Wednesday, August 31, 2011

Mahathir's hipocrisy...

EXXONMOBIL Scandal Starring Mirzan Mahathir
Wednesday, 31 August 2011 admin-s

Mahathir Mohamad on the one hand is using Ibrahim Ali to stoke up the Malay sentiments' anti-drinking, anti-everything for his return to power, while on the other using his son Mirzan to buy Esso Malaysia using San Miguel's beer drinking money.

By JO & M.Nathan

I am so utterly disgusted with the BN government for its inability to engage Esso Malaysia for the rakyat. I am further disgusted with the hypocrisy of Mahathir Mohamad on the one hand using Ibrahim Ali to stoke up the Malay sentiments' anti-drinking, anti-everything for his return to power, while on the other using his son Mirzan to buy Esso Malaysia using San Miguel's beer drinking money. Worse still, he is exploiting the tax incentives reserved for us the rakyat, the unimportant Malaysians.

If you remember, Mirzan surfaced as a director of Petron, San Miguel's beer company as the parent. Now he is using his brotherly influence on Muhkriz as the Minister of MITI to get the FIC approval and whatever else needed, for a deal which no decent government would ever allow.

Yesterday, the Domestic Trade Minister Sabri even said Malaysia cannot do anything about it. What a statement. The point is these Ministers are put there to safeguard our interests, not to spend time mixing with singers and artists so that his son Dafi can cut another album or so. Ministers need to protect the welfare of the rakyat especially when 80% of Esso customers are Muslim and do not want to have to change their lifestyle or travel another 25 km to pump petrol at another station that is halal, just to line Mirzan's pocket. For Mirzan everything can, for us unimportant Malaysians everything cannot.

Back to Mahathir, how can we the rakyat even think of allowing this Mahathir-Mirzan-Muhkriz beer for subsidy petrol scandal to occur? In the internet, so many people are complaining that even the minority shareholders are up in arms and considering a class action suit against Exxon-Mobil for the utmost disregard for minority shareholders.

We expect Exxon-Mobil to uphold the highest and most stringent standard of professionalism and integrity, whether it is in the USA or in another third world country such as Malaysia. But obviously our BN government doesnt seem to think that is important. It seems to think that what is good for Mirzan must be good for Muhkriz, and therefore it is good to rip off all of us normal Malaysians, and we must just swallow.

I wonder why the goverment has not hauled up Esso staff Mr Stafford T. Kelly who made several announcements on the manner in which he felt Exxon-Mobil divested San Miguel. The funny thing is, his valuation exercise was done in a highly irregular manner leaving us minority shareholders to question what is actually behind this deal, and who in Exxon-Mobil is benefitting personally from this deal?

First, everyone knows that the assets in Esso Malaysia are part of a listed company and thus require close scrutiny. It is precisely because of this we are shocked that Mr Stafford told the reporters that the decision to sell the Esso assets (at USD280 million valuation for the whole 100%) cheaper than the Mobil equivalent (at USD 400 million) have been sanctioned and approved by the Government of Malaysia tacitly.

One only has to examine whether the sales of the assets are mutually exclusive. Judging from the newspaper report, it is a packaged deal and not mutually exclusive. It is then very curious that the sales of the assets are cross-subsidized using the unlisted ones in Mobil to be subsidized by the listed Esso shares in Malaysia.

This is against the law but Mr Stafford knows the Mahathir children will follow the footsteps of the father to cheat all Malaysians. Since he has taken care of Mirzan (where do you think the difference of USD 400 and 280 million went?) he does not have to worry who he steps on. That is why the Bursa is so quiet even though this is clearly criminal.

Second, it is obvious Mr Stafford has botched up the entire bidding and valuation exercise when he can announce to the world (and all of Malaysia) that the deal to his preferred partner San Miguel is final even before the Malaysian authorities have a chance to consider the Foreign Investment Committee ruling. Obviously he knows something we don’t.

He must know that it will just be Mukhriz telling his puppet Minister Mustapha to sign on the dotted line. Strangely, he is trying to rush something which needs due process, and behaving so arrogantly as if EXXON is more important than the interests of the rakyat under the BN government. If this is the case, I urge all Malaysians to vote them out this PRU-13.

Third, Mr Stafford goes on to say that the tax incentives benefitted from Malaysia for the Esso refinery will be passed to San Miguel (read as pass on to San Mirzan or maybe one or two more of Mahathir's children since he is after all THE ADVISOR to Petronas) simply because he says so - on the reasoning that San Miguel is going to invest some money into rehabilitating the refinery.

Come on, give us a break. We dont need Mirzan to use his ill gotten money as equity and then borrow to the hilt from the local banks and enjoy the subsidy by trying to say as though San Miguel is doing us, the rakyat, a favor. And then use the profits to fund Ibrahim Ali and make the non-Muslims look bad. Shame on you.

