’ll just bend over then.’

Imagine how many more people would be having sex if it was this ‘easy’ :P

This is a middle class young man. Would *you* have let yourself be raped to keep a RM 1,000 a month job?

I personally don’t believe any of his testimony happened, but it looks like Saiful has no qualms in having himself seen as someone willing to sell his dignity (and well, ass). He’s clearly done so, one way or the other.

I reproduce below Siva’s previous analysis of the inconsistencies in Saiful’s testimony and umm, ‘position’ from Loyarburok:

There are many facts about the current allegations made by Saiful and his behaviour which are already in the public domain. These facts speak for themselves and immediately show the lack of substance in the fabricated case now brought to attempt to bring down Anwar.

Saiful claimed in his police report of 28 June 2008 made at Hospital Kuala Lumpur (”HKL”) that he was sodomised by Anwar on the afternoon of Thursday 26 June 2008 at a condominium in Bukit Damansara. His version to the police in his police statement appears to allege that he had been assaulted about 8 to 9 times against his will by Anwar over the previous two months. In his police report made two days later on 28 June 2008, he claims that this incident of sodomy was also against his will.

This version immediately raises suspicion as to why this so-called “victim” is sodomised 8 to 9 times against his will over two months and yet made no complaint to the authorities. During that time, he was in regular contact with Anwar and all the other office staff at Anwar’s office.

It has also been revealed that on Wednesday 25 June 2008, the day before the last so-called assault on Thursday, he had met with a senior police officer Senior Assistant Commissioner Rodwan Mohd Yusof (then Deputy Director of Criminal Investigation Dept of the Royal Malaysian Police Force, now CPO Melaka) in the Concorde Hotel in Kuala Lumpur at Room 619. When asked by journalists about this meeting, Rodwan said he had no comment. Rodwan also played a key role in the police team in Anwar’s 1998/9 cases and in particular was infamous for his role in illegally using Anwar’s blood sample for DNA testing and was also embroiled in allegations of planting fabricated DNA traces on the infamous mattress brought to court. In the first trial in 1999, the DNA evidence was so discredited that even the hostile trial judge Augustine Paul was forced to expunge the evidence to assist the prosecution.

It has also since been revealed that the “victim” also met the current Prime Minister Najib Tun Razak (then the Deputy Prime Minister) a few days prior to the alleged incident. What is interesting about this revelation is that Najib initially denied meeting Saiful to the media, then admitted it, then said the meeting took place because Saiful (a university drop-out) was asking him for assistance to get a scholarship, and then told the media that Saiful said he was sodomised by Anwar and looked traumatised during their meeting.

Saiful’s behaviour after the so-called assault on Thursday also raises questions.

The next morning, Saiful went to the Anwar’s office as usual. He made no complaint to anyone and appeared quite normal. Later that day, he attended an Anwar Ibrahim Club event at Anwar’s house, at which Anwar was also present. There he helped serve coffee to the dozen or so persons present, showed no signs of fear or anxiety, and was able to sit and stand without showing any signs of discomfort.

The following day on Saturday in the afternoon about 2 pm, Saiful decided to go to a private hospital called Pusat Rawatan Islam (PUSRAWI) in Jalan Tun Razak. There he complained to one Dr. Osman that he had pain in his anus for a few days and that apparently a “plastic” item had been inserted. A proctoscopy examination by Dr. Osman showed no physical signs of penetration and a normal anus and rectum. After the examination, he then told Dr. Osman he had been sodomised by a VIP (Very Important Person) and was then advised to go for an examination at a government hospital. Despite HKL being virtually across the road, it took Saiful two and a half hours to get there. At HKL, where he reported that he had been sodomised, he was examined by three specialist doctors, which was a very unusual procedure in itself. These three doctors, in their official report, have stated that there were no “no conclusive clinical findings suggestive of penetration to the anus…” again reinforcing the conclusions of Dr. Osman.

Any objective investigator would have understood that a prosecution for sodomy would get nowhere in the light of such clear medical evidence. No objective prosecutor would have allowed the case to progress. Here we see the opposite – the investigation being driven fully although from the outset, the medical evidence itself ruled out penetration. The malice in the investigation further confirms the involvement of political motives.

This investigation was pursued despite the medical findings which would have been made available immediately to police investigators. Swabs taken from Saiful suspiciously took two days to reach the chemist lab for analysis. We know now that the prosecution will rely on purported DNA evidence to attempt to prove that Anwar was involved in an act of sodomy with Saiful without his consent.

