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 meFirst 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.
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 quoteShakespeare:
“And let us once again assail your ears,
That are so fortified against our story…”
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-Ma’idah: 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, Yang Arif, presiding in an adversarial trial, had the residual power and the jurisdiction to have invoked Yang Arif’s powers relating to contempt of court. Yang Arif chose not to do so for reasons best known to Yang Arif. 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, Yang Arif 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 Yang Arif. This invidious relationship should have alerted Yang Arif 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.
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, Yang Arif, 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 Yang Arif had made a prejudgment when Yang Arif 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 Yang Arif 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 Yang Arif Datuk Haji Abdul Malik Bin Haji Ishak also dated 6th July, 2011.
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, Yang Arif 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. [Yang Arif. 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, Yang Arif 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 Yang Arif 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.
Yang Arif 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.
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 A.M 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? Yang Arif, 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.
Yang Arif did not in doing so evenly handle the scales of justice. Yang Arif 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 Yang Arif suggested this could be done. These were material witnesses compelling the defence now to resort to causing subpoenas to be issued for their presence.
Yang Arif 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 Yang Arif 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 Yang Arif with regard to what I have stated herein before.
My trial is an adversarial one and Yang Arif 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 Yang Arif 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 fabricationAs 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.
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 Tata 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 Yang Arif.
Yang Arif 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.
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.
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, Yang Arif 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 tamper proof 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
Yang Arif 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 Yang Arif 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 doubt 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)
An estimated 20,000 protesters gathered in Kuala Lumpur on Saturday to call for reforms to Malaysia’s electoral system. The surprisingly large turnout—and the government’s tough response, with water cannons and tear gas—appears to have galvanized the country’s opposition, which until recently had struggled to gain traction against a government led by Prime Minister Najib Razak.The protesters believe Malaysia’s government must reform to reduce electoral fraud and create a level playing field for all parties, including the opposition. Government officials say rally organizers were trying to embarrass the government, garner sympathy for opposition politicians and threaten social order.
The question now is whether Malaysia’s opposition groups can capitalize on the momentum from Saturday’s rally and force further changes in one of Southeast Asia’s linchpin economies– or if voters will continue to stick with Mr. Najib and the ruling coalition that has dominated Malaysia since it gained independence from Britain several decades ago.
The Wall Street Journal’s Celine Fernandez recently spoke with Ambiga Sreenevasan, chairwoman of Bersih 2.0 (or the Coalition for Clean and Fair Elections), a coalition of activists that organized Saturday’s rally. A former president of the Malaysian Bar Council, she was the first Malaysian to receive the U.S. Secretary of State’s International Women of Courage Award for championing human rights, the status of women and religious tolerance in Malaysia.
Here are some edited excerpts from the interview:
Q: Your organization has built up some momentum with Saturday’s rally. What is the next move for Bersih?
A: Our agenda for electoral reform still stands firm, but we have two priority items which we 
think should be resolved. The first, of course, is that we express terrible regret at the death of Baharuddin Ahmad (a man who died of a heart attack during the rally), and we are very concerned at the manner in which it occurred. One of our top priority items is to refer the issue of the excessive use of the Police force upon the rally to Suhakam (the Human Rights Commission of Malaysia). And we are asking them for a full investigation.
think should be resolved. The first, of course, is that we express terrible regret at the death of Baharuddin Ahmad (a man who died of a heart attack during the rally), and we are very concerned at the manner in which it occurred. One of our top priority items is to refer the issue of the excessive use of the Police force upon the rally to Suhakam (the Human Rights Commission of Malaysia). And we are asking them for a full investigation.(Editor’s note: Malaysian authorities have said they believe the man’s death was from natural causes and not related to the rally. They have also defended the police’s use of tear gas and water cannons, saying they were provoked into action and had to act to protect public order, and relied on minimal force to disperse crowds).
The second priority item for us is the release of those held under the Emergency Ordinance (including a number of activists arrested in connection with the rally). We are very, very, very concerned about the reports we are getting, about the manner in which they have been treated. We call for their unconditional release.
We are pushing for the setting up of a Royal Commission of Inquiry consisting of experts acceptable to the people to look into comprehensive electoral reform before the 13th General Elections (Malaysia’s next elections, which must be called by spring 2013), and we reiterate our call for this to the government.
Q: Will you hold more rallies?
A: I do not see it happening in the near future.
Q: What are the most important reforms needed in Malaysia, and why? Is it just about electoral reforms, or are other changes needed?
A: Immediately, we want a more level playing field for the 13th General Elections. But apart from 
that, in the last six weeks, I think Bersih has become more than just a movement for electoral reform. I think that there is a real yearning for a higher standard of democratic values. People are utterly, utterly shocked by the abuse of power displayed by the government. So it has also become about the integrity of our institutions and the manner of governance and the abuse of power. I think people were very moved by that, and that is why we got the numbers that we did.
that, in the last six weeks, I think Bersih has become more than just a movement for electoral reform. I think that there is a real yearning for a higher standard of democratic values. People are utterly, utterly shocked by the abuse of power displayed by the government. So it has also become about the integrity of our institutions and the manner of governance and the abuse of power. I think people were very moved by that, and that is why we got the numbers that we did.Q: What benefits would come from those reforms, and why are they needed in Malaysia?
A: The benefits would be providing a more level playing field and we think it brings legitimacy to the government who wins. If you come in because of free and fair elections, it would be something that would be more acceptable to the people.
Q: If Malaysia had truly free and fair elections, what do you think would happen?
A: I really can’t predict. I wouldn’t want to even begin to predict, actually. All I can tell you is that we will get a government who truly reflects the will of the people. And that’s all we want.
Q: Why do you think the government cracked down so hard on Saturday?
A: Really, I fail to completely understand that. But I think they acted because they have taken a position and they were not prepared to move from that position. And they wanted to teach us a lesson, not by reason, but by force. I had made this statement earlier: They thought might could win over right, but I am afraid might can never win over right. Right always ultimately wins.Q: The government says Bersih is really just a front for opposition parties and is trying to promote their interests ahead of any national election. They note that Anwar Ibrahim (Malaysia’s most prominent opposition leader) played a conspicuous role at Saturday’s rally. Is the government’s criticism fair?
A: Not at all fair, because we invited all political parties including Barisan Nasional (Malaysia’s ruling coalition) to support us. How can you say the cause for free and fair elections is only for the opposition? It is for everybody. Pakatan Rakyat (Malaysia’s main coalition of opposition parties) did support Bersih. What’s wrong with that? Pakatan Rakyat members are also citizens of this country. Are they not entitled to support a movement for free and fair elections?
