NGO Melayu beri amaran tauke tepung tak jadi 'pembunuh'

Liwat II: Sedikit kekecohan ketika Anwar tiba di mahkamah

Shafee confident he can rebut Anwar's defence

5/10 Denmark: Muslims beat man with bottle for calling Islam "violent"

"Friday night B. was sitting in his garage in the city of Randers with a friend. The garage is used as a smoking room and they were also drinking a few beers. Three Chechen asylum seekers aged 20-30 passes and the Danes offered them a beer and a cigarette. Two of them disappears for a moment, and B. talks to the third in English. They talk about the reasons for their flight to Denmark. B. says frankly that he believes that Islam is "evil and violent'. When the other two come back, the Chechen and tells his two friends about this, after which one of the Checens goes crazy with a bottle while shouting: "So you hate Islam".

B. was beaten twice in the head with a full bottle, and was made with nine stitches. The friend gets a similar trip. Both kicks after lying down.

http://www.uriasposten.net/archives/60962

Blasphemy: Mob attacks Ahmadis, kills woman, 2 girls in Pak

Lahore: A woman and her two minor grand- daughters were killed when an angry mob set alight several houses, shops in Pakistan's Punjab province belonging to the minority Ahmadi sect in riots that followed the alleged posting of blasphemous content on Facebook.

The violence erupted yesterday in the city of Gujranwala, about 80 kilometres from Lahore, after claims that a Ahmadi youth, 17, had posted a photo containing blasphemous content, said Amir Mahmood, an office-bearer of the Ahmadi community.

After the news spread about the incident, a large number of people, armed with sticks and chanting slogans, marched towards the residence of the youth in Katchi Pump locality.

"The mob first looted the furniture and other valuables from the eight houses and four shops of the Ahmadis and then torched them. Ten persons were trapped in houses when the mob torched it," said Mahmood.

"Three of them were found dead while the other seven including women were shifted to hospital."

The condition of a woman, who lost her child in the tragedy, is critical, he said.

The dead has been identified as Bashiran, 50, her granddaughters Hira, 8, and Kainaat, 3, said Central Police Officer Gujranwala division Waqas Nazir.

Blasphemy is a very sensitive subject in Pakistan, where Muslims make up the majority of the 180 million population. Those convicted under blasphemy laws can get life sentences or the death penalty.

However, that has not stopped people from taking the law into their own hands. Witnesses often are reluctant to testify in defence of a person accused of blasphemy.

Pakistani minorities such as Christians, Hindu and Sikhs, Ahmadis have long been persecuted by Islamic extremists.

In May, two Ahmadis, including a visiting American cardiologist of Pakistani origin, were killed.

"We have registered a case against 500 unidentified people for torching houses and damaging public property." The police, have, however, not included murder charges in the FIR.

"With the help of TV footages we will arrest the culprits," he said.

Founded by Ghulam Ahmad, the Ahmadis are not allowed to identify themselves as Muslims under Pakistani law and are banned from going on the Hajj pilgrimage to Mecca.

Punjab Chief Minister Shahbaz Sharif has asked the authorities to take necessary steps to safeguard the Ahmadis.

Jamaat-i-Ahmadia Pakistan spokesman Salimuddin has demanded the arrest of the perpetrators. He said the government must take steps to stop hate campaign against the Ahmadis.

Human Rights Commission of Pakistan slammed the rioters saying "brutalisation and barbarism has stooped to new lows," and added that it is "shocked and disgusted" over the failure of the police in dousing the violence.
PTI

 

Allah’s Apostle said, “I have been ordered to fight the people till they say: ‘None has the right to be worshipped but Allah.’ And if they say so, pray like our prayers, face our Qibla and slaughter as we slaughter, then their blood and property will be sacred to us and we will not interfere with them except legally and their reckoning will be with Allah.” Narrated Maimun ibn Siyah that he asked Anas bin Malik, “O Abu Hamza! What makes the life and property of a person sacred?” He replied, “Whoever says, ‘None has the right to be worshipped but Allah’, faces our Qibla during the prayers, prays like us and eats our slaughtered animal, then he is a Muslim, and has got the same rights and obligations as other Muslims have.” (Bukhari 1.8.387)
“Interview with an Islamic State Recruiter: ‘Democracy Is For Infidels,'” by Hasnain Kazim, Spiegel Online, October 28, 2014:

