By Nathaniel Tan,
I haven’t really said anything about Monday’s sex video.
A little while ago, YB Johari Abdul made some rather notable statements regarding the video. I write based on tweets from the events, such as might be found here: http://twitter.com/#!/fahmi_fadzil
It seems, Johari’s uncle, ex-senator Shuib Nazim, associated with Daim, arranged for Johari to meet a Tan Sri, at 4pm 21/3, at Hotel De Palma, Ampang, after which he was driven to Hotel Flamingo (what is it with politicos and hotels?)
That Tan Sri was Rahim Thamby Chik, and he was there with one Datuk Eskay Shazril Abdullah (apparently the famous Datuk T).
The latter showed Johari the video, and Johari has said today that he was positive the man in the video was not Anwar.
A few tweets by Fahmi worth noting:
- Johari: But then the movie continued, and i could see that NO WAY it could be DSAI. Wrong belly profile, larger “behind”, diff skin color.
- Datuk Eskay then offered Johari Abdul to meet @NajibRazak, bring more MPs with him and said “Hal2 kewangan… Kita boleh take care lah.”
- Carcosa was booked by Ketua Umno Bhg Bukit Gantang, who is also special officer to Tan Sri Rahim Thamby Chik. Paid by credit card.
So, where does this bring us?
1. Is the man in the video Anwar or not?
If memory serves, there are two comments in the public sphere with regards to this question.
What we seem to have read early on was: “Journalists who saw the video today said they are “90 percent sure” that it looks like a particular opposition politician.”
Interestingly, I have so far only managed to find this on an archived version of a Malaysiakini story, available at freemalaysiakini.com. The current edit of the same Malaysiakini story presently in print seems to have eliminated this line completely. I’m not sure what the story is there.
But as far as I can tell, we have the comment of some unnamed journalists (from Utusan et al perhaps?) vs Johari’s recent revelations.
(Briefly: I remember in Hulu Selangor, how YB Jo spent the night in dorm in a bunk bed, alongside the rest of us election workers. He could probably have really used the money he was offered as well. I think he drives a Myvi, and has kids to put through school. If this is indeed proof that some integrity remains in Malaysian politics, then this is the first thing we’ve had to be proud of in a while).
2. Is Umno involved?
Unless Johari is lying, there seems to be no doubt on this question.
We have some really big Umno players involved, obviously doing this to further the goals of Umno and BN. Could something like this happened without Najib’s knowledge? Just how stupid do they think we are?
Najib and Hishamuddin’s pathetic attempt to distance themselves are worth absolutely nothing unless they immediately and without delay insist that the video be made public for purposes of verification.
As has been noted, the irony that Rahim Thamby Chik, seen by many to be a paedophile, should be involved in this sordid affair.
3. What the hell is going on?
I have said to many people that conversing on this issue without having seen the video is akin to, if you’ll pardon the bad association, groping in the dark. I rather dislike this state of affairs.
Nonetheless, let us posit at least two possibilities that come to mind.
a) That the video is genuine, and that this method of revelation is meant to drag the affair out for as long as possible for maximum collateral damage. (maybe we remember the expose of the Lingam videos)
b) That the video is fake, and the manner of its limited revelation was designed to minimise the possibility of someone proving its fakeness – ie, to take advantage of the damage it may cause, without exposing the actual video to scrutiny.
(Part of the discourse as to whether the video is fake or not involves observations that the man in the video’s backside does not look like Anwar’s. How sad that we’ve gone from discuss Saiful’s ass, to discussing Anwar’s. Truly nothing better for us to focus on? :( Maybe this was a precusor to using the same ‘actor’ in a to be released video of Saiful – the semen of male Y? sigh.)
I like to think of myself as an open minded man who is guided by evidence and not prejudice.
With each day and nugget of info that passes though, does b) not seem an increasing likelihood?
I have not read everything out there on this matter, but I would recommend journalist Hazlan Zakaria’s intricate personal account of the viewing, as well as Johari Abdul’s statement in full.
ps- The reversal (and timing thereof) of the Sodomy 2 trial-within-a-trial decision should not go unnoticed. In Malaysia’s judiciary, up is down, and down is up.
