A sordid case of déjà vu: Thanks, Jibby, for making Anwar look better than ever!

Courtesy of Malaysiakini

By doggedly pursuing the ludicrous sodomy charge against Anwar Ibrahim, Najib Razak and his co-conspirators in Umno have given the Opposition Leader's public image a massive boost and made him look like the Prime Minister we all deserve after 45 years of parasitic and piratic misrule.

Indeed, Sodomy II has given Anwar unprecedented international media attention and the moral support of a huge upswelling of sympathy from Malaysians of all walks of life, even those normally apathetic about local politics. Anwar has never looked better - at least Malaysian taxpayers didn't have to fork out hundreds of millions in professional fees to a Jewish PR company named APCO Worldwide - while Najib has never looked worse.

Pic by Jack Ooi for The Malaysian Insider

Nik Aziz, late spiritual leader of PAS, arrives at the High Court in a show of support for Anwar Ibrahim as his trial commences (Pic by Jack Ooi for The Malaysian Insider)

Anwar hugs an elderly supporter who broke through the crowd to bless his hero (Pic by Jack Ooi for The Malaysian Insider)


Malaysia itself is in the dock ~ Wall Street Journal

2 FEB 2010 — More than a decade after he was beaten, tried and jailed, opposition leader Anwar Ibrahim will once again face a Kuala Lumpur court today on charges of sodomy. The accusations are highly dubious and raise a serious question: Is this moderate Muslim democracy becoming a nation with no real rule of law?

The circumstances surrounding Anwar’s prosecution are suspiciously familiar to most Malaysians. In 1998, he was arrested as he was mounting serious arguments against the increasingly erratic government of United Malays National Organisation chief Mahathir Mohamed. Anwar’s former aide Munawar Anees describes being tortured and forced to confess to sodomy, a criminal offense in Malaysia. Anwar was convicted of sodomy and abuse of power and served six years in jail before the sodomy ruling was overturned in 2004. He was allowed to run for political office again in 2008, which he did, in earnest.

Anwar was arrested again in July 2008, a day after participating in his first nationally televised debate in more than a decade—an event that showcased his political skills and highlighted the growing momentum behind his three-party opposition coalition. He was accused of sodomy with a 23-year-old former aide, Saiful Bukhari Azlan. Saiful was taken into protective police custody after he made his allegation and has since rarely been seen in public. The government denies any political motivation for the charges. Saiful himself has not been charged.

As in 1998, the evidence in this case is thin at best. The police made a show of arresting Anwar, put him in jail for a night, and forced him to undergo a humiliating medical “examination.” The government then passed a bill in parliament to give the police expanded powers to collect DNA in criminal cases. Anwar’s lawyers claim they have a hospital report that shows no sodomy occurred.

Also troubling is the public involvement of Prime Minister Najib Razak, who was deputy leader at the time of Mr Anwar’s 2008 arrest—and the man most politically threatened by Anwar’s popularity. Najib acknowledged that he was photographed with and spoke to Saiful (pictured right) after he was allegedly sodomised and before he went to the hospital for tests. Najib says he didn’t influence Saiful’s decision to press charges. Saiful couldn’t be reached for comment.

This story would sound familiar in a tin-pot dictatorship. But Malaysia isn’t one. Along with Indonesia, it forms the backbone of the 10-member Association of Southeast Asian Nations. Its citizens today have far more access to news and information through the Internet than they did 12 years ago. They also have the power to vote.

And that may be the mechanism that keeps Malaysia free and honest. Ordinary citizens—including the majority ethnic Malays—increasingly support Anwar’s secular platform of religious tolerance, economic liberty and modernisation. The opposition won five of 13 states in national elections in 2008, and it has since won seven of nine by-elections. Anwar was re-elected to parliament in a by-election the month after his arrest in 2008. There will likely be protests in front of the courthouse to show support for him.

