Pengikut

Nuffnang

Isnin, 22 Ogos 2011

The Spirit of Lubok Kawah/Semangat Lubok Kawah

0 ulasan
sumber :-

The Spirit of Lubok Kawah/Semangat Lubok Kawah


Orang Yahudi cakna dengan agama dan negara mereka

Posted: 22 Aug 2011 09:29 AM PDT

Semasa saya belajar di Kota London, saya sempat bergerak didalam pertubuhan NGO peringkat antarabangsa. Diantara badan-badan yang saya libatkan diri adalah Free Palestine bergerak bersama-sama dengan pelajar seluruh dunia memperjuangkan hak rakyat Palestin.

Disana pelajar-pelajar Islam dari Negara-Negara Islam dan pelajar-pelajar bukan Islam dari Eropah dan Amerika bersatu memperjuangkan hak rakyat Palestin menentang kejahatan Zionism.

Badan lain yang saya libatkan diri adalah Badan Pelajar Sedunia Menentang American Imperialism terdiri daripada golongan pelajar progresif dari universiti-univerisit seluruh United Kingdom yang benci kepada dasar jahat Amerika di Negara-Negara Asia-Afrika-Amerika Latin.

Pada waktu itu Perang Vietnam sedang memuncak, dan kami mengambil "stand" menentang keganasan Amerika di Vietnam. Bukan sahaja kami mengadakan perjumpaan-perjumpaan pelajar menentang American Aggression di Vietnam, kami juga mengadakan tunjuk-tunjuk perasaan di hadapan kedutaan Amerika di London.

Didalam pertubuhan ini terdapat juga pelajar-pelajar Yahudi yang menentang Zionisme (mereka bukan menentang Yahudi, tetapi menentang Zionisme, iaitu dasar perluasan kuasa dan penindasan terhadap rakyat Palestin) dan yang menentang American Imperialisme.

Tetapi mereka itu tetap cinta kepada Negara mereka iaitu Israel. Mereka adalah bersama-sama dengan komuniti Yahudi di Kota London melalui Synagog mereka mengutip derma untuk Israel, setiap dari mereka membuat sumbangan bulanan demi Negara Israel.

Seorang wanita sosialis berbangsa Yahudi bernama Marion adalah seorang yang cukup hebat menentang Zionisme tetapi beliau juga menyayangi Israel dan turut bergerak mengutip derma untuk Israel.

Marion memahami bahawa Israel dan Palestin boleh hidup bersama secara aman dan damai jika dasar Zionisme Israel diberhentikan dan Israel menghormati keujudan Negara Palestin, dan di waktu yang sama, dia tidak mahu puak-puak ekstremis Palestin memusuhi rakyat Israel. Walaupun nampak dilema didalam perkara ini tetapi Marion menyatakan bahawa Israel itu adalah Negara bagi kaum Yahudi, tetapi Zionisme itu adalah dasar keganasan terhadap Palestin.
Israel tanpa Zionisme boleh hidup "side by side" aman damai, hormat menghormati.

Didalam tunjuk-tunjuk perasaan di Kota London, Marion dan golongan kaum Yahudinya akan turun ke jalan-jalan raya dan memberikan sokongan kepada perjuangan rakyat Palestin.

Pada waktu itu George Habash seorang beragama Krisitian sedang memimpin satu gerakan pembebasan Palestin yang bergabung dengan PLO bersama Al-Fateh iaitu Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestin. Justeru itu ramai pelajar-pelajar Kristian menyokong George Habash dari Popular Front untuk pembebasan Palestin.

Ramai rakan-rakan dari Turkey, Iran, India, Pakistan, Mesir, Amerika dan Eropah dan dari Amerika Latin serta dari Afrika berada didalam kumpulan pelajar-pelajar progresif ini. Kami menentang Zionisme dan kami menentang American Imperialism.

Kami tidak menentang rakyat Amerika tetapi dasar keganasan dan penaklukan Amerika dibawah American Imperialism itu.

Orang Yahudi yang menentang Zionisme tetap mempertahan Israel (tanpa Zionis).

Mari kita ukur dengan tindakan orang Islam di Malaysia. Kita haru-biru dengan isu Murtad tetapi kita tidak perihatin kepada sebab-sebab kenapa ada orang jatuh Murtad.

Islam yang diperjuangkan oleh Kerajaan hanya berbentuk forma sahaja tetapi isinya "hollow" (kosong) tidak mempunyai apa-apa kesan. Saya diberitahu bahawa di Sabah, mubaligh-mubaligh Kristian sanggup bersusah-berpayah menjalankan program kemanusiaan dan kebajikan bagi memenangkan hati dikalangan umat Islam yang papa-kedana. Tetapi apakah yang dilakukan oleh Kerajaan Islam (UMNO) bagi mengatasi mesalah kemiskinan melampau itu selain dari memberikan upahan yang tak sebanyak mana semasa Pilihanraya?

Kenapakah menjadi riuh-rendah apakala ada orang Islam Murtad sedangkan punca mereka Murtad itu tidak diatasi.

Kemudian UMNO mahu menjadikan isu Murtad ini sebagai isu politik, menyalahkan Pembangkang, walhal selama 50 tahun ini merekalah yang berkuasa, mereka tidak mengambil tindakan serius membendung punca manusia boleh jadi Murtad.

Isu Murtad ini bukan isu politik kepartian. Ia adalah isu yang ada hubungkait dengan kemanusiaan dan kebajikan dan akhirnya barulah boleh dikatakan isu agama.

Orang yang tidak cukup makan, tidak cukup pakai, tidak cukup untuk persekolahan anak-anak, tidak cukup bekalan untuk hidup, jangan disalahkan kepada mereka jika mereka akhirnya jatuh Murtad, sedangkan kebajikan mereka dibiarkan sehinggalah mereka mendapat pembantu yang bermurah hati atas nama NGO atau Mubaligh Kristian.

Ubah sekarang untuk membetulkan keadaan ini, tengok disekeliling kita, apa yang berlaku; kerajaan Islam (UMNO) hanya mementingkan tengkolok sendiri dan kroni-kroni, maka kedudukan Orang Miskin diberikan bantuan kebajikan oleh mereka yang mempunyai agenda tersendiri!

Orang Yahudi cakna dengan agama dan negara mereka

Posted: 22 Aug 2011 09:29 AM PDT

Semasa saya belajar di Kota London, saya sempat bergerak didalam pertubuhan NGO peringkat antarabangsa. Diantara badan-badan yang saya libatkan diri adalah Free Palestine bergerak bersama-sama dengan pelajar seluruh dunia memperjuangkan hak rakyat Palestin.

Disana pelajar-pelajar Islam dari Negara-Negara Islam dan pelajar-pelajar bukan Islam dari Eropah dan Amerika bersatu memperjuangkan hak rakyat Palestin menentang kejahatan Zionism.

Badan lain yang saya libatkan diri adalah Badan Pelajar Sedunia Menentang American Imperialism terdiri daripada golongan pelajar progresif dari universiti-univerisit seluruh United Kingdom yang benci kepada dasar jahat Amerika di Negara-Negara Asia-Afrika-Amerika Latin.

Pada waktu itu Perang Vietnam sedang memuncak, dan kami mengambil "stand" menentang keganasan Amerika di Vietnam. Bukan sahaja kami mengadakan perjumpaan-perjumpaan pelajar menentang American Aggression di Vietnam, kami juga mengadakan tunjuk-tunjuk perasaan di hadapan kedutaan Amerika di London.

Didalam pertubuhan ini terdapat juga pelajar-pelajar Yahudi yang menentang Zionisme (mereka bukan menentang Yahudi, tetapi menentang Zionisme, iaitu dasar perluasan kuasa dan penindasan terhadap rakyat Palestin) dan yang menentang American Imperialisme.

Tetapi mereka itu tetap cinta kepada Negara mereka iaitu Israel. Mereka adalah bersama-sama dengan komuniti Yahudi di Kota London melalui Synagog mereka mengutip derma untuk Israel, setiap dari mereka membuat sumbangan bulanan demi Negara Israel.

Seorang wanita sosialis berbangsa Yahudi bernama Marion adalah seorang yang cukup hebat menentang Zionisme tetapi beliau juga menyayangi Israel dan turut bergerak mengutip derma untuk Israel.

Marion memahami bahawa Israel dan Palestin boleh hidup bersama secara aman dan damai jika dasar Zionisme Israel diberhentikan dan Israel menghormati keujudan Negara Palestin, dan di waktu yang sama, dia tidak mahu puak-puak ekstremis Palestin memusuhi rakyat Israel. Walaupun nampak dilema didalam perkara ini tetapi Marion menyatakan bahawa Israel itu adalah Negara bagi kaum Yahudi, tetapi Zionisme itu adalah dasar keganasan terhadap Palestin.
Israel tanpa Zionisme boleh hidup "side by side" aman damai, hormat menghormati.

Didalam tunjuk-tunjuk perasaan di Kota London, Marion dan golongan kaum Yahudinya akan turun ke jalan-jalan raya dan memberikan sokongan kepada perjuangan rakyat Palestin.

