1
The mystery of the “Dato T” of the Sri Carcosa sex tape caper has been resolved in 48 hours with the confession by the culprits concerned – former Malacca chief minister and Umno veteran Tan Sri Rahim Thamby Cik, Shazryl Eskay Abdullah and Perkasa’s Shuib Lazim.
In a hurriedly-called press conference, Rahim admitted that “Datuk T” stood for “Datuk Trio” comprising three of them.
Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim had immediately denied that he was the man in the video and had lodged a police report the very next day.
Two questions now uppermost in the minds of all right-thinking Malaysians are:
- Why police have not yet arrested the trio of “Datuk T”, namely Rahim, Shazryl and Shuib for various crimes including Section 292 of the Penal Code for “publicly exhibiting any obscene or pornographic material” liable to a jail term of three years or Section 5(1) of the Film Censorship Act 2002 where a person is liable to be fined up to RM50,000 or jailed up to five years or both. Do the trio enjoy immunity and impunity for breaches of the law and actions which have brought world-wide shame to the nation? Read the rest of this entry
“The police should investigate this matter immediately. It is important that the law be enforced regardless of who is involved when it comes to with breaking the law,” Puchong MP Gobind Singh told Malaysia Chronicle.
Anwar himself had earlier lodged a police report urging an immediate investigation on who was behind the 21-minute video tape which allgedely showed a man looking like him having sex in an unknown hotel with a prostitute.
The Opposition Leader has denied being the man in the tape and has accused Prime Minister Najib Razak and Home Minister Hishammuddin Hussein of supporting the latest conspiracy to bring him down, just when the Sarawak polls are being held.
According to Subang MP Sivarasa Rasiah, it was very clearly stated in Section 292 of the Penal Code that anyone caught “publicly exhibiting any obscene or pornographic material” was liable to a jail term of three years.
Under the 'heavier' Section 5(1) of the Film Censorship Act 2002 , such a person is liable to be fined up to RM50,000 or jailed up to five years or both.
"The breaches in law are clear. The whole of Malaysia is now watching to see how Najib and Hisham will behave. Will they uphold the law or will be a case of special treatment and different laws for Umno leaders," Sivarasa toldMalaysia Chronicle.
A trend of political conspiracies
Like most Malaysians, Siva believes the scandal was another political conspiracy aimed at tarnishing Anwar and to entice elected representatives from his PKR party over to the ruling BN coalition.
This is not the first time that Najib has resorted to "sordid" methods to cling to power, the Subang MP added.
"A clear pattern has emerged. Under Najib, the BN increasingly uses a combination of intimidation and money to lure over MPs and assemblymen from the Pakatan. For example, in Gobala case, they threatened him with a RM3,000 fine which would disqualify him as MP and at the same time, they also offered him huge amounts of money," said Siva. he was referring to Padang Serai MP N Gobalakrishnan, who recently quit PKR.
Meanwhile, there are concerns that the Najib administration will "come up with an excuse" not to punish the trio as minister in the Prime Minister's Department Nazri Aziz had hinted that since the three men were trying to do 'public good' by exposing Anwar.
"You tell me what is wrong. Everybody says it is against the law, but tell me, which law? Whoever knows should come forward to inform us,” Malaysiakini reported Nazri as saying.
RCI should be on who was behind the Datuk T trio
But other lawyers rubbished his statement and accused him of trying to shield Najib at the expense of the law and the integrity of the country's judiciary.
"That's rubbish. As the de-facto law minister, Nazri should know better. It is quite incredbile that he could make such a statement," PKR legal bureau chief Latheefa Koya told Malaysia Chronicle.
Batu MP Tian Chua also ridiculed the suggestion made by the trio for a Royal Commission of Inquiry.
"It is the silliest thing. They are the ones who commited the crime and yet they are calling for a Royal probe against their victim. If there is to be an RCI, it should be on who initiated the whole conspiracy, which were the government agencies involved," Tian told Malaysia Chronicle.
