Wednesday, November 12, 2014

Najib terrorized by fanatics in UMNO a head of Umno GA, knives are out

a plan to oust Najib. If Najib can’t read this, it will be the end of him. If Najib wants to continue as PM, he has to counter all the propaganda created by his enemies within Umno to affirm his party position.Why this rage? Why this sense of injustice stemming from angry  Malay against Najib

Every good drama needs a few sub-plots whirling through the mainframe. The most captivating within our current political theatre is surely the joust that Muhyiddin has begun with Najib. On surface level, it is not much more than a claim for primacy between a politician who will inherit the Prime Minister post as his birthright, and the outsider who learnt life’s lessons in a teashop. But no story-within-a-story is worth the price of admission if it is limited to the obvious.
If you were cooking up a formula for an ideal prime minister, the mixture would surely be a base of Solomon’s wisdom, with one ladle of Alexander’s strategic skills, topped off by the confidence of David, who slew heavily armed giants with a single sling-shot. But no recipe works without salt. Salt is luck. Corruption is a slippery slope for anyone in power. Mahathir should have stuck to its familiar narrative of populism and stability, for such advertising can be backed by evidence. The parallel assault on Anwar’s persona could also boomerang, since UMNO members considers  Najib can-do-must-do methods to be strength rather than weakness. 

This political game to highlight Najib's weaknesses and greed seems to cover Mahathir’s earlier bigger weaknesses and greed. None of these Umno leaders are interested in the welfare of the Malays or the country - it is just their greed for power and personal gain.
In bemoaning the inadequacy of not giving and doing more for the Malays, he seems to be totally unmindful of the huge deficit in equitable distribution of wealth even among them, especially in the last 25 years of Umno's leadership.

In marked contrast to the promise of radical change raised by Najib when he became PM, there is a palpable sense that conventional power dynamics has returned. The prime minister’s juggling a variety of race and regional equations is geared to consolidate and further expand  his mandate. This means that he has settled for a more down-to-earth approach to politics rather than chase for a brave new world.Prime Minister Najib is going to be his own man, not yielding to pressure of any kind whether from Former premier Dr Mahathir Mohamad If there was any doubt on this score, it was laid to rest when PM  Najib has left little doubt in the minds of his colleagues that he intends to be a hard taskmaster, will sack Muhyiddin Yassin and set clear targets Muhyiddin must shed his reputation of being a  racist and that its leaders had to lead a moderate lifestyle.‎

Prime Minister Najib is going to be his own man, not yielding to pressure of any kind whether from Former premier Dr Mahathir Mohamad If there was any doubt on this score, it was laid to rest when PM  Najib has left little doubt in the minds of his colleagues that he intends to be a hard taskmaster, will sack Muhyiddin Yassin and set clear targets Muhyiddin must shed his reputation of being a  racist and that its leaders had to lead a moderate lifestyle.‎
Muhyiddin  insists he was not being racist when he said he was Malay first and Malaysian second.Muhyiddin  said he was merely evaluating the position of the Malay race in society, and stressed there was no need for him to be apologe“Although there are some who label me an ultra for saying that I am Malay first, I am no racist,” The Star quoted Muhyiddin , as saying.
Muhyiddin , who is also the Education Minister, further said there is still a lot of room for improvement of the country’s education system, not just for Malays, but for all Malaysians.Even if we address problems on a need basis, the target group that we cannot neglect is the majority (the Malays) Malaysia’s Najib Faces UMNO Party and Mahathir Protest
Najib will not be missed as PM. Peter’s Principle (1969) states that bureaucracies promote people to the level of their incompetence. Nothing could be truer than this in Najib’s case, and almost never listened to. Liberation from the extended coalition dharma of UMNO 1 spelt his doom, as power effectively passed to the inner political core of UMNO. Najib’s expertise has always been in managing to walk the mean between economic fundamentalism and democratic acceptability. The art of the possible. This is what makes him an exceptional . His credibility overseas is far higher than his domestic ratings. He would make an exceptional, high level diplomat for spreading knowledge on the magnificent success ofMalaysia economy, using the time honored  instrument of Malaysia. A combination of problem solving skills based on the ability to spin interventions, which have no immediate international precedents, but fit the extant environment and adhere to basic economic principles.said

If BN cannot get back Selangor which many (excluding UMNO) believe, then thats the last nail in the coffin. BN and UMNO especially must get the support of the 40% Malay voters that had gone to the Opposition back. If tha % increased in PKR favour, then BN is doomed. Forget Chinese and Indian voters. They have made their minds long time already not to support BN not for anything else but just to TRY what PKR can do by giving them one term just one term. There is no risk there. IF PKR fails to perform, kick them out. But voters will judge how the Opposition perform in Penang, Selangor and Kelantan. So you see the Chinese and Indian principle is very straight forward unlike the Malays., who have to think of the Ketuanan Melayu, Islam some more and many other variables in the Voting equation which to the Chinese and Indians are of very little or no significance.

Noh, the Selangor Umno liaison chief, hit back at Dr Mahathir last week, asking him to explain Umno's image as a corrupt party and when the public began 

 when Tun Mahathir saying that it is up to Najib to accept the blame or not. In this case, I don't see that it is the fault of Najib. We cannot judge a failure of a party, only with the regaining of a state. How about the achievement of government in maintaining the rest of the state?
True to form Mahathir is at his usual ruthless and sarcastic self when he said "It is up to him (whether he wants to accept the blame for the dismal performance in the polls)." He just stabbed Najib in the back, twisted the knife and gave Najib another back hand slap. And true to form, Najib will remain silent and let his ministers defend him.Mahathir better understand, that no matter who takes the lead in Selangor, whether Pakatan or BN, get rid of CORRUPTION. Period.Who ever is corrupt free, they will lead. BN can never be clean, as long as SCUMNO is involved. They are corrupt to the core. Mahathir is the one who led the pack.He destroyed civil society. And, now he is pointing fingers at everybody and pontificating. The very people he is pointing are, his own, handpicked people. I suppose his conscious is now troubling as he prepares to meet his maker.