Q: The government also says you’re also trying to destabilize the country and undermine public order. Is that fair?
A: Totally unfair. So far, I have refused to respond to personal allegations. My issue is please judge me by my conduct and the government by their conduct. And let the public draw their own conclusions.
Q: Many people have said it took a lot of courage to organize Saturday’s rally. Why are you doing this? What drove you to get involved and take such a leadership role in Bersih? Do you feel like you are putting yourself at any risk?
A: A few NGOs approached me and asked me to lead a civil society movement for free and fair elections, which I was very willing to do because it was for a good cause. And I did not for one minute think there was anything controversial about this topic. We thought we won’t even get the numbers – we were worried about how to publicize the event. We never expected the government to react the way it did. I certainly did not want any of this attention that I am getting. I don’t know why the focus was on me. We have 14 steering committee members. I was not making decisions on my own. We had nongovernmental organization members who had their views as well.A government that comes across as such a great bully repulsed a lot of people. And I think that is why we had the numbers and the momentum that we did. Honestly, if they had allowed us to proceed and played it down, we would not have gotten those numbers. That’s why you saw on that day, ordinary citizens, and these are not even members of political parties, from all walks of life, old, young, all races, all religions. Where have you ever seen that? And how does the government read it? They come back on Monday and attack Bersih again. Those are the people you are attacking. Those are the voters you are attacking. They are not reading the situation properly at all. But I still say there is time to salvage, to reconcile, and I hope the government will seek to do that.
Q: Although there are obviously major differences between Malaysia and countries such as Egypt, Tunisia or Syria, any demonstration these days inevitably invite comparisons to the Arab Spring protests. Are there are any similarities here?
A: No similarities, in my view. They were in a completely different situation. Here, all we are doing is asking for a free and fair election. It is the government’s disproportionate response that created a momentum. But we are still a peace-loving nation. We still want the government to be fair. To me it was never our intention and it is still not our intention to bring down this government. We want to work with this government, to improve our electoral system.
Q: How deep is the support for Bersih?
A: When you look online, you will find it growing exponentially. I am amazed at how it has taken off. Bersih is not a word any more. It is an idea. It is a feeling. It is a passion, which is why you can never kill it.
Q: There is a Facebook page with 100,000 people requesting Najib Razak’s resignation. What do you think about that?
A: We have nothing to do with that. It is never and has never been Bersih’s intention for the prime minister to step down. As I said, we want to work with the prime minister and his government to have a better electoral system.
Forty-eight years ago, I was standing approximately 15 yards behind Dr. King when he delivered his "I Have A Dream " speech on August 28th to a crowd of more than 250,000 people assembled at the foot of the Lincoln Memorial at the March On Washington For Jobs and Freedom. A quarter of a million people, human beings who generally had spent their lives treated as something less, stood shoulder to shoulder across that vast lawn (in front of the Lincoln Memorial) their hearts beating as one... It's a shame that the colors of that day -- the blue sky, the vibrant green life, the golden sun everywhere -- are not part of our national memory.
A. Phillip Randolph, Chairman of the March introduced Dr. King, referring to him as "the undisputed great moral leader of our nation." When Dr. King stood up to make his way to the podium, the crowd tensed in unison. There was a thunderous sound of applause as Dr. King stepped up to replace Randolph at the podium. He offered a traditional ad hoc greeting to the vast crowd before him, saying "Brothers and Sisters, I am happy to join with you today in what will go down in history as the greatest demonstration for freedom in the history of our nation."
As Dr. King was reading through the first several paragraphs of his speech, I witnessed Mahalia Jackson, his favorite gospel singer, who had performed earlier in the program, shout to him "Tell 'em about the 'Dream," Martin, tell 'em about the 'Dream.'"
I watched Dr. King push the text of his prepared remarks to one side of the lectern. He shifted gears, abandoning whatever final version of the balance of the text he'd prepared late the previous night, turning away from whatever notes he had scrawled in the margins; all occurring in real-time. I saw Dr. King's body movement change, as he appeared to assume the stance of the preacher in the pulpit of a church. I leaned over to the person who was standing next to me and said "These people out there today don't know it yet, but they are about ready to go to church." I knew Dr. King was about to transform himself into the superb Baptist preacher he was; like three generations of Baptist preachers before him in his family.
Then, honoring Mahalia Jackson's request, Dr. King spoke the words "I have a dream today..." As he continued, extemporaneously speaking and repeating the phrase, "I have a dream," the crowd began shouting "Amen," "Preach Dr. King, preach!" "Tell it like it is, Dr. King, tell like it is," "Well; make it plain Dr, make it plain!" Watching him speak was like capturing lightning in a bottle.
After the crowd began leaving, and most of the people could be seen walking away from the site of the vast area in front of the Lincoln Memorial, I observed A. Phillip Randolph, momentarily standing alone with tears running down his face.
(From Behind the Dream -- The Speech That Transformed A Nation published by Palgrave Macmillan).
At 11 o'clock this, Sunday, August 28th, in Washington, D.C., a Martin Luther King, Jr. Memorial will be dedicated and officially opened on the National Mall. It will establish a permanent honor to his legacy and contributions to our nation. The Memorial Mall is the result of the persistence and commitment of Dr. King's fraternity brothers in the Alpha Kappa Alpha, and the leadership of Harry E. Johnson, Sr., President & CEO, of the Martin Luther King, Jr., National Memorial Project Foundation. It's construction has been financed by donations from foundations, Fortune 1000 companies, private businesses and individuals.
I am especially proud, to be currently a Scholar Writer in Residence at the Martin Luther King, Jr. Research & Education Institute, at Stanford University. Dr. Clayborne Carson, professor of history at Stanford is Director of the Institute and its King Papers Project. Based on his knowledge and data base at the Institute, Dr. Carson has provided the Memorial with the various quotations of Dr. King that visitors will see inscribed on the walls of the Monument as they walk through the National Mall.
America owes a great debt to Martin Luther King, Jr. Prior to Dr. King, the United States was like an alcoholic or drug addict; addicted and dependent on racial segregation and institutional racism. Our country had tried, unsuccessfully, "to kick" its addiction and dependency on racial segregation. Along came, a young African-American Baptist preacher from Atlanta, GA and Montgomery, Alabama. Through non-violent disobedience to racial segregation, he forced America's conscience to publicly confront the moral contradiction between the way it treated 12 percent of its population, African-Americans, and the principles and precepts enshrined in our Declaration of Independence and Constitution. Dr King enabled America to embark on a multi-step journey of recovery to break its addiction and dependence on segregation and to reclaim and redeem its soul.