Pada waktu itu George Habash seorang beragama Krisitian sedang memimpin satu gerakan pembebasan Palestin yang bergabung dengan PLO bersama Al-Fateh iaitu Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestin. Justeru itu ramai pelajar-pelajar Kristian menyokong George Habash dari Popular Front untuk pembebasan Palestin.

Ramai rakan-rakan dari Turkey, Iran, India, Pakistan, Mesir, Amerika dan Eropah dan dari Amerika Latin serta dari Afrika berada didalam kumpulan pelajar-pelajar progresif ini. Kami menentang Zionisme dan kami menentang American Imperialism.

Kami tidak menentang rakyat Amerika tetapi dasar keganasan dan penaklukan Amerika dibawah American Imperialism itu.

Orang Yahudi yang menentang Zionisme tetap mempertahan Israel (tanpa Zionis).

Mari kita ukur dengan tindakan orang Islam di Malaysia. Kita haru-biru dengan isu Murtad tetapi kita tidak perihatin kepada sebab-sebab kenapa ada orang jatuh Murtad.

Islam yang diperjuangkan oleh Kerajaan hanya berbentuk forma sahaja tetapi isinya "hollow" (kosong) tidak mempunyai apa-apa kesan. Saya diberitahu bahawa di Sabah, mubaligh-mubaligh Kristian sanggup bersusah-berpayah menjalankan program kemanusiaan dan kebajikan bagi memenangkan hati dikalangan umat Islam yang papa-kedana. Tetapi apakah yang dilakukan oleh Kerajaan Islam (UMNO) bagi mengatasi mesalah kemiskinan melampau itu selain dari memberikan upahan yang tak sebanyak mana semasa Pilihanraya?

Kenapakah menjadi riuh-rendah apakala ada orang Islam Murtad sedangkan punca mereka Murtad itu tidak diatasi.

Kemudian UMNO mahu menjadikan isu Murtad ini sebagai isu politik, menyalahkan Pembangkang, walhal selama 50 tahun ini merekalah yang berkuasa, mereka tidak mengambil tindakan serius membendung punca manusia boleh jadi Murtad.

Isu Murtad ini bukan isu politik kepartian. Ia adalah isu yang ada hubungkait dengan kemanusiaan dan kebajikan dan akhirnya barulah boleh dikatakan isu agama.

Orang yang tidak cukup makan, tidak cukup pakai, tidak cukup untuk persekolahan anak-anak, tidak cukup bekalan untuk hidup, jangan disalahkan kepada mereka jika mereka akhirnya jatuh Murtad, sedangkan kebajikan mereka dibiarkan sehinggalah mereka mendapat pembantu yang bermurah hati atas nama NGO atau Mubaligh Kristian.

Ubah sekarang untuk membetulkan keadaan ini, tengok disekeliling kita, apa yang berlaku; kerajaan Islam (UMNO) hanya mementingkan tengkolok sendiri dan kroni-kroni, maka kedudukan Orang Miskin diberikan bantuan kebajikan oleh mereka yang mempunyai agenda tersendiri!

Temerloh di tahun 50-an

Posted: 22 Aug 2011 03:51 AM PDT

Inilah Jambatan Temerloh seperti yang ada sekarang menghubungkan Bandar Temerloh dengan seberang Temerloh merentangi Sungai Pahang. Cuba lihat rangka-rangka Jambatan dibawah Jambatan yang tinggi itu. Itu adalah Jambatan asal yang telah dibawa arus didalam banjir besar di tahun 1960-an.
Sekarang ini Temerloh dikenali sebagai Bandar Ikan Patin kerana di kawasan Daerah Temerloh ini samada di Sungai Pahang atau di Sungai Semantan terdapat beratus-ratus rakit pemeliharaan ikan patin dinamakan Ikan Patin Sangkar. Harga ikan patin sangkar tidaklah begitu mahal, sekilo ikan patin sangkar berharga RM15.00 berbanding ikan patin ori yang berharga diantara RM75.00 hingga RM100.00 sekilo. Di Bandar ini ada restoren yang begitu popular menjual ikan patin ori. Harganya amat tinggi, sedap memang sedap, tetapi kalau tak bertanya harga terlebih dahulu, nanti kalau makan 2 atau 3 orang boleh mengambil kos hingga melebihi RM100.00; jangan terperanjat!
Inilah Sungai Pahang di Temerloh dipertemuan muara Pahang di Temerloh dengan muara Sg Semantan. Apabila Sg Pahang memuntahkan airnya, Sg Semantan akan menjadi tersenak dan banjir besar akan berlaku, jika banjir berlaku di Sg Semantan, maka banjir itu hanya membanjirkan kawasan-kawasan di tebing Sungai Semantan sahaja, walaupun banjir itu besar tetapi tidaklah sebesar banjir yang disebabkan Sg Pahang yang sebak. Tetapi kalau kedua-dua sungai ini banjir, maka habis seluruh Daerah Temerloh ini ditenggelami air. Air Semantan mengalir dari ulu di Barat Negeri Pahang dari Raub dan Bentong dan ada juga air dari Pelangai; dan air Pahang datang dari Sg Jelai dan Sg Lipis, serta Ulu Tahan di Sg Tembeling, jika ke semua anak-anak Sungai ini memuntahkan airnya, maka Temerloh akan mengalami banjir yang besar; dan beberapa hari kemudian Bandar Pekan pula akan menjadi mangsanya.

Ada sebuah pantun yang dirikacipta oleh Arwah Talib Ariffin yang lebih dikenali sebagai Talib Belengu tetapi selepas tahun 70-an dikenali dengan nama General Talib. Ada orang mengatakan bahawa beliau adalah Jenderal Talib. Sebenarnya beliau bukan Jenderal, nama General itu diberikan oleh anggota-anggota Parti Rakyat Malaya kepadanya, kerana beliau ini terkenal dengan bengisnya menghentam Parti Rakyat. Beliau adalah ahli UMNO. Sanggup bertumbuk, sanggup mengoyakkan poster, sanggup melakukan apa saja menghentam Pembangkang asalkan beliau mendapat sedikit upahan daripada pemimpin UMNO.

Tetapi sebelum beliau menghembuskan nafas terakhirnya, beliau turut menolong kempen Parti Keadilan Rakyat; beliau telah berceramah di tempat saya bertanding dan cara beliau berceramah penuh dengan sindiran yang lucu dan penuh dengan pantun.

Pantun yang terkenal oleh Arwah Talib Ariffin adalah seperti berikut, dan harap orang Pahang janganlah terasa hati:

Sungai Pahang airnya deras
Sungguh deras libang-libu
Orang Pahang hatinya keras
Sungguh keras senang ditipu.

Apa tidaknya, kata Talib, dengan sekadar sehelai kain pelikat atau kain batik dan duit RM10.00 orang Pahang terutama orang kampong yang hidup didalam kesusahan boleh melupakan 5 tahun penderitaan dan terus mengundi UMNO.
Boat ini digunakan sebagai penambang membawa penumpang-penumpang dari tebing Sungai Semantan di sebelah Bandar Temerloh ke Tg Keramat di seberang sana Sg Semantan untuk membawa penumpang-penumpang dari Kg Bangau, Kg Lubok Kawah, Kg Paya Banir, Kg Paya Jejawi, Kg Tebing Tinggi, Kg Kuala Sanggang, Kg Sanggang dll yang berurusan di Bandar Temerloh, semasa itu tidak ada jalan raya dari kampong-kampong itu untuk ke Bandar Temerloh dan juga tidak ada Jambatan. Sekarang ini sudah ada Jambatan merentangi Sungai Semantan dari kampong-kampong itu ke Bandar Temerloh. Lagipun ada lagi jalan dari kampong-kampong itu ke Bandar Temerloh dan Bandar Mentakab melalui Jambatan Sg Semantan di Kg Raja, Songsang.
Inilah Pejabat Daerah semasa pentadbiran Penjajah dahulu dan Pejabat ini diteruskan hinggalah ke zaman Merdeka.
Inilah Pengkalan untuk boat dari kampong-kampong di Hulu Temerloh, dan boat-boat ini bolehlah dianggap sebagai teksi air, tambangnya murah, tetapi kalau saya mahu ke Temerloh dengan boat seperti ini mengambil masa tidak kurang dari 1 jam menghilir sungai sejauh lebih kurang 3 batu, tetapi melebihi 2 jam untuk mudik dari Bandar Temerloh. Kalau dilihat diatas pengkalan ini, itulah tempat Balai Polis Temerloh dizaman 50-an, Balai ini dikenali sebagai Rumah Pasung, ertinya semua orang yang ditangkap akan dilock-up disini sebelum dihantar ke penjara.

Ayah saya, seorang Anggota API, ditangkap di hujung tahun 40-an mula-mula dibawa ke rumah Pasong ini, sebelum dipindahkan ke Ibu Negeri Pahang di Kuala Lipis, dan kemudiannya dengan ribuan tahanan-tahanan lain dihantar ke Tg Beruas, di dalam satu kem yang besar terdiri daripada semua pejuang-pejuang menuntut kemerdekaan.