After an uncommon fight on the anti-corruption plank and disrupting the political landscape of the country That’s playing to the gallery. With a handful of populist acts of late, which political parties often resort to in their desire to curry favour with voters, Najib has already taken a handful of populist decisions lately which include free  kangkung  PM has “landed himself in the kangkong soup” after he hit back at the people for criticising the government following the increase in the price of goods. all leading to a higher subsidy burden for the government. Subsidies don’t come from thin air either. The common man should understand that it’s taken back through taxes on other goods and services, which they only have to pay. a bogey taken up by a section of politicians seeking to play to a certain vote bank. In this case the vote bank are the rich traders, who have been historically UMNO sympathizers and who also contribute generously to the party funds. It’s got nothing to do with people on the fringes as it doesn’t impact their lives. Earlier, the favourite whipping boy the bogey publicised by some such PAKATAN politicians
Malaysian Prime Minister Najib Tun Razak enters 2014 beset by growing hostility from both the public and within his own political party, the United Malays National Organization, characterized by a deluge of New Year messages across cyberspace celebrating the “year ofbarang naik,” Malay language for rising prices of items.
That is a play on the initials BN, for Barisan Nasional, the national ruling coalition. It has become an opposition battle cry to the point where Najib mentioned it himself in a recent speech
Najib is making an astute move now, after national and intraparty elections have been completed, taking on the necessary but unappetizing task of dismantling decades of subsidies that have driven government debt close to the statutory limit of 55 percent of gross domestic product. In the wake of both sets of elections, he is temporarily invulnerable to both opposition and intraparty assaults.
However, electricity tariffs have risen by 15 percent, sugar subsidies have been cut. Last September, Petronas, the national energy company, cut fuel subsidies in a move that it said would save the government RMB1 billion annually. Public anger at the cutting of the subsidies is substantial and growing
In addition, many in the party rank and file are still furious over widespread spending to keep the current leadership in place in the September intraparty elections.
That has brought the prime minister under unprecedented attack from bloggers aligned with the wing of the party controlled by former Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad, who are delivering an extraordinary onslaught on his lifestyle and that of his wife, even going so far as an unprecedented call for attention to corruption within UMNO itself. The attacks had been expected from the time Najib blocked Mahathir’s son, Mukhriz, from becoming one of the party’s three vice presidents in the September polls.
Najib has sought to deflect criticism, saying the price hikes have been caused by factors such as the global economy and extreme weather that cut into the fish catch and drove up the price of vegetables. The government has also sought to spread the pain by cutting government ministers’ allowances by 10 percent, banning civil servants from business class flights, restricting expenses on official government functions. However, that hasn’t mollified voters, who staged public protests over New Year’s.
Najib also enraged voters by leaving for most of the holidays, going to Las Vegas and other watering holes with his wife, Rosmah Mansor, whose free-spending ways have alienated large swaths of the conservative Malay Muslim community. He is being called “Mr Nowhere” because of his absences from the country.
“A putsch is in the air, definitely, as the frustration with Najib’s free spending and extravagant lifestyle increases,” a Malay businessman told Asia Sentinel. “Najib is in the weakest position any prime minister in Malaysia has ever seen.”
Calls have been rising to have Mahathir come back to the government administrative center of Putra Jaya as an “adviser” to right the ship, something that appears highly unlikely. Mahathir himself made light of the idea.
In the meantime, bloggers who have been described as aligned with Mahathir have been raising their game, making broadly based attacks on Najib and even other UMNO officials, calling attention to what appears to be corruption in the award of highway contracts.
Kadir Jasin, a former New Straits Times editor and close longtime Mahathir ally, wrote recently that “To many UMNO leaders, the measure of the party’s success is big cars, big houses and expensive watches whose names they can’t even mention.”  In particular, Rosmah has been criticized repeatedly for her taste in vastly expensive watches.
Kadir also called attention to “people with no formal appointments and duties (who) are known to use government on pretext of serving the country,” an apparent reference to Rosmah’s November commandeering of an official government jet to fly to Qatar to attend an international forum.
“Do they know that even the Queen (of England) uses trains and charters planes when travelling overseas? They should because many like the PM studied in the UK. Air transport for the British Royal Family and the government of the UK is provided, depending on circumstances and availability, by a variety of military and civilian operators. But most often they fly using scheduled commercial flights, normally the British Airways.”
“We are complaining about the wrong things he is doing in accommodating the wishes of his wife,” Kadir wrote. “We are asking the government to be accountable. The PM should answer these allegations. The way he bragged about his wife in public, he was in fact saying that his wife has more influence than him with foreign leaders.”
“Outsyedthebox” suggested that Najib, who had never finished his economics degree, actually “imbibed from the “Proton school of management” (the money-losing national car) “where it is a good thing to buy something high and sell it low.  Or buy something high and then sell it even higher to people who have few options.:
“Mahathir’s and (former Finance Minister Daim Zainuddin’s) hands are all over the place but the point is that Najib and his wife are providing all the ammo,” a source said. “Without the ammo, Mahathir would be hard pressed to rally his troops against Najib.”
Everything “down to the price of ice has increased in a manner of two weeks,” said another UMNO loyalist. “Everything in Malaysia shot up in one month without notice. The government keeps the ringgit so weak against the US dollar, the cost of living keeps bouncing, salary increases are nothing. Crime is up, corruption is up. People are getting really upset.”

During the waning days of the premiership of Abdullah Ahmad Badawi, as the rank and file sought to push him out, “similar contempt was restricted to some segments of UMNO and the ruling elite,” a source told Asia Sentinel. “With Mahathir, it was disgust and contempt from intellectuals and rights groups. But with Najib – it’s across the board and it extends to his wife and friends.”