How then, do we measure the magnitude of Martin Luther King, Jr.'s contribution to our nation in the pantheon of American history? In 12 years and 4 months, from 1956 to April 4th, 1968, except for President Abraham Lincoln and The Emancipation Proclamation of 1863, Dr. King may have done more to achieve racial, social, political justice and equality in America than any other event or person in the 200-plus years of the history of the United States. Martin Luther King, Jr. ended "American Apartheid."
One of the more frequent questions asked of me since his assassination on April 4th, 1968, is who today, do I think is most like Martin Luther King, Jr.?
My answer is repetitively consistent: Dr. King was "sui generis," unique, one of a kind. I then continue my answer by posing a rhetorical question to whoever initially asked me the question. I ask "Who today, is most like Leonardo da Vinci, Shakespeare, Michelangelo, Beethoven, Copernicus, and Mozart"? No one! If they were fortunate enough to be alive during the years 1955 to April 4th, 1968, and went outside at night and looked up and saw a shooting star of incredibly incandescent brightness illuminate the heavenly sky that was Martin Luther King, Jr. We shall never, ever, ever, never, ever, see such a star again in our life time; in a Century, or in a Millennium.
During 1960 to April 1968, I had the privilege of working with Dr. King as his personal lawyer, political advisor, fund-raiser, draft speech writer, confidante and friend. The Memorial on the National Mall has a special and personal meaning to me, as it does for so many other people in the Civil Rights Movement who also worked tirelessly on behalf of Dr. King.
With pride, a touch of self-deprecation and self-confidence, Dr. King would be grateful and humbled by the Memorial Mall erected in his honor. In his speech accepting the Nobel Peace Prize in Oslo, Norway, on December 10th, 1964, he would remind us that he was a representative beneficiary of the blood, sweat and tears of those hundreds of thousands of unsung heroes and heroes who struggled for freedom with him in our country. He said:
I accept the Nobel Prize for Peace at a moment when twenty-two million Negroes of the United States of America are engaged in a creative battle to end the long night of racial injustice. I accept this award in behalf of a civil rights movement which is moving with determination and a majestic scorn for risk and danger to establish a reign of freedom and a rule of justice.
... I accept this award today with an abiding faith in America and an audacious faith in the future of mankind. I refuse to accept despair as the final response to the ambiguities of history. I refuse to accept the idea that the "isness" of man's present nature makes him morally incapable of reaching up for the eternal "oughtness" that forever confronts him.
I refuse to accept the idea that man is mere flotsam and jetsam in the river of life unable to influence the unfolding events which surround him. I refuse to accept the view that mankind is so tragically bound to the starless midnight of racism and war that the bright daybreak of peace and brotherhood can never become a reality.
I refuse to accept the cynical notion that nation after nation must spiral down a militaristic stairway into the hell of thermonuclear destruction. I believe that unarmed truth and unconditional love will have the final word in reality. This is why right temporarily defeated is stronger than evil triumphant.
I believe that even amid today's motor bursts and whining bullets, there is still hope for a brighter tomorrow. I believe that wounded justice, lying prostrate on the blood-flowing streets of our nations, can be lifted from this dust of shame to reign supreme among the children of men.
I have the audacity to believe that peoples everywhere can have three meals a day for their bodies, education and culture for their minds, and dignity, equality and freedom for their spirits. I believe that what self-centered men have torn down, men other-centered can build up. I still believe that one day mankind will bow before the altars of God and be crowned triumphant over war and bloodshed, and nonviolent redemptive goodwill will proclaim the rule of the land.
I still believe that we shall overcome.
Today I come to Oslo as a trustee, inspired and with renewed dedication to humanity. I accept this prize on behalf of all men who love peace and brotherhood. I say I come as a trustee, for in the depths of my heart I am aware that this prize is much more than an honor to me personally.
Again, today, from the depths of his heart, as he acknowledged upon receipt of the Nobel Peace Prize, he would be aware that the Memorial on the Mall in his honor is "more than an honor to him" personally. The presence and remarks at the Memorial by President Barack Obama, the first African-American President of the United States, on the same date that Dr. King spoke at the foot of the Lincoln Memorial in Washington is an especially moving tribute to his memory and legacy.
Clouds of controversy remain over the Memorial from the selection of Lei Yixin, a Chinese sculptor, instead of an African-American, who carved the stone statue of Dr. King now erected in the Memorial. Some critics suggest that the sculptured features of Dr.King's facial likeness look more "Chinese" than African-American. I leave that judgment to those many people whom I hope will visit the Memorial. To those critics of the selection of a sculptor other than an African-American, I respectfully remind them that Dr. King was not just an American hero. He was and is an international hero.
It would be corruption of everything that he lived, worked and died for to invoke his legacy and name as justification for limiting the selection of a person who would carve his statue out of stone at the Memorial to only a black person. "No other persons need apply."? This is not consistent with the legacy of the Dr. King I knew.
Of course, he would have welcomed and been pleased if a black sculptor had been chosen for the sculpture design. I am certain that he would not have insisted that only a black person was qualified to be considered for the sculpture. Such insistence, again, would be the antithesis to his abiding belief in the commitment to the pursuit of individual excellence. Moreover, he would have most likely deferred to the judgment and choice made under the leadership of his fellow Alpha brother Harry Johnson, president and CEO of the Memorial project.
Martin Luther King, Jr. is a beloved "citizen of the world." His legacy of peaceful non-violent opposition to racial, political or economic injustice has been adopted and applied by millions of oppressed people who are seeking their own form of self-determination and liberation.
Shortly after the Montgomery bus boycott, Hungarian Freedom fighters resisting the Soviet army's invasion of Hungary sang "We Shall Overcome." Chinese students demonstrating in Tiananmen Square in Beijing, sang "We Shall Overcome;" polish workers at the Gdansk, Poland shipyards demonstrating under Leach Walenska's leadership sang "We Shall Overcome;" students in the "Orange Revolution" in the Ukraine demonstrating for a more democratic government, and students tearing down the Berlin Wall between East and West Germany sang "We Shall Overcome;" supporters of the first women elected president of Liberia, Ellen Johnson-Sireleaf, following years of civil war, sang "We Shall Overcome." Demonstrators during the "Arab Spring" in Egypt, Tunisia, Yemen, Bahrain, Israel and Palestine, carried banners and placards bearing quotations from Gandhi and King.
The opening of the Memorial Mall occurs only a few weeks before the 10th Anniversary of the terrorists attack on our World Trade Center in New York City. It also occurs against the backdrop of resumed escalated violence between Israel and Palestine.