…He calls himself Abu Sattar, appears to be around 30 years old and wears a thick, black beard that reaches down to his chest. His top lip is shaved as is his head and he wears a black robe that stretches all the way to the floor. He keeps a copy of the Koran, carefully wrapped in black cloth, in his black leather bag.
Abu Sattar recruits fighters for the terrorist militia Islamic State in Turkey. Radical Islamists travel to Turkey from all over the world to join the “holy war” in Iraq or Syria and Abu Sattar examines their motives and the depth of their religious beliefs. Several Islamic State members independently recommended Abu Sattar as a potential interview partner — as someone who could explain what Islamic State stands for. Many see him as something like an ideological mentor.
He only agreed to an interview following a period of hesitation. But after agreeing to a time and saying he would name a place in due time, he let the appointment fall through. The next day, though, he arranged another meeting time, to take place in a public venue. And this time, he appears: a man with brown eyes behind frameless glasses. He seems self-confident and combative. He orders a tea and, throughout the duration of our meeting, slides his wooden prayer beads through his hands.
SPIEGEL ONLINE: As-salamu alaykum.
Abu Sattar: Are you Muslim?
SPIEGEL ONLINE: Why does that matter? Religion is a private matter for me.
Abu Sattar: Then why did you say “as-salamu alaykum”?
SPIEGEL ONLINE: Because it means “peace be with you” and I see it as a friendly greeting.
Abu Sattar: So you’re not a Muslim. I knew it!
SPIEGEL ONLINE: Why is Islamic State so eager to divide the world into believers and infidels? Why does Islamic State see everything as either black or white, “us against the world”?
Abu Sattar: Who started it? Who conquered the world and sought to subordinate all foreign cultures and religions? The history of colonialism is long and bloody. And it continues today, in the shape of Western arrogance vis-à-vis everyone else. “Us against the rest of the world” is the formula that drives the West. We Muslims are now finally offering successful resistance.
SPIEGEL ONLINE: You are spreading fear and horror and are killing innocents, most of them Muslim. You call that successful resistance?
Abu Sattar: We are following Allah’s word. We believe that humanity’s only duty is to honor Allah and his prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him. We are implementing what is written in the Koran. If we manage to do so, then of course it will be a success….
SPIEGEL ONLINE: Do you believe that those who behead others are good Muslims?
Abu Sattar: Let me ask you this: Do you believe that those who launch air strikes on Afghan weddings or who march into a country like Iraq on specious grounds are good Christians? Are those responsible for Guantanamo or Abu Ghraib good Christians?
SPIEGEL ONLINE: You are dodging the question. The events you speak of were not undertaken in the name of a religion and were heavily criticized in the West. Once again: What is a good Muslim for you? What kinds of people are you recruiting?
Abu Sattar: A Muslim is a person who follows Allah’s laws without question. Sharia is our law. No interpretation is needed, nor are laws made by men. Allah is the only lawmaker. We have determined that there are plenty of people, in Germany too, who perceive the emptiness of the modern world and who yearn for values of the kind embodied by Islam. Those who are opposed to Sharia are not Muslims. We talk to the people who come to us and evaluate on the basis of dialogue how deep their faith is….
SPIEGEL ONLINE: There are an estimated 1.6 billion Muslims in the world today. Many are very democratic, some are liberal while others are conservative and, just imagine, there are heterosexual Muslims and homosexual Muslims among them. Most of them do not share your ideology. But you act as though there were only one kind of Muslim, namely those who think like you do. That is absurd!
Abu Sattar: Democracy is for infidels. A real Muslim is not a democrat because he doesn’t care about the opinions of majorities and minorities don’t interest him. He is only interested in what Islam says. Furthermore, democracy is a hegemonic tool of the West and contrary to Islam. Why do you act as though the entire world needs democracy? And when it comes to homosexuality, the issue is clearly dealt with by the Koran. It says it is forbidden and should be punished.
SPIEGEL ONLINE: Such statements help cast suspicion on all Muslims. In many countries, they are under pressure to distance themselves from Islamic State even though they have nothing at all to do with terror.
Abu Sattar: So? Are they speaking out against us? (Laughs) I think we enjoy much more support than you would like to believe. Those who demand that Muslims take sides are totally right. We go even a step further: All people should disclose whether they submit to Allah or not. Those who are against us are our enemies and must be fought. That includes people who call themselves Muslims but who don’t lead their lives as such — people who drink, who don’t pray, who don’t fast, who have constantly changing partners and who are unable to recite the Koran.
SPIEGEL ONLINE: There are many Muslims who have consciously chosen such a lifestyle.
Abu Sattar: That may be true, but that is not Allah’s will. When we someday have power, inshallah, in the entire world, then Sharia will be imposed. Such people will then have to atone for their behavior….
SPIEGEL ONLINE: You kidnap non-Muslim women and turn them into sex slaves. You crucify or behead those of other faiths, including children. How does that conform to Islam?
Abu Sattar: Why didn’t anybody get upset about the many people that Syrian President Bashar Assad has on his conscience? But now that we want to establish a caliphate, it is suddenly a problem? To answer your question: It is every Muslim’s duty to fight those of a different belief until only Allah is worshipped around the world. Everybody has the opportunity to accept Allah and to change to the right path. (Recited in Arabic from the Koran, 5. Sura, Verse 33) “The recompense of those who wage war against Allah and His Messenger and do mischief in the land is only that they shall be killed or crucified or their hands and their feet be cut off on the opposite sides, or be exiled from the land.”
SPIEGEL ONLINE: Most non-Muslims aren’t waging war against anybody. Billions of people, no matter what their religion, are living peacefully with each other, or at least next to one another.
Abu Sattar: (Once again recites in Arabic, this time Sura 4, Verse 89) “They (the Unbelievers) wish that you reject Faith as they have rejected Faith, and thus that you all become equal. So take not protectors or friends from them till they emigrate in the Way of Allah. But if they turn back from Islam, take hold of them and kill them wherever you find them and take neither protectors nor friends nor helpers from them.”
SPIEGEL ONLINE: You are avoiding the question by confronting a complex reality with religious texts. But if you really want to conduct such an argument: It also says in the Koran that there is no compulsion in religion. In a different spot it says that one is not permitted to “transgress due balance” because God does not love imbalance. What you are doing is a transgression of balance.
Abu Sattar: Yes, that is in the second Sura. But it also says that one should kill or expel unbelievers wherever one finds them.…
SPIEGEL ONLINE: In the golden age of Islam, there was music, dancing, painting, calligraphy and architecture. Yet you are propagating an Islam free of culture and art. It is time to discuss religious content and find a modern interpretation, don’t you think.
Abu Sattar: It is not up to us to interpret God’s word. There have been repeated errors and lapses in Muslim societies. That which you refer to as the “golden age” was one of them.
SPIEGEL ONLINE: Then you should at least be in favor of allowing people to read the Koran in their own language so that they understand how they are supposed to live. Most are unable to speak or understand Arabic. Do you believe that the many calls for fighting and killing would be well received were people to be able to read them in their own language?
Abu Sattar: It is Allah’s word just as it is in the Koran. We are also not allowed to translate it. It is unimportant whether what it says is well received or not. We are not allowed to question even a single word.
SPIEGEL ONLINE: You keep the people uneducated to build up your power. That is a strategy used by all extremists.
Abu Sattar: You have your viewpoint and we have ours.
SPIEGEL ONLINE: But you fight against all those who don’t share your worldview.
Abu Sattar: Christians and Jews go after those who have access to raw materials but who prevent access to them. Oil is the best example. The US and its allies are constantly intervening in countries where they don’t belong only to defend their prosperity. Is that any better? We aren’t fighting because we are greedy and selfish, rather we are fighting for values and morals.
SPIEGEL ONLINE: When one looks at your actions in Iraq and Syria, morals and values are difficult to discern. One gets the impression that your actions are driven by an inferiority complex. The same holds true of your recruits: They tend to be people who feel like they don’t belong and finally see an opportunity to live out their fantasies of power.
Abu Sattar: It is not true that only those people come to us who have experienced no success in life. Among them are many people who have university degrees, people who were well-established. But they all see the inequities that we Muslims have long experienced and want to fight against them.
SPIEGEL ONLINE: You constantly speak of fighting. Do Muslims not constantly speak of Islam being a religion of peace?
Abu Sattar: It is when people submit to Allah. Allah is merciful and forgives those who follow him.

Defence mauls Saiful’s credibility on Day One of Anwar’s sodomy appeal

The first day of Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim's sodomy appeal today saw the defence punching holes in the credibility of the complainant, Mohd Saiful Azlan Bukhari, to make the case that the opposition leader should have been acquitted without his defence being called.

Anwar's lead counsel Datuk Seri Gopal Sri Ram tried to persuade the Federal Court today of weaknesses and inconsistencies in Saiful's testimony, saying that the prosecution's entire case would collapse if the court agreed that he was a discredited witness.

Any other evidence, including medical findings, would then be rendered useless.

The High Court had accepted Saiful's evidence, and judge Datuk Mohamad Zabidin Mohd Diah had only acquitted Anwar at the close of the defence case on grounds that the court could not be "100% certain" on the integrity of samples taken from Saiful for DNA testing.

The lower court found that the exhibits could have been compromised before they were handed over to a chemist.

A three-man bench in the Court of Appeal led by Datuk Balia Yusof Wahi convicted Anwar on March 7 this year, setting aside the acquittal by the High Court in early 2012.

Today, Sri Ram, a retired Federal Court judge, said both the High Court and the Court of Appeal were wrong in accepting Saiful's evidence.

"The Court of Appeal did not reevaluate the evidence of Saiful. In any event, his evidence was not corroborated," Sri Ram told the five-man Federal Court bench led by Chief Justice Tun Arifin Zakaria.

Sri Ram, who was roped in at the eleventh hour to replace lawyer Datuk Sulaiman Abdullah, said the trial judge had erred in accepting Saiful's explanation on why it took him two days to make a police report after the alleged sodomy.

Saiful had said that he was afraid for his safety.

Instead, Sri Ram submitted today, Saiful had met Anwar the day after the alleged crime for a discussion and a tea session.

"Seen in a photograph, Saiful's demeanour hardly looks like a person who is under threat or someone forcefully sodomised 24 hours before," Sri Ram told the court.

He also questioned why Saiful did not complain as soon as possible after the incident, or why he did not seek help if indeed he was sexually assaulted.

Sri Ram said Saiful should have been treated as an accomplice as he was an active participant if such an alleged incident did take place, but the lower court did not make such findings.

"As an accomplice, Saiful cannot corroborate himself. The trial judge failed to ask the right questions and instead wrongly treated his evidence as corroboration," he added.

He said it was Saiful who had introduced a bottle of lubricant when giving testimony during the trial, but the sex aid had never been on the prosecution's initial list of exhibits.

"The absence of the lubricant from the list casts serious doubt on the credibility of Saiful and the entire investigation," he said.

Sri Ram said Saiful told the trial court that the sexual act "was vigorous and fast" and that he suffered pain.

"If that is the case, a lubricant could not have been used because the very object of it is to facilitate penetration without pain," he said.

He said medical evidence confirmed that there was no trauma or injury found on Saiful's anus.

Anwar is accused of committing the offence at a unit of the Desa Damansara condominium in Bukit Damansara, between 3.10pm and 4.30pm, on June 26, 2008.

Anwar, 67, who was sentenced to five years' jail by the Court of Appeal, is now on RM10,000 bail in one surety.

The prosecution has also filed a cross-appeal for a higher jail sentence against Anwar which is up to 20 years.

Anwar's political career as an elected representative will be over as he will be disqualified from office, should his conviction be sustained and he is fined more than RM2,000 or jailed more than a year, and he does not receive a free pardon.

The defence team ended their submissions today with lawyer N. Surendran telling the court of evidence that emerged during the trial which showed that the sodomy charge against Anwar was a political conspiracy.

The claim of conspiracy was made by Anwar in statements from the dock, which Surendran said the High Court and Court of Appeal did not give adequate weightage to.

The defence will resume tomorrow with their submission on the relevance and weight of an accused's statement from the dock. – October 28, 2014.