How a 61 year old man with a bad back can force himself on a fit and tall 24 year old man will be an interesting question for all observers of this political trial.

The other interesting question will be, in the light of the emphatic medical evidence that there are no clinical findings even suggestive of penetration, the lack of credibility of any DNA report purporting to show that Anwar’s DNA was found in Saiful’s rectum. Such a report would in fact raise suspicion about such DNA evidence itself i.e. that such evidence had been fabricated or tampered with which is easy to do with DNA evidence especially when the perpetrators are the investigators themselves as in the 1998 trials.

Anwar: I'll subpoena Najib and Rosmah

Saiful tells of Anwar's 'sexual advances'

A plural peninsula or Tanah Melayu?

Written by Helen Ting

The other day, as I brought a group of Indonesian friends to visit Kuala Lumpur by train, I explained to them that KTM stood for Keretapi Tanah Melayu. They were quite amused by the term Tanah Melayu, hearing it for the first time in their life. Tanah Melayu was the term Umno leaders insisted as the name of the alternative Federation which replaced the short-lived Malayan Union. At symbolic level, it summarised aptly their nationalist sentiment, that this is a Malay land. Just when and how the name came about? It is actually a considerable challenge for historians to find evidence of local consciousness of the territory as a peninsula in the Asian sources before the entrenchment of the European influence. In the 14th century Javanese Desawarnana, the southern part of the peninsula was referred to as “the territory of Pahang”, while the term Malayu referred to Sumatra. The earliest verifiable sources generally designate Malayu to a location in Sumatra, the island of Sumatra itself, or a specific kingdom there. European cartographers of the 15th and early 16th century generally labelled the Peninsula as the Golden Khersonese, probably after Ptolemy’s appellation. The 17th century Portuguese writer, de Eredia, called it Ujontana. He explained that throughout the “continental territory of Ujontana (defined as covering the Malay Peninsula beneath Junk Ceylon)” the Malay language was used by the natives who called themselves ‘Malayos’. Until around 1800, English, French and Dutch maps generally called the Peninsula ‘Melaka’. From Deli to Tanah Melayu In early indigenous written sources, the term Tanah Melayu is not frequently found, and is not a specific name for the Peninsula. Among the early Malay texts, the term Tanah Melayu designating Malaya is used almost exclusively in Hikayat Hang Tuah. It appears to be a general term denoting places under the reign or suzerainty of Melaka Kingdom, or where the Melayu lived. In Hikayat Hang Tuah, the term was used just as Tanah Terengganu, Tanah Brunai, Tanah Melaka; Inderapura was regarded as Tanah Melayu while Brunai was described as negeri asing. At one point, merchants from Melaka were said to have changed the name of Deli to Tanah Melayu. It was only around early 19th century that current usage of the term began to take hold. The first book which explicitly referred to the peninsula as “Malay peninsula” was in a map of a book by J Begbie in 1834 entitled The Malayan Peninsula. The idea that the Peninsula was ‘Malay’ appears to be an exclusively English conception. A British administrator turned academician, Sir Richard Winstedt, acknowledged that the word “Malaya” for the peninsula was a European invention. The first English usage of the term “Malaya” appeared in the writings of Alexander Hamilton in the 1720s in the form of the phrase “Coast of Malaya” in his reference to the ports of Kedah and Perak. It is notable that, contrary to the current tendency to regard racial purity as one indication of ethnic authenticity, the term Malayu was in all aspects associated with hybridity and cosmopolitanism. Sejarah Melayu claim genealogical linkage of the Malayu origins to Indian ancestry and Alexander the Great. The practice of tracing royal genealogy to illustrious or even divine origins was probably inspired by the ancient Indic kingship tradition. Hang Tuah as a Melakan Malay admitted famously in Hikayat Hang Tuah that he was also a kacukan and not ‘pure’ Malay. Several historical indicators point to the possible Chinese ancestry of some of the Malayu class, the maritime elites of the Archipelago then. The Malay language was initially referred to more as Jawi, understood as anything mixed or crossed (just as “anah jahui”), or Bahasa Jawi. An authoritative historian of the region, Anthony Reid, pointed out that “foreignness” was in fact considered an asset for entrepreneurs in the region between the 15th to 18th centuries. A contemporary Portuguese observer, Tomé Pires, wrote that at least 61 different races and communities could be found in 15th century Melaka, with 84 different tongues being spoken. The inhabitants of the region exhibited their receptivity and capacity for adaptation and innovation in the face of stimulation from outside, as well described by Anthony Reid: “Chinese technology, weights and coins, Indian financial methods, Islamic commercial laws, and European technology and capital, all played a major part in creating the character of Southeast Asian urban and commercial life in this period (AD1400-1800).” ‘Identity problem’ In a keynote lecture he gave at the Fourth Malaysian Studies Conference in 2004, Prof Reid commented that the current label ‘Malay’ carried by the peninsula poses an “identity problem”. He thought “Plural Peninsula” would be a more appropriate name for it. Reid noted that when the English appellation ‘Malay Peninsula’ was initially applied to the territory, the term Malay had a much wider meaning. Yet the meaning of the term ‘Malay’ and ‘Melayu’ had been narrowed down in the “nationalist century” of the 20th “to become an ethnic adjective, increasingly used in an ethno-nationalist spirit to exclude the other long-term inhabitants of the Plural Peninsula, now labelled Thai, Chinese, Mon-Khmer, Indian or smaller groups”. He lamented the tendency of the 20th century nationalism “to impose the nation backwards onto a cosmopolitan past, claiming a great trading city such as Melaka, Brunei, Ayutthaya, Srivijaya or Majapahit as an ‘empire’, ancestral to the modern nation-state. In this construct, cosmopolis is embarrassing, and where it cannot be avoided has to be put down to aberrant colonial schemes to divide and rule”. Despite 50 years of political independence from the British, we are yet to undo this epistemological colonisation.