For those who loved, admired or respected the leadership of Martin Luther King, Jr. to leading America to be the best that it can be, they should also remember that the cornerstone of his success in enabling our nation to reclaim its soul was his close working relationship and coalition with the American Jewish community, organized labor and poor people during the Civil Rights Movement. His commitment to peace and non-violence was unshakable.
I will not be surprised, when I visit the Memorial and stand close to Dr. King's statute, if I imagine some tears of sadness rolling down his checks. Tears at the polarized wealth gap in America; the large number of African-Americans incarcerated in our prisons; the high percentage of African-American young men dropping out of High School; the high incidence of out of wed lock births in the African-American community; the rising percentage of HIV/AIDS virus infection within the African-American community; tears at the rising black on black gun violence that has turned several African-American communities into weekend "killing fields;" tears that terrorists have hijacked the respected religion of Islam to use a recruiting tool for commission of acts of unspeakable violence; tears that so many people are without the dignity of a job and that children go to bed hungry in the richest nation in the world; tears at the concerted efforts of some members of Congress and people in the private sector to bring down our country's first African-American president even when he, in the spirit of compromise and in the best interests of our country, agrees to much of what they have proposed.
Dr. King's tears would flow because he would interpret these events as destroying the magnificent dream he had for our country; a repudiation of his abiding commitment to non-violent conflict resolution and love and respect for the dignity, sanctity, and preciousness of every human being in the eyes of God. But, he would still have faith that the moral arc of the universe bends toward justice and that America will again reclaim and redeem its soul to be the "America the Beautiful" that the great Ray Charles described in his rendition of this inspiring national musical treasure..
For those who wish to express themselves in support of Dr. King's legacy of peace and non-violence in connection with the opening of the Memorial Mall, I ask that you join me in Tweeting For Peace and Non-Violence in his memory to "Tweet for Peace and Non-Violence at:
- The official dedication of the MLK Memorial on August 28, 2011
- The 10th Anniversary of 9/11
Only two weeks before the 10th anniversary of the September 11, 2001 attacks, the Associated Press has broken a story that reminds us of just how much America has changed during the last decade, and how the government - and as important, some of the country's most powerful corporations - routinely intrude into the lives of communities and individuals in a manner that would few would have thought imaginable the day before the planes struck the World Trade Center.
After a lengthy investigation, the Associated Press has published a storydetailing a highly secretive decade-long relationship between the CIA and the New York Police Department (NYPD), in which the two agencies have worked together in "a massive covert programme to monitor the Muslim communities" living in the New York metropolitan area and surrounding regions.
The program is troubling for a host of reasons. It involves potentially serious violations of Federal law, including First Amendment protections. Morever, it bears a strong resemblance to programs launched during the Civil Rights and Vietnam era, which saw techniques, technologies and even personnel from the US military and intelligence communities deployed against citizens within the United States.
When military tactics and strategies drawn from the front lines of war are applied to radically different contexts, the results are rarely beneficial to the health of a democracy.
According to the AP report, "The [NYPD] has dispatched teams of undercover officers, known as 'rakers,' into minority neighborhoods as part of a human mapping program, according to officials directly involved in the program. They've monitored daily life in bookstores, bars, cafes and nightclubs. Police have also used informants, known as 'mosque crawlers,' to monitor sermons, even when there's no evidence of wrongdoing. NYPD officials have scrutinized imams and gathered intelligence on cab drivers and food cart vendors, jobs often done by Muslims. Many of these operations were built with help from the CIA, which is prohibited from spying on Americans but was instrumental in transforming the NYPD's intelligence unit."
A Troubling Partnership?
Despite such prohibitions on spying on Americans, the NYPD and CIA have built a "partnership that has blurred the bright line between foreign and domestic spying." The relationship has included a senior, active-duty CIA officer being hired by the NYPD to set up its intelligence programmes and another senior officer working as a "clandestine operative" inside police headquarters, and the CIA training of at least one police detective at the agency's spy school.
Having watched the World Trade Center fall with my own eyes and then had to cope with a newborn son breathing in the soot and toxin-tainted air for weeks after, it's hard not to sympathize with the NYPD's willingness to "push the envelope" of police procedures in order to protect New Yorkers from a similar attack. It's also hard not to agree with the assessment by NY cops that they can never again rely on the Federal government to protect New York and therefore must become an active player in gathering and acting on intelligence that might affect the city's eight million citizens.
Indeed, the NYPD's "success" in these operations points out the weakness that still hampers effective intelligence work by the American intelligence community: Most CIA officers are white men who could never blend into a Muslim community; but the NYPD's 34,000 officers reflect the ethnic and religious mosaic of New York, providing it with a host of Arab and South Asian officers who speak the languages and intimately know the cultures, making it much easier for them, effectively, to spy on their communities.
And it's clear that this is what the NYPD is doing, having become, in the AP's words, "one of the country's most aggressive domestic intelligence agencies." Intelligence-read, spy-agencies spy; they aren't set up primarily to look for evidence of crimes, but to gather intelligence, knowledge that might later be useful do shape policies or influence the behaviour of the groups or communities being surveilled.
Police are supposed to monitor citizens only to the extent there is evidence or sufficient suspicion of criminal activity or its planning. But the AP reports that in many cases members of the unit go out of their way not to have their information, or even their existence, brought to a court of law.
Simply put, if the intelligence that the NYPD intelligence unit is gathering is not useful to the judicial process, then it's not police work, it's spying. If Americans think being spied on by their government isn't such a big deal, they can talk to the millions of Arabs who've rebelled in good measures because of decades of such practices, or the citizens of former Communist countries in Eastern Europe. All of these governments also justified spying with the need to "protect" the state and citizens from potentially dangerous people. But it always ends the same way.
Yes, the United States is not Mubarak-era Egypt, or East Germany under Erich Honecker. But Americans have already lost - or rather, given up-significant liberties since September 11, with the Patriot Act and the more aggressive tactics of the National Security Agency and other intelligence agencies as well as the FBI. The average citizen might not notice or even care about these restrictions; indeed, a huge section of the American public supports even more intrusive monitoring of their fellow citizens and even the criminalisation of forms of dissent against what they deem to be the correct path.
Since 9/11 Federal agents have once again infiltrated the peace and and anti-corporate globalization movements in the US, something with brought far greater condemnation during the Civil Rights and Vietnam War eras than it has now. Moreover, a climate of fear has been created in the mainstream media and even academia as a result of the the delegitimation of any points of view that challenge the supposed national consensus on issues related to the war on terror. This has allowed the war and the trillions being spent to prosecute it to continue as planned for a decade, with no end in sight.