No justice for my son in Malaysia, says activist Ali’s father

As devastated as Abd Jalil Abd Rahman is by his activist son Ali’s decision to flee Malaysia and seek political asylum in Sweden, the man knows that either he let the 29-year-old go, or risk the boy's life by urging him to stay in the country.

"For me, what is more important is his safety, so I don't mind so much where Ali is as long as he is safe," Jalil told The Malaysian Insider.

So he swallowed the bitter news and supported his son's decision to leave the country, although saddened by the separation.

Ali, who faces three charges for allegedly insulting the Johor and Selangor royalty, announced on Saturday that he had fled to Sweden after being treated "like rubbish" by the government and sultan.

The activist had previously claimed to have received death threats and was even beaten while in police custody. However, no action was taken despite the police report he lodged.

Jalil said Ali's case was unique as he was up against the royal institution, whose powers in the country have no bounds.

"Ali's case is different compared with Adam Adli or Safwan Anang because they were opposing the government and the institutions," he said, referring to the two activists who were recently sentenced to prison under the Sedition Act 1948.

"But Ali is protesting against the royal institution, and everyone understands this issue is sensitive and involves Malay sentiments."

Although Ali said he was "safe in Sweden", his father is still gripped by the fear that the rulers may take matters into their own hands.

"We know and have heard of rulers ignoring and even breaking the law," said Jalil.

"We also know the country's justice and security system does not guarantee the rakyat's safety."

From Sweden, Ali continues to rail against the rulers and the government in his Facebook posts, which have received hundreds of "likes" and comments.

But Jalil defended his son's harsh criticism of the royalty, saying it stemmed from Ali's personal experiences and exposure to the injustice inherent in the system.

"Ali loves challenges; after he finished his SPM, he looked for a job straightaway on his own initiative, unlike his peers.

"He worked at a restaurant in an airport and a hotel, and observed the actions of those we call 'the elite'," said Jalil.

He said Ali witnessed the injustices committed in the country, especially those involving the royal institution.

"While working at a luxury hotel in Kuala Lumpur, he saw the ugly actions of these elites, these chiefs of states and palace people.

"When he saw things that should not be happening, he may have begun questioning the actions of those known as the heads of religion," said the pensioner.

The retired civil servant did not rule out the possibility that Ali's vocal criticism was also born out of dissatisfaction over how his twin brother, Ahmad Abd Jalil, had been treated by the state.

Last year, Ahmad was fined RM20,000 by the Johor Baru Sessions Court after he was found guilty of posting remarks insulting the Johor Sultan through his Facebook in 2012.

"Throughout the court proceedings, we saw that justice was not upheld.

"So if Ali goes to trial, it is impossible that the courts will treat him fairly," said Jalil, adding that his son was pursuing his doctoral studies at Universiti Sains Malaysia.

When asked if he hoped Ali would return to Malaysia, Jalil said his family would always support Ali's decision and advise him to live his life to the fullest.

"This world is temporary. If we are to die, we need not die in our homes.

"For instance, the Prophet Muhammad himself did not pass away at his place of birth. So I prefer that Ali stay there and enjoy this temporary world."

But Jalil advised his son to never neglect his duties as a Muslim and to always pray to Allah.

"If he believes it is better to stay in Malaysia, then he should return. But if he feels happier and safer there, then he should stay there."

Ali's sister, Asiah Abd Jalil, told The Malaysian Insider that her younger brother had been taught to think critically at a young age.

Ali was first detained on September 8 and was taken into police custody in Kuala Lumpur, Selangor and Johor.

On September 23, he was released after posting bail of RM8,000 at the Shah Alam court complex.

His freedom was short-lived as he was re-arrested and taken to Johor, reportedly because other police reports had been lodged against him there.

Amnesty International has adopted Ali as a Prisoner of Conscience, saying it is part of a push to ensure he does not suffer further punishment or selective persecution.

News portal Rakyat Times, which is run by activist and lawyer Haris Ibrahim, reported that Ali left Malaysia on October 18 for Bangkok and later flew to Stockholm on October 21.

At Stockholm, Ali went to Amnesty International Sweden where he was advised on the procedure for applying for asylum. He was taken to the asylum centre before being moved to another town, Morsta.

Rakyat Times also reported that Ali had already been given a work permit and could begin work immediately. – October 29, 2014.
- See more at: http://www.themalaysianinsider.com/malaysia/article/no-justice-for-my-son-in-malaysia-says-activist-alis-father#sthash.gIC0qMUR.dpuf

S'wak politicians shocked Ibrahim Ali not charged

 

Attorney General Gani Patail was severely criticised by Sarawak’s politicians from both BN and the opposition for deciding not to take legal action against Perkasa chief Ibrahim Ali, on his urging to burn Malay language Bibles.

While a number of opposition politicians urged the sacking of Gani, who is a Sabahan, BN politicians said the AG’s decision seemed to contradict the government’s own principle as a nation that practises moderation.

Sarawak DAP Youth Chief Wong King Wei said that Gani should be sacked for his refusal to take action against Ibrahim Ali. “I was really shocked with his decision,” added the lawyer and Padungan Assemblyperson.

Sarawak PKR Chief Baru Bian (right) also urged the government to sack Gani for his lack of courage over the Perkasa chief’s Bible-burning remark.

“Gani is supposed to look after the rights and religious freedom of all Malaysians. What is wrong, is wrong,” he said, adding that that Ibrahim’s remark was certainly seditious.

“I believe Ibrahim’s remark will open the floodgates for others to act like him,” said the lawyer and Ba’Kelalan assemblyperson.

Baru’s colleague See Chee How, a lawyer and Batu Lintang assemblyperson, said that Gani should definitely be sacked as his non-action against Ibrahim is worrying many peace-loving Malaysians, especially Sarawakians.

“The longer he stays as AG the more we are worried as his decisions often contradict with the government’s policy of moderation,” said the Sarawak PKR vice-chairperson.

'Anything goes'

Another opposition leader, Sarawak DAP chairperson Chong Chieng Jen, said that the non-action by the AG against Ibrahim reflected Umno’s influence.

“Ibrahim Ali is backed by Umno,” added Chong, the Bandar Kuching parliamentarian.

Meanwhile, Parti Rakyat Sarawak president and Senior Minister James Masing (left) said that the AG’s decision seemed to indicate anyone could say anything seditious in the defence of Islam.

“Are you telling me that in defending the sanctity of Islam, anything goes?

“This is not the voice of moderation as envisioned by Malaysia, as stated by Prime Minister (Najib Abdul Razak) in his recent speech at the United Nations,” he said to The Borneo Post.

The land development minister said: “I am wondering where Malaysia is heading to with this kind of statement coming from the government.

“We cannot allow this (acceptance of extremism) to happen in our country. Malaysia has been so peaceful all these years, please don’t encourage extremism,” he said.

Assistant Minister Jerip Susil, a leader of the United People’s Party, accused Ibrahim Ali of tainting the very meaning of religious freedom in the country, especially in Sarawak.

“Ibrahim’s remark is very unhealthy for a multi-religious society like Malaysia,” he said, expressing regret over the AG’s decision not to take legal action against him.

From K-Y jelly to carpet stains to 'conspiracy'

 

LIVE REPORTS

[PHOTO GALLERY]

6.05pm: Anwar leaves the courtroom and spends some time greeting his supporters before departing with his wife Dr Wan Azizah Wan Ismail and daughter Nurul Izzah Anwar.

One supporter, Gan Siew Kin, takes the opportunity to give Anwar several books on the Romance of the Three Kindoms and repeatedly urges him to read it.

Speaking to Malaysiakini later, the 70-year-old woman said she had waited since 8am to talk to Anwar.

She said her hope is that Anwar would draw inspiration from the book and surround himself with people who are as righteous and wise as the book’s protagonists, especially the foresight of the noted military strategist Zhuge Liang.

“In all my years, I have never seen someone persecuted so relentlessly. It just never ends,” she said.

The Romance of the Three Kingdoms is a novel in Chinese classical literature based loosely on the events of the Three Kingdoms Period in Chinese history.

The hearing resumes tomorrow at 9.30am, but supporters are planning to gather at the nearby Masjid Tuanku Mizan Zainal Abidin for prayers first before going to wait outside the court complex.

5.30pm: Court adjourns as Justice Arifin wants Surendran to submit the authorities on the weightage considered for statement from the dock.