Ayah saya bertugas sebagai anggota perisik bagi API yang pada waktu itu sudah mengambil jalan bersenjata untuk memerdekakan Tanah air selepas PKMM, API dan AWAS diharamkan oleh Inggeris.

Ayah saya dibebaskan bersyarat pada awal tahun 1953, dan tidak dibenarkan pulang ke Kampong Lubok Kawah, maka, Aki saya mengambil keputusan untuk semua pindah ke Bandar Temerloh dengan membina rumah rakit di muara Sg Semantan.

Ayah saya bekerja sebagai Tukang Masak di Restoran Antarabangsa di Bandar Temerloh, beliau memang pandai memasak kerana pengalaman bertahun-tahun semasa didalam tahanan Inggeris, wan (nenek) saya berniaga di warong di Bandar Temerloh (kedai lesen), Aki saya meneruskan tugasnya sebagai pengajar membaca Quraan, ramai pemuda-pemuda datang mengaji dengannya pagi, tengah hari dan malam. Aki saya adalah seorang berpencen Guru Agama.

Aki saya yang dikenali sebagai Haji Ibrahim Ahmad atau Pak Alang Ibrahim mempunyai kelulusan dalam Bahasa Inggeris, tetapi oleh kerana beliau dicemuh oleh penduduk kampong kononnya mereka yang belajar bahasa Inggeris adalah berpihak kepada ugama Kristian.

Aki saya bertugas beberapa tahun di Pejabat Tanah Temerloh dan selepas itu menghilangkan diri ke Kelantan lebih kurang 15 tahun, belajar agama, berpondok disana sehingga faseh berbahasa Arab, dan kembali ke Pahang sebagai Guru Agama.
Inilah teksi air yang membawa penumpang hilir-mudik 2 kali sehari ke Bandar Temerloh, dan teksi air ini juga digunakan oleh kami kanak-kanak sekolah yang pada waktu itu bersekolah di Abu Bakar School; jam 5.00 pagi kami sudah berada didalam teksi air ini untuk pergi ke sekolah.
Masjid ini tidak jauh dari Rumah Rakit tempat penginapan saya semasa berada di Form Three hingga Form Five.

Semasa saya Form Five sudah menghampiri Peperiksaan Overseas School Certificate (sekarang ni semacam SPM) saya tinggal di Kg Batu 4, di rumah bapa saudara-cum-bapa angkat saya, Pak Itam Deraman, beliau adalah Ketua Kampong dan juga Imam Masjid, beliau juga mengetuai Ranting Parti Rakyat Malaya di Kg Batu 4. Dia meninggal dunia sebagai Tok Imam dan Ketua PAS Cawangan Kg Batu 4.

Dari Batu 4 ke Sekolah Menengah Abu Bakar mengambil masa lebih kurang 45 minit, dan untuk sampai ke Sekolah kena menyeberangi Sungai Pahang. Pada waktu itu belum ada Jambatan. Untuk menyeberangi Sungai Pahang ke Bandar Temerloh kena menggunakan boyar (ferry) dan untuk menyeberangi Sungai Pahang itu mengambil masa 15 minit.

Itulah sedikit sebanyak kisah Sungai Pahang di Temerloh, Sg Pahang airnya deras, sungguh deras libang libu, Orang Pahang hatinya keras sungguh keras senang ditipu. Hati orang Pahang terbentuk seperti bendera Pahang; ia ikhlas dan bersih seperti simbol putih pada benderanya; tetapi apabila dia sudah marah dan meruap, maka simbolnya ialah hitam seperti dibenderanya, maka kerana itu Pahang mempunyai Pahlawan Kemerdekaan seperti Dato Bahaman, Mat Kilau, Tok Gajah dsb diperingkat awalan, dan ada pula Ishak Haji Muhammad, Kamaruzzaman Hj Teh, Ibrahim Yaakob dan ribuan pejuang-pejuang Melayu didalam PKMM, API dan AWAS!

Anwar Ibrahim

0 ulasan
sumber :-

Anwar Ibrahim


Why Anwar Ibrahim Made an Unsworn Statement From The Dock

Posted: 22 Aug 2011 11:08 AM PDT

Press Release

On 22nd August 2011, Opposition leader Anwar Ibrahim made an unsworn statement from the dock during his second sodomy trial in just over a decade. He chose to do so knowing that less weight would be given to his testimony as compared to sworn testimony from the witness box. This decision not to testify from the witness box is at once a searing protest against an unjust legal and political system, an eloquent indictment of that system and a powerful call for reform and change. By refusing to testify and daring them to do their worst, Anwar Ibrahim has put the legal and political establishment itself on trial. Through this single, public act of principled defiance he has demonstrated the shocking extent to which our justice system has been reduced to being a tool of those who are in power now. His act echoes that of Nelson Mandela, who in a bygone era also chose to give an unsworn statement from the dock during his political trial. Mandela used his now famous statement in the Rivonia sham trial to expose the evils of the apartheid regime to the scrutiny of the world.The stirring conclusion to Mandela’s speech is quoted by Anwar Ibrahim in his own statement from the dock. Like Anwar after him, Mandela realised that the only possible verdict was ‘guilty’ and preferred to make a full and coherent statement of his struggle rather than let his argument emerge in ‘bits and pieces’ during cross-examination.

The unsworn statement as it is today is the fruit of several hundred years of development of the common law. In England accused persons were not allowed counsel in felonies until 1836 and the practice thus grew up of allowing the accused person to make an unsworn statement from the dock. When the Criminal Evidence Act 1898 finally allowed sworn evidence to be accepted by the court, the right to make an unsworn statement from the dock was expressly preserved so as not to compel an accused person to go into the witness box. This hallowed and time-marked right is invaluable to the victim of a political trial, fighting against the entire might of the State. What Nelson Mandela did in 1963, Anwar Ibrahim did yesterday. Used in a righteous cause, the unsworn statement from the dock is a powerful tool against an unjust legal and political establishment. Anwar Ibrahim has rightly said that the outcome of his sodomy trial is a foregone conclusion. Now he has taken this judicial persecution and turned it into a weapon for the betterment of the nation.  

N SURENDRAN
VICE PRESIDENT
KEADILAN  

Anwar Kemuka Bukti Dakwaan Saiful Palsu, Jalin Hubungan Dengan Umno

Posted: 21 Aug 2011 10:33 PM PDT

KeadilanDaily

Ketua Pembangkang, Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim mengemukakan bukti bahawa tuduhan pengadu Mohd Saiful Bukhari Azlan terhadapnya, adalah palsu dan berniat jahat.

Anwar berkata Saiful merupakan seorang lelaki berusia awal 20-an dengan berketinggian "enam kaki" dan mantap secara fizikal, mempunyai hubungan dengan  ahli-ahli politik dan pegawai kanan polis.

Malah katanya, Saiful juga bekas pelajar yang mempunyai hubungan dengan Umno dan menyertai pelbagai latihan kendalian Biro Tata Negara, agensi di bawah Jabatan Perdana Menteri.

"Dan di sini, saya seorang lelaki berusia 60 tahun dengan ada sejarah sakit belakang, yang telah menjalani pembedahan besar dan tidak memiliki sebarang  kuasa.

"Jika saya telah menggunakan sebarang bentuk pengaruh atau tekanan mental ke atas dia, ini boleh dengan mudah dineutralkan dengan membuat satu panggilan segera kepada pihak-pihak yang ada hubungannya," kata Anwar ketika memberi keterangan dari saksi tertuduh di Mahkamah Tinggi Kuala Lumpur.

Anwar juga berkata, mengikut keterangan pengadu dia tiba di Kondominium Desa Damansara pada pukul 2.45 petang, 28 Julai 2008 untuk membincangkan perkara berkaitan kerja.

Beliau menambah, pada peringkat itu, Saiful sepatutnya telah melarikan diri, namun tidak berbuat demikian atas alasan takut.

"Dia tidak berbuat demikian. Keterangan lain berhubung perkara ini dengan jelas menunjukkan bahawa pengadu mempunyai segala peluang untuk keluar (dari kondominimum), tetapi dia tidak melakukannya," kata beliau lagi.

Menurut Anwar alasan Saiful bahawa dia diselubungi ketakutan adalah bercanggah dengan fakta kes tersebut,

Anwar seterusnya berkata ketika disoal balas, Saiful mengakui bahawa dia telah membeli bahan pelincir dan secara sukarela telah mengenakannya serta mendakwa hubungan seks telah berlaku dan ia "sesuatu yang menyakitkan."

"Bagaimanapun, sangat jelas tiada bukti perubatan wujudnya kesan penembusan atau koyakan. Selepas hubungan (seks) yang didakwa berlaku, dia minum dan berbual mesra dengan saya.

"Pengadu tidak cuba mendapatkan pemeriksaan perubatan dengan segera. Sebaliknya, dia menghadiri satu majlis PKR pada keesokan hari," kata Anwar.