Violating the Law
Moreover, the NYPD Intelligence Unit, under the guise of its CIA handlers, has engaged in similar activities, in particular infiltrating and helping to detain protesters at the Republican National Convention in 2004 and the demanding that detainees answer questions about their political affiliations, activism and feelings about George W. Bush.
Even putting aside the clear cases of politicised policing, there are grave doubts about the legality of the operations of the unit. In 1985 the NYPD was put under a federal court order that prohibited gathering intelligence not directly related to criminal activities after it was discovered that the department had infiltrated anti-war groups that were not engaged in any suspicious behavior. But the CIA-loaned head of the intelligence unit, David Cohen, convinced a federal judge to loosen these rules, after which the unit violated its promise to abide by the FBI's investigative guidelines in all its investigations, using "rakers" and "mosque crawlers" in the Muslim community that essentially trolled the community for hints not merely of criminal behaviour, but anti-government sentiment.
The Muslim community has long had problems with the FBI's trolling activities, which continues to be so aggressive that, as one activist explained to me, just recently a Libyan was approached to be an informant by the Bureau and was so scarred by the encounter that he was prepared to return to Libya at the height of Gaddafi's assault on his people. The harm to relations between the Bureau and the Muslim community from these actions is hard to overestimate, according to officials at the Council on American Islamic Relations. "The FBI's best line of defense against terrorism is the Muslim community. These actions have only made that relationship harder to sustain."
Indeed, even the FBI has refused to accept reports from the intelligence unit because of fears it has run afoul of the law; the AP report quoted one FBI official implicitly criticized the policy of mosque crawling.
The problem, according to CAIR attorney Gadeir Abbas is that "the Privacy Act [which prevents political investigations] is a federal law that only applies to federal agencies. It makes it illegal for those agencies to maintain records about a person's first amendment activities unless those activities are pertinent to an authorised law enforcement activity. But because the Privacy Act does not pertain to state or municipal agencies, the NYPD can't violate the Privacy Act.
This doesn't mean that the NYPD is off the hook. Abbas continued, explaining that "the First Amendment protects our right to associate freely with one another. An investigation of a community (rather than of a crime or a particular person) unlawfully chills the rights of persons within that community. Furthermore, the Establishment Clause requires NYPD to maintain neutrality between all religions. Their intelligence unit appears to be failing to maintain that neutrality by institutionalising suspicion of all things Islamic."
Is New York Occupied Territory?
Perhaps the most troubling aspect of the intelligence unit's activities is who and what it is modeling itself after: the activities of the Israeli occupation forces in the West Bank. The unit uses a "debriefing program" that singles out "young Middle Eastern men" who've been arrested for any offense, even if it has nothing to do with terrorism, to try to turn him into an informer. It has even sent officers into Muslim neighbourhoods to look for any reason to pull over people, even the most minor traffic infraction like a non-working headlight.
Such practices are quite similar to the long-standing and much abused Israeli practice of arresting young Palestinians for meaningless offenses and then, once in detention, putting pressure on them to become collaborators - offering them money, medical help for sick family members or other incentives, as well as threats depending on whether or not they comply. This is precisely what the NYPD is today doing.
Essentially, the police department's goal with such activities is to "map the city's human terrain" along the model of "how Israeli authorities operate in the West Bank," according to one former police official. What seems to be lost on the NYPD and even the AP report's authors is that the West Bank is occupied territory, the Israeli intelligence agencies operating there systematically engage in actions - illegal detention, kidnapping and even murder - that violate international law.
If the way the Israelis manage an occupied population is a model for NYPD intelligence activities, we have to ask whether they are treating the city's Muslim community as an occupied population, and if so, how long it might be before young, angry Muslim New Yorkers, start behaving like their Palestinian counterparts, and if that occurs, whether the NYPD would accept any responsibility for that development? Probably not; indeed, it would, as in Israel, just lead to even more intensive and intrusive spying on the community, perpetuating a vicious cycle that would benefit no one except the corporations who are raking in unprecedented profits supplying the technology and even personnel for these programmes.
Bush to Obama - Bad to Worse?
The activities of the NYPD's intelligence unit can't be understood outside of the context of the long and recently reactivated history of militarisation of American law enforcement. The 1947 charter of the CIA prohibited it from spying against Americans, in good measure because then President Truman feared political abuses by the agency. But despite that prohibition, the CIA did from spy on Americans during the Civil Rights and Vietnam eras in clear violation of its mandate. Among the most infamous programs we know about was the MHCHAOS program, also known as "Operation Chaos," which spied on as many as 7,000 members of the peace movement during the 1960s and 1970s.
The FBI ran a similarly notorious series of program, dubbed "COINTELPRO" (short for Counter Intelligence Program), which conducted surveillance on, infiltrated and attempted to discredit and disrupt groups deemed politically subversive, or potentially so.
Today the CIA, FBI, and it seems, the NYPD, are involved in a tangled and troubling relationship that is bringing together the worst of these past programmes in a 21st century redux, using the Patriot Act, ideologically supportive courts, subservient lawmakers and a broadly incurious citizenry to achieve their aims.
From the local perspective, since 9/11 the transformation of part of the NYPD into an intelligence bureaucracy mirrors the increasing militarization of police forces across the country into a sprawling, almost unimaginably large system. Last year the Washington Post ran a four-part series titled "Top Secret America" which argued that "nine years after the terrorist attacks of 2001, the United States is assembling a vast domestic intelligence apparatus to collect information about Americans, using the FBI, local police, state homeland security offices and military criminal investigators. The system... collects, stores and analyzes information about thousands of US citizens and residents, many of whom have not been accused of any wrongdoing."
The system has become so large, secretive and unwieldy that it has created an "alternative geography" in the United State that comprised some 1,271 government organizations and 1,931 private companies work on programmes related to counterterrorism, homeland security and intelligence in about 10,000 locations across the United States, with an estimated 854,000 public and private employees involved.
Besides Israel, another source of the "expertise" currently being utilized by the NYPD is the US military and intelligence forces in Iraq and Afghanistan. These are, to be sure, not the most promising models if one cares about civil liberties, the rule of law, and democracy. While initiated by President Bush, the system has grown substantially under President Obama, leading one civil rights leader to complain to me that "for many of us, the problem isn't that Obama is as bad as Bush, it's that in many ways his administration is actually worse than its predecessor, with more use of state secrets privilege to prevent parties to criminal or civil cases from accessing relevant information, and more use of FBI infiltrating communities."
Where the Rule of Experts Leads
Most important, both he FBI and the NYPD have hired so-called "experts" on Islam and the Muslim world to train their personnel who are clearly Islamophobes with a record of extremist views and false claims about Muslims in the US and Islam more broadly, such as Ramon Montijo, who has taught classes on terrorism and Islam to law enforcement officers all over the country and believes that "most Muslims in the United States want to impose sharia law here. They want to make this world Islamic. The Islamic flag will fly over the White House... My job is to wake up the public, and first, the first responders."