The hearing will resume at 9.30am tomorrow.

5.10pm: Surendran says there was misdirection by the Court of Appeal.

To a question by Justice Abdull Hamid, he says the High Court judge did not evaluate Anwar's statement from the dock.

As such, Surendran says there is serious error in Court of Appeal's decision, in describing Anwar's statement as a mere denial.

"What the High court judge did not say it was mere denial. The Appellate court was wrong to say it was mere denial. This is not a syntax error."

5pm: Looking at the Court of Appeal judgment, Surendran (left) says there were adverse comments made which led to the wrong finding.

"Anwar has explained why he was giving an unsworn statement from the dock. There is a web of lies depicted. Anwar says he could not get justice in the present case," he adds.

Justice Suriyadi asks if Anwar is stating that he has no faith in the courts.

Surendran replies that there was a series of decisions made by the judiciary which went against Anwar.

4.55pm: Surendran further says Anwar's statement from the dock only strengthen his claim of a conspiracy against him.

"The complainant was a drop-out and used (this) to achieve a devious end.

"This confirms that there was a pre-arranged plan. Statement from the dock is evidence only the weightage is less," he says.

4.40pm: Hearing resumes with defence co-counsel N Surendran saying that the evidence of a pre-arranged plan refers to a conspiracy theory.

The lawyer says this was mentioned in the High Court and Court of Appeal but it was not evaluated.

Except for one paragraph referred in the Court of Appeal judgment, there is no mention of the conspiracy theory.

Surendran says that similarly in the High court judgment, there is only one paragraph cited.

"Saiful admitted that he went to meet Najib at his residence on June 24, 2008. He first met (then deputy prime minister's advisor) Khairil Annas.

"He also met (police senior assistant commissioner) Mohd Rodwan later that day.

"The meeting happened two days before the incident. Saiful contacted then IGP Musa Hassan."

He says that Saiful also had a series of meetings before lodging his report, including with now BN senator Ezam Mohd Nor and former national athlete Mumtaz Jaafar on June 27, 2008.

Surendran says Saiful met Rodwan in a hotel room on June 24, 2008 after the policeman called and then he met Najib.

"The meeting did not take place in the lobby. Is it probable or not there is a pre-arranged plan?" the lawyer submits.

The pre-arranged plan was also brought up by Anwar in his statement from the dock, says the lawyer.

"These are not innocent meetings but a pre-arranged plan," he adds.

4.10pm: Justice Arifin calls for a short break.

4.05pm: A thunderstorm has forced pro-Anwar demonstrators to seek shelter under a large canopy erected outside the court complex.

By now, they number around 200, down from the earlier 500, while pro-Saiful supporters have left at least an hour ago.

At least half of the police guarding the area have also left.

A handful of speakers coordinated by PKR youth deputy information chief Rozan Azen kept the remaining Anwar supporters occupied with speech and slogans.

He also reminds supporters to gather at the nearby Masjid Tuanku Mizan Zainal Abidin before coming to the court tomorrow morning.

4pm: The burden, says Gopal, is on the prosecution to prove its case.

The senior lawyer says the conviction with regard to the circumstances the appeal was conducted renders it unsafe.

"It was fixed on April 12 and 13 at the Court of Appeal, where it was fixed before Justice Aziah Ali during case management.

"The appeal was heard on March 6 and 7 and Karpal asked time to submit but it was turned down. It was a long trial but in this circumstance, it went through, the conviction is unsafe," he says.

Gopal concludes his submission.

3.45pm: Gopal says in the reversal of an acquittal or an affirmation of acquittal, the apex court should intervene if the finding was wrong.

He says the High Court and Court of Appeal state that Saiful is a credible witness but his testimony against others, differ.

"It had not undergone the strictest scrutiny. There has been a miscarriage of justice," he adds.

3.25pm: Moving into Anwar's alibi, Gopal (right) says his client gave notice of the alibi but abandoned it at the trial, and had explained why he did so in his statement from the dock.

"When the prosecution appealed, their petition did not contain the alibi witness," he adds.

The defence lawyer says the prosecution's appeal over the acquittal was mainly on DNA.

He argues that the appellate court went beyond this notion of alibi where the DPP submitted the failure of Anwar to call an alibi witness.

"The notice of alibi was not pursued but it cannot be used against the appellant. The apex court should intervene when there is clear misdirection," he submits.

Gopal says the condominium owner, one Hasanuddin, was subjected to the police to 30 hours of interrogation.

Hasanuddin has two units adjacent to each other at the Desa Damansara condominium, and Anwar's alibi was that he was not in the other unit, where the alleged sodomy incident took place.

3.05pm: Gopal says the charge should have been framed based on what is claimed by the complainant.

The defence lawyer says the trial judge was wrong in ruling that the defence cannot have a copy of Saiful's cautioned statement.

"Saiful says that the sodomy was non-consensual. By charging under a different section, Saiful risked being impeached," he adds.

2.40pm: Gopal says the point is that the evidence presented by the prosecution constitutes corroboration in law.

On the third point, the defence lawyer scrutinises Saiful's testimony of consensual and non-consensual sodomy.

"Saiful testified that the alleged sodomy was non-consensual but the appellant was charged under Section 377b and not Section 377c (of the Penal Code)," he says.

Section 377b reads: Whoever voluntarily commits carnal intercourse against the order of nature shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to twenty years, and shall also be liable to whipping.

Whereas Section 377c reads: Whoever commits carnal intercourse against the order of nature on another person without consent or against the will of the other person, or by putting the other person in fear of death or hurt the person or any other person, shall be punished with imprisonment for a term of not less than five years and not more than twenty years, and shall also be liable to whipping.

2.30pm: Gopal further scrutinises Saiful's testimony.

Saiful, he says, testified that the lubricant had dropped on the carpet during the alleged sodomy incident.

The defence lawyer says the carpet was seized by DSP Jude on June 30.

"He went to the scene of the crime with a forensic team along with the complainant. There they found a strand of hair and seized a carpet.

"The chemist found no semen or K-Y jelly stains on the carpet.

"Hence, we submit what amount to corroboration should be in favour of the defence as the offence never took place," he says.

(Saiful testified that Anwar was rough during the sodomy act resulting in Saiful to accidentally press the jelly tube and it stained the carpet.)

2.23pm: Court resumes.

2. 20pm: Anwar returns and jokes with the policeman in the public gallery "You tahu, I orang salah, you patut sediakan outrider lah (You know, I am an accused, you should have provided me with an outrider)."

2.15pm: Court resumes but Anwar is not present. Gopal apologises, informing the judges that his client has gone for a quick lunch.

Justice Arifin and the other judges agree to wait and retire to their chambers.

12.45pm: Gopal says there was misdirection by the Court of Appeal and hence conviction is unsafe.

He will be touching on another issue of corroboration, and asks for break. The court is currently in recess.

12.35pm: Gopal says Saiful's testimony should be treated under close scrutiny.

The defence lawyer says he has two more hours to submit as the judge asked him to stop at 1pm.

Justice Arifin asks whether he can finish tomorrow.

Shafee replied that they are prepared for the whole week so the court can hear the matter until Thursday.

12:25pm: Gopal says the Court of Appeal failed to appreciate the defence submissions.

"If it had been taken up it will show PW1 (Saiful) is an accomplice and the three HKL doctors cannot corroborate (on the incident) under the law (as they were not the first to inspect)."

The defence lawyer says in this case it was freely admitted by the defence that Saiful was at the Desa Damansara condominium but his presence in the said condominium unit is in question.

During trial, there was evidence that the owner of the condominium had two units there and one of it was used for Anwar's meetings.

"There is not a shred of evidence that Saiful PW1 was in the condominium (where the alleged sodomy incident) occurred," he says.

12.15pm: Gopal says the first complaint was made in Pusrawi, and the prosecution did not call Dr Osman.

 

The point, he says, is the complaint to the Hospital Kuala Lumpur cannot be admissible, as it does not amount to corroboration.

 

"Only first complaint can be used for corroboration and not subsequent complaint," the former Federal Court judge says.

12pm: Pointing to the Court of Appeal judgment, Gopal says there is no independent finding that Saiful could be an accomplice.

 

"He is a participant in an offence, in the surrounding circumstances he must have his evidence corroborated," he argues.
 