A little while ago, YB Johari Abdul made some rather notable statements regarding the video. I write based on tweets from the events, such as might be found here: http://twitter.com/#!/fahmi_fadzil
It seems, Johari’s uncle, ex-senator Shuib Nazim, associated with Daim, arranged for Johari to meet a Tan Sri, at 4pm 21/3, at Hotel De Palma, Ampang, after which he was driven to Hotel Flamingo (what is it with politicos and hotels?)
That Tan Sri was Rahim Thamby Chik, and he was there with one Datuk Eskay Shazril Abdullah (apparently the famous Datuk T).
The latter showed Johari the video, and Johari has said today that he was positive the man in the video was not Anwar.
A few tweets by Fahmi worth noting:
- Johari: But then the movie continued, and i could see that NO WAY it could be DSAI. Wrong belly profile, larger “behind”, diff skin color.
- Datuk Eskay then offered Johari Abdul to meet @NajibRazak, bring more MPs with him and said “Hal2 kewangan… Kita boleh take care lah.”
- Carcosa was booked by Ketua Umno Bhg Bukit Gantang, who is also special officer to Tan Sri Rahim Thamby Chik. Paid by credit card.
So, where does this bring us?
1. Is the man in the video Anwar or not?
If memory serves, there are two comments in the public sphere with regards to this question.
What we seem to have read early on was: “Journalists who saw the video today said they are “90 percent sure” that it looks like a particular opposition politician.”
Interestingly, I have so far only managed to find this on an archived version of a Malaysiakini story, available at freemalaysiakini.com. The current edit of the same Malaysiakini story presently in print seems to have eliminated this line completely. I’m not sure what the story is there.
But as far as I can tell, we have the comment of some unnamed journalists (from Utusan et al perhaps?) vs Johari’s recent revelations.
(Briefly: I remember in Hulu Selangor, how YB Jo spent the night in dorm in a bunk bed, alongside the rest of us election workers. He could probably have really used the money he was offered as well. I think he drives a Myvi, and has kids to put through school. If this is indeed proof that some integrity remains in Malaysian politics, then this is the first thing we’ve had to be proud of in a while).
2. Is Umno involved?
Unless Johari is lying, there seems to be no doubt on this question.
We have some really big Umno players involved, obviously doing this to further the goals of Umno and BN. Could something like this happened without Najib’s knowledge? Just how stupid do they think we are?
Najib and Hishamuddin’s pathetic attempt to distance themselves are worth absolutely nothing unless they immediately and without delay insist that the video be made public for purposes of verification.
As has been noted, the irony that Rahim Thamby Chik, seen by many to be a paedophile, should be involved in this sordid affair.
3. What the hell is going on?
I have said to many people that conversing on this issue without having seen the video is akin to, if you’ll pardon the bad association, groping in the dark. I rather dislike this state of affairs.
Nonetheless, let us posit at least two possibilities that come to mind.
a) That the video is genuine, and that this method of revelation is meant to drag the affair out for as long as possible for maximum collateral damage. (maybe we remember the expose of the Lingam videos)
b) That the video is fake, and the manner of its limited revelation was designed to minimise the possibility of someone proving its fakeness – ie, to take advantage of the damage it may cause, without exposing the actual video to scrutiny.
(Part of the discourse as to whether the video is fake or not involves observations that the man in the video’s backside does not look like Anwar’s. How sad that we’ve gone from discuss Saiful’s ass, to discussing Anwar’s. Truly nothing better for us to focus on? :( Maybe this was a precusor to using the same ‘actor’ in a to be released video of Saiful – the semen of male Y? sigh.)
I like to think of myself as an open minded man who is guided by evidence and not prejudice.
With each day and nugget of info that passes though, does b) not seem an increasing likelihood?
I have not read everything out there on this matter, but I would recommend journalist Hazlan Zakaria’s intricate personal account of the viewing, as well as Johari Abdul’s statement in full.
ps- The reversal (and timing thereof) of the Sodomy 2 trial-within-a-trial decision should not go unnoticed. In Malaysia’s judiciary, up is down, and down is up.
No comments:
Post a Comment