"What was the role of the PM, Home Minister Minister, the Special Branch, the mainstream media and did former prime minister Mahathir Mohamad also play a part? And what was their objective? Do Malaysians want this sort of government, this sort of lifestyle and this sort of culture."
Police efficiency, independence and professionalism are again the major casualties of the Sri Carcosa sex tape caper targeting Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim two days ago on Monday.
Would the police stayed on the sidelines, claiming ignorance of the flagrant commission of crimes and impotence to act until Anwar lodged a police report, if the target of the Sri Carcosa sex tape caper had been the Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak, the Deputy Prime Minister Tan Sri Muhyiddin Yassin or anyone of the Cabinet Ministers?
Would the de facto Law Minister, Datuk Seri Nazri Aziz in these circumstances come to the defence of the mysterious “Datuk T” and made the astounding declaration “Don’t kill the messenger” and claimed that there was nothing illegal in the Sri Carcosa sex tape caper?
And if there is nothing legally wrong in the Sri Carcosa sex taper caper as claimed by the de facto Minister, then what is the police investigating about following the report lodged by Anwar?
There can be no doubt that if the target of the Sri Carcosa sex tape caper had been the Prime Minister, the Deputy Prime Minister or anyone of the Cabinet Ministers, the mysterious “Datuk T” would not remain incognito for more than a flicker of the eye as the full force of the law would have come smashing down on him without the niceties of waiting for a police report to be lodged and he would instantly have been arrested and clapped behind bars by the police for a variety of heinous crimes, including Section 292 of the Penal Code for “publicly exhibiting any obscene or pornographic material” liable to a jail term of three years or Section 5(1) of the Film Censorship Act 2002 where he is liable to be fined up to RM50,000 or jailed up to five years or both.
Why then the double standards by the police in the Sri Carcosa sex taper caper?
With “Datuk T” and his team operating so freely and openly in the past two days, who will believe that the Police and those in authority do not know their identity at all?
In fact, Nazri’s comments would be difficult to understand unless he had been privy to the identity of “Datuk T”, like the following: “But we all know that he (Datuk T) has all intentions to report (the matter) to the police and he got editors as his witnesses…”
But there appears to be a change of plan with “Datuk T” sending out an email yesterday signifying that he would not send the sex video to the police – showing utter double contempt for the police and for public opinion because of sense of immunity and impunity from the law for the Sri Carcosa sex tape caper.
It is just not good enough for the Home Minister, Datuk Seri Hishammuddin Hussein and the Inspector-General of Police, Tan Sri Ismail Omar to belatedly wake up to the Sri Carcosa sex tape caper when both should be fully aware that they had failed to live up to national expectations that the police would have acted strictly according to the tenets of efficiency, independence and professionalism uninfluenced by any political considerations in the first 30 hours of the most disgraceful political scandal in the nation’s history.
So, those who surmised that the sex video revealed by ‘Datuk T’ was a political ploy have been proven right. The people behind it – three of them – have confessed to it.
They were forced to reveal themselves because PKR’s MP Johari Abdul had earlier spilled the beans on them. It all unravelled like a cheap soap opera.
Former Malacca chief minister Rahim Thamby Chik, businessman Shazryl Eskay Abdullah and Shuib Lazim, treasurer-general of Perkasa, have come out to say they are ‘Datuk T’. And they have the cheek to call for a royal commission of inquiry into the sex video.
In the first place, they have transgressed Section 292 of the Penal Code for possessing and distributing pornographic material. Regardless of who the person in the video is, the trio are culpable. Exposing a politician’s sexual activity does not protect them from the law.
IGP would never get that job under a transparent meritocracy-based system. Lazy-assed wise guy who thinks he’s being witty by coming up with statements like childish tantrums.
It is unknown they used to be and/or try to be above the laws ?