The trial that begins today threatens domestic political unrest and undermines confidence, at home and around the world, in Malaysia’s rule of law. ~ Wall Street Journal

"Although things remain calm on the surface, civil society is traumatized by such a naked display of power and crude perversion of justice. The trust between the government and the people is broken and the government’s respect and legitimacy bleeds away. Deep undercurrents of discontent are created which must eventually manifest in some ways. Anwar’s fight to clear his name will be a defining moment for Malaysia. This is not about one man’s fight for justice but an indicator of the path the nation is taking." ~ Bruce Tan, Harakah

[First posted 2 February 2010. Reposted 7 March 2014]

Reproduced directly from Malaysiakini as a public service... shame on you, Najib!

11:19AM Feb 14, 2015

By John R Malott

The world, in unison, slams the Anwar verdict

 42  0  6 

48

COMMENT Many Malaysians have commented on the speed with which the government responded to the Federal Court's verdict last Tuesday, in which the jurists found Opposition Leader Anwar Ibrahim, guilty of sodomy and sentenced him to five years in prison.

Less than 20 minutes after the chief justice announced the court's decision, an official government statement was sent to the media, both Malaysian and international. For a government whose usual response is either "elegant silence" or to send out short and callous "tweets" about important and highly-charged topics (like the fate of the victims in the Malaysia Airlines crashes), this was indeed remarkable.

In its "defence", the government said that it had prepared two different statements, depending on which way the verdict went. We did the same thing when I was in the US government, so I will accept the government's explanation at face value. But that does not excuse the content of the government's statement, which was seriously flawed.

Let's take a look at the government's claims. First came the assertion that:

"The judges will have reached their verdict only after considering all the evidence in a balanced and objective manner. Malaysia has an independent judiciary, and there have been many rulings against senior government figures."

But does the world believe that Malaysia has an independent judiciary, and that the court was balanced and objective?

The court's decision was immediately criticised by the governments of the United States, the United Kingdom, Australia, Canada, New Zealand, Germany, and Switzerland, among others, as well as the European Union.

The embassies and high commissions of these countries sent observers to cover Anwar's trials over the past many years. They all concluded that the verdict raised major questions about the independence of the Malaysian judiciary.

Likewise, respected international human rights organisations such as Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, and the International Federation for Human Rights said the same thing.

The International Commission of Jurists (ICJ) and the Inter Parliamentary Union (IPU) also condemned the court's verdict.

Especially telling were the comments of Mark Trowell (left), a Queen’s Counsel who represented the IPU, LAWASIA, and the Law Council of Australia. He said the decision of the Federal Court "was unconvincing and lacked a detailed analysis of the facts."

Further blasting the court, he said that "in reaching these conclusions, the court rejected or ignored the evidence that raised serious doubts about the reliability of so-called independence evidence and the credibility of the complainant."

In the most damning statement of all, Trowell said, "If the court had proper regard to the facts and the law, Anwar Ibrahim should never have been convicted."

As for the ICJ, it said, "Anwar Ibrahim should never have been investigated, charged with, tried, let alone convicted of and sentenced for such charges."

World press, too, speaks out

Some of the most prestigious publications in the world, such as theWashington Post, the Wall Street Journal, and the Economist also have spoken out.

The Washington Post wrote in an editorial, "The criminal case used to imprison Mr Anwar, who has been one of the foremost advocates of liberal democracy in the Muslim world, was as morally reprehensible as it was farcical...

“The case against him was thin enough to be dismissed by a court in 2012. That Mr Najib's government managed to have that decision reversed by an appeals court and upheld by the Supreme Court demonstrated only that Malaysia still lacks an independent judiciary."

Calling the verdict ‘Malaysia's Anwar shame,’ the Wall Street Journal said, "Umno's decades-long vendetta against Mr Anwar has brought discredit on Malaysia's government and political culture. It is likely to accelerate the ruling party's loss of support from a maturing population repulsed by such dirty tricks. Prime Minister Najib Razak's failure to call an end to this farce is a stain on his legacy."

In describing the verdict, Murray Hiebert at the Centre for Strategic and International Studies in Washington DC, which normally is sympathetic towards Malaysia, told a German television network that "it's pretty much a travesty of justice and an attempt to sideline an opposition politician who has been challenging the ruling party in recent years."