Other "experts," some of them Muslim converts to the conservative wing of Evangelical Christianity or former intelligence officials with longstanding ties to the hard right of American politics, "teach" similar "expertise to American law enforcement personnel. They argue that Muslims are engaged in a "stealth jihad" against the US and that police "need to look at the entire pool of Muslims in a community," through monitoring Muslim student groups and local mosques and tapping their phones. Former CIA director R. James Woolsey and former deputy undersecretary of defense for intelligence Lt. Gen. William G. Boykin (who was roundly criticised for making inflammatory remarks against Muslim while in uniform) routinely offer their support for such experts.
Lest we assume that the NYPD has been safe from such infiltration, the reality says otherwise. Personnel have been shown films such as "The Third Jihad" a rank anti-Muslim piece of propaganda which had a strong influence on Norwegian mass murderer Anders Breivik. More disturbing, however, are the policies that such beliefs help justify. As one of the main CIA officials presently working with the NYPD is Larry Sanchez, explained in 2007 testimony before the Senate Homeland Security Committee, the key to spotting "signs of radicalisation" in New York Muslim communities was "viewing innocuous activity, including behaviour that might be protected by the First Amendment, as a potential precursor to terrorism."
If the NYPD, which for all its faults is still one of the better police forces in the United States, can be supervised by someone who thinks free speech is a natural precursor to terrorism, we can only imagine what officials in far less cosmopolitan jurisdictions must be thinking. Indeed, when Sanchez gave his testimony, no one on the Committee took issue with that remark. Why should they, as the US government is today so involved in monitoring free speech and dissenting politics that Sanchez's claim is not merely unremarkable, it's not worthy of a second thought.
That such remarks have become unremarkable might be Osama bin Laden's most enduring victory
John R. Malott, a former US Ambassador to Malaysia, in his article Malaysia’s Political Awakening: A Call for US Leadership has brought to the attention of law-makers in America, the plight of democracy in Malaysia. It is a call for the US leadership to pay more attention and be more vocal during a time when Prime Minister Najib Razak’s government seems to be reneging on democratic practices.
In an interview with Malaysia Chronicle, Malott had explained what he meant by “US leadership” and stressed that US concerns did not lie in who formed the government of Malaysia but about the continuation of and support for democracy in the Southeast Asian nation.
“I called for US leadership. By that I mean, we need to be more visible and vocal in expressing our concerns about developments in Malaysia. We need to be more supportive – moral support and encouragement – of those members of civil society in Malaysia who want Malaysia to become a true democracy and have the same freedom that we and others have. We should support the call for electoral reform. It is not up to America who forms the government in Malaysia. But we should be concerned whether the playing field is level,” Malott had said.
Help civil society, pressure the Najib AdministrationYes, the US should not take it upon themselves to be the mastermind of change in Malaysia, but rather stand by the Malaysian people in supporting the drive for reform and a better Malaysia. Teach us to fish, don’t give us the fish.
Help the civil movement in Malaysia by being the partner that highlights our plight on the international scene. And continue to exert pressure on the current administration to push for reforms in every aspect of government.
Pressure on the Najib administration has been stiff in the aftermath of the high-handed tactics
employed to disperse the Bersih marchers, the blatant demonizing of a coalition of NGOs calling for free and fair elections and the abuse of authority in the police and judiciary in the days leading to and after the July 9th rally.
employed to disperse the Bersih marchers, the blatant demonizing of a coalition of NGOs calling for free and fair elections and the abuse of authority in the police and judiciary in the days leading to and after the July 9th rally.Yet, despite the scare-mongering, everyday Malaysians still turned out in droves to support a cause they believe in. 50,000 people did not get it wrong when they sent a message that reforms are needed to clean up the elections process in Malaysia. And though the Najib administration and the Election Commission continue to deny the truth, Malaysians know better and the time for change has come.
“I don’t believe that the situation is near the boiling point. Malaysians don’t boil. They are a very patient people. That is why July 9 was such a remarkable event. The temperature went up, but it is nowhere near the boiling point. But if people don’t follow through – if the leaders of civil society, the opposition and others don’t follow through, the temperature will go down. If the government carves out more space for those who don’t agree with them, they also could lower the temperature,” said Malott.
Greatest Resistance to come from UMNO
Mr Malott is right in his assessment here. Malaysia’s civil societies need to keep the pressure on. The follow-through has to be strong and decisive. It still remains the prerogative of the everyday Malaysian to engineer and strive for democratic reforms in Malaysia.
However, there is bound to be resistance against Mr Malott’s call for more attention from the US administration – firstly from Barisan Nasional and specifically from UMNO.
Barisan Nasional will never be receptive to outsiders telling it how to go about its business. Thus, any show of support would be jumped upon as grounds for further arrests, repression and oppression within the civil rights movement in Malaysia. This was evident in the demonisation of Bersih when everything from Christians, Jews, Indonesians, the Opposition and Communists were used to build a skewed perception of Bersih in the minds of everyday Malaysians.Indeed, the greatest resistance would come from the present day government that is not afraid to place the blame on its people first than its own poor administration.
The detention of opposition leaders in the 1987 Ops Lalang accomplished more than just arresting vocal and critical politicians under ISA. The incident provided Mahathir’s government with the excuse to further tighten the executive branch of the government’s stranglehold on politics. In the following year, the Printing Presses and Publications Act was amended so that it would be more difficult for printers and publishers to retain printing licenses eliminating the renewal process. They would have to annually re-apply. In addition if any license is revoked, it could not be challenged in court. A prison term was added for publication of false news, jail sentence for up to three years.
Amendments were also made to the Police Act making it practically impossible to hold any political meeting, including a party’s annual general meeting, without a police permit. A conviction could mean a fine of RM10,000 and a jail term of one year. Even an assembly of more than five people in a public area is considered an “illegal assembly” and could not be held without a police permit. This law was intentionally made to be so restrictive in order to give the police arbitrary rights to detain any group in public by citing it is an illegal assembly.
Awakened Generation
Such restrictions on civil liberties contravene the rights of the citizens as stated in the Federal
Constitution, yet this does not seem to bother those who are only interested in remaining in power.
Constitution, yet this does not seem to bother those who are only interested in remaining in power.Against this backdrop, Bersih has awakened a generation that has long been conditioned to believe that they cannot make a difference. It is an intelligent generation that sees beyond the smokescreen and intimidation tactics of the establishment, and realises their true potential as Malaysians.