Dead detainee´s family wants OCPD sacked - Malaysiakini

The family of P Babu, who was found dead in a police lockup, has demanded that the Jempol district police chief be sacked.

Babu's uncle M Mahadevan made the demand in a memorandum to Inspector-General of Police Musa Hassan which was submitted to the at the federal police headquarters in Bukit Aman, Kuala Lumpur today.

Speaking to reporters later, Mahadevan said he had raised Babu after he was orphaned and holds the Jempol police chief responsible for his nephew's death.

“We will wait until another post-mortem is conducted. We will not claim the body from the mortuary until this is done,” said Mahadevan.

On Monday, Babu was found dead in the lockup after apparently hanging himself to death with his shirt.

Prior to this death, the sawmill worker turned himself in to assist a robbery investigation.

'Disclose CCTV footage'

Mahadevan was accompanied to Bukit Aman by about 20 members of NGO Alternative Action Team, led by its president B Kalaivanar.

Kalaivanar said the public deserves to know how Babu could have killed himself when the lockup is under CCTV surveillance.

“If Babu hanged himself, are the police prepared to reveal the video footage of the cell?” he said.

Kalaivanar notes that there has been 109 deaths in police custody since 2004 and no one has been held responsible for these deaths.

“I hope this incident will not be hushed up and added to the high number of fatalities involving Indian Malaysian detainees in police custody,” he said.

He warned that should the IGP fail to reply within 48 hours, his organisation will call for nationwide demonstrations.

PM's aide probed for sedition - Malaysiakini

Police are investigating Nasir Safar under the Sedition Act over alleged racist remarks made during a seminar, according to federal CID director Mohd Bakri Zinin.

Yesterday, Nasir, the special aide to Prime Minister Najib Abdul Razak, was alleged to have labelled Indian and Chinese Malaysians as pendatang (immigrants) while speaking at the 'Rapat 1Malaysia' seminar in Malacca.

Bakri said investigations were based on 12 police reports were lodged in various locations throughout the country.

Asked if Nasir would be apprehended and hauled to court over the matter, he said it would be premature to comment on pending investigations.

"Let us investigate first. We must gather all the facts and witnesses. Only then would we decide whether to detain him," he said.

Bakri was speaking to reporters today after presenting badges to canine handlers at the Malaysian Police Training Centre's canine unit in Kuala Lumpur.

In Putrajaya, Home Minister Hishammuddin Hussein said though Nasir had known Najib for 30 years, personal relationships would not get in the way of investigations.

Surau attack probe completed

During the seminar, Nasir was also alleged to have threatened to revoke the citizenship of those who insisted on allowing students to take up 12 subjects for the SPM examinations.