"Pada sebelah petang, dia mengambil bahagian dalam satu mesyuarat Kelab Anwar Ibrahim di rumah saya tanpa menunjukkan sebarang tanda emosi atau ketidakselesaan fizikal, malah trauma," kata Anwar lagi.

"Sikapnya seara total tidak konsisten dengan dakwaan bahawa dia telah dikasari," tambah beliau.

Anwar juga berkata, Saiful tidak terus membuat laporan polis dan membuat laporan perubatan dengan segera, sebaliknya mengadakan pertemuan dengan Perdana Menteri Datuk Seri Najib Razak dan isterinya Datin Seri Rosmah Mansor.

Selain itu, Saiful juga  dengan Tan Sri Musa Hassan, Ketua Polis Negara ketika itu dan mengadakan pertemuan dengan Datuk Mohd Rodhwan Mohd Yusof, bekas ketua polis Melaka, di sebuah hotel dua hari sebelum kejadian didakwa berlaku.

Najib merupakan timbalan perdana menteri ketika itu.

"Oleh itu adalah jelas daripada bukti itu bahawa pengadu telah berbohong meskipun Yang Arif (Hakim) memutuskan bahawa dia seorang saksi yang benar," katanya.

Dato Seri Anwar Ibrahim Akan Tarawikh Bersama Jemaah Masjid Nurul Naim

Posted: 21 Aug 2011 09:58 PM PDT

Malam ini 22 Ogos 2011,Isnin, Dato Seri Anwar Ibrahim akan bersama jemaah Masjid Nurul Naim, Jalan Kebun,Kota Raja (DUN seri Muda) menunaikan solat Isya dan Bertarawikh.Majlis juga akan disusuli dengan Tazkirah.

Pejabat Dato Seri Anwar Ibrahim

Kenyataan Penuh Dato Seri Anwar Ibrahim Di Mahkamah Tinggi Dalam Kes Fitnah II

Posted: 21 Aug 2011 08:34 PM PDT

DALAM MAHKAMAH TINGGI DI KUALA LUMPUR

DALAM WILAYAH PERSEKUTUAN

PERBICARAAN JENAYAH NO: 45-9-2009

PENDAKWA RAYA

LAWAN

DATO' SERI ANWAR BIN IBRAHIM

STATEMENT FROM THE DOCK

My name is Anwar bin Ibrahim. I am the leader of the Opposition in Parliament. In the 1990s, I was the Finance Minister and Deputy Prime Minister until September 1998 when then Prime Minister Dato' Seri Dr Mahathir bin Mohamad sacked me after I had refused to resign. He had told me to resign or face dire consequences including criminal prosecution for alleged sexual and corruption offences. I refused and all hell broke loose. My unceremonious and grossly unjust dismissal simultaneously orchestrated with a trial by media under Mahathir's complete control triggered mass and widespread demonstrations throughout the country and launched the movement for change and reform known in our history as the Reformasi era.

After a series of show trials during which every rule in the book on evidence and criminal procedure was violated with impunity at the hands of the prosecution and the courts, I was convicted and sentenced to a total of 15 years.

THE CHARGE AGAINST ME

First and foremost, I categorically deny the charge against me. I want to state in no uncertain terms that I have never had any sexual relations with the complainant Mohamed Saiful. His allegation is a blatant and vicious lie and will be proved to be so.

This is a vile and despicable attempt at character assassination.  In this regard, let me reiterate that they can do all they want to assassinate my character and sully my reputation and threaten me with another 20 years of imprisonment but mark my words, they won't be able to cow me into submission. On the contrary, it only serves to fortify my conviction that the truth will eventually prevail. Come what come may, I shall never surrender. With apologies to Jean Racine in Phaedra:

"You know how well your tyranny favours my temperament and strengthens me to guard the honour of my reputation."

Yes indeed, I will guard it with my life if I have to. And if I may bring the message closer to home, let me quote the words of Nelson Mandela in his speech made from the dock in the famous Rivonia show trial of 1963 under the Apartheid regime:

"I have fought against white domination, and I have fought against black domination. I have cherished the ideal of a democratic and free society in which all persons live together in harmony and with equal opportunities. It is an ideal which I hope to live for and to achieve. But if needs be, it is an ideal for which I am prepared to die."

Back in 1998, blindfolded and handcuffed, I was beaten senseless by the Inspector General of Police and left to die in the lock up at the Federal Police headquarters. However, it was by the grace of God that a few of the rank and file of the police took pity on me and nursed me to recover from the near lethal blows. There was then a cover up by Gani Patail (now the Attorney-General) and Musa Hassan (the IGP at the time that I was charged in this new episode) with the full knowledge and connivance of Dato' Yusuf, the current chief prosecutor in this trial. All these personalities were linked in one way or the other with the 1998 show trial and more insidiously with the suppression of evidence in respect of the black eye scandal and attempts to pervert the course of justice. These are the same personalities who are now actively involved in the current prosecution against me. Res ipsa loquitur, as they say, but in this regard I'm not talking about negligence but rather proof of criminality in this heinous plot betraying indeed "the deep damnation" of the conspiracy.

The circumstances are compelling that I elect to make a statement from the dock. And in this statement I shall attempt my utmost to place the truth ahead of the web of lies and deceit that has been spun thus far. To quote Shakespeare:

"And let us once again assail your ears,
That are so fortified against our story…"

Which has set me from the outset of the trial to have been deprived of a level playing field and subjected to inequality of arms vis-a-vis the prosecution.

The Prosecution's Failure to Discharge its Duties Professionally

1)    Even though these matters are done as a matter of routine in criminal proceedings, the Prosecution has consistently refused to disclose material critical to my defence, including: (a) prosecution witness list;

(b) primary hospital examination notes written by the medical examiners of the complainant at HBKL; (c) witness statements (including that of complainant); and (d) forensic samples and exhibits for independent examination and verification. All this has caused considerable prejudice to my defence and occasioned grave injustice. The only conclusion that one can reasonably draw from the prosecution's persistence in this act of perversity is that unseen hands are at work and it is certainly not the hand of God.

2)    Your failure to respond during the course of the trial to several attempts by persons hostile to me to discredit me by commenting on aspects of the trial. These included whether I should provide samples of his DNA; blaming the defence for the delay of the proceedings; and reporting on matters that were the subject of a suppression order. These public comments were made either in defiance of your orders that they not be made. They were made by UMNO officials and politicians, including Dato' Seri Najib orchestrated through the controlled electronic and print media, such as Utusan Malaysia, Berita Harian, the New Straits Times and TV3. The constant comments by the Prime Minister and UMNO officials in the media and adverse comments on the progress of the trial were clearly calculated to influence you and illustrates the political motive behind the charge.

3)    The latest act of blatant disregard occurred just last Tuesday and Wednesday over TV3 which broadcasted a pre-recorded interview with the complainant saying things which are clearly in contempt of the proceedings in respect of the trial. In particular, the audacious portrayal of himself as the victim who is a pious and God fearing Muslim who has sworn on the Quran that he is a witness of truth.

4)    But the truth is that even as the trial was in progress, the complainant who was engaged to someone else was shamelessly having an affair with a member of the prosecution team. Quite apart from the consequences of such an affair on the conduct of the prosecution, the complainant's facade of moral rectitude is shattered by this scandalous affair with the lady prosecutor who herself was also engaged with another man.

5)    In spite of all this, the complainant, assisted by the full force of the UMNO propaganda machine, via their media, has gone to town to vilify me. The point is that all comments were calculated to discredit me, adversely influence the course of the proceedings and to intimidate the witnesses at the trial. In spite of all these blatant transgressions, you have persistently refused to respond to any of these acts of contemptuous behaviour.

The solemn duty of a judge is not to sit mute when the law provides for a court of its own motion to issue show-cause notices against those who interfere in the administration of justice. I am reminded of the maxim Judex Habere Debet Duos Sales, Salem Sapicutiae, Ne Sit Insipidus, Et Salem Conscientiea, Ne Sit Diabolous, the English translation of which is,

'A judge should have two salts, the salt of wisdom, lest he be insipid; and the salt of conscience, lest he be devilish'.

The office of a judge is one of the most honourable in the country; he is the voice of the legislator and the organ for dispensing justice; he holds the balance between the executive and the subject.

Even more significantly, in the discharge of his duties, the judge should be mindful of Allah's command:

"…and let not hatred of others

Swerve you into error

And depart from justice.

Be just, that is nearer to piety

Fear Allah, For Allah is

well acquainted with all that you do"

Surah al-maidah: 8

In the middle of the Second World War in 1942, Lord Atkin, in Liversidge v Anderson, had occasion to say in the House of Lords,

'It has long been one of the pillars of freedom…that the judges are no respecters of persons and stand between the subject and any attempted encroachment on his liberty by the executive, alert to see that any coercive action is justified by law'

In my case, Y.A., presiding in an adversarial trial, had the residual power and the jurisdiction to have invoked Y.A.'s powers relating to contempt of court. Y.A. chose not to do so for reasons best known to Y.A.. What has happened is not in the best traditions of the Judiciary. In the ongoing Banting murder trial, the learned trial judge in that case, Y.A. Datuk Akhtar Tahir, took it upon himself to summon a local television producer over a clip it aired during its prime news slot relating to the defence in the murder trial of Datuk Sosilawati Lawiya and three others. A newspaper clipping of that report is annexed herewith. Y.A. Datuk Akhtar Tahir has courageously demonstrated judicial activism in the name of human rights and the essential requirement of a fair trial.