“The actions of the government, before and after July 9, backfired against them. Matthias Chang wrote that they acted with sheer stupidity. The Government still has a chance to turn this around, but that would require them to give more political “space” to those who don’t agree with them, and to make sure that the people get to enjoy the rights that the constitution guarantees them. Will they? I have my doubts. This is a government – even though they have spent millions on PR firms and management consultants – that keeps shooting itself in the foot. The deportation of the French lawyer is only the latest example. Now, for the first time, all the juicy details of that scandal – including the model who was murdered by the PM’s bodyguards – have appeared in the Washington Post. It just adds to the confusion among people here – what kind of a country is Malaysia, anyhow? And is Najib really the person that he has portrayed himself to be?” Malott added.
A call for concern and support from the US government towards the civil movement in Malaysia is indeed much welcome. However, we should also be aware that Malaysians are more than capable of standing on their own two feet and dictate the process of change at their own pace. We cannot be a tool for another government to resell their brand of democracy, but it sure is nice and extra comforting to have a solid and reliable friend watching our backs. - Malaysia ChronicleInterview with Ambassador John. Malott:
The US and Malaysia’s Political Awakening
Malaysia Chronicle appends below the unedited full-text of the interview with John R. Malott, 
US Ambassador to Malaysia from 1995 to 1998 and is currently the President of the Japan-America Society of Washington DC
US Ambassador to Malaysia from 1995 to 1998 and is currently the President of the Japan-America Society of Washington DCChronicle: In your article, you mentioned that the Malaysian people showed they would no longer be intimidated by their government. Given the severity of the pre-rally crackdown and the Police scare-mongering and yet tens of thousands defied the ban, would you say this feeling of ‘defiance’ so to speak is deep-seated, has been growing and is reaching boiling point? And why?
Malott: I think that this discontent has been growing for sometime. But the heavy hand of the government in the days leading up to the July 9 rally, and their strange statements and actions – like saying that Bersih was trying to overthrow the government and banning the color yellow – caused many more Malaysians to wake up and pay attention.
Chronicle: If you agree that the feelings of ‘discontent’ or ‘unhappiness’ so to speak are deep-seated, does this imply that the political or living conditions in Malaysia have been and are repressive and do not encourage the truth to be openly raised or discussed. And why?
Malott: I don’t know how deep-seated or widespread these feelings are in Malaysia. That’s why I wrote in my analysis that the question for the future is whether the momentum can be sustained. Will an increasing number of Malaysians wake up and understand the status of democracy and political freedom in their country, or will it go back to business as usual, where it is just activists in civil society and the opposition who are vocal. As I said, the actions of the government, before and after July 9, backfired against them.
Matthias Chang wrote that they acted with sheer stupidity. The Government still has a chance to turn this around, but that would require them to give more political “space” to those who don’t agree with them, and to make sure that the people get to enjoy the rights that the constitution guarantees them. Will they? I have my doubts. This is a government – even though they have spent millions on PR firms and management consultants – that keeps shooting itself in the foot.The deportation of the French lawyer is only the latest example. Now, for the first time, all the juicy details of that scandal – including the model who was murdered by the PM’s bodyguards – have appeared in the Washington Post. It just adds to the confusion among people here – what kind of a country is Malaysia, anyhow? And is Najib really the person that he has portrayed himself to be?
Chronicle: If you agree that the ‘defiance’ so to speak is not an overnight or sudden swell-up but has been building up through the years, does this imply the policies – both social and economic – adopted by the BN federal government have not been appropriate, in the sense that they did not treat the wants and needs of the people? And why?
Malott: When I was Ambassador, we always believed that as long as the economy was booming, a lot of the underlying racial and social tensions could be contained. Plus people were willing to grant Mahathir the right to wield his political iron hand in exchange for the economic benefits that the country was getting. Despite the occasional scandals and the cronyism, the Malaysian “man in the street” thought that he had benefited greatly from Malaysia’s growth, and he was right. But now for over a decade the economy has slowed, and investment is down. Many college grads are unemployed. And the Government has removed subsidies on everyday items. So I think the man in the street – the Malaysian middle class, the people who live in the cities — don’t have the same feeling they had before. They don’t see the same level of economic progress for themselves. They don’t see the government delivering on all the promises it has made. Meanwhile, they read about diamond rings and fancy yachts and $27 million condos in New York. It seems like it is business as usual at the top. One of the articles in your website today (Sunday) said something like ‘Malaysia is now being run not for the benefit of the people or even the Malays. It is being run for the benefit of the UMNO elite.’
Chronicle: Do you think these feelings of resentment so to speak are anywhere near boling point, close to boiling point or have already boiled over and what are the implications for the ruling BN coalition, the opposition, long-term investors and the people? And why? For example, is this a wake-up call for the BN, opportunity knocking at the door for the Pakatan, a stay-away call for investors? As for the people, do you foresee the start of a new trend for peaceful assemblies, protests ala Thailand? Or in your words – a political awakening – but in what shape and form will this likely take?
Malott: I don’t believe that the situation is near the boiling point. Malaysians don’t boil. They are a very patient people. That is why July 9 was such a remarkable event. The temperature went up, but it is nowhere near the boiling point. But if people don’t follow through – if the leaders of civil society, the opposition and others don’t follow through, the temperature will go down. If the government carves out more space for those who don’t agree with them, they also could lower the temperature.
On foreign investment, I think that foreign businessmen are smart. They will not be scared away from Malaysia because of one demonstration. What concerns them most is corruption, the lack of transparency in awarding government contracts, the ease and cost of doing business in Malaysia compared to other locations, whether Malaysia’s market is growing fast, its competitiveness, the independence of its courts, the availability of skilled employees, and so on. It is those kinds of practical questions that mean the most to them. As the statistics show, over the last decade or so, Malaysia’s share of all the foreign investment coming into ASEAN has been declining. From the point of view of a foreign investor, they have many choices. There are many countries they can invest in. So the question for the Malaysian government is, what do we need to do to increase our attractiveness to foreign investors, compared to our neighbors?
