Sabtu, 5 Julai 2008

Anwar Liwat Lagi

Saya tidak hendak komen berkenaan dengan kes liwat oleh Dato Seri Anwar Ibrahim yang baru kerana saya ingin lihat samada taktik Anwar kali ini sama dengan dahulu - iaitu menuduh ada konspirasi (pakatan) untuk menghalang perjuangan politiknya.

Tetapi oleh kerana ramai yang meminta komen saya dalam blog maka saya akan beri pandangan awal saya.

Saya terkejut dengan orang yang pertama menyuarakan pandangan yang tak masuk akal berkenaan dengan kes liwat yang baru ini. Kononnya Anwar sengaja menyuruh Saiful buat laporan dia diliwat oleh bossnya supaya Anwar boleh cari perlindungan daripada percubaan membunuhnya. Dengan itu kononnya orang ramai akan bersimpati dengannya.

Jelas yang budak yang di suruh oleh bapa mertuanya hantar passport kepada Anwar, yang amat gembira dengan pembebasan Anwar dan dipercayai terlibat dengan usaha membebaskan Anwar, masih kuat kepercayaannya kepada Anwar dan mencuba menolak tuduhan terhadapnya.


Masih ramai yang percaya bahawa Mahkamah Rayuan (Appeals Court) terakhir telah menolak tuduhan bahawa Anwar telah liwat Azizan dan dengan kerana itu mendapati Anwar tidak bersalah dan boleh dibebaskan.

Saya ingin perturunkan disini keputusan dua daripada tiga hakim yang mendengar rayuan Anwar. "Tun Jebat" pada 1hb Julai telah catatkan keputusan ini juga. Keputusan ini berbunyi;

"Even though reading the appeal record, we find EVIDENCE TO CONFIRM that the appellants (Anwar dan Sukma) were involved in homosexual activities and we are more inclined to believe that the alleged incident at Tivoli Villa did happen sometime, this court, as a court of law, may only convict the appellants if the prosecution has successfully proved that the alleged offences as stated in the charge, beyond reasonable doubt".

Yang jelas daripada apa yang di sebut di atas ialah hakim-hakim ini mendapati ada cukup bukti yang mengesahkan Anwar dan Sukma terlibat dalam kegiatan homoseks dalam apa yang dikatakan berlaku di Tivoli Villa, memang berlaku. Tetapi kedua-dua hakim ini mengguna selok-belok undang-undang untuk mendapati Anwar tidak bersalah.

Selok-belok undang-undang tidak dapat difahami oleh orang ramai. Yang mereka tahu ialah hakim-hakim ini berkata dengan terang dan jelas bahawa mereka mendapati bukti yang jelas yang mengesahkan bahawa perayu (Anwar dan Sukma) terlibat dengan kegiatan homoseks dan hakim-hakim ini lebih mirip untuk percaya bahawa apa yang didakwa berlaku di Tivoli Villa memang berlaku.

Hakim yang ketiga dalam panel hakim yang mendengar rayuan Anwar dan Sukma memberi alasan yang panjang dan penuh dengan rujukan kepada asas-asas perundangan dan kes-kes yang lain kenapa dia percaya hukuman yang dijatuhkan oleh hakim bicara, tiga orang hakim Mahkamah Rayuan dan tiga orang hakim Mahkamah Persekutuan adalah betul iaitu Anwar memang meliwat Azizan.

Malangnya penghakiman yang bernas ini tidak dilapor dengan jelas oleh media seperti laporan berkenaan asas-asas penghakiman dua hakim tadi.

Jika dihitung kita akan dapati kesemua 10 hakim yang mendengar kes Anwar meliwat Azizan bersetuju perbuatan liwat oleh Anwar memang benar, walaupun dua di antara mereka memberi alasan teknikal untuk tidak menjatuhkan hukuman salah keatasnya.

Dakwaan oleh orang tertentu bahawa pembebasan Anwar adalah kerana dia tidak melakukan jenayah liwat adalah tidak benar.