To compound the position to incredulity, the open scandal relating to DPP Farah Azlina Latiff having an affair with PW1 did not concern Y.A. This invidious relationship should have alerted Y.A. in that I was been denied a fair trial for the simple reason that Farah Azlina Latiff would have had access to the investigation papers being a member of the prosecution's team and, therefore, PW1 would, through this relationship, would have had knowledge of the statements given by witnesses, including my alibi witnesses in the course of the investigation.

Y.A. did not even chastise Farah Azlina Latiff for the illicit affair with SP1. All that was done was that Farah Azlina Latiff was taken off the prosecution team at the behest of the prosecution which was an open confirmation of the existence of that illicit affair. Farah Azlina Latiff did not deny the allegations against her. Neither was PW1 recalled by the prosecution to deny the existence of this unsavoury affair.

The Attorney-General had publicly stated the reasons would be given later to account for the sordid affair. That has yet to eventuate.

Yet, in the face of this, Y.A., at the close of the prosecution case, made a finding that PW1 was a truthful witness from this passage in the judgment as follows,

'Nothing came out from the lengthy cross-examination of PW1 or from the evidence of other prosecution's witnesses that could suggest what PW1 had told in his evidence was something which was not probable. I find PW1's evidence remains intact. He had truthfully and without embellishment or exaggeration in his evidence narrated in minute detail how he was sodomised by the accused on the date and at the place stated in the charge. I find him to be truthful witness and his evidence is reliable and if accepted would establish all the facts required to prove the charge against the accused.'

My lawyers had clearly made the submission that Y.A. had made a prejudgment when Y.A. ought to have only made findings as to who was telling the truth at the conclusion of the defence, in which event, I would have given evidence under oath. My lawyers did not, at any time, advert to the passage above in isolation. They zeroed in on the obvious, namely, whether a witness was truthful or not had to be decided at the close of the defence case. The provisions of section 182A(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code provided the judge with that guidance but to no avail. That section bears repeating. It states:

'At the conclusion of the trial, the court shall consider all the evidence adduced before it and shall decide whether the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt.'

Pursuant to what I have stated above, I have been denied the benefit of putting up my defence under oath. That amounts to deprivation of a fair trial and the existence of a level playing field.

The Court of Appeal going out of line

My appeal to the Court of Appeal over the recusal of Y.A. on account of prejudgment, following which would have resulted in biasness was heard on 6th July, 2011. A copy of the order is annexed herewith. No written judgment was handed down by the Court of Appeal on 6th July. The appeal was dismissed summarily on the preliminary objection taken by the prosecution that the order appealed against was not a final order. Those were the reasons given in open court. Nothing more, nothing less. The Court of Appeal took no more than five minutes to dispose of the appeal.

Unbeknownst to me or my lawyers, there was at the same time a 40-page judgment under the hand of Y.A. Datuk Haji Abdul Malik Bin Haji Ishak also dated 6th July, 2011. A copy of that judgment is annexed herewith.

Why did the Court of Appeal not read out the 91 paragraphed grounds of judgment dated 6th July on 6th July itself? Obviously, this judgment was at hand on 6th July but had surreptitiously been concealed from my knowledge and the knowledge of the public. The letter dated 11th August, 2011 supplying a copy of this judgment to my lawyers is annexed herewith. As is usual, Y.A. must have had the benefit of reading this judgment which will further exacerbate your bias against me. The judgment is an open and flagrant attack on me to which I will advert in due course. Suffice to say at this juncture that here is a judgment of the Court of Appeal written after 6th July, 2011 which contains harsh criticism against me without my being given the opportunity to reply.

But that begs the question: the appeal had been dismissed in limine on the ground that the order appealed against was not a final order. That should have been the end of the matter because it followed that the court had no jurisdiction to entertain the appeal. [Y.A. Datuk Haji Abdul Malik Bin Haji Ishak sat mute during the course of submissions on the preliminary objection]. The matter did not go beyond into the merits. That is what the Court of Appeal announced on 6th July without going an inch further. The preliminary objection is adverted to, not as the main part of the judgment. The major part of the judgment goes beyond. It is a frolic of his own used for the purpose of hitting out at me.

If that was so, why did Datuk Haji Abdul Malik Bin Haji Ishak embark upon a relentless attack on me in the rest of the judgment? In fact, he had no jurisdiction to do so. This is a blatant abuse of judicial power, perhaps in a surreptitious attempt to curry favours of the political masters? Otherwise, how else can one explain as to why he embarked upon such a scurrilous attack on me by stating in the following paragraphs as numbered:

'[5] This case will fall in history. It will be chronicled as the only known case in our country or for that matter within the Commonwealth enclave where the appellant as an accused person persistently and consistently filed one application after another in an attempt to recuse the learned trial judge from hearing and continuing to hear the sodomy trial which is ongoing.

[6] It seems that the appellant here is trying his level best to scuttle his sodomy trial for reasons best known to him, much to the chagrin of the prosecution and the exasperation of the members of the public at large.

[15] It was certainly an uncalled for criticism [against the learned judge] bent to deceive and confuse the uninitiated. It is easy to criticise but it is always difficult to justify it.

[18] It is also difficult for us to accept that the Notice of Motion was filed out of a genuine belief that the learned trial judge had been biased against the appellant.

[49] The charge graphically described what the appellant did to Mohd Saiful Bukhari Bin Azlan [PW1.] [It is elementary that it is the evidence, not the charge, which proves an offence].

[50] The trial was unduly prolonged. It received wide media coverage.

[56] After such a fine display of judicial impropriety, Y.A. Datuk Haji Abdul Malik Bin Haji Ishak now has audacity to patronize us about a sound judicial system by stating, in what sounds like a broken symbol, as follows:

'The perquisites of a sound judicial system are independence and impartiality. For an effective and a strong judicial system, the impartiality of its judges are of paramount importance. But it cannot be denied that the public's confidence in the judicial system is shaped and moulded more by appearances.

Y.A. Datuk Haji Abdul Malik Bin Haji Ishak rather ungraciously, and without jurisdiction, took a swipe at the judgment of his brother judges of the Court of Appeal including Richard Malanjum, now Chief Judge (Sabah and Sarawak), with the obvious purpose of humiliating them when stating:

'[72] Rowstead did not consider the "real danger of bias" test in determining whether the learned JC should have recused himself notwithstanding the Federal Court had earlier on applied the said test in:

(a) Majlis Perbandaran Pulau Pinang v Syarikat Bekerjasama-sama Serbaguna Sungai Gelugor dengan Tanggungan [1999] 3 MLJ 1, FC; and

(b) Mohamed Ezam bin Mohd Nor & Ors v Ketua Polis Negara [2002] 1 MLJ 321, FC

[73] Consequently, Rowstead's suggestion that the request for recusal to be heard

by another judge is quite radical. We categorically say that the recusal request, like the present matter, was rightly heard at the first instance by the learned trial judge and followed by this court.

[74] Rowstead did not consider nor ventilate on section 3 of the CJA read with section 50(1)(a) of the CJA and the Explanatory Statement thereto.

[75] The recusal application housed in the Notice of Motion concerned a long protracted trial that saw the legal manoeuvrings activated by the appellant at every nook and corner in an attempt to scuttle the criminal trial of the appellant for an offence of sodomising PW1. It is the mother of all trials in Malaysia.'

[I had every right to exhaust all legal remedies open to me. No attempt has been made by anyone, or any quarter, to prevent me from doing so by seeking an order to declare me a vexatious litigant].

As alluded to earlier in this statement, Y.A. would have had the advantage of reading this judgment after it was distributed by letter dated 11th August, 2011. This, in effect, amounts to placing, by Y.A. Datuk Haji Abdul Malik Bin Haji Ishak, alleged bad character evidence on my behalf.

In view of this, how can I get a fair trial or even the semblance of one before the trial judge now who has been further put in a position to compound biasness against me?

How can I possibly give evidence under oath when the DPP has, in his possession, the same judgment which could be used against me in cross-examination? Y.A. cannot be disabused of what has been fed to Y.A. by Y.A. Datuk Haji Abdul Malik Bin Haji Ishak when delivering a judgment dated 6th July, 2011 which obviously, having regard to the length thereof, must have been prepared well before 6th July, 2011.

This is scandalous.

Then again, why wasn't the judgment which, even if written after midnight on 5th July, 2011 read out in open court so that I could counter and demolish all the allegations made against me by Y.A. Datuk Haji Abdul Malik Bin Haji Ishak?