11.50am: Gopal says since the evidence of past incidences had been expunged, this evidence cannot be taken into consideration.

He submits that a fair inference is that Saiful was spicing it up.

He says the evidence from Saiful is inherently improbable, inherently incredible, and there is no evaluation of the learned judge on critical points that casts serious doubts on the evidence given.

"If he was non-consensual then why did Saiful bring the lubricant, where else he had met Rodwan.

"Why did he bring the lubricant and washed his underwear. A man of such grit, he preferred not to wash his anus," he adds.

These questions, Gopal says are not found in the prosecution's case.

He says the trial judge's finding of credibility cannot stand.

11.40am: Gopal says evidence of Saiful saying there was past evidence of sodomy has been expunged.

However Justice Abdull Hamid says Saiful did testify that the appellant had ejaculated in his anus like before.

Justice Md Raus says this was mentioned during cross-examination of Saiful.

11.25am: Gopal says Saiful's conduct is inconsistent with a person being sodomised 24 hours earlier.

He says Saiful met a police officer (Mohd Rodwan) before the sodomy incident, and there was no reason for Saiful to wait for two days until he lodged a police report.

11.20am: Gopal says the photograph is to show Saiful's demeanour. The witness, he adds, admitted it was him in the photograph.

The photograph was not tendered as evidence and only marked as ID (identification).

Justice Abdull Hamid asks if Gopal wants to show his (Saiful’s) demeanour.

"Yes, he has admitted he was there and did not want to reply to the question when asked by Karpal that he looked happy.

"Cameras don't tell lies. He was not glum,” he replies.

Gopal says the trial judge made an error of law in not admitting this photograph.

Justice Suriyadi says Karpal has let it be marked as ID.

However, Gopal says that was a concession made at that time and cited case law where such evidence is admitted.

"His demeanour was normal and inconsistent to the case of alleging he was violently sodomised before," he adds.

11.10am: Hearing resumes with Gopal continuing to submit for the court to accept the photograph of Saiful serving tea at Anwar's house, a day after the alleged sodomy incident.

"Saiful agreed that he went to Anwar's house at 5pm on June 27 and when shown the picture the then lawyer noted Saiful seemed quite happy in the picture," he says.

Gopal says Saiful identified himself in the photograph with members of the Anwar Ibrahim club.

"There was admission of his presence (and it should be accepted)," he adds.

10.25am: Gopal questions Saiful's conduct of not going to the toilet for two days and he was seen in Anwar's house the next day after the alleged sodomy incident.

He submitted a photograph of Saiful taken at Anwar's house.

However, Chief Justice Ariffin notes the picture was not tendered as evidence. He asks Gopal to submit on the matter whether the picture could be accepted as evidence.

The court takes a short break.

10.10am: Gopal says the KY gel appeared during examination-in-chief by the prosecution on Saiful.

The defence lawyer says if the lubricant was such an important exhibit, Jude would not have handed it to Saiful on June 28 (2008), only for Saiful to give it back to another police officer the next day.

"This was missed by the trial judge (at the High Court).”

Gopal says Saiful's evidence was that he was in pain and he had held the semen in the anus for several days.

The cross-examination on Saiful says he was asked by Anwar to place the KY Jelly on his anus, and he further submits what the witness testified in camera (closed court).

"Saiful was in pain in his anus and also stomach. The existence of the gel is cast in doubt and lacks credibility."

Arifin asks why the lack of credibility. Gopal says if the gel was used he would not have pain, accounting to the circumstances of the gel being handed over to the police.

10am: At the High Court trial, the gel was produced and marked, says Gopal.

He says Saiful had testified that they did the act (sodomy) on the carpet and he applied the gel on his private part (anus).

Gopal (left) shows a document not in the appeal records, and he says the 'keadaan barang kes' (list of items seized) does not included the KY Jelly.

This, he says, shows the inconsistency in Saiful's testimony.

"Exhibit was not in the list and it should be considered inadmissible and its weightage (in consideration) is challenged."

"Karpal had asked Saiful (whether) the KY gel was an afterthought and the witness agreed. The police report made no mention of the gel."

9.47pm: Gopal argues that Court of Appeal had erred that Saiful is a credible witness and that his evidence had been corroborated.

The third point, he says, was the right of defence to test police officer Jude Pereira's statement in the course of his investigations.

In going to the first ground of the appeal, Gopal says Saiful claimed he was afraid to lodge a police report.

The former Federal Court judge adds that Hospital Pusrawi's Dr Osman noted that Saiful was unwilling to make the report initially.

"This document (medical report) was shown to Saiful and he denied?"

Saiful he says had met a senior police officer (Mohd Rodwan) and called the IGP (police chief).

He says a person who do not want to be sodomised would not have bought a lubricant.

“The presence of the gel is a matter of doubt," he said.

9.45am: Gopal says two sets of Saiful's underwear had been tendered. He adds one of the underwear was washed and wet.

"The second underwear was not worn by Saiful on that day but it had semen stains."

"At the conclusion of police investigations, Anwar was charged. At the trial, KL High Court judge said a prima facie case had been established."

"After that, the judge says he was not satisfied with the prosecution's case against the accused (Anwar).”

Gopal relates the prosecution not satisfied with the High Court acquittal and appealed to the Court of Appeal. The Court of Appeal eventually convicted and sentenced Anwar to five years’ jail.

Having submitted the outline of the case, Gopal will now scrutinise Saiful's evidence.

9.40am: Defence lawyer Gopal says despite sending a letter of resignation, Saiful went to Anwar's house and even served drinks there.

He relates Saiful's meeting with Hospital Pusrawi doctor (Mohamed) Osman (Abdul Hamid), where a plastic object was said to have been inserted into his anus.

"However, Saiful denied making the statement. At the meeting with Dr Osman (right), he said he was sodomised and (he was) referred to Hospital Kuala Lumpur."

Three doctors, says Gopal, attended to Saiful and their initial finding was no penetration.

Saiful, Gopal says, then met DSP Jude Pereira and lodged a police report.

9.30am: Defence lawyer Gopal Sri Ram begins his submission. He says there are no witness to the alleged crime. He adds Saiful had later called then inspector-general of police (IGP).

Gopal says Saiful claimed he was forced to commit the act (sodomy) and that lubricant was used (KY Jelly).

"It is his evidence that the act was so vigorous he pressed on the tube of jelly and it (jelly) fell on the carpet.

"Saiful says he washed himself and sent an email to tender his resignation as an assistant to Anwar."

9.27am: Lead defence counsel Gopal Sri Ram wants to read the list of international observers but justice Arifin says there is no need to do so as it is already made known.

Gopal tells the court that the defence is adding one further ground of appeal.

Lead prosecutor Muhammad Shafee Abdullah has no objection to the additional ground.

9.22am: Defence lawyer Latheefa Koya tells reporters that four people will do the submissions for the defence - Gopal, Surendran, Ram Karpal and Sangeet.

Court now in session with Chief Justice Arifin Zakaria presiding.

There is a change in panel - Ahmad Maarop is not on the bench. He is replaced by Federal Court judge Ramly Ali.

Gopal introduces the parties to the five-member Federal Court panel.

9.10am: Selangor Menteri Besar and PKR deputy president Azmin Ali is also in court, along with Wangsa Maju MP Tan Kee Kwong, acting DAP chairperson and Cheras MP Tan Kok Wai, Perak chief and Beruas MP Ngeh Koo Ham and party stalwart Ronnie Liu.

The public gallery with about 70 seats is already packed. Those unable to get a seat are told to leave the courtroom.

“If there are not enough chairs, you can join me in the dock,” quips Anwar.

9.05am: Anwar Ibrahim tells reporters that Sulaiman Abdullah is unwell as he had surgery on his leg two months ago and is still in great pain.

"Sulaiman was passionate in doing this appeal but I met his wife Mehrun who advised against it. Gopal approached us last week."

Asked whether he is confident, he says: “We have a former Federal Court judge (as lead defence counsel)... I am mentally prepared, but have not much hope.”

He mentions that Hollywood actor Mel Gibson called him to ask whether the ‘Lethal Weapon’ star should issue a statement.

"I said you can, but not in support of drinking (liquor). He told me one thing I learn from you (Anwar) is not to enter politics," the opposition leader says of his brief conversation with Gibson.