Hours after Malaysiakini broke the news, the Prime Minister's Department announced through a three-paragraph press statement that Nasir is due to resign over the incident.

The statement added that Nasir's opinions do not reflect the views of the prime minister.

In another development, Bakri said police findings on the arson attacks of two surau in Muar, Johor, have been submitted to the Attorney-General's Chambers for further action.

He said the four suspects in the case are still under remand. They have been held since Jan 23.

3 orphaned Indian dead bodies in Klang. Poverty related & unclaimed.

This is again yet another indicator of the height of Indian poverty in Malaysia.

The funeral service may cost at least about RM 2,000.00 each. These families can not afford the RM 2,000.00 and so these three bodies lie unclaimed in the mortuaries. This is just the tip of the iceberg. We estimate that there are thousands of such bodies lying in mortuaries nationwide every year based on the fact that about 70% of the 2.2 Million Indians are in the poor or hardcore poor category. The families of these deceased may earn as low as RM 200.00 per month working as cleaners and cannot afford this RM 2,000.00 funeral service.

We have never heard of this kind of predicament happening to even any poor Malay, Chinese or Orang Asli family. Why is it always the Indians who have to suffer these kind of myseries. The reason is the Indians have been excluded from the national mainstream development of Malay-sia and there is neither care or concern by the Welfare Minsitry. And the BN government is more interested in doling out funds to divorced muslim women.

P. Uthayakumar

Police murder in Bahau lock up. Family wants independent post mortem

The family is not going to claim the body of P. Babu (28).
From our experience only the government service doctors does post morterms in this country. And we do not know of any government doctor who can independently conduct a post mortem. They are all controlled by UMNO. Of course if P. Babu’s name was Teoh, the PKR led Selangor state government would pay and fly in an independent pathologist from Thailand to conduct a second post mortem. And PKR would employ two very senior lawyers to hold watching brief for the Selangor state government. And the DAP lawyer Mr Singh would act for the Teoh family.
But for poor P. Babu, being and Indian, he would not get help, attention or even justice from both UMNO or even PKR, DAP or PAS. Like the hundreds if not thousands of dead such previous Indian victims P. Babu would forgotten. Please note that there has been no reaction to this police custody death from any of the Pakatan parties.
P. Uthayakumar.

Indians excluded from 17,300 Pasar tani trading lots in 364 markets worth RM490 Million sales.

This is to be increased by another 100 new pasar tani lots with 5,000 new (Malay Muslim) traders and the business volume to be RM600 Million, says Agriculture and agro based industries Minister Datuk Seri Noh Omar who also launched the Konvoi Karavan Pasar Tani. (UM 3/2/2010 at page 2).

But we know of zero Indians who are allowed to do business in these Pasar Tani. The Indians are denied the licences and plots to do business with any of these 17,300 Malay Muslim pasar tani traders.

UMNOs’ excuse is that the Indians are not interested in doing these business. But just look at the thousands of Indian traders and their stalls that sprouted out nationwide especially in the just concluded Thaipusam festival. These UMNOs’ racist, religious extremist and supremacist practices does not happen in any other part of the world except in UMNO Prime Minister’s One Malay-sia.

P. Uthayakumar

Racist remarks against Indians: Prosecute Prime Minister’s Special Officer for Sedition

NO.6, Jalan Abdullah, Off Jalan Bangsar, 59000 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia

Tel: 03-2282 5241 Fax: 03-2282 5245

Website: www.humanrightspartymalaysia.com Email: info@humanrightspartymalaysia.com

Your Reference :

In Reply : Misc/Feb/10

Date : 3^rd February 2010

Racist remarks against Indians: Prosecute Prime Minister’s Special Officer for Sedition

Media Statement (3/02/2010)

We read with regret the malicious and racist statement uttered by a very senior civil servant that “when he labelled the Indians and Chinese in this country as ‘pendatang’ or immigrants”. “He was saying that the Indians and Chinese came here as immigrants and are now enjoying life in this country”. “He also remarked that the Chinese, especially the women, come here to ‘jual tubuh’ (flesh trade),”. He also threatened to ‘revoke’ the citizenship of those who were vocal about the subject cap for the SPM examination. This statement is by no less than the special officer to Prime Minister Najib Razak himself.

We hereby call upon Prime Minister Najib and his special officer to tender an open apology to the Indian and Chinese communities in Malaysia in addition to the Prime Minister forthwith sacking this his Special Officer.