Let me remind you that we only have to ask the question in open court - where did the tax benefits given by the Malaysian government to Esso Malaysia finally accrue to? It will become obvious that this will lead to a bigger scandal than BP’s Gulf of Mexico burst oil-wells.

No American or French journalists take lightly individuals or corporations who evade tax. Also, Mr Stafford has no feel on whats on the ground as it is not about how much who is going to invest in the refinery as it is an afterthought (not to mention that it has been picked up as an attempt by Exxon to try to openly bribe the authorities as if Malaysia is so starved of Foreign Direct Investment). By jove, this will go to court, and Mahathir and the children after PRU-13 can hide behind a cage as they give their statements.

Fourth, the Foreign Corrupt Practice Act (FCPA) specifically prohibits any employee from concealing information from the tender committee be it in the form of shredding or disposing of evidence which would clearly show that the entire tender exercise was skewed to favor San Miguel. This is evident in the inability of EXXON-MOBIL to explain how a single executive like Mr Stafford was allowed to make such decisions which contravenes not only the laws of good ethical corporate governance, but also the follow up cover up and announcements of trying to justify his pick of the winner by saying that San Miguel will then invest heavily in the refinery. Who cares? A simple check on the phone numbers most called by the San Miguel local team will reveal and clearly show the trail to the EXXON-Mobil nest and of course to Mirzan and his 012345678 special number.

The same fate that bestowed Mubarrak and Gaddafi is awaiting Mahathir. And it would be silly of Mr Stafford to count on that rather than on good clean corporate governance which is what Exxon-Mobil has been built upon. For us simple Malaysians, I think we should stand up and say that if after all these years of benefitting from our subsidy as a foreign company in Malaysia, the least you can do if you want to exit is to do so graciously, and not so bloody arrogantly, not caring for the minority shareholders, and in the process, make a mockery of our government.

I used to be a long-time BN supporter. No more because I can see that this is not a government that will protect the interests of us the rakyat. Even as I read how the Muslim dealers have protested against this, everything is falling on deaf ears.

Esso Malaysia is supposed to be a blue-chip company, not material for a future B-grade movie with San Miguel booze starring Mr Stafford and Mirzan, tax evasion, shredding of evidence amid growing protests and boycotts in a country which is predominantly Muslim. Not to mention all of us minority shareholders will lose from the General Offer since we are getting a far lower valuation and subsidizing Mobil, and amortizing the big bucks which Mirzan wants to extract from us the unimportant Malaysians.

Monday, August 29, 2011

From Tepen With Love...!!

Haaa...teman nak mengambil kesempatan ini nak ngucapkan Selamat Hari Ghaye kepada semua sedara mara, sahabat handai dan rakan taulan yang kenal mahupun tidak mengenali teman. Tidak lupa juga kepada sesiapa jua yang pernah menjengah blog ini samada suka ataupun sebaliknya.

Sekiranya ada salah dan silap, teman mohon ampun dan maaf. Dari hujung rambut sampai ler ke hujung kaki.

Ghaye ni teman di Tepen, macam biasa. Masuk ni ghasenye dah 20 kali teman beghaye di sini. Bergilior2 dengan ghaye di Parit Semo. La ni kerap di Tepen sebab kedua-dua orang tua teman dah tak de. Isk...sedih ler pulak.

Ghaye di Tepen, walaupun tak semeriah di Parit Semo lebih baik ler dari ghaye di Bukit Indah. Hehe...sorry ler yob.

Teringat ler pulak seorang kawan teman yang tinggal di Bangi dan balik ghaye ke kampong di Kg. Melayu, Ampang. Khabornye saban tahun dia saja ambik jalan jauh untuk balik kampong. Dari Bangi masuk Kesas pergi Shah Alam masuk Federal Hiway baru sampai Ampang. Bukan apa, katanya nak ngabis kan CD lagu ghaye. Kesian.

Sorang lagi...lagi kesian. Duduk Bukit Indah nak Balik Lembah Keramat. Keluar... tersekat di simpang Hotel Flamingo balik semula ke Bukit Indah. Hehe....

Macam2...tak apalah. Untuk kawan2 teman tu drive slowly and safely ler ya.

Jumpa lagi, insya'Allah pada hari Khamis atau Jumaat ni.


"Tilam lama tukar baru....!!"

History is written by the winners. ~Alex Haley

Dalam polemik Utusan Malaysia dan Musa Hasan melabelkan Mat Sabu pengganas kesan dari ucapan beliau mengenai pejuang kemerdekaan dan komunis, aku rasa wajar semua pihak menilai kenyataan Mat Sabu dilihat dari konteks keseluruhan ucapannya.

Oleh itu wajarlah Mat Sabu meneliti ucapan beliau tersebut sebelum mengulas lanjut. Dan itulah yang beliau sedang lakukan.