Lead prosecutor Muhammad Shafee Abdullah arrives in the courtroom.

8.59am: Anwar Ibrahim arrives with wife and PKR president Dr Wan Azizah Wan Ismail.

Also as part of the legal team is Gobind Singh Deo. Anwar is seen in a discussion with lead defence counsel Gopal Sri Ram.

8.56am: There is a brief commotion outside the court as a group of reporters attempted to follow Anwar through the barricades outside the court.

About 20 media personnel slipped past the barricades and followed Anwar up to the court foyer, but many more are still outside with the crowds when police managed to close the gates.

The crowd chanted "Reformasi" on Anwar's arrival, until he disappeared into the Palace of Justice shortly after.

8.55am: In a new development, former Federal Court judge Gopal Sri Ram is appearing for Anwar replacing Sulaiman Abdullah.

It is learnt that Gopal is appointed as lead defence counsel at the very last minute. According to defence lawyer Latheefa, Sulaiman is not well and he had to pull out.

8.40am: Also for the defence team besides Latheefa and Surendran, are lawyers R Sivarasa, Sangeet Kaur, J Leela, Ram Karpal and Eric Paulsen.

For the prosecution, Muhammad Shafee Abdullah is being help by his legal team from his private firm, along with deputy head of the Attorney-General Chamber’s prosecution division Mohd Hanafiah Zakaria.

Both Shafee and senior lawyer Sulaiman Abdullah, who will lead the defence team, have yet to arrive.

Also seen in the public gallery are former PKR secretary-general Saifuddin Nasution Ismail and Lumut MP Admiral (rtd) Mohamad Imran Abdul Hamid.

8.28am: The five-member Federal Court bench is headed by Chief Justice Arifin Zakaria.

The others are Court of Appeal president Md Raus Sharif, Federal Court judges Abdull Hamid Embong, Suriyadi Halim Omar and Ahmad Maarop.

Among those seen in the courtroom is PKR vice-president and Lembah Pantai MP Nurul Izzah Anwar.

8.10am: Saiful Bukhari's lawyer Zamri Idrus enters the courtroom. Some of the foreign observers are already in the public gallery.

Anwar's defence team Latheefa Koya and N Surendran are also in court.

Journalists have to undergo three security screenings - first at the barricades, then at the main entrance of the Palace of Justice and finally they have to register themselves with the security personnel stationed outside the courtroom where the Sodomy II appeal will be heard.

8am: Journalists who are covering the hearing go through security screening by the police before being allowed into the court complex.

7:40am: A group of PKR Youth supporters arrives and gather near the police tent in the middle of the main road leading to the Palace of Justice.

No one is allowed into the massive court complex yet. Court workers however enter the complex through the back of the building after security screening by the police.

A representative of the court says the barricades will be opened at 8.15am.

6.50am: Police have barricaded the roads surrounding the massive court complex at the Palace of Justice in Putrajaya where Anwar's Sodomy II appeal is to be heard.

 

More than 50 police officers are guarding the key roads leading to the court building.

Those who want to attend the court hearing will have to take a long trek. Tents erected by the police are placed midway on the main road.

6.30am: Four years after the Sodomy II trial began, 67-year-old Anwar Ibrahim will know either today or tomorrow whether the Federal Court will convict him and consign him to jail.

Over the next two days, a five-member panel at the country's highest court will decide on the opposition leader's appeal as well as the prosecution's cross-appeal to impose a higher jail term of five years.

Anwar's defence team has submitted 35 grounds in appealing the Court of Appeal decision on March 7 that found the Permatang Pauh MP guilty of sodomy - the second such conviction in 10 years.

The prosecution in turn has made four points to seek a longer jail term, where it felt the five years imposed on the PKR de facto leader as manifestly inadequate compared to the maximum 20 years' jail term and whipping allotted under the Penal Code.

Should Anwar be convicted, he will automatically lose his Permatang Pauh parliament seat and a by-election is expected to be called.

Former Bar Council chairperson and senior lawyer Sulaiman Abdullah will once again helm Anwar's defence team.

Sulaiman had initially represented Anwar at the early stages of the case when he was first charged at the Kuala Lumpur Sessions Court in August 2008.

However, Karpal Singh took over the defence when trial started in the High Court in Kuala Lumpur two years later. Karpal died in a road accident in April this year, resulting in Sulaiman being reinstated as the lead counsel.       

Lead prosecutor Muhammad Shafee Abdullah was at the Taman Duta home of then deputy prime minister Najib Abdul Razak when the person Anwar was accused of sodomising, his former aide Mohd Saiful Bukhari Azlan, arrived there on June 24, 2008.

However, Shafee was said not to be with Najib when Saiful related his predicament.

Anwar had applied three times to remove Shafee from leading the prosecution but to no avail.

Saiful (right) also made an impassioned plea yesterday, ahead of today's appeal, for the “truth of the incident to come to light”, for this is important for him and his family as it concerned his honour and future.

The trial will also be closely watched by international observers that includes the Inter-Parliamentary Union, Union for Civil Liberty, LawAsia as well as the Malaysian Bar. The case is also expected to attract foreign embassy officials, who will be in at the hearing as observers.

Malaysiakini is covering the hearing live.

Wrong, rude to call Malays ‘pendatang,’ scholar says

Syed Jaymal Zahiid, Malay Mail Online

Those who label Malays as “pendatang” or immigrants to Malaysia are misinformed and “biadap” (rude), Malay Civilisation Department (Adab) chairman Tan Sri Yusof Hitam said today.

The scholar said the idea that Malays had migrated to Malaysia just like the Chinese and Indians contradicted history that says the Malays were indigenous inhabitants of Malaysia and the surrounding archipelago since more than 60,000 years ago.

“It is not only wrong for people to call Malays ‘pendatang’ but I would also view it as ‘biadap,’” Yusof told a press conference on Adab’s planned seminar on the history of Malay civilisation and indigenous democracy, to be held on November 19 and 20.

The Adab chairman, a scholar, also dismissed the theory that proto-Malays migrated from the Yunnan province in China, saying the idea was still being debated within academic circles.

He insisted that Malays have been indigenous inhabitants of Malaysia, which was then a part of the Malay archipelago or realm known as the “Nusantara” since 64,000 years ago.

“DNA and all that is still debatable, but the Malays have developed its own system of rule and society here since 64,000 years ago,” he said.

Yusof also noted that a study conducted by local varsities and the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (Unesco) ascertained that the DNA of the various Malay ethnicities were unique to this region and not similar to that of the Chinese.

According to a Wikipedia entry, the theory of proto-Malays originating from Yunnan is supported by R.H Geldern, J.H.C Kern, J.R Foster, J.R Logen, Slametmuljana and Asmah Haji Omar.

It is said that the proto-Malay (Melayu asli) who first arrived possessed agricultural skills, while the second wave Deutero Malay (mixed blood) who joined in around 1,500 BC and dwelled along the coastlines had advanced fishery skills.

This idea, however, have been contested by local scholars.

On October 19, a Johor Gerakan delegate, Tan Lai Soon, told his party’s national conference that Umno supporters, who had in the past referred to the country’s ethnic Chinese as immigrants, did not realise that the Malays also did not originate from Malaysia.

The statement sparked uproar among Malay rights groups who subsequently lodge police reports against the Gerakan member.

The party later suspended Tan.

Today, Adab vice-chairman Datuk Sofian Ahmad said he hoped those who question the origin of the Malays, such as Tan, would attend the November 19 seminar on Malay civilisation.

“It is people like this who should attend. Not just Malays. Because they don’t understand history so we can’t really fault them even if we want to,” he told the same press conference.

Yusof said the seminar will extensively cover topics about the origin of the Malays and its polity.

He expressed hope that such seminars would help not just the non-Malays, but the Malays to understand their lineage and history.

Get feedback before redeveloping ashram

MIC Youth says ashram is pride of Indian community and Hindu organisation leaders must be consulted.

FMT

PETALING JAYA: MIC Youth chief C Sivarraajh said the Vivekananda Ashram trustees had a moral obligation to consult the Indian community first before redeveloping the 100-year-old landmark in Brickfields.

Sivarraajh said the trustees must consult leaders of the Indian community, NGOs, temples and Tamil institutions like the Hindu Sangam as well as political leaders.