Sekarang kita dengar sekali lagi kes liwat oleh Anwar. Terpulanglah kepada hakim untuk mendengar dan meghukum. Awal-awal lagi Datin Seri Wan Azizah Ismail telah mengatakan ketidakpercayaannya kepada mahkamah di Malaysia. Tetapi apabila Anwar dibebaskan dengan alasan yang sukar difaham oleh masyarakat umum, Wan Azizah tidak pula berkata yang dianya tidak percaya kepada sistem pengadilan di Malaysia.

Apakah pula akan dikatakan olehnya jika perbicaraan kes Anwar menghasilkan keputusan bahawa walaupun hakim percaya dia telah meliwat Saiful tetapi kerana selok-belok undang-undang dia didapati tidak bersalah.

Selasa, 13 Mei 2008


Agama orang yang jahil. Satu ungkapan yang paling tepat untuk menggambarkan fahaman penyokong-penyokong Anwar Ibrahim yang taksub terhadap pemimpin mereka. Meskipun telah terbukti Anwar Ibrahim menyalahguna kuasa untuk mengugut mangsa-mangsa seks dan musuh politiknya, namun bagi pengikut Anwar beliau tetap menjadi idola dan sembahan mereka.
Di dalam kes Mahkamah di mana Anwar telah didapati bersalah dan dijatuhi hukuman penjara kerana kes liwat yang melibatkan Anees Munawar, Sukma, Azizan, Meor dan beberapa orang lelaki lain yang umum tidak ketahui seperti Hairany pensyarah university dan Ismail Harun seorang penganggur. Meskipun begitu, masih ramai yang tidak tahu kes Norlaila, seorang pekerja butik ternama, yang menjadi mangsa keserakahan nafsu bisexual Anwar.