Sunday, November 9, 2014

Cow head Wanita Umno wants Sedition Act to stay the undescent

Press, stop the undescent and start the dissent

Sedition laws can be meaningless in a democracy, a governance based on the principle of free speech.A democracy asks its citizens to speak their mind. Provided it does not cause riots or public harm.
But when citizens do that in Malaysia, they are warned and browbeaten into submission – even sent to jail.  Malaysia’s sedition law was written in 1860 to empower the British masters ruling India to punish “natives”.
Yes, when a writer or cartoonist says what pleases the ears of the powers that be, he is encouraged to write or draw more. However, when he comments in words or pictures something critical, heavens fall.Mirror, mirror on the wall, who’s the ugh-est of them all? That’s the questioni seems to ask in his latest cartoon. Errr, Aseem? Yup. The same. This is what happens when an utterly nonsensical sedition case is filed against a cartoonist (high on anger, low on talent) — it’s called a oneday phenomenon. But here’s the upside to the controversy. The recent furor has drawn public attention to the growing antipathy against the ‘ugly politician’. It sure looks likes this is going to be the winter of our discontent.


 UMNO wants the Sedition Act to stay so that she can continue to plunder and steal and if anyone says anything against UMNO, that person will be charged under Sedition Act! Sedition Act will not touch these arrogant UMNO thieves because the Act is their weapon against everyone who dares to challenge them! To hell with the Stupid Sedition Act! All who are for it are as Stupid as the Act itself! If you observe the want and youth wings of BN component parties. They are so predictable. I am sure not single soul is surprise with the Wanita UMNO resolution. Notice, how silence were they on issue regarding victimising of women particularly on the case of Wan Azizah. Not a single word from them. Understand they belong to BN but what the wing stood is equally important. If their gender has been victimise they should at least stand up for the person regardless of her association. Anyway, UMNO wanita wing will remain irrelevant as long as their chief's condo cow issue not resolve to public satisfaction.NFC equals CBT and Fraud. As a lawyer, Sharizat should know that. Those who approved the project and loan should also be taken to task for dereliction of duty and responsibility!