Or, take the laws in their handsThis is what happens when red light districts, strip clubs, ownership of guns and gun clubs are prohibited. Macho guys (or rednecks) like Musa Hassan have no where to be macho at, and end up in the police force instead. Law of averages then will chance that one of them gets promoted to IGP and as a matter of social structure the same macho guy gets a Tan Sri title as well. why I can understand as to why Musa says “if the police are forced to stop questioning witnesses after office hours, it is tantamount to asking the police station to close at 5pm….if that is the case, then those who want to lodge police reports after hours can see Karpal.” These are statement from half bred and half educated junk who do not look at the whole enquiry or who do not listen to the question asked. The analogy they use is also smack with malicious intents. This is what we generally described as “if you can’t convince, you confuse”. This goons really got no substance. They got to where they are is because they are just lapped dog, nothing more and nothing less.
And there you have it, jocks and d*cks in uniform who would rather be having fun in a civilian manner. So please legalize all of the above, it will really help differentiate the different types of alpha males by giving them appropriate breathing space to express themselves. Oh and abolish Section 377 too, something that might help other Dr.Evil wannabes to be less frustrated and vicious about as well, conflicted guys be able to use sodomy cases to politically assassinate anymore . . .
AHEM, Point 13 of the 13 point plan, explained in a holistic and psychoanalytically laudable manner
This just goes to show that the IGP don’t even know what he’s talking about. He’s got plenty to learn from Karpal Singh.IQ is apparently utterly lacking!IGP should speak through NAZRI, only Nazri can help to protect him from making wrong statements!!! Karpal dont speak without backing from laws!!! IGP just tembak sahaja without any backing of laws except BN govt!!!
It is about interrogation and not about making reports!
Our IGP can’t differentiate questioning witness with lodging police report about the lacking of IQ. But its is not about interrogation though.
All witnesses cannot be interrogated unless he/she is arrested.
Witnesses statement can only be recorded not interogated or grilled or tortured or thrown out of window.
We know that many unexplained deaths occur in police custody – Hence this restriction should be good for the prisoners’ safety.
Of course the cops want to operate with unfettered powers.
The Judge ruled that witness cannot be held after working hours giving statement !!!
MACC just not trained about the law so they simply think that they are more powerful than any govt departments and do as they please.
The court ordered is about questioning witness not lodging police report.
How come an idiot like him can become IGP! Oh, sorry, I should say this kind of idiot is needed by UMNO so that UNMo can easily control the PDRM.
Dear IGP, if your mom asked you not to eat doesn’t means you can not drink. Get it, idiot? Musa is not the sharpest knife in the drawer, is he? Why is he still holding such an important post in the country when he does not seem to be able to understand the simple concept of ‘investigating via questioning in MACC during normal office hours. Who is Musa’s boss? His boss should be taken to task on using our money to employ such an incompetent person.
The attenuation requirement that Roberts included in his ruling – that it can’t be the cop right there doing the arresting who “makes a mistake – oops!” – for this exception to the rule to apply is what makes it the right balancing test. Remember, the mistake made in Herring was made by someone not connected with the bust, some time earlier, in a police database. Frankly, if the police really want to get around the rule and are willing to lie, there are already far easier ways than to have someone start making attenuated mistakes – mistakes at far remove from the defendant – in the hopes that something gets triggered down the line.The UK doesn’t even have a written constitution. It does not protect speech like the U.S. and has a more invasive police state. Please don’t use it as a model for us.Of course, it’s the attenuation rule that will be the hardest to define, and thus the easiest to deform through argument.He called this one right – but I think he implicitly has to back up his attenuation justification by protecting that part of it in future cases.It’s one of the most common accusations by defendants and defense attorneys — that police officers don’t tell the truth on the witness stand.Of course, defendants themselves can be the ones lying, but the problem of police perjury — and what can be done about it — is being debated anew. Fueling the discussion are recent court cases in New York City and Boston that indicated officers may have lied and a