It is elementary no one should be condemned, unheard. This is axiomatic. As far back as 12th August, 1999 the Federal Court, the highest court in the land, in Insas Bhd and Anor v Ayer Molek Rubber Company Bhd and others had occasion, after adverting to the authorities on the position to rule,

'The offensive remarks made by the Court of Appeal against the High Court, the applicants and their counsel ought to be expunged from the judgment of the Court of Appeal, as it had a tendency to bring the whole administration of law and order into disrepute. Judicial pronouncements should be judicial in nature and should not depart from sobriety, moderation, and reserve. It also should not display emotion and intemperance, as displayed in the judgment of the Court of Appeal.'

Adverting to an Indian Supreme Court case of State of Uttar Pradesh v Mohd Naim, the Federal Court had occasion to adopt what was said there as follows;

'If there is one principle of cardinal importance in the administration of justice, it is this: the proper freedom and independence of judges and magistrates must be maintained and they must be allowed to perform      their functions freely and fearlessly and without undue interference by anybody, even by this court. At the same time it is equally necessary that in expressing their opinions, judges and magistrates must be guided by considerations of justice, fair play and restraint. It is not infrequent that sweeping generalizations defeat the very purpose for which they are made. It has been judicially recognized that in the matter of making disparaging remarks against persons or authorities whose conduct comes into consideration before courts of law in cases to be decided by them, it is relevant to consider: (a) whether the party  whose conduct is in question is before the court or has an opportunity of explaining or defending himself; (b) whether there is evidence on  record bearing on that conduct justifying the remarks; and (c) whether  it is necessary for the decision of the case, as an integral part thereof, to animadvert on conduct. It has also been recognized that judicial pronouncements must be judicial in nature, and should not normally depart from sobriety, moderation and reserve.'

In Insas, the Federal Court adopted what was said in AM Mathur v Pramod Kumar Gupta & Ors when dismissing an apparently unsustainable review petition which had certain derogatory remarks against Mr AM Mathur, a senior advocate and also the ex-Advocate General of the State. The Court had occasion to hold,
'Judicial restraint and discipline are as necessary to the orderly administration of justice as they are to the effectiveness of the army. The duty of restraint, this humility of function should be a constant theme of our judges. This quality in decision-making is as much necessary for judges to command respect as to protect the independence of the judiciary. Judicial restraint in this regard might be better called judicial respect, that is, respect by the judiciary. Respect to those who come before the court as well as to other co-ordinate branches of the State, the executive and the legislature. There must be mutual respect. When these qualities fail or when litigants and public believe that the judge has failed in these qualities, it will be neither good for the judge nor for the judicial process. The Judge's Bench is a seat of power. Not only do judges have power to make binding decisions, their decisions legitimate the use of power by other officials. The judges have the absolute and unchallengeable control of the court domain. But they cannot misuse their authority by intemperate comments, undignified banter of scathing criticism of counsel, parties or witnesses. We concede that the court had the inherent power to act freely upon its own conviction on any matter coming before it for adjudication, but it is a general principle of the highest importance to the proper administration of justice that derogatory remarks ought not to be made against persons or authorities whose conduct comes into consideration unless it is absolutely necessary for the decision of the case to animadvert on their conduct.'

Chief Justice of India, Bhagwati, in State of Madya Pradesh & Ors v Nandlal & Ors, in expressing his strong disapproval of the strictures made by the judge, stated:

'We may observe in conclusion that judges should not use strong and carping language while criticizing the conduct of parties or their witnesses. They must act with sobriety, moderation and restraint. They must have the humility to recognize that they are not infallible and any harsh and disparaging strictures passed by them against any party may be mistaken and unjustified and if so, they may do considerable harm and mischief and result in injustice. Here, in the present case, the observations made and strictures passed by BM Lal J were totally unjustified and unwarranted and they ought not to have been made.'

How could I under these circumstances give evidence under oath?

Y.A., when making the order for the witnesses offered to the defence for interview in court, gave a lifeline to the witnesses in stating in open court that they could refuse to be interviewed. Y.A. did not in doing so evenly handle the scales of justice. Y.A. created and perpetuated an imbalance unbecoming anyone holding the mantle of justice. In fact, the Prime Minister, Dato' Seri Najib Tun Razak, and his wife, Datin Seri Rosmah binti Mansor, former Inspector General of Police, Tan Sri Musa Hassan, and SAC Dato' Rodhwan bin Ismail who featured prominently in the evidence of PW1 came to the interview room echoing similar protests namely, "We are not prepared to be interviewed" with the Prime Minister saying Y.A. suggested this could be done. These were material witnesses compelling the defence now to resort to causing subpoenas to be issued for their presence.

Y.A. has created a position under which I cannot give evidence under oath. I say, with all the force at my command, that I would have been prepared and willing to give evidence under oath but for the handicaps foisted on me, in the manner Y.A. has conducted the trial and in the manner in which the Court of Appeal judgment dated 6th July, 2011 would have come to the notice of Y.A. with regard to what I have stated herein before.

My trial is an adversarial one and Y.A. ought not to have descended into the arena by suggesting witnesses offered to the defence could deny to be interviewed. It did not come within the province of Y.A. to do so.

My alibi witnesses made known to the prosecution were in fact included in the prosecution list of witnesses which was not supplied to my lawyers. They were defence alibi witnesses. I am informed this is the first time this has been done.

In fact, the owner of the unit 11-5-2, Haji Hasanuddin bin Abd Hamid, had been harassed by the police for  a total of thirty hours in the recording of his statements which were all video recorded. This was obvious when he was interviewed by the defence lawyers in my presence. The police investigation has scuttled my defence.

To make a mockery of the situation, the prosecution offered at the close of their case an alibi witness named, Fitria binti Dipan, who by their own admission cannot be traced.

THE COMPLAINANT'S ALLEGATIONS ARE PURE FABRICATION

As I have said at the outset, I categorically deny the allegations made against me by the complainant.

The complainant stated in evidence on 26th June, 2008 he arrived at Kondominium Desa Damansara at 2.45 p.m. to discuss work matters and hand-over documents given to him by one Ibrahim Yaakob [my Chief of Staff] to myself. He says he stopped his van at the security post and mentioned the code name 'Mokhtar' to the guards at the condominium before being allowed in. He parked his vehicle and took the lift to Unit 11-5-1 where I was allegedly seated at a dining table in the living room. He says he sat down at the same table and started the discussion. He told the court of the crude manner in which I had allegedly asked for sex.

The following appears in his evidence thereafter (as attached)

When questioned, he answered that he was angry and scared and that he was not prepared to do it but purportedly because I had appeared angry, he eventually obliged. It has to be observed at this stage the complainant could have, on his own admission in examination-in-chief, left the room as there is no evidence of any attempt by me to latch the door from inside.

He had further alleged that he was ordered into the bedroom and that he did enter out of fear. Even at this stage, the complainant had the opportunity to leave the living room. He did not do so. The rest of the evidence in this regard clearly showed that the complainant had every opportunity on every occasion to flee but he did not do so. His reason was that he was petrified by fear. But such a reason flies against the facts. Here is a man in his early twenties, a six-footer, physically fit and robust and with powerful connections in the top police brass as well as the political elite with access to the very inner sanctum of power. Additionally, he has also been a key UMNO student operative, having undergone the rigorous training conducted by the Biro Tats Negara of the Prime Minister's Department. And here I was a 60-year-old man with a history of back injury who had undergone a major back surgery holding no position of power. If indeed I could have exercised any kind of undue influence or mental pressure on him, this could have been easily neutralized by a quick phone call to his connections. As regards the fear of physical harm, it would take a great stretch of the imagination to suggest that I could pose any physical harm to him.

Under cross-examination, the following significant evidence was elicited from the complainant. He admitted that he had brought along lubricant and had himself voluntarily and without hesitation applied it. He claimed that carnal intercourse took place and that it was painful and coarse. However, this was clearly not borne out in the medical evidence in the prosecution case suggesting fissures or tears. After the alleged act, he testified that he had a drink and engaged in a friendly conversation with me. Startlingly, no attempt was made by the complainant to seek immediate medical attention. Instead, he attended a PKR function the following day. In the evening, he joined a meeting of the Anwar Ibrahim Club at my house without showing any sign of either emotional or physical discomfort let alone trauma. On the contrary, he was going about matters in a calm and confident manner. His conduct therefore is totally inconsistent with having been violated. In any event, he neither made a police report nor sought medical attention, notwithstanding that two days prior to the alleged act, he had met with Najib and Rosmah as well having talked on the phone with Musa Hassan and met with Rodhwan at a hotel.

It is obvious, from the evidence above, that the complainant was lying through his teeth although Y.A., despite the compelling evidence to the contrary, found him a truthful witness at the close of the prosecution case. This defies logic, let alone the law.