 When we steal and anyone who finds out that we steal and exposes can be charged under the Sedition Act. Sedition Act is good for thieves and thick-skinned conmen and conwomen.
Umno Wanita today called for the Prime Minister Najib Abdul Razak to retain the controversial Sedition Act 1948 in the wake of seditious remarks by certain personalities.Shahrizat says this is as seditious remarks can cause 'worrying' incidents.When satire as a national threat Can Malaysians take a joke? Can Malaysians take satire or parodies?
Well, it would seem that there is a segment of society that takes offence at jokes, satires or parodies - and these people are usually your generic Umno member. Malaysians have been treated to the spectacle of some Umno members, including Minister
Will Shahrizat  expose help end corruption? Or will it be just another rib-tickler that titillates the middle class for a few weeks and is then forgotten? Will politics remain Malaysia’s biggest business by far?
The government is not likely to get its money back from the National Feedlot Corporation (NFC) even if it wins a legal suit against the latter, PKR director of strategy Rafizi Ramli said today.
Don’t be too optimistic. Politicians of every party love slinging mud at rivals: as good businessmen, they hope this will improve their market share. But will they cooperate in closing down the business altogether and moving to a less lucrative one? I doubt it. Even if we were to stretch our imagination beyond breaking point, we would be hard put to grant Shahrizat at least the benefit of the doubt.
An Indian cartoonist has been jailed for his drawings highlighting government corruption.
Aseem Trivedi has been charged with sedition for his cartoons that “insulted” the Indian government.
His supporters say the decision is evidence of political leaders’ growing intolerance of criticism and freedom of expression.
A few years ago MF Husain painted Bharat Mata in a way, it was objected by a section of society. He apologised, yet numerous cases were filed against him in different cities by several groups.
Though a celebrity painter, Husain didn’t say much about creative freedom or tradition of nude drawings in India. He was fiercely opposed by Muslims also, who opposed him in newspapers, on the streets and elsewhere too.
Intolerance plays at many levels in India.
We now have the case of a cartoonist, Aseem Trivedi, who was arrested on charges of sedition. Later, he was freed on bail.
Trivedi, who has been part of the anti-corruption movement in India led by the self-styled Gandhian, Anna Hazare, drew a cartoon where he replaced the customary lions in the country’s national emblem with wolves, their teeth dripping with blood. The caption read, Long live corruption.
Another of Trivedi’s cartoons shows the Indian parliament (non-functioning in recent months) as a giant toilet bowl.
Browbeaten into submission
India’s best regarded political cartoonist, EP Unny, wrote in The Indian Express, a paper where he draws:
“We got both our cartoon art and the sedition law from Britain. The two carried on all these decades, including those 21 months of national emergency and censorship in the mid- (nineteen) seventies, without coming to televised blows. Now Aseem Trivedi, a 25-year old cartoonist has been sent to Mumbai jail for the seditious act of insulting the national symbol.”
“The Indian state seems to be more loyal and lawful than the queen. If you Google Steve Bell, The Guardian’s editorial cartoonist, you would think he is cooling his heels in Her Majesty’s prison.  Through some 30 years of merciless cartooning, he gleefully tore into most things British, symbolic and otherwise. Often reduced to bottom wear in Steve’s work, the Union Jack still flies high over Westminster Palace.
“Do four Asiatic lions standing back to back and tall need protection from a doodler, however activist or agitated?  There is bound to be inherent tension between any national symbol and the cartoon. One is meant to be revered and the other is nothing if not irreverent. The two should naturally clash as they do in mature democracies. Between spats they manage to live together – the symbol on its pedestal and the cartoonist at the drawing board.
“Back in 1976 in a Playboy interview when Jimmy Carter confessed to having looked on a lot of women with lust, a cartoonist put a denuded Statue of Liberty into the Presidential thought balloon.  Carter didn’t wage a war on the cartoonist; he worked his way to the Nobel Peace Prize”.
Myths of living religions are politically potent, those of dead ones aesthetically fetching.
Every religion asserts that truth and tolerance are its sole monopoly, though it might sometimes need a prophet to reveal this fact. Christian fundamentalists argue that their inerrant Bible has the easiest seal of all to crack. It needs but a little devotion to understand the many metaphors in it. In Islam and Judaism, there are food taboos that have, over time, taken on a scientific gloss. Hindus too, often couple faith with modern technology to showcase the power of their tradition.
However, the texts on which these claims are based fall far short of being ‘classics’. They may have passionate adherents within, but are usually mocked by those others outside. But once a religion is history and has no surviving followers, it becomes a classic quite easily. Its myths and legends are now subjects of aesthetic appreciation, not scientific validation.
Which Egyptian today will war with Darwinians because their ancients had once claimed that humans emerged from the tears of sun god Ra? If Renaissance thinkers found virtue in Greek and Roman legends it was precisely because the cults of Zeus and Juno had become extinct centuries ago.
In other words, for a myth to become a classic, the religion on which it is based must be dead and gone. It does not matter if it disappeared catastrophically, on a dark night, or slowly dripped down the kitchen sink. What counts is that it does not count for real any more.
This is why Greek, Roman and Egyptian myths have a universal aesthetic appeal and can be savoured at leisure. On the flip side, precisely because Hinduism, Islam and Christianity are living religions, things and thoughts associated with them politically colour our lives. We are now in the thick of the everyday where cultural and religious prejudices spout like spray paint for free.
Therefore, while dead religions inspire reverential awe across the board, living faiths, just as easily, generate sectarian tendencies. As dead gods have only dead adherents, they pose no challenge to the world of the here and now. This allows fantastic claims made by extinct faiths look so much better than equivalent ones crafted by living religions.
Legends of Hinduism, Islam and Christianity may perhaps be grander, and more breathtaking than those in Greek or Roman classics. However, as these qualities appear only in the eyes of the believers, they are not universally appreciated. This is why it is difficult to call the Mahabharata or the Bible or the Quran a classic, but rather easy to confer that distinction on the Iliad or on the fantasy tales of Romulus and Remus.
Before myths become classics, they must necessarily free themselves of time and space contexts. Once that happens that particular past turns precious and all its artefacts and legends take on lofty meanings. Many European Indologists of the 19th century, like Max Mueller, read Hindu texts with respect because they believed that the Vedic culture of the past was truly dead. They despised the living Indians around them but looked up to the magnificent Aryans of their imagination. After this break was intellectually established, it became easy for Indologists to study the Vedas and Upanishads as timeless and profound ‘classics’.
It is not as if there is an intrinsic difference between legends of living religions and those that are dead. The Mahabharata has its near equivalent in the Trojan War. The Hindu notion of the ‘Manthan’ is close to the Egyptian origin tale; and if we have Varuna, the Greeks have Aeolus. Ganesha got his elephant trunk quite in the same way as the Egyptian goddess Isis got her cow head. Many Egyptian deities have visages plucked out of the animal world, ranging all the way from alligators, to foxes, to cats and hippopotami. Yet, as Egyptian tradition is buried two millennia deep, nobody today makes any of this into a sectarian selling point.
As dead religions pose no contest, there is a generous tendency to bestow on them aesthetic appeal. The legend of Helen of Troy is seen as another arty fable replete with sagacious advice and words of wisdom. But had Zeus been a living god then this same benign saga would have fomented territorial wars among Greeks and Turks. The belief that Trojan women were divided among the victorious, plundering Greeks would have rankled in every Turkish body. Not just that, Cyprus too would have been upset because its king had supplied 50 ships to Agamemnon but there was no acknowledgment of this in the mail.
Think also of how Romulus humiliated the people of Sabine by making off with their wives and daughters. Yet, Giambologna’s statue, depicting the mass rape of Sabine women, draws millions of admirers every year to Florence. As neither Zeus, nor Hermes, nor Ulysses is around, it is pure joy to fiddle with Roman and Greek myths. On the other hand, as Judaism is a live faith, it allows Zionists to flog for political advantage the fabled enslavement of Israelites in ancient Egypt.
There are then myths and myths. Those of living religions are politically potent while those of dead ones are aesthetically fetching. Lesson: choose your myths wisely; what is alive can also kick!

Saturday, November 8, 2014

The return of former Premier Mahathir Mohamad

Malaysia's Prime Minister Najib Razak, centre, has denied links to the 2006 murder of a Mongolian translator [AFP]
Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia - Most countries, if not all, have had a dose of political intrigue, a few lofty falls from grace, or the embarrassing blunders of elected officials.

Yet even by this measure, the recent history of Malaysia has been utterly over the top.

The tight general elections set for Sunday have undoubtedly been influenced by the culture of scandal that has permeated domestic politics, but the outcome could determine if Malaysia is past all that or if it will sink deeper into the cross-fire of tabloid-style sleaze.

The two main players heading into the polls, one of whom will surely be the next leader of Malaysia, have hardly been immune, or averse, to political hardball.

Najib Razak, the prime minister, has vehemently denied links to the 2006 murder of a female Mongolian translator who was shot twice before her corpse was obliterated with C4 explosives in an abandoned field outside Kuala Lumpur.

Bone fragments linked the killing to two members of an elite police squad who have been described as Najib’s former bodyguards. Both were sentenced to death by hanging.

The incident has been back in public re-play mode since March when a private investigator, who gave sworn testimony that placed Najib with the woman at a café in France, died of a heart attack. Najib took a public oath at a mosque to declare that he never met her.

His opponents, as could be expected, made pubic calls to re-open the case.

‘Scandal fatigue’

Anwar Ibrahim, the opposition leader trying to unseat Najib, has been dragged through public ignominy like few men in modern times.