Memang ada banyak sejarah yang telah diselewengkan oleh Umno untuk kepentingannya. Burhanuddin Helmi, Dr. Zulkifli Ahmad, Mat Kilau, Ahmad Bustamam dan ramai lagi tidak pernah diberikan recognition sewajarnya walaupun perjuangan mereka sama significantnya atau mungkin lebih dari jasa Tunku Abdul Rahman dan Tun Razak (yang telah menyerahkan Singapura kepada Lee Kuan Yew). Mereka tidak cukup dihargai kerana mereka bukan dari Umno.

Sebab itu kata-kata Alex Haley itu benar.

Tentang gesaan Musa Hasan agar Mat Sabu dikenakan tindakan ISA, kita juga wajar sekali menilai manusia yang bernama Musa Hasan ini akan sejarah yang beliau sendiri cipta. Pada aku, beliau tidak lebih dari saudagar tilam second hand saja.

Kepada rakyat Malaysia, tumbangkan kerajaan BN yang bankrap moral ini jika mahu melihat sejarah sebenar negara kerana semua diktator dunia dilihat hebat kerana mereka menulis sejarah mereka sendiri. Jika Mubarak tidak tumbang, kita tidak tau apa sebenarnya yang dilalui oleh rakyat Mesir. Begitu juga Stalin, Gadaffi, Saddam Hussin, Hitler dan lain-lain.

Setuju bebeno teman dengan tulisan RPK ni...

Saturday, August 27, 2011


Mangsa Chernobyl

Minta sangatlah kepimpinan PAS Pusat selesaikan masalah ni. Kat bawah ni ramai yang rimas. Tolonglah ya...

Dissenting views tu biasa tapi kalau macam sengaja cari pasal untuk menyusahkan parti, baik ambillah tindakan tegas ke atas mereka ini. Kita faham sesetengahnya kecewa kerana telah ditolak oleh ahli parti dalam pemilihan yang lalu tetapi mana semangat yang dilaung-laungkan ketika menang dahulu. Come on lah....

Janganlah semasa menang aje kita taat tetapi bila kecundang mula buat hal. Perangai macam Zulkfili Noordin tak patut ada dalam PAS.

Walau bagaimanapun saya ingin ucapkan terima kasih dan tahniah kepada Dato' Tuan Ibrahim Tuan Man atas kenyataan beliau tentang Dr. Rosli ni...

TINTA TAJAM: PAS PERLU PECAT MP HULU LANGAT!: PAS perlu mengambil pendirian yang tegas kali ini, jika tidak perangai beberapa orang "cerdik pandai" bakal membusuk dan melingkupkan PAS! ...

Wednesday, August 24, 2011

Najib khianat...

Kenyataan bekas duta AS: Pengkhianatan yang paling keji oleh PM Malaysia
Written by Wong Choon Mei, Malaysia Chronicle

Perdana Menteri Najib Razak dan isterinya Rosmah Mansor mempunyai banyak untuk dijawab. Sudahlah melimpah dalam skandal ke atas rasuah besar-besaran dan diperintahkan oleh mahkamah untuk memberi keterangan dalam perbicaraan kes liwat Ketua Pembangkang Anwar Ibrahim, yang mana dia telah menuduh mereka berkomplot, bekas Duta Amerika Syarikat pula telah menggugurkan sebuah bom.

John Malott, kini presiden Persatuan Jepun-Amerika Washington DC, menjaga operasi di Kuala Lumpur dari 1995 hingga 1998. Beliau memberitahu bagaimana Najib telah membuat perjanjian dan persefahaman dengan Anwar, yang ketika itu timbalan perdana menteri, dan bagaimana Najib kemudian mengkhianati Anwar. Kedua-dua pemimpin dari parti pemerintah UMNO, yang ahli-ahlinya resah dan tidak berpuas hati dengan cara kaku Mahathir Mohamad, Perdana Menteri yang memerintah Malaysia dari tahun 1981 hingga 2003.

"Apabila saya berada di KL, badan pemikir peribadi Najib dipanggil Pusat Penyelidikan Strategik Malaysia, atau MSRC. MSRC pada dasarnya adalah dua orang, Rohanna Mahmood dan Razak Baginda. Rohanna memberitahu saya bahawa Najib dan Anwar telah mencapai satu perjanjian rahsia. Apabila Mahathir telah pergi, Anwar akan menjadi PM, Najib akan menjadi Timbalan PM. itu adalah perjanjiannya , "John Malott menulis dalam artikel yang diterbitkan di Malaysia Chronicle pada hari Selasa.

“Itu sudah tentu tidak berlaku . Apabila dilanda masalah, Najib berdiri , dan biarkan Anwar pergi ke penjara."

Sesungguhnya, mengesan peralihan angin, Mahathir yang Licik menghimpunkan lieutenannya yang dipercayai termasuk bekas Menteri Kewangan Daim Zainuddin dan menampar tuduhan liwat dan tuduhan rasuah terhadap Anwar yang terkejut, yang ketika itu menjadi kesayangan masyarakat Melayu dan akar umbi UMNO. Ini adalah modus operandi yang Mahathir dituduh menggunakan untuk menghancurkan cubaan berpotensi oleh Anwar untuk mencabar beliau pada pemilihan parti akan datang.