The Prime Minister must also order the Attorney General to prosecute this Prime Minister’s special officer for Sedition.

After all our Secretary General (pro tem) Mr. P. Uthayakumar was prosecuted for Sedition for merely speaking up on the truth of the “ethinic cleansing” in Kg Medan where five Indians were murdered by a malay mob believed to be UMNO sponsored and from outside Kg Medan, indiscriminate demolishments of hindu temples at the rate of one in every week in Malaysia, indiscriminate demolishments of hindu crematoriums, murders of Indians in police lock ups and by being shot dead by the police then forming about 80% of the Malaysian victims when the Indians are only 8% of the population and also by and the overall exclusion of the Indians from the national mainstream development of Malaysia.

Article 8 provides for Equality before the law and so this special officer must similarly be prosecuted for Sedition forthwith and in any event within seven (7) days from the date hereof.

And when convicted this special officer must serve his prison sentence and not left murky and suspicious as the prison sentence meted out to the former Inspector General of Police Tan Sri Rahim Noor and some other UMNO linked personalities who in reality are suspected to have “not served their prison sentences”.

Thank you,

Yours faithfully,

S. JAYATHAS

Information Chief

Don't cry racism for every attack, says Australia

The Times of India, Feb 03, 2010 -- MELBOURNE/NEW DELHI: Australia on Wednesday criticised the Indian media and called for "some balance in reporting" after an Indian national whoclaimed to have been attacked was found to have accidentally set himself on fire while attempting to torch his car to falsely claim insurance.

Victoria state premier John Brumby and Australian High Commissioner in India Peter Varghese objected to the portrayal of the attacks against Indians as being racist and said it projected Australia in a negative light.

The comments came after police alleged that Jaspreet Singh, 29, who had on Jan 8 claimed he was set alight by unknown assailants near his home, had accidentally burnt himself while setting fire to his car for an insurance claim.

Jaspreet Singh, who said he was attacked in a Melbourne suburb, was charged with making a false report to the police and criminal damage with a view to gaining financial advantage.

Brumby told reporters in Melbourne: "I think I'll make a couple of comments and in a sense they go, as much as anything, to the way the Indian media and, to a lesser extent, some representatives in the Indian government, portray these events."

He also referred to the death of Ranjodh Singh whose body was found on the side of a road in New South Wales on Dec 29 last year.

"I think the point needs to be made that the people who have been charged with that murder are both Indians," Australian news agency AAP quoted Brumby as saying.

"And we've had this (Jaspreet Singh) case, which attracted a lot of attention in India, and police have charged an individual with setting fire to himself.

"So I hope that there is some balance to the debate, some balance to the reporting in India and certainly to date that balance hasn't been there."

In India, Australian envoy Peter Varghese said: "Australia has zero tolerance for violence and zero tolerance for racism. Both are reflected in Australian law, and in the penalties the courts are handing out."

Varghese said in a statement that the incident in which Jaspreet Singh claimed to have been set alight near his home in Melbourne was reported as a racist attack.

"It had done serious damage to Australia's image in India. It had fuelled the view that Indians had been singled out for racist attacks in Australia," he said.

He said the Jaspreet Singh case, together with the arrest on Jan 29 of three Indians for the murder of Ranjodh Singh, should be a lesson to all not to cry "racism" every time something bad happened to an Indian in Australia.

The Australian envoy said more than 50 people had been arrested so far in connection with cases involving Indian nationals.

"The Indian public should be assured that the perpetrators will be punished, but please let the police and the courts get on with their work," he added.

Varghese said it was important to "treat each incident seriously" but also "cautioned against judging the nation or the Australian community by the actions of a criminal minority".

He rejected claims that these attacks reflected community hostility against Indians.

Saiful describes Anwar’s indecent proposal

By Shazwan Mustafa Kamal - The Malaysian Insider

KUALA LUMPUR, Feb 3 — Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim’s accuser in his Sodomy II trial shocked the High Court today when he said the opposition leader had used profane language when asking to have sexual intercourse with him.

Mohd Saiful Bukhari Azlan, who took the stand at the High Court as the prosecution’s first witness, testified that when he first met Anwar at a condominium in Damansara Heights in 2008, the PKR de facto leader had asked him: “Can I **** you today?”

Saiful’s use of the profanity was greeted by sniggers and murmurs from those in the public gallery.