The government has repeatedly denied that this is the case.
"This is a case that was brought by a complainant who used to work for Anwar Ibrahim, not a case of the ruling coalition against Anwar. It's not a case of persecution by the government against Anwar Ibrahim," Youth and Sports Minister Khairy Jamaluddin told Al Jazeera in an interview at his office in Putrajaya on Monday.
"The high court decided to acquit him. The Court of Appeal decided to overturn that decision. Now it's gone to the final Appellate Court. This has nothing to do with the government. It is not the government of Malaysia, it's not the Malaysian ruling coalition that is in the dock this week - it is Anwar that is in the dock this week."
'A bad movie'
The latest hearing takes place amid a deterioration in Malaysia's political environment. At least 14 people have been investigated or charged under theSedition Act in the past year, including lawyers on Anwar's own defence team, opposition politicians, and academics, despite Prime Minister Najib Razak's 2012 promise to repeal the colonial-era law.
"Indonesia is embracing democracy the same month that Malaysia moves back 16 years to the remake of a bad movie," said Bridget Welsh from the Center for East Asian Democratic Studies at the National Taiwan University.
"It strengthens Anwar. Every day he's in jail is a blight on Malaysia's card. Najib is asking for trouble. He is asking for a response. The government should focus on the country's problems, rather than politics."
When Najib first became prime minister five-years ago in the wake of what was then the ruling coalition's worst-ever electoral performance, he announced a comprehensive package of both political and economic reforms.
The promise to repeal the Sedition Act followed the abolition of other colonial-era legislation, including the Internal Security Act, which allowed for detention without trial and was often used against government critics.
Najib's economic reforms - including improvements to education, a crackdown on corruption, and a gradual reduction in subsidies - were designed to strengthen the Malaysian economy. But with wages showing little growth over the past decade and prices rising, ordinary Malaysians have been struggling to make ends meet.

The return of  former Premier Mahathir Mohamad

Mahathir-Vs-NajibThe Games They Play Mahathir vs Najib

The burden of proof goes against the common law based adversarial system of justice and represents a radical departure

Lawyer M. Visvanathan said the central issue in the case was why it took Saiful two days to lodge a report that he was sexually assaulted by Anwar.
He said the samples retrieved from Saiful was finally analysed by Dr Seah some 96 hours after the incident.
"The samples were not in sterile condition. It was taken from the anus which is rich in bacteria to break down organic matters like semen," said the lawyer, who had defended clients charged with sodomy and rape.
He described this piece of evidence in this case as "incredible and miraculous".
"I am no fan of Anwar but based on established legal principles and the evidence in this case, his legal team could convince the apex court to possibly get an acquittal.”
Visvanathan said the prosecution had to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, a higher standard placed on them.
"On the other hand, the defence was only required to cast a doubt in the prosecution's case to earn an acquittal," he added.
He said the apex court judges had to decide whether the trial judge was right in accepting the opinions of the foreign experts or the appellate court's reliance on the evidence of the chemists.
How a young guy can be forced into sodomy by an old man readmore
 At the High Court trial, the gel was produced and marked, says Gopal.

He says Saiful had testified that they did the act (sodomy) on the carpet and he applied the gel on his private part (anus).Gopal (right) shows a document not in the appeal records, and he says the 'keadaan barang kes' (list of items seized) does not included the KY jelly.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Gopal says two sets of Saiful's underwear had been tendered. He adds one of the underwear was washed and wet.
"The second underwear was not worn by Saiful on that day but it had semen stains."

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

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

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

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

 Defence lawyer Gopal says despite sending a letter of resignation, Saiful went to Anwar's house and even served drinks there.
He relates Saiful's meeting with Hospital Pusrawi doctor (Mohamed)Osman (Abdul Hamid), where a plastic object was said to have been inserted into his anus.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"I said you can, but not in support of drinking (liquor). He told me one thing I learn from you (Anwar) is not to enter politics," the opposition leader says of his brief conversation with Gibson.
"A serious question mark now hangs over Anwar’s defence team as Surendran still faces two sedition charges for reiterating his client’s defence that the sodomy proceeding against Anwar was a political conspiracy,"

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

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

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

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

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

Gopal tells the court that the defence is adding one further ground of appeal.
As a layman closely following the Sodomy2 case, the question that begs to be answered is how did Saiful get the luxury of meeting Prime Minister DS Najib and his wife Rosmah before he alleged that he was sodomised by Anwar two days later. Saiful also had the luxury of getting the help of some top brass from the Police headquarters Bukit Aman to complain. Who is Saiful to have received such VIP treatment for being a victim of an "alleged" crime? He is not a son or relative of some mighty VIP to have been accorded such luxurious service on an alleged crime. Till todate, the public is not convinced about the actual motive on why Saiful met Najib and Rosmah at their residence and that is puzzling.
I would say he is not guilty based on just ONE evidence - and there are hundreds of pictures to prove it. 
Pictures and images of tens of pairs of hands hoisting 'DNA-sample' of the 'soiled' mattress. You don't get a bunch of riff-raffs to manually move the mattress like that & tossed it into the back of a black Maria. 

And not going to the toilet for 3-day and 3-nights..?
Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad the main actors in this saga.
The prosecution team during the first sodomy trial was led by the then Attorney-General (A-G) Tan Sri Mohtar Abdullah. Upon retirement, he was made a federal court judge.
He died at age 59 in 2003 after nearly a year of being in a coma after an operation to remove a blood clot in his brain.
Also in the prosecution team for Sodomy I were current A-G Tan Sri Abdul Gani Patail (pic, right), who was then a senior prosecutor, and Datuk Azahar Mohamad who is now a federal judge.
But, Mohtar and Gani did not prosecute in the federal court.
In the second sodomy trial, the prosecution was led by Datuk Mohd Yusof Zainal Abiden.
Yusof, who was also Solicitor-General 11, went on early retirement in February 2012. There was a furore when Yusof appeared for Anwar as counsel in another unrelated criminal case.
In Sodomy II trial, senior deputy public prosecutor Datuk Noordin Hassan, Datuk Mohamad Hanafiah Zakaria and Noorin Badaruddin appeared together with Yusof.
Noordin and Noorin have been made judicial commissioners while Hanafiah is part of the prosecution who will assist ad-hoc DPP Tan Sri Muhammad Shafee Abdullah in the federal vourt.