Ditembak sehingga tidak dapat berdiri

Malott mendedahkan maklumat yang lebih mengejutkan lagi dalam artikel bertajuk Malott jatuhkan bom : Pakatan rahsia antara Najib dan Anwar

Razak Baginda, yang kemudiannya bertindak sebagai perunding bagi Najib dalam pembelian kapal selam Scorpene bernilai RM7 bilion, memberitahu kakitangan kedutaan Amerika Syarikat bahawa keputusan telah dibuat untuk “menembak” Anwar sehingga dia “ tidak boleh berdiri lagi dalam politik”

Baginda memberitahu pegawai kanan Kedutaan, "Keputusan telah dibuat. Mereka akan "menembak" Anwar dari segi politik untuk semua masa yang akan datang. "Sehingga dia tidak boleh berdiri atau kembali lagi dalam politik."

Selepas itu, seorang pegawai kanan Cawangan Khas kepada seorang pegawai Kedutaan, " Kami akan memastikan pertuduhan difailkan setiap masa supaya Anwar akan berada dalam penjara untuk seratus tahun akan datang."

"Adakah apa-apa keraguan tentang apa yang berlaku masa itu - dan apa yang sedang berlaku sekarang?" ulas Malott, menerangkan serangan oleh musuh-musuh Anwar sebagai "keputusan politik".

Ayat-ayat mengejutkan bekas Duta membunyikan loceng untuk Chua Jui Meng, yang pada akhir tahun 1990an, ialah Menteri Kesihatan BN.

"Ya, saya ingat Malott, dia duta yang sangat aktif, dia melawat saya di kementerian saya dan tidak pernah saya menganggapnya sebagai pro-Anwar. Beliau memberikan banyak masa kepada jabatan lain dalam kerajaan juga. Tiada sebab juga untuk menjadi pro-Anwar. saya fikir Malott adalah marah kerana ini berlaku ketika dia di sini dan mendapat banyak maklumat dari peringkat atas, "Jui Meng, kini merupakan naib presiden PKR, memberitahu Malaysia Chronicle.

"Tetapi saya gembira bahawa dia telah bercakap dan mengumumkan kepada orang awam mengenai maklumat yang ada pada beliau. Ini akan membantu untuk menyuntik keadilan ke dalam sistem yang sangat condong dan meletakkan perspektif atas propaganda anti-Anwar yang berjaya dilahirkan oleh media arus perdana setiap hari yang keseluruhannya tidak adil. Apa yang boleh saya kongsi dengan anda ialah bahawa Najib sentiasa menjadi seseorang yang mengayun dengan angin dan menang. Itu sudah cukup.”


Bagaimanapun, Najib bukan sahaja berdiri dan membiarkan Anwar reput di penjara dan dipukul oleh anggota polis kanan yang hanya mahu membuatkan Mahathir gembira, 10 tahun kemudian pada tahun 2008, dia dan isterinya Rosmah telah 'berbual' dengan seorang pemuda yang bernama Saiful Bukhari Azlan.

Dua hari selepas mengadakan pertemuan dengan Najib, yang ketika itu timbalan perdana menteri dan sangat ingin duduk di kerusi Perdana Menteri, Saiful membuat laporan polis, menuduh Anwar meliwatnya. Ia adalah pengulangan skrip yang Anwar menuduh Mahathir menulis pada tahun 1998, di mana dia telah dituduh meliwat pemandu isterinya. Dari perdana menteri- menunggu, Anwar kehilangan segala-galanya. Keluarganya terpaksa berpindah daripada kuarters kerajaan mereka, dan dia terpaksa menghabiskan 6 tahun di penjara.

Ia hanya selepas Mahathir bersara bahawa mahkamah persekutuan di negara ini berani untuk membatalkan caj liwat yang jelas direka terhadapnya.

Tetapi bukan sahaja sejarah berulang pada tahun 2008, Najib juga nampaknya telah tunduk kepada kuasa-kuasa gelap yang telah diikuti oleh Mahathir.

"Tanya saja di sekitar bulatan Umno dan anda akan mendengar ini. Najib tidak pernah dikenali sebagai taat setia mahupun tegas. Sejarah politik beliau ialah imej penuh dengan pengkhianatan dan bermula dengan pengkhianatannya terhadap Tengku Razaleigh pada tahun 1987, "pengarah strategi PKR Rafizi Ramli memberitahu Malaysia Chronicle.

"Najib akan berkata apa-apa untuk mendapatkan apa yang dia mahu, maka demikian Saya tidak terkejut oleh kenyataan Malott.. Itu adalah rahsia terbuka. Semua orang tahu Mahathir mendapatkan sokongan Najib selepas penahanan Anwar dan Najib membiarkan Anwar jatuh walaupun dia adalah sebahagian daripada pasukan Wawasan 2020nya. Itulah sebabnya dia hampir kehilangan kerusi Pekan dalam pilihan raya selepas itu. "

Malah, apabila mempertahankan dirinya terhadap kedua-bulat tuduhan liwat, Anwar memang berkata sebanyak itu semasa mahkamah dibuka pada hari Isnin.