“They cannot just sell or redevelop an ashram that is the pride of the Indian community who see Vivekananda and his guru Ramakrishna as giants of the Indian community,” he said.

Swami Vivekananda was one of India’s top religious philosophers who visited Malaya in 1893.

He was also a disciple of the Indian mystic Sri Ramakrishna Paramahamsa who founded the Ramakrishna Mission.

The Vivekananda trust also manages four schools – SJK (T) Vivekananda, Brickfields, the Vivekananda primary and secondary schools in Kuala Lumpur and SJK (T) Thamboosamy Pillai in Sentul.

“This is the trustees’ third attempt in the last two years to sell the land. The first two attempts were met by strong public opposition,” said Sivarraajh.

He also highlighted that a Facebook page dedicated to protesting the redevelopment plans had already garnered 10,000 ‘likes’.

Interpol roped in to track down Alvin and Ali

IGP seeks help of Interpol to arrest asylum seekers Alvin Tan and Ali Abdul Jalil.

FMT

KUALA LUMPUR: Inspector General of Police Khalid Abu Bakar has sought the help of Interpol to track down and arrest Alvin Tan and Ali Abdul Jalil who are both seeking asylum in the US and Sweden respectively.

According to a report on The Star Online, the IGP confirmed Bukit Aman had contacted Interpol to assist in arresting Tan and Ali who were wanted in Malaysia on various criminal charges.

While Tan had skipped bail and took off to the United States, Ali had fled to Sweden where he is working with a human rights group there to be granted political asylum. He already has a temporary working visa that allows him to find employment and earn his own living.

Khalid said, ”So we have to wait now. We have requested for a red notice through Interpol.”

Tan, 26, who gained notoriety for his sex blogs and for insulting Muslims during Ramadhan, is allegedly residing in California and claimed trial last year to three charges under the Film Censorship Act, Sedition Act and the Penal Code.

He has been increasingly vocal and vulgar in his comments on Facebook since of late, goading the IGP and heaping insults on local political leaders.

Ali on the other hand, slipped away to Sweden last week after being charged with sedition for allegedly insulting Johor royalty. He has claimed to being tortured while under detention.

“Fahmi used us”, says student body

Hailed as a hero by many, it has been revealed Fahmi Zainol acted alone for his own political reasons.

FMT

PETALING JAYA: University Malaya students made history Monday when they banded together against university authorities in their insistence to host opposition leader Anwar Ibrahim at their campus grounds to hear his talk “40 Years: From University of Malaya to Jail”.

However a dark shadow has been cast over this show of solidarity now that it has been revealed that student leader and MPPUM (Student Representative Council of Universiti Malaya) president Fahmi Zainol acted independently without the agreement of any of the 43 other council members.

Speaking exclusively to FMT, MPPUM chairman of Residential Colleges and Off Campus, Mohd Faridzuan Karim said, “This talk was never discussed with us. We were completely ignored, like we didn’t matter one bit.

“Fahmi used his power as YDP (president) to make a unilateral decision to go ahead with a programme that was not agreed to by the rest of us.”

Expressing his indignation at seeing posters bearing MPPUM’s name plastered all over campus, Mohd Faridzuan said, “Why and how and what is his (Fahmi) rationale for using MPPUM’s name in the posters that was placed all over the university?”

Clearly stating his personal stand, Mohd Faridzuan said, “I do not support this programme (the talk by Anwar).”

Mohd Faridzuan also said MPPUM was against Fahmi insisting on hosting Anwar on campus grounds for the simple reason that the Student’s Affairs Department (HEP) of the university had not endorsed it.

Explaining that no working paper regarding the programme was submitted by Fahmi to HEP as was the standard operating procedure, Mohd Faridzuan added, “We should, as undergraduates, follow procedures.”

He also revealed that most of the students who attended were not even made up of UM students, but those from outside.

Mohd Faridzuan said, “In fact, the students from outside UM outnumbered those from inside. The crowd was only made up of a handful of UM students.”

He also commented on the aggression shown Monday night when the rowdy crowd forced opened the gates and marched inside campus grounds.

“I honestly did not think they would force open the gates that were locked by security personnel.

“I was worried for everyone’s safety but am thankful no one was hurt despite the chaos all around.

For me… personally, as a student and leader of the undergraduates, they (students) should not have gone ahead with the programme or forced open the gates,” Mohd Faridzuan said.

Expressing his disappointment at Fahmi for dragging MPPUM into the controversial talk, Mohd Ridzuan said, “We have since sent out a memorandum to the university and lodged a report with the Lembah Pantai police stating that Fahmi acted of his own volition and that in his capacity as president of the MPPUM, he brought in alumnus Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim.”

Mohd Faridzuan also said MPPUM was totally against the talk because they were well aware that university authorities did not condone any event of a political nature to be held on campus grounds.

Sounding uncomfortable about the timing of the talk, Mohd Ridzuan asked, “Why did he (Fahmi) bring Anwar in? What was the reason especially when tomorrow and the next day (Tuesday and Wednesday) Anwar might be sentenced to serve a jail term?

Suggesting that undergraduates were being exploited by both Fahmi and Anwar, Mohd Faridzuan questioned, “Are undergraduates being used… dragged into street politics that we have known all this while is prohibited in our campus?

“This is what I want Fahmi to answer.”

Pidato Umum: 40 Tahun dari UM ke Penjara

No end to history?

by Narayan Ramachandran

While liberal democracy may be the least imperfect system yet known to man, it is not very clear whether mankind will pursue this desirable destination without long and costly detours.

Twenty-two years ago, American political scientist and author, Yoshihiro Francis Fukuyama wrote a treatise on western liberal democracy called The End of History and The Last Man. Fukuyama wrote with authority and confidence and argued that the dominance of western liberal democracy may well signal the arrival of a ‘final’ type of government – an end to the historical evolution of political systems.

Fukuyama claimed to have been inspired by Alexendre Kojeve, a Russian-French philosopher of Hegelian persuasion – who coined the term the “End of History”. Kojeve’s use of the phrase referred to the idea that ideological history in a limited sense had ended with the French Revolution and there was no longer a need for violence to establish liberal values. Fukuyama borrowed the phrase and expanded its use to cover both political (democratic western) and economic (market-based) systems. The original article on which Fukuyama’s book is based was written just as the Berlin wall fell in 1989. In that context it is understandable as a triumphal book that celebrates the victory of the western democracies over the communist Soviet Union. Fukuyama’s book was misunderstood to be a book that celebrates American supremacy, but he himself says, “I believe that the European Union more accurately reflects what the world will look like at the end of history than the contemporary United States. The EU’s attempt to transcend sovereignty and traditional power politics by establishing a transnational rule of law is much more in line with a “post-historical” world than the Americans’ continuing belief in God, national sovereignty, and their military.”

Fukuyama’s seminal book provoked a lot of critical analysis. Samuel Huntington’s famous 1993 article in the Foreign Affairs magazine entitled “The Clash of Civilizations” and a subsequent book of similar name were direct responses to Fukuyama’s work. Huntington argued that the temporary clash of ideologies in these last two centuries of human existence have once again been replaced by an ancient clash of civilisations. In Huntington’s view, the dominant civilisation of the time lends its form of government as a model for all. Huntington believes that while the age of ideology had ended, the world has only reverted to a normal state characterized by cultural conflict. The primary axis of conflict, he believed, would be along cultural and religious lines. Fukuyama’s book also attracted criticism from communists who believe that the role of the market had been overstated.

The events of September 11, 2001, the financial crisis of 2008 and the economic rise of the East, have all provided grist for the mill critical of Fukuyama’s original thesis. Fukuyama himself did not argue that it would be a straight line. His view simply was that Western liberal democracy had won the race. There would be tests to the system and potentially long pauses in evidence but eventually, he believed, we would return to liberal democracy as the dominant system.

It is unclear (yet) whether Fukuyama’s theory is flawed or whether we are indeed in a pause – but it appears from around the world that nationalism, authoritarianism and alternatives to western liberal democracy have been rising for some time. With hindsight, the events of 9/11 appear to have been a fundamental fork in the road. Examples of authoritarianism abound – Turkey, Russia, Egypt and China – to name just a few.