Anwar's16-year saga in and out of courts for sodomy charges has kept Malaysia on a political edge and shone the international spotlight on the judiciary and the executive.
One legacy Anwar's persecutors also probably did not anticipate was the rise of a strengthened federal opposition, as support for him coalesced into the Pakatan Rakyat (PR) alliance, which denied the ruling Barisan Nasional (BN) a two-thirds majority in Parliament since 2008.The country's longest serving prime minister handpicked Anwar as his protégé and successor, before sacking him on September 2, 1998. In the run-up to the sacking, their relationship soured as both men diverged on how to run the country as it struggled under the Asian financial crisis, and how to run Umno, the lead party in the ruling BN.
Dr Mahathir repeatedly used Anwar’s sodomy charge as justification for sacking him. He also accused Anwar of wanting to "sell" Malaysia to the International Monetary Fund by agreeing to accept its financial reforms during the Asian financial crisis.
He stepped down from power in 2003, some years after the 1999 polls that saw BN lose Terengganu and urban votes due to Anwar's sacking, in favour of Tun Abdullah Badawi, who was seen as a counterbalance to Dr Mahathir's iron grip that was repugnant to younger voters.
But a retired Dr Mahathir continued to wield political influence in Umno, and led a campaign to dethrone his hand-picked successor before the 2008 polls, which culminated in Abdullah's resignation in 2009.
Dr Mahathir, who is patron of Malay rights group Perkasa, also withdrew support for current prime minister, Datuk Seri Najib Razak, for ignoring the 89-year-old's views on how to run Malaysia.

Supreme Court raping the judiciary repeated cases of sodomy same actors same plot

UMNO  is on trial again.After Sodomy 1 fabrication,UMNO lost their 2/3 majority and 5 states to Anwar.After sodomy 2@fitnah 2,they are going to lose the GE and Putrajaya.The rakyat are no more taking Dope like Khairi.Everyone knows
Gani Pattail got promoted to AG For his role in Anwar’s case for sodomy
 Mahathir purposely brought himTo stop and kill Anwar Ibrahim
They now trying to do the same scenario
Najib, Musa,  Gani Pattail, , the trioTrying, again to do it all over
But round one went to Anwar’s favour
The judges have become brave and daringSaying enough is enough to your raping
Of the court and the judiciary With your repeated cases of sodomy

your time has come to face god almighty and all things you did on earth will be relevant my dear judge. hope god shows you mercy. and history will remember you and your family will carry that burden. just see how people speak of your death.may god bless you. Other judges, policemen, MACC men… you will also be judged by god when your time comes. you can escape the law on earth but God awaits you. Ahmad Said try not to speak bad about the judge in Australia cos he will get more credit from god than you
Allah S.W.T says in his mighty Al-Quran Chapter No. 27 : Verse No. 50 …”So they plotted a plot: and We plotted a plot, while they perceived not. “While Mahathir and Co plotted a plot to jail and maim Anwar, Allah S.W.T had a great plan for these evil men! Subahanallah! All Praise to God!
Trial judge Datuk Mohd Zabidin Mohd Diah concluded that there was a prima facie case against the 63-year old Pakatan Rakyat (PR) de facto leader, facing a second sodomy case charge in 13 years.

He was sacked as deputy prime minister and finance minister after the first case came to light in 1998.

“Prosecution proven all facts to define charge. Prima facie case made out against accused. Accused therefore called to enter defence,” said Mohd Zabidin today.

Anwar’s lawyers, in their submissions throughout the prosecution’s case, have attacked the credibility of the star witness Saiful as well as the lab findings of the government chemists.

They had charged that Saiful had lied in open court, and charged that there were many loopholes in his testimony.

The judge, however, quashed all arguments relating to Saiful’s credibility, saying that the complainant’s testimony was indeed reliable.

“I found PW1 credible witness, his evidence reliable,” said Mohd Zabidin.

The judge also ruled that there was nothing “inconsistent” with clinical findings by Hospital Kuala Lumpur specialists in the case.

“All three doctors testified positively, conclude there was penile penetration,” said the trial judge.

Defence lawyer Sankara Nair argued against accepting the DNA samples in the trial as the samples were kept by investigating officer ASP Jude Pereira for 97 hours before being given to the chemist.

The prosecution team, led by Solicitor-General II Datuk Mohd Yusof Zainal Abiden, argued that the DNA samples taken from three items in a cell where Anwar spent the night on July 16, 2008 matched with the “Male Y” DNA profile.

Yusof had also said Anwar was the sole detainee in the lockup at the time when the items — a “Good Morning” towel, toothbrush and mineral water bottle — were retrieved.

Chemist Dr Nor Aidora Saedon and Supt Amidon Anan were called earlier in April  to identify the items to be marked as exhibits.

Government scientist Dr Seah Lay Hong testified last March that she had found two unknown male DNA profiles from samples retrieved from around Saiful’s anus, one of which s
 Before opening your mouth, you should read Gopal Sri Ram's defence submission today . He has quite neatly asserted political implication in the whole episode KJ face the inconvenient truth that 52% of Malaysians are aware of. Yes Putrajaya is on trial, even a retard can see how bias the whole case has been. You and the BN ministers simply do not have any credibility to discuss this issue.The reason is simple that such a charlatan like KJ finds hard to hide. It is the government that is on trial because it is the government that is seen to be the hand initiating, directing and influencing this trial. KJ may want others not to see the connection, but the elephant in the room cannot be hidden.