U.S. Supreme Court ruling this month that could have broader implications for cases in which improperly obtained evidence is in dispute.Questionable testimony by police comes up most often in firearm- or drug-possession cases in which officers often testify that a defendant had a bulge in his pocket — which they thought might be a gun — or dropped drugs in plain sight as they approached him, giving the officers the right to seize the contraband. Defense lawyers say in many of these cases, officers are “testilying” and that the guns or drugs were actually discovered when their clients were unjustly frisked by officers. They also say testilying frequently occurs in more serious cases.In Boston, a federal judge last week ruled that a police officer there falsely testified at a pretrial hearing in a gun-possession case about the circumstances of the defendant’s arrest. The judge, Mark Wolf, is considering sanctions against the prosecutor for not immediately disclosing that the officer’s testimony contradicted what he told prosecutors beforehand.A federal judge in Brooklyn, N.Y., last fall ruled that a U.S. marshal and a New York City police officer lied when they testified that a defendant dropped two bags of drugs in front of them and then invited the officers to his apartment, where he revealed a large cache of cocaine.Though few officers will confess to lying — after all, it’s a crime — work by researchers and a 1990s commission appointed to examine police corruption shows there’s a tacit agreement among many officers that lying about how evidence is seized keeps criminals off the street.To stem the problem, some criminal-justice researchers and academic experts have called for doing polygraphs on officers who take the stand or requiring officers to tape their searches.A Supreme Court ruling this month, however, suggests that a simpler, though controversial, solution may be to weaken a longstanding part of U.S. law, known as the exclusionary rule. The 5-4 ruling in Herring v. U.S. that evidence obtained from certain unlawful arrests may nevertheless be used against a criminal defendant could indicate the U.S. is inching closer to a system in which officers might not be tempted to lie to prevent evidence from being thrown out.Criminal-justice researchers say it’s difficult to quantify how often perjury is being committed. According to a 1992 survey, prosecutors, defense attorneys and judges in Chicago said they thought that, on average, perjury by police occurs 20% of the time in which defendants claim evidence was illegally seized.“It is an open secret long shared by prosecutors, defense lawyers and judges that perjury is widespread among law enforcement officers,” though it’s difficult to detect in specific cases, said Alex Kozinski, a federal appeals-court judge, in the 1990s. That’s because the exclusionary rule “sets up a great incentive for…police to lie.”Police officers don’t necessarily agree, says Eugene O’Donnell, a former police officer and prosecutor who teaches law and police studies in New York. “Perjury is endemic in the court system, but officers lie less than defendants do because generally they aren’t heavily invested in the outcome of the cases,” he says.Testilying may have taken off after a 1961 Supreme Court decision boosted the exclusionary rule by requiring state courts to exclude — or throw out — some evidence seized in illegal searches, such as when police frisk people without probable cause or search a residence without a warrant.Immediately after the decision, Mapp v. Ohio, studies showed that the number of annual drug arrests in the U.S. — most cases are prosecuted in state court — didn’t change much but there was a sharp increase in officers claiming that suspects dropped drugs on the ground. “Either drug users were suddenly dropping bags all over the place or the cops were still frisking but saying the guy dropped the drugs,” says John Kleinig, a professor at John Jay College of Criminal Justice.This month’s Supreme Court decision added an exception to the exclusionary rule by holding that the prosecution of an Alabama man for drug- and firearm-possession charges was valid, even though the contraband was found after the man was wrongly arrested and searched. Police officers had mistakenly thought he was subject to an arrest warrant.Throwing out evidence because of wrongful searches and arrests “is not an individual right and applies only where its deterrent effect outweighs the substantial cost of letting guilty and possibly dangerous defendants go free,” wrote Chief Justice John Roberts.Civil liberties advocates and defense lawyers say losing the exclusionary rule would harm the public. “We’d risk far greater invasions of privacy because officers would have carte blanche to do outrageous activity and act on hunches all the time,” says JaneAnne Murray, a criminal defense lawyer in New York.Write to Amir Efrati at amir.efrati@wsj.com
No comments:
Post a Comment