Josh Kurlantzick of the Council on Foreign Relations, without doubt the most prestigious foreign policy institute in the United States, tweeted that "any belief in Najib Razak as some kind of reformer should now be fully and totally extinguished."

And Dan Slater, a Southeast Asia specialist at the University of Chicago, told the Toronto Globe and Mail newspaper in Canada that when the government decided to appeal Anwar's acquittal in the High Court, the government's actions became "nothing better than a witch-hunt."

Fabrication of evidence

So here's a question for the public relations masters in Putrajaya.

You can claim that "Malaysia's judiciary is independent" until you are blue in the face. But can you name one foreign government, one international human rights organisation, one international newspaper, one foreign think-tank, or one overseas academic who agrees with the decision - and who concurs with your assertion that the verdict was the just conclusion of an independent judiciary?

I don't think so.

But I am also sure that you are now coming up with more multi-million dollar proposals for the government to try and sway world opinion. Save your money. Remember all the wasted dollars you spent on Jack Abramoff, Apco, FBC Media, and Paul Stadlen. They all failed totally to achieve their paid objectives.

The government's press release then went on to say:

"The police report against Anwar Ibrahim was brought by a private individual - Anwar's employee and personal assistant - not by the government. As the victim of a serious sexual assault, he had every right to have his case heard in court."

Yes, it is true that the initial police report was filed by Mohd Saiful Bukhari Azlan, but only after he had met with Najib and wife Rosmah Mansor, as well as the infamous police official from Sodomy I, Mohd Rodwan Mohd Yusof.

We know about Najib and Rosmah, but just to remind everyone about Rodwan - according to a Malaysiakini report in 2008, in the 1998-1999 trials, Anwar experienced the phenomenon of fabrication of DNA evidence.

We had senior assistant commissioner (SAC) Rodwan illegally removing DNA samples from forensic custody. In cross-examination of the prosecution's witnesses, it was exposed that DNA taken from blood samples was planted on the infamous mattress.

When confronted with this fact, the prosecution amended its charge and persuaded the late judge, Augustine Paul (who was later promoted to the Federal Court), to expunge the entire DNA evidence from the record, preventing Anwar Ibrahim's lawyers from responding.

Back to the present.

Even after Saiful, a college dropout, met with the then deputy prime minister and filed the police report, it was up to the government to decide whether to file charges against Anwar. So from that moment forward, it was the government's case, not Saiful's.

And when Anwar was acquitted, it was the government that decided to file the appeal, not Saiful. At that point, it was clear, as Professor Slater of the University of Chicago said, that the government was on a "witch-hunt". They were once again determined to remove Anwar as a force in Malaysian politics.

Saiful as the victim?

The government's press release also calls Saiful "the victim of a serious sexual assault."

But wait a minute - wasn't the charge "consensual sex"? And didn't attorney-general Abdul Gani Patail just say that the reason Saiful also was not charged for consensual sex was because he had turned state's witness and agreed to testify against Anwar?

So if it was consensual, why does the Prime Minister's Office call Saiful a "victim" of sexual assault?

If you say that Saiful (right) was assaulted, then we are back to square one - the government's original and totally unbelievable claim - that a young, strong, strapping man was raped time and time again by someone who was 40 years older than he was - but somehow was never able to escape. Baloney.

Finally, as I wrote this, I saw that the Federal Court's written judgment has now been released. They said that the testimony of distinguished DNA experts like Dr Brian McDonald and Dr David D Wells was not credible.

But they said that Saiful was a credible witness. They chose Saiful over these distinguished Australian academics.

And then I remembered Saiful's alleged affair with the deputy public prosecutor during the course of the trial.

When others talked about Saiful's affair with the government prosecutor, they asked, did it compromise the government? Did they share legal information during their pillow talk?

I see it in a different way.

I think about the fact that Saiful was engaged to another woman at that time. He had promised to marry this young woman. And yet he betrayed her and engaged in an affair with another woman, who was on the prosecuting team.