Then again, the expert evidence with regard to DNA led in the course of prosecution case through PW4, Dr. Seah Lay Hong and PW5, Nor Aidora bt Saedon was highly questionable in that crucial information pertaining to the DNA analysis of both the said witnesses which they were obliged to furnish to the court was suspiciously withheld despite them confirming the existence of such information. The real possibility that the samples analyzed were contaminated and even planted were completely disregarded despite such possibilities coming clearly within guidelines set by the international forensic community which were completely ignored, if not, blatantly disregarded by PW4 and PW5 to fit the prosecution's case. It is obvious had the said possibilities been explored, the conclusions reached would have been very different in that the complainant's own semen was found in his own anus, there was ample evidence of contributors other than Male Y around the complainant's perianal, lower and higher rectal region and there was clear evidence of the samples having been tampered with before they were sent for analysis. In such circumstances, the integrity of the said samples was surely compromised. Furthermore, the impartiality of PW4 was highly questionable having regard to the way in which she completely dismissed the very high possibility that the samples sent to her would have degraded to a certain degree by the time they reached her which such degradation was completely absent from all samples in this case. This clearly points to the obvious reality that the samples sent for analysis could not have been what were extracted from the complainant's person.

Trial within a Trial

The Gestapo-like manner in which I was arrested and the subsequent detention and interrogation by the police all betrayed the hands of the political masters at work. What was the need to send in balaclava clad commandos to effect the arrest if not to attempt to flex political muscle and to display pure vindictiveness? These startling facts were completely ignored by Y.A.

Y.A. had made an earlier ruling to exclude the recovery of certain items including water bottle, Good Morning towel, tooth paste from the lock-up at IPK, Kuala Lumpur where I had been detained overnight from 16.7.08 to 17.7.08. However, you reversed this ruling subsequently which is something most shocking and unprecedented.

Although in the Trial Within a Trial, I had adverted to the role of Taufik and Supt. Jude Pereira, the prosecution elected only to call Taufik in rebuttal in the Trial Within a Trial. Taufik attempted to produce a photostat copy of the warrant of arrest which was only marked as an ID and, therefore, could not be considered as evidence in the Trial Within a Trial. A photostat copy of a document is not admissible as evidence in a court of law. It was in the Trial Within a Trial that primary evidence of the document ought to have been given if the original record had been lost or destroyed.

The prosecution could not, by producing the original warrant of arrest in the main trial, cure the infirmity. It is in evidence that 3 copies of the warrant of arrest were in the possession of Supt. Jude Pereira. The evidence of the warrant of arrest was available during the Trial Within a Trial.

Even Supt. Jude Periera, whose role was adverted to by me during the Trial Within a Trial, chose not to take the stand despite having had the opportunity to have produced the original copy of the warrant of arrest in the Trial Within a Trial.

It was during the Trial Within a Trial that Supt.Jude Periera should have testified. It was clearly unlawful for the court to accept Supt. Jude Periera's evidence in the general trial for the purpose of rebutting my evidence in the Trial Within a Trial that the DNA profiling from the Good Morning towel, toothbrush and mineral water bottle had been obtained by unfair methods and unfair means and my arrest, therefore, had been procured unlawfully.

In fact, Supt. Jude Periera's evidence in the general trial confirms that there had been non-compliance with Rule 20 of the Lock-up Rules, 1953 in that I, after my arrest on 16.7.08, had not been placed in the lock-up from 6pm to 6am the following day. The provisions of Rule 20 are mandatory.

If this was the position in our case, which it was, then, clearly, my being taken to the HKL in breach of Rule 20 reflected unfair means and unfair methods being employed by the police to obtain the DNA profiling from the items set out hereinbefore. The position is further compounded by the evidence of Supt. Jude Periera in the general trial that he did not direct police personnel in charge of the lock-up not to touch the said items despite the police personnel in the general trial before the Trial Within a Trial, clearly, saying that Supt. Jude Periera had done so.

So the position comes to this, Supt. Jude Periera, in his evidence on oath in the main trial, supports the defence case that unfair methods and unfair means had been used by the police to obtain DNA profiling from the items set out hereinbefore.

From the ruling made by the court to exclude the items, it is clear it was based on unfair means and unfair methods employed by the police meaning it was by trick and deception that the police attempted to introduce the DNA evidence.

In any event, from the evidence of DSP Taufik given in the Trial Within a Trial and the general trial, the grounds of arrest could not have been given by him to me in Segambut as this is, clearly, contradicted by the evidence of S.N. Nair and myself.

The question of challenging evidence given in the main trial by DSP Taufik and Supt. Jude Periera does not arise. It was the assertions made under oath by me that my arrest was unlawful and unfair methods and unfair means had been used to obtain his DNA profiling in the Trial Within a Trial stood unchallenged by the prosecution by leading lawful evidence in rebuttal of those assertions. In fact, Y.A. should have drawn an adverse inference against the prosecution for not having done so.

FORENSIC EVIDENCE

The prosecution case rests on the evidence of the DNA and so called "findings of seminal fluid" or "sperm" as they claim. As a matter of fact, this is the only forensic evidence upon which the foundation of the prosecution's so-called proof rests. Yet, this foundation is erected on shaky grounds though this has not prevented them working in hand in glove with the powers that be to mount an insidious and relentless campaign to vilify me.

The fact is that there is not an iota of evidence, DNA or otherwise, that has ever been found in the premises of the alleged act, not in the wash room, bed room, carpets or anywhere else where such evidence ought to have been found.

Supt. Pereira, despite being instructed to keep the HKL samples (marked B1 to B10) in a freezer, deliberately defied the instruction of Dr Siew Sheue Fong (HKL Forensic Doctor) and also admitted that he was in serious breach of the IGSO, (he even stated he took full and personal responsibility for breaking of the IGSO), when he deliberately kept the HKL samples in his office cabinet for about 43 hrs before delivering them to the Chemist. One must not forget that the alleged act was supposed to have occurred two days prior to the said samples having been extracted. Coupled with this 43-hour delay in delivery to the Chemist, it would mean that the samples were already at least 90 hours old by the time they were examined by the Chemist. Undoubtedly, the samples would have totally degraded. Yet evidence by the prosecution claimed that no degradation of any consequence had occurred.

In any event, even the 43-hour delay alone would have seriously compromised the integrity of the samples in terms of its deterioration due to bacterial action. Also, by not storing the samples in the police exhibit store (which will accord access only to him), his deliberate omission of such strict rules of the IGSO has by his very act, presented an opportunity and possibility of tampering of the samples as access to others was made easier. This was disregarded.

There are also no cogent or compelling reasons both in law and practice for Supt Jude Pereira to cut open P27 (the big tamperproof bag containing all the HKL samples which was sealed and handed over to him), ostensibly to remark them (B1 to B10). It is clear that this act was just a convenient excuse to get access to the individual samples which by themselves were clearly not tamperproof as they were deliberately "sealed" with ordinary and easily removable tapes and easily removable HKL paper seals.

Dr Siew Sheue Fong , as evident in court, was most reluctant to refer to his medical notes during cross examination despite being unable to remember details. During the break he was caught surreptitiously taking a sneak peek of his notes. This dishonest act of a professional doctor who ought to have conducted himself in a fair and independent manner was blatantly ignored. Many a time Dr. Siew and Dr Mohd Razali Ibrahim deliberately chose not to answer pertinent questions put to them by my counsel. Instead Dr Siew  and Dr Razali's evidence was accepted without reservation.

Dr Seah Lay Hong  (the Chemist) gave evidence that when she received the 12 HKL samples there were 2 samples that were marked as taken on very different dates, she testified she did nothing to seek clarification from Dr Siew . She further testified that she "gave the benefit of doubt" to Dr Siew. My lawyers submitted strenuously that such acts and/or omissions amount to a serious breach of the cardinal rules of international lab protocols and those of the Jabatan Kimia Malaysia. Despite such blatant exposures and abject failures of non observance of strict rules, Dr Seah's evidence was well received and in totality when it ought to have been jettisoned in totality for reasons of incompetence and gross negligence.

The defence evidence will show that the prosecution claim to have proof of the presence of "seminal fluid" or "sperm" is completely unfounded. In fact, this purported proof is nothing but pure fabrication, a fact which is not that unusual considering the past history of the prosecution in this regard. If they had had any such forensic evidence, they would have guarded it for dear life rather than let it being handled in such a sloppy manner.

SUMMATION

Your Lordship has failed to ensure a fair trial as demonstrated, inter alia, by the following instances:

1. Your refusal during the course of the trial to order disclosure of material critical to my defence, most of which you thought was sufficiently relevant and which fairness required that you should order it to be disclosed before the trial. Your failure to fairly and properly exercise his judicial discretion to order disclosure was not only contrary to Malaysian laws but violated the international standards expected of a modern state which purports to practice the rule of law.

2. Your refusal to act accordingly either to take cognizance or to hold to account those responsible for the flagrant acts of leaking and publishing in the media of prosecution submissions before the matter was heard in court; your utter indifference to my protestations about these transgressions has wittingly or unwittingly facilitated the conspiracy to vilify me in the court of public opinion even as the trial is in progress.

3. Your failure to order that witnesses critical to my defence attend the trial to testify, in circumstances where their involvement was patently material to the issues at trial and recorded under oath in the complainant's testimony and admitted by statements made by these witnesses to the media. These witnesses relate to the circumstances in which the complainant came to make his early complaints against me. Nothing could be more material to the credit of the complainant.