Chronicle: You quoted another expert who used the term “most fluid and dangerous” to 
describe the situation in Malaysia today. How extreme can the situation become, for example is it possible for Malaysia to regress to a non-democratic state where elections may even be discarded, military or police rule the new order, a ‘closing of doors’ so to speak? And why? In such a case, who would be the prime-movers – PM Najib Razak and his cousin Hishammuddin Hussein, other factions led by DPM Muhyiddin Yassin or ex-PMs Mahathir Mohamad and Abdullah Badawi or UMNO, the party as a whole? I do not mention the other parties in BN because it is clear they do not have the clout, do you agree? What would happen to the opposition in the country then? And for how long could an extreme situation last?
describe the situation in Malaysia today. How extreme can the situation become, for example is it possible for Malaysia to regress to a non-democratic state where elections may even be discarded, military or police rule the new order, a ‘closing of doors’ so to speak? And why? In such a case, who would be the prime-movers – PM Najib Razak and his cousin Hishammuddin Hussein, other factions led by DPM Muhyiddin Yassin or ex-PMs Mahathir Mohamad and Abdullah Badawi or UMNO, the party as a whole? I do not mention the other parties in BN because it is clear they do not have the clout, do you agree? What would happen to the opposition in the country then? And for how long could an extreme situation last?You also mentioned in your article, the Economist Intelligence Unit says Malaysia is a “flawed democracy”. If this is so, then if in the swing towards a ‘full democracy’, Malaysia collapses into a police regime – to many who have been following the situation closely, this would not be surprising or be an unlikly possibility at all. But for those who still see the country as per its postcards of sunny skies and ideal racial harmony, this would come as a rude shock. Do you agree and what sort of odds would you give to the worst scenario happening? And why? What other scenarios do you seen? And why?
Malott: Clive Kessler (left), who knows infinitely more about Malaysia than I do, wrote an analysis recently (which you had on your website) in which he raised the prospect that rather than lose an election, UMNO would declare an emergency and not hold elections. As a former State Department official, I don’t want to comment on Wikileaks. But when I read the latest leaked cable, in which our Embassy said three years ago, in effect, that UMNO would do “whatever it takes” to remain in power, including subverting the institutions of state power to its own purposes, including the police and the courts.Malaysia has seen Operasi Lalang, it has seen the Sedition Act and ISA used liberally, and more recently it has seen denial of service attacks on the alternative media to keep people from reading what the Government doesn’t want them to know. I hope it doesn’t come to that. I am not Clive Kessler, and I don’t want to make a prediction. But I would not rule out the possibility that something like that might happen. What is the probability of it happening? I don’t know. But if it does happen, then as you said, it will come as a great shock to everyone who has been holding a very different image of Malaysia. That is why I wrote my piece. I think the American people need to wake up and understand what is happening in Malaysia today, and to express our concern.
Chronicle: From your article, it looks like the United States is still in the postcards-and-sunny-skies group? Is this view still very entrenched or have there been significant shifts of late? Given the very sizeable investments the US has in Malaysia, should not American foreign policy makers make better efforts to assess the situation? Should they not take some action or send stronger signals to help keep democracy alive in Malaysia? In other words, has not the time come to take sides? What are the things that US bodies could do?
Malott: I think to the extent American think or know about Malaysia, most of them are still in the picture postcard stage of awareness. So that is why I sent my wake-up call. Let’s see what happens. Some of us – all friends of Malaysia — will continue to do everything we can to keep up awareness. Amnesty International said America “should not be a spectator,” and I agree. I called for US leadership. By that I mean, we need to be more visible and vocal in expressing our concerns about developments in Malaysia. We need to be more supportive – moral support and encouragement – of those members of civil society in Malaysia who want Malaysia to become a true democracy and have the same freedom that we and others have. We should support the call for electoral reform. It is not up to America who forms the government in Malaysia. But we should be concerned whether the playing field is level, and whether all the parties have an equal chance to access the media, and so on.
RTM and Bernama belong to all the people of Malaysia, not to UMNO. They are paid for by all the people of Malaysia, not just those who voted for UMNO. Bersih’s demands all seemed quite reasonable to me. When Najib arrived home from Rome the other day, he held an airport press conference and said that Malaysia’s elections already are free and fair, and that UMNO has never cheated in an election. Does he really believe that? That is not what all the independent academic studies have to say. And then he went out to meet the people, and according to an article in Malaysiakini, he proceeded to pass out white envelopes with 200 ringgit inside to the people who were there.
Chronicle: Cleaning the Malaysian electoral system and making sure it reflects accurately the wishes the majority seems to be the best way or one the best ways to ensure human rights, cvil liberties and democratic practises prevail. Do you agree and how can the US help to promote such a practice in Malaysia given that the existing BN federal government is insistent that nothing is wrong and is likely to resist efforts to revamp?
Malott: I read that the European Union Office in KL is going to recommend that the EU send observer missions to the next election. That is good. That is leadership. I think that some of our organizations – the National Democratic Institute, the International Republic Institute, the Carter Center – should prepare to do the same. The Vice Chair of the Elections Commission said that foreigners would never understand Malaysia’s election laws. That was an offensive statement. And it also was strange, since his boss the EC chairman was at that very moment in Bangkok, monitoring the Thai elections.
We should be very visible in our support of Bersih and its goals. I hope that our Embassy and the academic and think tank communities in the US will help our policy makers and opinion leaders understand what the true status of democracy and elections in Malaysia is. For example, an American think tank could invite Ambiga (left) to the US so she can explain directly to us what Bersih is all about.It would be useful to benchmark Malaysia’s electoral laws and rules against those elsewhere in the world. For example, how many countries allow their citizens living overseas to vote? What is the minimum age for voters in most countries? How do other countries handle postal ballots – who is allowed to use them? In other countries with publicly-owned television and radio networks – Japan, Britain, America, Australia, Taiwan, Singapore, etc. – how do they ensure that political and election reporting is balanced? How do they provide access to opposition candidates? How do other countries ensure that their election commission is independent? Malaysia needs to make sure that what it does matches the prevailing international standards in other democracies.
I am sure that the Government will resist this. But we should not give in. They can resist, and we should insist.Chronicle: Do you see any similarity between what is happening in Malaysia and the so-called Arab Spring?
Malott: Well, Malaysia is certainly not Libya or Syria or Yemen. Najib is not a Qaddafi. But still, I was surprised to see that Najib is still saying that the Bersih movement is a veiled attempt to topple his administration through street demonstrations, like those that are now claiming Middle Eastern despots. He said, “It’s not so much about electoral reform. They want to show us as though
we’re like the Arab Spring governments in the Middle East.”
we’re like the Arab Spring governments in the Middle East.”Well, if that is Bersih’s goal, then why did Najib act like an Arab Spring government? It’s only a question of degree. The Malaysian Police did not use lethal force, but the mentality is the same. Suppress whoever disagrees with you. Maybe you don’t use tanks, but you use water cannon. It’s not bullets, it’s tear gas. But the authoritarian mindset is exactly the same as the leaders of the Arab Spring governments. Just because you use non-lethal force doesn’t mean it’s OK. – ENDS
.
No comments:
Post a Comment