To betray your fiancée, the woman you promised to share your life with, the woman you said you loved and promised to marry, means that you are a liar and a cheat. It means that you are deceptive and your words cannot be relied on.

And Saiful was doing this - lying and cheating - at the exact moment the trial was being conducted, when he was testifying. And yet the Federal Court called this liar and this cheat a "credible witness."

Is it any wonder the world doesn't believe a word that the Malaysian public relations machine and the Malaysian courts are spitting out these days?

---

JOHN R MALOTT is former United States ambassador to Malaysia.

Malik Imtiaz reports on what happened at the Putrajaya Federal Court last week...

Counsel Malik Imtiaz on RPK Habeas Corpus Appeal

PART 1


PART 2


The legalistic charade continues tomorrow. But let's pray that there are still enough honest judges left in the Malaysian judiciary to halt the march of unmitigated evil. Justice demands that RPK be free to speak his truth and defend his writings in an open court.

See you at the Federal Court Monday, 23 Feb 2009!

[Video courtesy of Pahlawan Volunteers, posted on 18 February 2009]

Morituri Te Salutant, Malaysia!

THOSE WHO ARE ABOUT TO DIE SALUTE YOU, MALAYSIA!


Late last night, a group of us met up and, very quickly, the conversation turned to RPK’s ‘Probably my last message’ post.

The discussion became very heated.

Tempers flared.

At the heart of all that was said was an earnest concern for a man who has come to mean so much to so many of us.

A man who has thus far displayed such tenacity in pushing for change, in pressing for greater transparency and accountability in governance, and tirelessly working to free so many from the mental bondage inflicted by a media so long subservient to their corrupt, political masters.

Yet, we feared that it was this same tenacity that would leave our friend dead in less than two weeks.

[Read the rest at Haris Ibrahim's blog, The People's Parliament.]


Monday, 23 February 2009 marks the day the would-be Malaysian emperor Najib Abdul Razak gleefully awaits word that his wishes have been faithfully carried out and that his archenemy, Raja Petra Kamarudin, would have his freedom curtailed under the grotesque operation of an obscene and archaic law, by order of an utterly despicable and unscrupulous home minister named Syed Hamid Albar.

Raja Petra Kamarudin - the only truly royal and noble personage in our midst in that he wholeheartedly loves his country and all its people, regardless of ethnic origin or cultural imprint - has vowed that, if he be rearrested under the obnoxious ISA, he will not let his persecutors have the pleasure of encaging his spirit. Instead, he will refuse all food and drink and sit silent in his cell until his soul separates from his physical body; and by those ascetic and non-violent means he will set himself forever free.

Is it any wonder that Raja Petra Kamarudin (or RPK as everybody calls him) has won the hearts of all honest, truth-loving citizens; and has become Malaysia's greatest living hero, mobbed by fans wherever he goes? RPK's indefatigable support for Anwar Ibrahim and the Pakatan Rakyat government in the making helped swing the votes against Barisan Nasional on 8 March 2008. A large portion of the credit for the political tsunami of 2008 therefore goes to RPK - and that is precisely why the nefarious Najib Razak and his Umno supporters want RPK safely locked away.

Would it trouble Najib's conscience if RPK died within a couple of weeks of being reimprisoned? Not at all. However, if this scenario were to happen in the coming weeks, RPK's may not be the only death that symbolizes the death of participatory democracy in Malaysia. A handful of RPK's loyal friends and ardent freedom-fighters have sworn to accompany him on his fast-to-the-death, in protest against the travesty of justice brought about by a neutered judiciary, subservient to the political order of the day.

This would focus international attention on the tattered state of justice in Malaysia and put the spotlight on Najib Razak's immense unpopularity as a potential prime minister, making his bid for power an accursed and illegitimate one in the eyes of the rakyat.

I salute the courage and fortitude of those who are about to lay down their lives for freedom, justice and truth in Malaysia. And I spit upon the cowardice of those who continue to carry out unjust orders rather than risk their jobs by making a moral stand at this critical juncture of our history.