"Anwar is a master of deceit and duplicity"
~ Dr Chandra Muzaffar

Selasa, 15 April 2008

Anwar's Evil-sible Hand

AS I had anticipated, my comment on (Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department) Datuk Zaid Ibrahim’s suggestion that the government should apologise for the action taken against Tun Salleh Abas would draw accusations against me for my alleged misdeeds during my tenure of office.I regard this as an attempt to shut my mouth should I find occasion to criticise the present government. It is always about "You were worse when you headed the government," even if it is obvious that I had not done badly. (Datuk) Param Cumaraswamy’s letter (theSun, April 2) falls in that category. He wants to know why action had not been taken against me over the allegations made by Datuk Shafee Yahya (former director-general of the Anti-Corruption Agency) during the Anwar Ibrahim trial. The statement may be a sworn testimony in court but the accuracy of it cannot be accepted unquestioned. There were omissions and inferences which mislead. Counsel was of course interested in proving that Anwar did not inveigle Shafee into doing something wrong. But during the trial it was revealed that he did get a senior police officer to threaten and intimidate his accusers. I admit to calling up Shafee to ask him about the raid by the ACA on the office of the director of the Economic Planning Unit. I did that because I received a complaint from the director that the ACA had been very offensive towards him during the raid. He also said that he believed the deputy prime minister and finance minister had set up the whole thing. I knew that government officers were sometimes overzealous and would overstep or abuse their authority.I could not verify whether there was any truth in what the EPU director said. Accordingly, I called the director of the ACA to find out what actually happened. I asked many questions, many more than what he said in court. I also asked Shafee if he had been directed by Datuk Seri Anwar to carry out the raid. He denied it but he became angry when I asked whether he intended to pursue his investigation. Raising his voice, he accused me of trying to stop him from carrying out his duty. Angrily, he said that he was a senior civil service officer and that I had no right to question him about his work. I was shocked at his loud accusation against me. No civil servant however senior had spoken to me like that. I was rendered speechless. These exchanges were carried out in my office. No other person was present. No notes were taken, nor was there any recording, at least by me. So only the two of us would know what really happened or was said.What he said in court is his version. There is nothing to verify what he said nor is there anything to verify what I say now is wrong. It is a case of his words against mine, sworn testimony notwithstanding. He had obviously omitted his shouted accusations against me. Had what he said in court was all that happened, then it would not have taken more than three minutes. But what he said and what I said took longer than three minutes. I wonder how counsel knew of what happened in the privacy of my office. Even the Chief Secretary, the only person who was informed by Datuk Shafee could not have told counsel. Obviously it was Shafee who volunteered information. Why did he do this?I was not a party to the trial of Anwar. If I was to be accused I should at least be heard. But clearly Shafee saw Anwar’s trial as an opportunity to make statements detrimental to my reputation. Shafee was an angry man and what he said in court was opportunistic and seem to reflect his desire to take revenge against me. I can only assume that this was what motivated him, because what he divulged did not help Anwar much. But it did put me in a very bad light. As to why this case has not been followed I can only assume that the courts are busy and there are tens of thousands of cases which have yet to be heard. Maybe the fault is with the Attorney General or police. I would not know. Still I welcome any investigation by impartial people as to the truth or otherwise of what I say in this letter. As for Param Cumarawamy and Karpal Singh, their hatred of me is well known and apparently has not abated even after I am no longer prime minister. Many lawyers were angry with me because I had quoted Shakespeare during a cabinet meeting which says, "the first thing we do, we hang the lawyers". I was only joking but they heard of it and believed I meant what I said. The judges also felt unhappy with me. Besides, I had criticised the judiciary for disregarding the intention or objectives of the laws formulated by the legislative wing but instead interpret them based on the words used. Was I committing a crime for saying this? I was merely stating a fact. Can no one comment on the judiciary at all even when they disregard the interest of the country? In many developed countries it is common for the public to criticise the judiciary. As for Param, he made libellous remarks about a fellow-Malaysian when he was a member of a United Nations Commission. He should have been hauled before a Malaysian court but he claimed immunity due to his appointment by the UN. My stand was that his immunity was only with regard to the specific work for the UN. If he breached Malaysian laws on matters not related to this work, then he cannot plead immunity. His libellous words against a Malaysian individual had nothing to do with his work for the UN. He should therefore be liable, and his immunity could not be invoked. But he got the UN to back him. It was even hinted that if Malaysia prosecuted him, then our case before the International Court of Justice on the issue of the ownership of Sipadan and Ligitan would be jeopardised. Accordingly I agreed that he should not be prosecuted. Luckily it was only libel. Had Param Cumaraswamy murdered a person, and he claimed immunity, then there would indeed be a miscarriage of justice. I do not think my recalcitrance over his immunity endeared me to him. Now that I am not a prime minister, he has expressed his delight at saying that I should not criticise anything the present government does because I was guilty of worse.I maintain that in the case of Tun Salleh Abas I did what was required of me under the Constitution and Malaysia’s laws. I consider the suggestion that I should apologise as frivolous, unwarranted and stupid. If Param or Karpal is not convinced perhaps they should use their considerable knowledge of the law to shut my mouth.

Dr. Mahathir bin Mohamad


Belit Anwar

Wajah Seorang Penyangak, Penipu dan Pakar Membelit

Apa kata Dr Chandra Muzaffar berkenaan peribadi Anwar sebagai seorang politikus :

"My answer has prompted a variety of individuals and groups within and without the political arena to expose the machinations and manipulations of a Machiavellian politician. For this master of deceit and duplicity was beginning to hoodwink a gullible segment of Malaysian society into believing that he was that long awaited 'knight in shining armour' who would deliver the masses into that glorious paradise of justice and equality. It is partly because 'the knight' has been unmasked that a lot more Malaysians have become conscious of what is at stake at this critical moment in their lives when they once again exercise their right to determine their future."

Some of my unhappiness with Anwar and Parti KeAdilan Nasional (as it was then known as) which I quit in December 2001, I chose to share with Aliran President, P. Ramakrishnan, at a dinner in a Petaling Jaya restaurant in early 2002. From the notes I have kept of our meeting, I was quite candid with him about money politics in the party, the lack of financial accountability, and its manipulation of communal sentiments. It was information that I have over the years brought to the notice of a handful of other friends. In a couple of interviews with local magazines I had also alluded to these weaknesses within the party and its leadership.