In Turkey, the Justice and Development party (AK Party) came to power in 2002 with a thumping majority. Since then, the AK party has gradually consolidated its power and its strongman Recep Tayyip Erdogan has become an elected authoritarian, with brutal put-downs of protests, media censorship and a general disregard for the constitution. The sham of ‘elected’ but in actuality appointed officials in Russia has made its way from the Federal to State and Local Governments. Vladimir Putin’s control of not just Government but also of all large companies like Rosneft, Sberbank and Gazprom has left much of the energy and financial economy in the hands of a small group of people who run Russia today. There is a widespread belief that this group also indirectly controls the media – both traditional and new. The latest such takeover appears to be that of Facebook Russia. This small group, all loyal to Putin is the Siloviki – members of the security apparatus when Putin was in the KGB. This illiberal control of state, commerce and media combined with a few liberal measures (like a flat tax) has resulted in the coinage of the word ‘Putinism’ to characterise it. China’s new president, Xi Xingping, has consolidated power in a manner that is unprecedented in the “Central Party Committee” style of managing China that has hitherto governed the country. In China too, there are elements of liberalism that include a crackdown on corruption (remember Bo Xilai and Zhou Yongkang), but the primary objective is consolidation of power. This consolidation has been accompanied by a severe crackdown on the social media including arrests of famous bloggers. The democracy protests in Hong Kong, for instance, are fully blacked out in Beijing. In Egypt, the Arab spring had lead to hope that a liberal, modern democracy would replace an army-sponsored strongman. With alternating hope and despair, Egypt has returned to what it knows best – an army strongman again. Some scholars worry that in India, the world’s largest democracy, there is danger of majoritarianism if not authoritarianism.

And all this in nation-states that have constitutions and are governed by a general rule of law. Beyond, the rise of non-State actors has been equally spectacular. Political order is itself being tested by new religion based organisations such as Islamic Society of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) and the shadowy Khorasan Group that have a pan-Islamic agenda. Off-shoots of the al-Qaeda like the Harakat al-Shabbab that operates in eastern Africa, Ansar al-Sharia that operates in Yemen and the Asbat al-Ansar that operates in Lebanon are spreading terror and chaos in the regions that they operate in. The promise of the Arab spring has been consumed by the despair of stateless extremists acting with deadly force without regard to national boundaries.

Appropriately, Fukuyama has written the first book of a three-part series on The Origins of Political Order in 2011. The second book in the series, Political Order and Political Decay, was recently released. These books discuss with great rigour and detail how societies build strong, impersonal and accountable institutions. They describe how path dependent the history of institutions and liberal democracies have been. It may be Fukuyama’s nod to Huntington that while liberal democracy may be the least imperfect system yet known to man, it is not very clear whether mankind will pursue this desirable destination without long and costly detours. These detours may eventually get us to a point where many of the world’s nations are liberal and democratic. Then again, they may not. Time will tell. History, as they say, never really ends.

Photo: Nicholas Raymond

Narayan Ramachandran is co-Founder and Fellow of the Takshashila Institution. This is the first of a two-part series on the question of liberal democracy and whether it will become the world’s dominant political system.

Can’t book Ibrahim Ali for bible-burning threat when he’s defending Islam, AGC says

Malay Mail

KUALA LUMPUR, Oct 27 — The Attorney-General’s Chambers (AGC) confirmed today it has closed its books on Datuk Ibrahim Ali, saying it cannot prosecute the Perkasa president for threatening to torch bibles as he was only defending the sanctity of Islam and had not meant to incite anyone to religious frenzy.

 

In a statement, the AGC also said Ibrahim’s remarks failed to qualify for action under the Sedition Act 1948 as it lacked a “seditious tendency”, the basic criterion needed for prosecution.

"Clearly, Datuk Ibrahim Ali had not intended to incite a religious commotion but only to defend the sanctity of Islam," the AGC said.

It stressed that Ibrahim’s statement had been made in the context of reports of Malay-language bibles being distributed at a secondary school in Penang.

"When looked at the context in its totality Datuk Ibrahim Ali's statement was not seditious," added the statement.

The public prosecutor said it could not press criminal charges against the former federal lawmaker as Ibrahim clearly had no intent to create any religious provocation.

"Element ls under Section 504 of the Penal Code cannot be fulfilled because Datuk Ibrahim Ali had no intention to insult or cause provocation, which could disturb the peace.

"There is also no offence under section 298 or 298A of the Penal Code because Datuk Ibrahim Ali was defending the sanctity of Islam," the statement said.

The AGC pointed out that the allegedly open distribution of Malay-language bibles at SMK Jelutong could "threaten" the faith of Muslim students who did not have a comprehensive understanding of their own faith in the event they were to read the said bibles which is allegedly written in Jawi.

"The Attorney-General has decided that it is not necessary for both cases to be brought to court," the statement said.

The AGC was forced to explain its stand after being hit with allegations of mounting lop-sided prosecutions against government dissenters while shielding others, more after a perceived crackdown on opposition politicians and youth activists using the controversial sedition law.

Earlier this month, de facto law minister Nancy Shukri had in a written reply to Bagan MP Lim Guan Eng, said that Ibrahim was not charged over his threat because the police had concluded that the latter was merely defending the sanctity of Islam, and had not intended to create religious chaos with his statement.

Nancy had said that the police’s probe had also found that Ibrahim’s statement was directed at individuals who had purportedly distributed bibles containing the word “Allah” to students, including Malays, at the Penang school.

This was roundly criticised by lawmakers and civil groups, and drew outraged response from the Christian Federation of Malaysia.

Following the backlash, Nancy deflected criticism by saying that the AGC had decided not to charge Ibrahim “after considering the outcome” of the police probe, and that the context of the latter’s speech was in line with the spirit of the Federal Constitution’s Article 11(4).

But the reply only drew further attacks, landing the minister in heated exchanges on Twitter, including with Umno leader, Datuk Saifuddin Abdullah, who also criticised Putrajaya’s stand on the matter.

Under fire from critics, the first-term minister repeatedly told Twitter users that she had “never defended” Ibrahim in her recent parliamentary reply, but was merely passing the message by government agencies on the actions taken against the outspoken Malay rights group leader.

Malaysia Keen To Work Together With Dubai On Global Islamic Economic Hub - Najib

From Massita Ahmad DUBAI, Oct 28 (Bernama) -- Malaysia is keen to work together with Dubai to transform the city into a global Islamic economic hub, Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak said.

"The potential is enormous," the prime minister said at a press conference in conjunction with the 10th World Islamic Economic Forum here Tuesday.

Najib, who is also finance minister, said one of the collaborations was the dual listing.

"The scope would be very wide. We should go in stages. It is an exciting possibility. I look forward to working with Dubai closely," he said.

Dubai has changed dramatically over the last three decades, becoming a major business centre with a dynamic and diversified economy, and the biggest re-exporting centre in the Middle East.

Asked whether Kuala Lumpur is competing with Dubai as both share a common aim, Najib said: "It is more of partnership than competing.

"If you look at Islamic finance, Malaysia's growing more than twice. If you have that kind of growth, you are talking of the size of Islamic finance by leaps and bounce. It is much more than conventional. We have so much to share."

Malaysia maintains its position as the largest sukuk issuer in the world in the first six months of this year, accounting for 57.3 per cent or US$161 billion of the global sukuk outstanding and 63 per cent or US$41.7 billion of sukuk issuances.

After the press conference, Najib witnessed the exchange of 12 memorandum of understandings (MoUs) involving Malaysian companies and their local partners here.

Present were International Trade and Industry Minister Datuk Seri Mustapa Mohamed and WIEF Foundation Chairman Tun Musa Hitam.

The 12 MoUs included that of the Securities and Commodities Authority of the United Arab Emirates and the Securities Industry Development Corporation of Malaysia.

The MoU is aimed at laying the foundations for cooperation between the parties in adopting a specialised vocational training that upgrades the professional standards for workers in the field of capital market, financial services and investment in the UAE.

Another MoU is signed between United Malayan Land Bhd (UMLand) and Medini Iskandar Malaysia.

The MoU was to commemorate the completion of UMLand's purchase of phase two, three and four of the lease that it has acquired through its subsidiary, Lextrend Sdn Bhd in the Business District (Zone B) of Medini Iskandar Malaysia.

The expected gross development value of the land is about RM790 million.