"Ini adalahproses dan hanyalah satu konspirasi oleh Perdana Menteri Dato 'Seri Najib Tun Razak untuk menghantar saya ke dalam kelalaian politik dengan mencuba sekali lagi untuk meletakkan saya di penjara. Oleh itu, saya mengisytiharkan bahawa saya tidak mempunyai kepercayaanapa apa jua bahawa keadilan akan diguna pakai dalam prosiding walau apa pun usaha berani yang dibuat oleh pasukan pertahanan saya. Seperti yang saya katakan pada peringkat awal, ini bukanlah satu perbicaraan jenayah. Ia adalah kepura-puraan yang dilakukan oleh kuasa-kuasa yang mmberhentikan saya daripada tindakan supaya mereka dapat terus berkuasa."

- Malaysia Chronicle

Tinggal jubur Saiful saja yang jadi penyelamat Umno dan BN. Apa nak buat??

Sodomy II: Prosecution grills foreign expert
Aug 24, 11 9:07am
10 friends can read this story for free

Opposition Leader Anwar Ibrahim's defence enters its third day today with the prosecution cross-examining forensic pathologist Dr David Wells.

The Australian expert, who is the third defence witness, has yesterday told the court that the alleged semen sample retrieved from sodomy complainant Mohd Saiful Bukhari Azlan could not have revealed the desired results.

This was because the sample was taken more than two days after the alleged incident.

The alleged sodomy incident happened in the afternoon of June 26, 2008, and the sample was retrieved from Saiful between 9pm and midnight on June 28, 2008.

In addition, he said that the sample was not properly stored in the police station and it was given to chemist for testing two days later.

Dr Wells (left), who is an expert in the field of sexual assault cases, also testified yesterday that when retrieving samples from alleged victims, he would be working alone and only assisted by nurses. This, he said, was to prevent contamination.

In the case of Saiful, four doctors attended to complainant in retrieving samples in the present of investigating officer Supt Jude Blacious Pereira.

It expected that the prosecution will question Wells on Saiful's Hospital Kuala Lumpur medical report, which the doctor had described as inaccurate.

After Wells, another Australian expert hired by Anwar, DNA specialist Dr Brian McDonald, is expected to take the witness stand.


8.46am: It is learnt that former Malacca police chief Mohd Rodwan Mohd Yusof (below), who has been subpoenaed to testify, is also in the witness room.

Tuesday, August 23, 2011


Royal link in iron ore plant
Teoh El Sen | August 22, 2011

There is a royal link in the controversial project to build an iron ore plant in Teluk Rubiah, Manjung, and one prominent critic alleges that this, coupled with the Perak palace’s cosy relationship with the Barisan Nasional state government, has everything to do with why public interest has been sacrificed to profit a select few.

“BN would always go ahead with something when there’s something in it for them,” said former menteri besar Mohammad Nizar Jamaluddin.

“Despite the hue and cry from the community, they don’t give a damn.”
Documents made available to FMT show that the Sultan of Perak owns one of the companies that sold off the piece of land that Brazilian mining giant Vale International is now developing for the multi-billion-ringgit project.
In 2009, KYM Holdings Bhd, through Harta Makmur Sdn Bhd, sold 488 hectares (1,205 acres) of leasehold land in Teluk Rubiah to Vale International and Vale Malaysia Manfuacturing Sdn Bhd for RM196 million.

Vale will use only 450 acres for the plant. The rest of the land, mostly forested, will be a buffer zone.

Checks with the Companies Commission of Malaysia showed that Harta Makmur is 60% owned by Tegas Consolidated Sdn Bhd and 40% owned by RAS Sdn Bhd.
The majority shareholder for RAS is Sultan Azlan Shah. His consort, Tuanku Bainun Mohd Ali, and his son, Raja Ashman Shah, are minority shareholders. Raja Ashman and his siblings are all directors of the company.

Vale’s project has many opponents, including environmental groups and Teluk Rubiah residents and businesses. They fear that it would damage the environment, ruin the local tourism industry and impair the livelihood and health of local residents.

Not a viable option

Nizar said Vale representatives met with him twice in 2008 over proposals for the project.

“I told them that the area should be preserved as a sanctuary. We had virgin jungles, with one of the best species of logs there. I could not afford to lose those.”
He said he proposed another state land in the swampy area of Tanjung Hantu, offering it almost free of charge.

“I was thinking we’re giving you a place with virtually no inhabitants. But before Vale could complete their analysis of the pros and cons of Tanjung Hantu, the government was grabbed, and the deal at Teluk Rubiah went through.”