Umno Youth chief has poured scorn on Anwar Ibrahim's bid to make his sodomy appeal a litmus test for the government, stressing that it is the opposition leader and not Putrajaya that is on trial.Of course it is Anwar who is on trial. But whether he gets a fair trial is about the country, its judiciary, what UMNO has done to the judiciary, and hence about UMNO and its leaders. Yes, KJ, you are on trial too.
Justice Suriyadi asks if Anwar is stating that he has no faith in the courts.Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim's claim of a political conspiracy in his sodomy charge and conviction
 If such politicizing of justice Supreme Court should be capable of ensuring these simple rules, which surely do not infringe on any constitutional provisions.UMNO will not needle a member of another party Anwar needlessly, as the unwritten code in politics If such politicizing of justice is to be discouraged, it may help what’s wrong with the Supreme Court? Just when we thought the Supreme Court was by and large giving progressive judgments in tune with the evolving understanding of personal liberties, and human rights, why have they gone and set the clock back more than a 100 years with a grossly retrograde judgment? In the Victorian era it may have been the business of the law  raises issue of whether 
The prosecution's appeal against the acquittal was initially scheduled for hearing in April this year, but was brought forward to March.
Sri Ram said the defence team had asked for time to make submissions to the Court of Appeal, but it was turned down.
Earlier, Sri Ram, a retired federal judge, had outlined other mistakes made in the earlier stages of the trial.
He said the charge had been wrongly framed to begin with, as the complainant Mohd Saiful Bukhari Azlan had said during trial that the sodomy was not consensual.
Sri Ram added whereas the charge against the opposition leader was under a different section of the Penal Code for consensual or voluntary sodomy. Saiful could have been impeached for this, as a charge should be framed based on what the complainant said.
Anwar also had an alibi, Sri Ram told the Federal Court, adding that the defence did not pursue it because police had intimidated the main alibi witness, who is the owner of the condominium, named only as "Hasanuddin".
However, the Court of Appeal had zoomed in on it, and had cited the lack of an alibi in its written judgement as one of the reasons it overturned the High Court's acquittal.
"(The function of the Court of Appeal) was to review findings of facts made by the trial court. (It is in) no part of appellant court's judgment to make findings of its own," Sri Ram said.
The prosecution during the appeal stage had submitted that Anwar had failed to call an alibi witness, but Sri Ram said this could not be used against his client because the prosecution's petition of appeal did not include it.
Sri Ram returned to the evidence on the lubricant allegedly used by Anwar on the complainant, which he said was mishandled by the case investigating officer and the trial judge earlier this morning.
Arguing on the point that Saiful was not a credible witness, Sri Ram said that there was no trace of jelly found on the carpet in the condominium where the alleged offence took place.

Anwar's lawyer N. Surendran, took over from lead counsel Datuk Seri Gopal Sri Ram in continuing the defence's submission to the five-member bench.
Surendran said the complainant, Mohd Saiful Bukhari Azlan had met with senior police officer Senior Assistant Commissioner (SAC) Datuk Mohd Rodwan Mohd Yusof on June 24, 2008, before the alleged sodomy on June 26
Anwar's lawyer N. Surendran, took over from lead counsel Datuk Seri Gopal Sri Ram in continuing the defence's submission to the five-member bench.
Surendran said the complainant, Mohd Saiful Bukhari Azlan had met with senior police officer Senior Assistant Commissioner (SAC) Datuk Mohd Rodwan Mohd Yusof on June 24, 2008, before the alleged sodomy on June 26.
He had also met with then Deputy Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak on June 24, and had also made contact with then Inspector-General of Police Tan Sri Musa Hassan on June 25, 2008, Surendran said.
Saiful had admitted to these meetings, Surendran told the Federal Court.
"These are not mere allegations of conspiracy plucked out of thin air. There are dates of meetings," he submitted.
Surendran said Anwar had given a statement from the dock during the trial "not once but five times".
"Unfortunately, the Court of Appeal took those statements (in its judgments) as though there was no explanation," he said.
The dates of the meetings and Saiful's admission were evidence of a "pre-arranged plan" which supported Anwar's statement from the dock, Surendran added.
 Gopal says in the reversal of an acquittal or an affirmation of acquittal, the apex court should intervene if the finding was wrong.

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

"It had not undergone the strictest scrutiny. There has been a miscarriage of justice," he adds.
He said such statements by the accused should have been weighed, but the Court of Appeal had disregarded them.
In court this afternoon, Surendran read out excerpts of Saiful's cross-examination during the trial conducted by the late Karpal Singh. The excerpts showed the evidence of a conspiracy, Surendran said.
But the High Court did not review Anwar's statement from the dock and the Court of Appeal later regarded it as "a mere denial" of the charge.

Surendran says there was misdirection by the Court of Appeal.

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

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

"What the High court judge did not say it was mere denial. The Appellate court was wrong to say it was mere denial. This is not a syntax error."Lead counsel Datuk Seri Gopal Sri Ram said there had been "a miscarriage of justice", as the High Court and Court of Appeal had not given the evidence tendered the "strictest scrutiny".In building a case against Saiful's credibility, Sri Ram said his testimony was inconsistent with the evidence and the court had failed to evaluate the contradictions during trial stage.

Sri Ram also said when the Court of Appeal heard the prosecution's petition against Anwar's acquittal by the High Court, it was rushed and hastily done, so that the manner in which the conviction was decided was "unsafe".
Looking at the Court of Appeal judgment, Surendran says there were adverse comments made which led to the wrong finding.

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

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

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

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

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

"This confirms that there was a pre-arranged plan. Statement from the dock is evidence only the weightage is less," he says.Hearing resumes with defence co-counsel N Surendran saying that the evidence of a pre-arranged plan refers to a conspiracy theory.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hasanuddin has two units adjacent to each other at the Desa Damansara condominium, and Anwar's alibi was that he was not in the other unit, where the alleged sodomy incident took place.
Gopal says the charge should have been framed based on what is claimed by the complainant.