When asked by the prosecution about his immediate reaction to the request by Anwar, Saiful replied that at that point of time he felt “angry and scared.”

“I was angry and scared.. I refused to do so, to which Anwar became angry,” said Saiful.

The complainant also alleged that the former deputy prime minister had offered him money in exchange for the sexual act, to which he also “refused”.

“I repeated what I had said and told him that I cannot bear to do it.”

Anwar had then “ordered” him to proceed to the guest room where Saiful then stripped and donned a towel before the opposition leader hugged him.

Saiful described to the court how Anwar had closed the curtains of the bedroom, switched off the room lights and closed the door.

“It was dark, but I could still see some light coming from between the cracks of the curtains as well as the washroom light,” explained Saiful.

At this point Anwar had apparently told Saiful to “clean himself up” in the washroom. Saiful said he did as he was told.

Upon coming out of the washroom, the complainant had testified that Anwar was sitting at the foot of the bed and was also clad in a white towel.

“He (Anwar) then instructed me to come to him. He then hugged me while standing.”

At this point, lead counsel for Anwar’s defense team, Karpal Singh, objected to the questioning of the key witness being done in open court and requested that it be continued in-camera.

Deputy Public Prosecutor Datuk Mohd Yusof Zainal Abiden, in agreement with Karpal, cited legal provisions which empowered the court to do so for the sake of public interest.

At the beginning of Saiful’s testimony, he claimed that units 1151 and 1152 of the condominium where the sodomy allegedly took place belonged to a Hasanuddin Abdul Hamid, and that he had been there several times prior to the incident.

Saiful had also stated that each time he went to these units, a password, “Mohktar”, was required

Earlier, Saiful also told the court that he quit his job as a personal assistant to the opposition leader because he “could no longer stand being used as stated in the charges”.

Saiful had earlier pointed to Anwar when asked by Mohd Yusof to identify the accused.

Anwar did not look at him.

The opposition leader, who smirked at many points during Saiful’s testimony, had earlier described the charge as “evil, frivolous lies by those in power” when the charge was read out to him.

Saiful, who appeared calm and composed, told the court that his job as Anwar’s personal assistant included helping the opposition leader to organise secret meetings with MPs who potentially wanted to defect to Pakatan Rakyat (PR) parties.

He also testified that he took care of Anwar’s mobile phone and alerted his then-employer to important messages.

Anwar’s trial finally started today after much delay with the prosecution firing their first salvo by saying they had evidence to show that the semen stains found on Saiful belonged to the opposition leader.

In their opening statement, the prosecution told the High Court that tissue samples taken from the outer and inner part of Saiful’s anus were examined for a DNA match.

The prosecution said it would bring to the court testimonies to show the semen stains have been confirmed by authorities from the Chemistry Department as belonging to Anwar.

Anwar is accused of sodomising his former aide on June 26, 2008 at a posh condominium in the exclusive Bukit Damansara suburb of Kuala Lumpur.

He has denied the charge, saying it’s a conspiracy similar to that in 1998.

The 63-year-old oppposition leader was freed in September 2004 and later resurrected his political career by winning back his Permatang Pauh parliamentary seat in a by-election in 2008, which had been held in the interim by his wife.

He had earlier led the opposition coalition, Pakatan Rakyat, to a historic sweep of five states and 82 parliamentary seats in 2008 General Election.

Soon after, he was accused by the 24-year-old Saiful, whom Anwar dismissively called a “coffee boy.”

The trial has been adjourned until 9.30am tomorrow. The proceedings will be in camera due to the sensitivity of the testimony, the court ruled.

Anwar claims Najib dictating Saiful’s testimony

By Asrul Hadi Abdullah Sani - The Malaysian Insider

KUALA LUMPUR, Feb 3 — Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim today reiterated his belief that his second sodomy trial is politically motivated.

He also claimed that Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak is the mastermind behind Mohd Saiful Bukhari Azlan’s testimony.

“Umno is ordering them (Attorney-General) to do this. Datuk Seri Najib Razak is also asking Saiful to say what is needed to strengthen the accusation and also to confuse the public,” he told reporters outside the courthouse.

Anwar’s trial finally started today after much delay and Saiful shocked the High Court today when he said the opposition leader had used profane language when asking to have sexual intercourse with him.

Saiful took the stand at the High Court as the prosecution’s first witness, testified that when he first met Anwar at a condominium in Damansara Heights in 2008, the PKR de facto leader had asked him: “Can I **** you today?”