Nizar headed the Pakatan Rakyat-led government until early 2009, when four defectors helped BN to take over, allowing Dr Zambry Abdul Kadir to replace him.

Nizar alleged that KYM had owed the state government RM20 million in accumulated unpaid charges over the piece of land.

“In order to settle debts to the bank and to the state government, they dumped everything on the Brazilians,” Nizar said. “Somebody’s interest is being taken care of.

“Obviously, Vale was given additional incentives when it decided to choose Teluk Rubiah.

“But I want to put on record that we did not condone using Teluk Rubiah as there were strong objections and it was not a viable option.

“Zambry decided to allow Teluk Rubiah because, one, he gets a good name in the eyes of the palace, and two, KYM gets to settle its debts.”

Nizar questioned whether the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) report for the project was tailored to allow the project to go ahead.

“Were there amendments to the EIA? We don’t know, but it could be manipulated.”

Nizar, who is the Pasir Panjang state assemblyman, said he hoped Vale would honour its promise not to pollute the area.

He admitted that it was “a bit too late” to ask for Vale to stop building the factory.

“They’ve already signed all the documents and they will go ahead as they’ve made all the commitments to the Brazilian company.

“There’s nothing much we can do now, however much the environment might suffer.”

Perak Consumer Association president Rahman Said Alli said pollution was a major concern.

“We respect royalty, but we are concerned that some people may be misusing the Sultan’s name,” he said. “They should not bandy his name around to obtain certain approvals from government authorities.”

Last January, Zambry said he was aware of objections to the project but added that his government was allowing it to go ahead.

He said the Perak government had no equity participation in the plant itself, but would participate in the port and logistics operations.

Vale, the world’s largest producer of iron ore, started construction on the factory in July. It is expected to start operations by June 2014. The plant will have a dedicated jetty that will be the destination point for Vale ships of 400,000-deadweight tonnes carrying iron ore from Brazil.

Blended iron ore and pellets will be distributed to customers in Malaysia, China, Japan, Australia and other parts of the Asia-Pacific region.

Teluk Rubiah was once a traditional Malay fishing village and was a Malay reserve land.

The exploitation of the village and a portion of the Teluk Muroh forest reserve started in 1983, when the state government proposed that the area be developed for tourism.

The government de-gazetted a 478-hectare portion of Teluk Muroh forest reserve in September 1988, and 247 hectares were alienated to the Perak Development Corporation while 213 hectares remained state land.

A 350-hectare area was turned into the Teluk Rubiah golf course and beach resort.
The original size of Teluk Muroh forest reserve was 917.93 hectares. At one point, it was classified as a virgin jungle reserve.

In July 1989, the government de-gazetted another 163 hectares of Malay reserve land, displacing the villagers. About 10,000 of them had no choice but to move out, but they received some compensation.

In 2001, several environmental groups protested against logging in the de-gazetted parts of Teluk Muroh, pointing out that the area remained under the Sensitive Environment Area classification.

The government responded by re-gazetting a mere 89.83 hectares as forest reserve. However, without any public announcement, it again de-gazetted 121.16 hectares in January 2010.

Monday, August 22, 2011

Sodomy II: The inside story...

Kenyataan Penuh DS Anwar Ibrahim Di Mahkamah Tinggi Dalam Kes Tuduhan Liwat II

Diakhir hujah pembelaan DSAI mengingatkan hakim dengan ingatan Allah SWT dari Surah An-Nisa'-58 yang bermaksud : Sesungguhnya Allah menyuruh kamu supaya menyerahkan segala jenis amanah kepada ahlinya (yang berhak menerimanya), dan apabila kamu menjalankan hukum di antara manusia, (Allah menyuruh) kamu menghukum dengan adil. Sesungguhnya Allah dengan (suruhanNya) itu memberi pengajaran yang sebaik-baiknya kepada kamu. Sesungguhnya Allah sentiasa Mendengar, lagi sentiasa Melihat.








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.


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Prosecution’s Failure to Discharge its Duties Professionally

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

“…and let not hatred of others

Swerve you into error

And depart from justice.

Be just, that is nearer to piety

Fear Allah, For Allah is

well acquainted with all that you do”

Surah al-maidah: 8

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Court of Appeal going out of line

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This is scandalous.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

How could I under these circumstances give evidence under oath?

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

The following appears in his evidence thereafter (as attached)

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

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

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

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

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

Trial within a Trial

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

“And when you judge between mankind

Then you judge justly”

Surah An-Nisaa:58


Saturday, August 20, 2011

Biasa yang rela diheret ni cuma species lembu dengan kerbau ajer!!

Mat Sabu: Jangan heret tentera ke politik
Susan Loone
Ogos 20, 11

Terdapat cubaan sesetengah pihak mengheret pihak tentera kepada politik partisan dan ini suatu penghinaan kepada Yang di-Pertuan Agong, dakwa timbalan presiden PAS.