4. Your finding the complainant to be "a truthful witness" at the close of the prosecution case clearly amounted to prejudgment demonstrating in the process a clear bias against me. Consequently, you have deprived me of my constitutionally guaranteed right to a fair hearing the effect of which is to entitle me to an unconditional release with the charges leveled against me falling to the ground. Notwithstanding this, you have not only failed to order my release but have adamantly refused to recuse yourself from further presiding at the trial.

5. Your arriving at the conclusion that the complainant was a witness of truth without first hearing the evidence of the defence would render the continuation of this trial an exercise in futility. What use would there be for me to adduce evidence to show that the complainant is in fact a liar if you have already found "him to be a truthful witness" and that his evidence is reliable and conclusive and by virtue of that irrefutable? It is untenable and the law does not allow you to do what you have done.

6. Your finding that the complainant has corroborated himself by complaining to the medical doctors of sexual assault was a glaring error of law apart from it being in gross disregard of a finding of fact, that is, that the clinical finding had indicated no evidence of penetration. Additionally, your failure to question why the prosecution has for no apparent reason refused to call in the first medical officer who had examined the complainant to testify. Did it not cross your mind that this failure was prompted by the need to suppress evidence that might be unfavourable to the prosecution?

7. Your accepting without hesitation the forensic evidence as corroborative of the complainant's account in circumstances where there were obvious concerns about how those samples were obtained, labelled, stored and analyzed.

CONCLUSION

This entire process is nothing but a conspiracy by Prime Minister Dato' Seri Najib Razak to send me into political oblivion by attempting once again to put me behind bars. I therefore declare that I have no faith whatsoever that justice will prevail in these proceedings notwithstanding the valiant efforts made by my defence team. As I have said at the outset, this is not a criminal trial. It is a charade staged by the powers that be to put me out of action in order that they remain in power.

In 1998, Tun Dr. Mahathir Mohamad did just that and by his Machiavellian use of all the organs of power of the State, succeeded in getting me convicted for fifteen years for offences that I had never committed. Such was the tyranny and injustice done to me then. And such is the tyranny and injustice being perpetuated today.

Najib Razak is doing the same thing as his mentor did, which is to employ all means within his power through the media, the police, the Attorney General and the judiciary in order to subvert the course of justice and to take me out of the political equation.

This relentless conviction to send me back to prison became all the more imperative because of the major victories gained by the opposition Pakatan Rakyat in the March 2008 elections. Their worst fears were confirmed when it became clear that once my legal disqualification was over I would be contesting for a parliamentary seat and if I won, would be elected leader of the opposition.

It was therefore no coincidence that this new conspiracy surfaced three months after the March 2008 victories and the formal charge against me was made just one month prior to my contesting the Permatang Pauh parliamentary seat. The sequence of events that unfolded prior to the formal charge appeared to be lifted from the plot of 1998 minus, in this latest episode, the black eye affair and the purported victims being led into court as partners in crime. In this second episode, the conspirators have tweaked the plot to make the complainant take on the role of a helpless victim, having realized that the 1998 method of employing Stalin-like confessions and the portrayal of the alleged victims as remorseful and repentant sexual deviants were just too much for the public to believe.

Hence, during the entire examination of the complainant, the prosecution left no stone unturned in their attempt at painting the picture of a helpless, naive and innocent young man who is a witness of truth and whose testimony should be believed regardless of any evidence to the contrary. The fact is that in the entire scheme of things, the complainant, who was just a university drop out working part time helping out my chief of staff, is essentially a pawn being employed by the shady plotters to achieve their devious ends in the conspiracy. And yet it was the decision of the court after the close of the prosecution case that he indeed is a truthful witness.

The preparation entailed in this conspiracy was most elaborate and went all the way to the Prime Minister himself and his wife Rosmah Mansor both of whom by the complainant's own admission had met him in their residence where he purportedly complained of being sexually assaulted. The initial statement by Najib that he had met with the complainant merely to discuss about a scholarship was a blatant lie only to be retracted later after various exposes were made via the social media and the internet blogs. It was obvious that neither Najib nor Rosmah would not want to be seen to be part of the conspiracy being themselves embroiled in a series of other scandals the details of which have been raised in Parliament which to date have never been categorically refuted. But the stakes in this conspiracy are so high that nothing can be left to pure chance for indeed the prospect of the UMNO led Barisan Nasional losing power to Pakatan Rakyat is becoming more real by the day.

The main thrust of the conspiracy was to fabricate this sodomy charge in order to inflict maximum damage to my character in the run-up campaign to the by-elections.  Towards this end, an intense and virulent media blitz was launched concurrently with the staging of rallies and ceramahs where the focus of the debate was not on any social, economic or even political issues but purely on my person and my morality. The plotters for reasons known only to themselves became privy to information which would be used subsequently by the prosecution and went to town in an orgy of character assassination calculated no doubt to ensure a humiliating defeat for me in the polls. But Allah is Great and instead of losing, I won the Permatang Pauh seat with a thumping majority of 15,000 votes.

But the zeal to consign me to political oblivion continues unabated. Najib seems to think that by destroying my political future, it would also destroy the prospects of Pakatan Rakyat ever coming to power.

Hence, nothing is spared to ensure that I will be convicted in order that the UMNO led Barisan government continues to rule.

Having regard to all the above, I now wish to state that this trial is for all intents and purposes a show trial. I say this not to mock your Lordship nor with animosity towards anyone personally but I sit before you in the dock only to speak what I know and what I believe with conviction to be the truth. And this conviction is borne by having been in public service for more than forty years a quarter of which was spent within the walls of incarceration in Kamunting and in Sungai Buloh. The fact remains that I was condemned to imprisonment not because of any crime that I had committed but for my political beliefs and convictions and more significantly because back in 1998 I had posed a clear and present threat to the more than two decades of autocratic rule of Mahathir.

I say it because as I've stated earlier, the court's integrity has been completely compromised and bears all the classic symptoms of a show trial where the script has been effectively written and the outcome a foregone conclusion. I say it because as a presiding judge you have demonstrated beyond the shadow of a doubt your complete lack of impartiality. I say it because you have consistently refused to recuse yourself even in the face of mounting evidence of your bias against me. I say it too because you have persistently turned a blind eye to the gross violations of protocol and procedure committed by the prosecution while at the same remaining impervious to my protestations about these blatant irregularities that would have without more alerted any impartial judge as to the malice and bad faith of the prosecution.

In the matter of the duty of a judge, the Holy Qur'an commands:

"And when you judge between mankind

Then you judge justly"

Surah An-Nisaa:58

ANWAR IBRAHIM

Fitnah II:Mereka Tidak Boleh Menakutkan Saya

Posted: 21 Aug 2011 08:03 PM PDT

The Malaysian Insider

Ketua Umum Pakatan Rakyat Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim berkata beliau tidak pernah mengadakan sebarang hubungan seks dengan bekas pembantu peribadinya Mohd Saiful Bukhari Azlan.

"Saya sama sekali menafikan tuduhan ke atas saya. Saya mahu mengatakan, dengan tidak ragu-ragu bahawa saya tidak pernah mengadakan hubungan seks dengan pengadu Mohd Saiful," kata beliau dalam kenyataannya di Mahkamah Tinggi hari ini.

Kandungan keterangan Anwar di Mahkamah Tinggi pagi ini, yang dibuat dari kandang tertuduh, diemelkan kepada media.

Anwar, Ahli Parlimen Permatang Pauh, memilih untuk memberi keterangan dari kandang tertuduh.

"Dakwaan dia (Saiful) adalah satu pembohongan terus-terang dan kejam dan (ia) akan dibuktikan demikian," kata Anwar yang juga Ketua Pembangkang di Parlimen.

Anwar menambah dakwaan itu juga satu usaha keji dan hina untuk membunuh karakter beliau.

"Dalam hal ini, biar saya menekankan semula bahawa mereka boleh melakukan apa sahaja yang mereka mahu untuk membunuh karakter saya dan mencemarkan reputasi saya dan mengugut saya sekali lagi dengan hukuman penjara 20 tahun, tetapi ambil kata-kata saya, mereka tidak boleh menakutkan saya," katanya.

Sambil menegaskan beliau tidak akan menyerah diri dalam usahanya melawan tuduhan kali ini, Anwar berkata, "kebenaran akan terbukti kelak."

Anwar berhadapan dengan kes liwat kedua dalam tempoh satu dekad ini.

Pada 16 Mei, mahkamah memerintahkan Anwar membela diri selepas memutuskan bahawa Saiful, pengadu dalam kes itu, adalah seorang saksi yang boleh dipercayai dan berwibawa.

Anwar mengaku tidak bersalah di Mahkamah Sesyen pada 7 Ogos 2008, atas tuduhan melakukan seks di luar tabii di Kondominium Desa Damansara di Bukit Damansara, antara 3.10 petang dan 4.30 petang pada 26 Jun tahun yang sama.

Pimpinan

Angkatan Muda

Cabang