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

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

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

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

"Saiful testified that the alleged sodomy was non-consensual but the appellant was charged under Section 377b and not Section 377c (of the Penal Code)," he says.
Section 377b reads: Whoever voluntarily commits carnal intercourse against the order of nature shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to twenty years, and shall also be liable to whipping.

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

: Gopal further scrutinises Saiful's testimony.

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

The defence lawyer says the carpet was seized by DSP Jude on June 30.
"He went to the scene of the crime with a forensic team along with the complainant. There they found a strand of hair and seized a carpet.

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

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

(Saiful testified that Anwar was rough during the sodomy act resulting in Saiful to accidentally press the jelly tube and it stained the carpet.)
What the judge said
In a speech lasting nearly two hours, the judge read from case notes and pointed out key events in the case.
“What was needed to be proved is a prima facie case, credible evidence to ingredient of offence, whether Saiful was a credible witness” said Mohamad Zabidin.
“It was not surprising defence had tried to paint a picture of Saiful as someone who has zero credibility. With greatest respect, I find this irrelevant. Saiful followed instructions of accused after incident, did not immediately lodge police report. He was given preferential treatment in the office, compared to senior colleagues. Saiful is a young man, not just any employee but personal assistant to the accused.”
“I find Saiful’s evidence remains intact. I find him to be a good, true witness, evidence is reliable, if accepted can be used. After finding Saiful credible, not affected by failure to run away or not report, the question is whether opportunity for the act to take place.”
“I find accused and complainant at crime scene, opportunity for crime to take place. (Tne) chemist’s evidence shows swabs taken from Saiful. These swabs confirmed presence of semen. All three doctors testified positively, conclude there was penile penetration.  I find nothing inconsistent with doctors’ findings.”
“I find nothing inconsistent with doctors’ findings. The other crucial evidence is DNA evidence. The accused was the last occupant in cell before towel, mineral water bottle, toothbrush was taken for DNA sampling.”
What the defense said
To Anwar’s lawyers, it was clear the Judge only saw what he wanted to see and ignored all the rest. They pointed out that initially Anwar was initially charged for ‘raping’ Saiful in that there was physical compulsion involved.
Yet, it is impossible for the 64-year old and frail Anwar to physically force Saiful, who is a well-built 6-footer and the charge was quickly and controversially amended to consensual although Saiful has stuck to saying Anwar had compelled him. Saiful also never explained why, if it was not consensual, did he not run away from Anwar.
“The judge just skirted around the conflicts in the issue. He also talked about Saiful’s character and yet somehow forgot about Saiful’s romance with Farah Azalina, the deputy public prosecutor, during the trial and how they kept the romance secret from the court. Is a man who two-timed his fiancee with a newly-met DPP a man with good character?” one the defense team told Malaysia Chronicle. 
“The judge talked about the Hospoital Kuala Lumpur doctors’ report and how the doctors agreed there was penetration. He does not mention the initial HKL report had denied any penetration at all. The judge also never took into account the doctor’s testimony from the Pusrawi Hospital, which again clearly states no penetration. He never mentioned at all why the prosecution refused to allow the Pusrawi doctor to testify.”
“As for the toothbrush, mineral water bottle and towel, did the judge remember that even he himself had rejected them as sampling items for DNA matching because they were illegally taken from Anwar and the samples were kept for days in the Investigating Officer’s drawer before being sent to the Chemistry De[partment. This would surely have caused degradation. How can such unreliable samples be allowed? Then the judge completely ignores the DNA analysis sheets which showed the presence of DNA belonging to more than two men in Saiful’s anus. Five unidentified male DNA was found. Yet, the judge completely ignores this factor. How can such a thing happen unless either Saiful was a sex maniac or DNA was planted on the swabs.”

Monday, October 27, 2014

Anwar remind Najib that he was put in jail for six years Najib and Mahathir have not solved the problems

Anwar Ibrahim, the opposition leader trying to unseat Najib, has been dragged through public ignominy like few men in modern times.A decade since a judge freed Anwar Ibrahim from prison over sodomy and corruption charges, the beleaguered 67-year-old Malaysian opposition figure is again facing the prospect of a lengthy jail term on similar allegations.
In a decision in March that took just 90 minutes, judges allowed a government appeal against his 2012 acquittal on charges of sodomy - a crime in Malaysia - and sentenced him to five years in prison.
Anwar and his lawyers return to court on Tuesday to appeal the ruling and, they say, hopefully reverse it once and for all.
"There's a lot of concern about whether the court will adjudicate fairly, justly, based on facts of the law," Anwar said during an interview at his party headquarters on the outskirts of Kuala Lumpur. "Nobody, certainly not my family, not at my age, wants me to return to prison, but what do I do? I have to endure. [I must] continue this fight with courage."
Anwar was a senior figure in the ruling party and deputy prime minister before being sacked and jailed at the height of the 1998 Asian financial crisis, bringing thousands of supporters onto the streets. Anwar, who was denied bail and beaten in custody during the first trial, has long maintained the charges against him are politically motivated.

They think they can solve the problems of Malaysia by putting Anwar in prison. I must remind them that they put Anwar in jail for six years already, and they have not solved the problems.

Gopal says the first complaint was made in Pusrawi, and the prosecution did not call Dr Osman.
The point, he says, is the complaint to the Hospital Kuala Lumpur cannot be admissible, as it does not amount to corroboration.
"Only first complaint can be used for corroboration and not subsequent complaint," the former Federal Court judge says.

 Pointing to the Court of Appeal judgment, Gopal says there is no independent finding that Saiful could be an accomplice.
"He is a participant in an offence, in the surrounding circumstances he must have his evidence corroborated," he argues.
 Gopal says since the evidence of past incidences had been expunged, this evidence cannot be taken into consideration.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The burden of proof goes against the common law based adversarial system of justice and represents a radical departure