Mohamad Sabu yang lebih dikenali sebagai Mat Sabu berkata, pasukan

keselamatan sejak merdeka memainkan peranan baik menjaga keselamatan negara tanpa terlibat dalam politik partisan.

Bagaimanapun, tambahnya, sejak perhimpu
nan BERSIH 2.0 pada 9 Julai, pihak tentera ditarik ke kancah politik dengan pelbagai cara, termasuk melalui lati
han bersama mengawal orang ramai dengan polis.

Bercakap kepada pemberita di Komtar, Pulau Pinang, Mohamad mahukan semua usaha itu dihentikan kerana ia tidak sihat dan tentera sepatutnya mengekalkan sikap neutral sepanjang masa.

Mohamad merujuk kepada pengakuan empat bekas tentera pada Rabu yang mengaku pernah terlibat dalam manipulasi undi pos semasa berkhidmat.

LAWAK ustaz azhar-soalan bodho .mp4

18 tahun Tok Guru pimpin kito-Halim Yazid

Friday, August 19, 2011

Facebook Masjid Bukit Indah....

Sila ke dan klik "Like".

Tuan-tuan akan disajikan dengan berita-berita terkini Masjid Bukit Indah (MBI).

Atau taip Masjid Bukit Indah dalam search Facebook tuan-tuan.

Terima kasih.

Wednesday, August 17, 2011

Ko orang tengok ler muka dia yang selamba menipu tu....!!

How Zul Noordin distorts the truth
Wednesday, 17 August 2011

Raja Petra Kamarudin

First, see the video below from minute 6:23.

At minute 6:23 in that video, the Member of Parliament for Kulim Bandar Baru, Zulkifli Noordin, said that the Caliph Umar refused to enter a church when invited to do so. This is proof, he said, that Muslims should not enter a church.

He does not care about the law, argued Zul. Malaysian law may not have made it illegal or haram for Muslims to enter a church. But he is not concerned with that. He is guided by the example (sunah) of the Prophet’s Comrades (Sahabat Nabi) and Caliph Umar, one of the Prophet’s Comrades, refused to enter a church. This is all that matters.

Zul did not offer any details on this incident he quoted. He did not clarify when and where this incident was supposed to have happened. Either he is not clear about the incident or he is intentionally trying to mislead his audience.

Well, in that case, since Zul is either not too clear about the incident or refuses to clarify his statement with intent to mislead his audience, let me help with the clarification.

In the year 638, after the death of the Prophet Muhammad, Umar, the third Caliph, led an army to conquer Jerusalem. The Christian leaders of Jerusalem invited Umar into the Church of Holy Sepulcher so that he could fulfil his prayers. Umar, however, refused to do so out of respect for the Christians. Instead, he chose to pray outside the church.

Umar’s main concern was that, if he entered the church to pray, future generations of Muslims might misinterpret his action as he had ‘acquired’ or ‘captured’ the church and had turned it into a mosque. That was why he chose to pray outside the church rather than in the church. This was to safeguard the church and not trigger a precedence where churches are taken by force and turned into mosques.

That was the real reason why Umar refused to enter the Church of Holy Sepulcher to pray. He intentionally prayed outside the church to avoid any misunderstanding and conflict. He wanted to demonstrate that even though the Muslims had conquered Jerusalem, they did not disturb any churches or took these churches by force. Churches would remain churches and Muslims would have to build their own mosques if they wanted to pray.

I don’t wear a songkok or white skullcap like Zul. But I know my history. And that was the history of what happened when Umar conquered Jerusalem. And that was the real reason why Umar declined the invitation to enter the church to pray. It was to avoid any misunderstanding and conflict, and not as Zul is tying to mislead us.

Kerajaan BN yang ada sekarang ni kena ditumbangkan bukan hanya sebab dia jahat tapi berita2 ekonomi yang keluar di media memang tidak memberangsangkan langsung.

Antaranya di bawah ini...

Aku bukan apa...Singapura mencatitkan pertumbuhan sebanyak 22.5% dalam suku tahun pertama. Camno tu?
Di bawah ni...Singapura sekali lagi jadi pilihan Malcolm Glazer selepas Hong Kong untuk mengapongkan IPO saham kelab tersohor di dunia itu...Di mana BSKL?

Manchester United's planned IPO marries sense and sentiment
Published on Aug 17, 2011

Much more than a case of raising funds where cash is plentiful, English soccer club Manchester United's plan to seek US$1 billion (S$1.2 billion) on Singapore's stock market is a marrying of financial sense and global supporter sentiment - and a resounding indication of where the club sees future growth.

Much more than a case of raising funds where cash is plentiful, English soccer club Manchester United's plan to seek US$1 billion (S$1.2 billion) on Singapore's stock market is a marrying of financial sense and global supporter sentiment - and a resounding indication of where the club sees future growth.

The English Premier League club, de-listed from London's stock exchange in 2005 when it was bought by the American Glazer family, is now saddled with a debt pile that has led to a vilification of the Glazers among fans.