Anwar is accused of sodomising his former aide on June 26, 2008 at a posh condominium in the exclusive Bukit Damansara suburb of Kuala Lumpur.

He has denied the charge, saying it’s a conspiracy similar to that in 1998.

The 63-year-old oppposition leader said that the fabrication of evidence against him is not new and that his lawyers are ready to expose the truth.

“This has happened before. As far as I am concerned, we have to deal with it but let my lawyers cross examine him.

“In the previous case, they claim that they were 13 spots of sperm on the mattress and said that evidence was conclusive.

“But after three months of Utusan Malaysia glorifying and campaigning with issues and tarnishing my image then they decided to expunge the record because they cannot defend the evidence. I believe this will happen again,” he said.

Anwar was freed in September 2004 and later resurrected his political career by winning back his Permatang Pauh parliamentary seat in a by-election in 2008, which had been held in the interim by his wife.

He had earlier led the opposition coalition, Pakatan Rakyat, to a historic sweep of five states and 82 parliamentary seats in Election 2008.

But he was then mired with the accusation from 24-year-old Saiful, whom Anwar dismissively said was just a “coffee boy”.

Semen stains belong to Anwar, prosecution claims

By Shazwan Mustafa Kamal - The Malaysian Insider

KUALA LUMPUR, Feb 3 — Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim’s Sodomy II trial finally started today with the prosecution firing their first salvo by saying they had evidence to show semen stains found on Mohd Saiful Bukhari Azlan belonged to the Opposition Leader.

In their opening statement, the prosecution told the High Court that tissue samples taken from the outer and inner part of Saiful’s anus were examined for a DNA match.

The prosecution said it would bring to the court testimonies to show the semen stains have been confirmed by authorities from the Chemist Department as belonging to Anwar.

The prosecution will also rely on direct testimony from Saiful.

Anwar is accused of sodomising his former aide Mohd Saiful Bukhari Azlan on June 26, 2008 at a posh condominium in the exclusive Bukit Damansara suburb in Kuala Lumpur.

He has denied the charge, saying it’s a conspiracy similar to his first charge in 1998.

The 63-year-old Opposition Leader was freed in September 2004 and later resurrected his political career by winning back his Permatang Pauh parliamentary seat, that was held in the interim by his wife, in a by-election in 2008.

He had earlier led the opposition Pakatan Rakyat to a historic sweep of four states and 82 parliamentary seats in Election 2008.

But he was then mired with the accusation from 24-year-old Saiful, whom Anwar dismissively said was just a “coffee boy.”

PKR to hold nightly briefing on Sodomy II

By Adib Zalkapli - The Malaysian Insider

PETALING JAYA, Feb 3 — PKR will hold nightly briefings for its supporters at the party headquarters here, to counter the salacious details emerging from Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim’s sodomy trial.

Anwar’s lawyers and senior party leaders will be among those invited to give the briefings.

The briefing is organised by the party’s information secretariat chaired by PKR Youth vice chief Amirudin Shari.

“We want to show the public that mobilising crowds in court is just a small part of our work. We will hold nightly briefings for our supporters to get the correct information on the case,” said PKR Youth chief Shamsul Iskandar Akin who was the first speaker at the briefing tonight.

The secretariat will also print thousands of copies of a medical report that claimed Anwar’s accuser Mohd Saiful Bukhari Azlan was never sodomised, to be distributed to the public.

“Looking at the media reports today, it was clear their intention was only to tarnish Datuk Seri Anwar’s image,” Shamsul added.

Shamsul also claimed that Saiful’s testimony in court today showed that the former Anwar aide had not been sincere.

“Saiful is said to have met Najib to discuss a scholarship, but today in court he admitted that he is a university drop out,” said Shamsul referring to the prime minister’s statement in 2008 that he met Saiful to talk about a scholarship application.

Earlier today, Saiful who took the stand at the High Court as the prosecution’s first witness, testified that when he first met Anwar at a condominium in Damansara Heights in 2008, the PKR de facto leader had asked him: “Can I **** you today?”

Apart from the briefing, party officials are also using social networking website Facebook and micro-blogging service Twitter to defend Anwar’s image, calling the sodomy allegation “Conspiracy II.”

Prior to the trial Anwar appeared to have successfully won in the court of public opinion with wide and favourable coverage from the international media.