It has also left United in danger of struggling to meet 'Financial Fair Play' rules put forward by soccer's European governing body Uefa.

And while the Glazers have made it clear they have no intention of selling, a flotation in Singapore makes perfect sense on many fronts: it will help reduce the debt burden; it targets Asia's strong economic and investing growth and, crucially, it will deepen United's links with a region ripe for expanding its powerful global brand.

Tuesday, August 16, 2011

Umno akui bakal tumpas...

Di Semenanjung BN hanya ada saki-baki Umno — Aspan Alias

15 OGOS — Kita sedikit sebanyak boleh membuat “prediction” awal tentang apa yang akan berlaku di Semenanjung dalam pilihanraya nanti. Dalam pilihanraya yang lepas di Semenanjung Barisan Nasional telah memenangi hanya 80 kerusi termasuk kerusi yang di menangi oleh calun bebas yang menggunakan symbol PAS, iaitu Ibrahim Ali.

Dalam kumpulan 80 calon BN yang menang ini adalah 15 yang dimenangi oleh MCA, 1 oleh Gerakan dan 2 lagi oleh MIC. Lain-lain perkataan Umno Semenanjung hanya memenangi 62 kerusi dan menjadi 70 kerusi jika di campurkan dengan kerusi-kerusi Umno/BN yang dimenangi di Sabah.

Jika Umno mampu mempertahankan semua kerusi yang dipertandingkan di Semenanjung ia bermakna Umno hanya mempunyai 62 kerusi selain dari tambahan sebanyak 8 kerusi di Sabah (jika menang). Jika MCA tewas di 11 kerusi di Semenanjung seperti yang di telah di ramal oleh banyak pihak maka BN di Semenanjung hanya memenangi 67 kerusi kesemuanya. Justeru BN terpaksa menjadikan Sabah dan Sarawak sebagai tumpuan untuk mencukupi kerusi bagi membentuk kerajaan dengan majoriti mudah 112 kerusi.

Jika di dasarkan kepada kemenangan BN sebanyak 67 kerusi di Semenanjung maka BN harus mencari 55 kemenangan kerusi di Sabah dan Sarawak untuk mendapatkan kemenangan mudah di Parlimen. Tetapi di Sabah dan Sarawak jumlah kesemua kerusi Parlimen ialah, 26 di Sarawak dan 25 di Sabah dan jumlah kesemuanya di kedua-dua negeri Malaysia Timor ini hanyalah 51 kerusi.

Jika BN memenangi kesemua kerusi di kedua buah negeri ini pun ianya tidak akan dapat mencapai matlamat untuk menubuhkan kerajaan mudah di Persekutuan. Persoalannya sekarang ialah mampukah BN memenangi kesemua 56 kerusi Parlimen di Sabah dan Sarawak sedangkan DAP sedang mengembangkan pengaruhnya di Sarawak terutamanya di Kawasan-kawasan Bumiputera Sarawak.

DAP mempunyai “advantage” besar kerana parti itu adalah parti multi-racial yang boleh dianggotai oleh mana-mana suku kaum pun termasuk Iban, Dayak dan lain-lain. Dalam pilihanraya negeri Sarawak baru-baru ini kita telah melihat kemenangan DAP di 12 kerusi Dewan Undangan Negeri di kawasan-kawasan bandar di sana.

Banyak pihak berpendapat yang BN akan kehilangan 8 kerusi Parlimen di Sarawak dan 7 kerusi Parlimen di Sabah. Maka kedua-dua buah negeri ini BN hanya mampu memenangi 41 kerusi dari 56 kesemuanya.

Jika 67 kemenangan BN di Semenanjung (termasuk MCA) di campurkan dengan 41 kerusi di Sabah dan Sarawak, maka BN akan hanya memenangi 108 kerusi keseluruhannya dan kita tidak nampak bagaimana BN boleh diyakini akan mampu menubuhkan kerajaan walaupun dengan “simple majority”.

Di dalam perkiraan apa sekali pun kita mesti meletakan angka untuk kontijensi. 67 kerusi yang ditelah akan di menangi oleh BN itu harus mempunyai peratusan kontijensinya. Kita tidak tahu lagi apa yang berlaku kepada BN di dalam percaturan pemilihan calun Parlimen ini.

Dalam perkiraan tadi kita tidak masukan kemungkinan Pasir Mas yang akan kembali kepada PAS yang sekarang di sandang oleh Ibrahim Ali. Ibrahim Ali telah memenangi kerusi itu di atas symbol PAS kerana jika Ibrahim Ali bertanding di atas tiket bebas sejarah telah membuktikan yang Ibrahim telah hilang wang pertaruhannya dalam pilihan raya 2004 dahulu. Pasir Mas dikatakan akan jatuh semula ketangan PAS.

Ramai di dalam Umno menyatakan yang Tengku Razaleigh Hamzah akan tidak di turunkan oleh Umno kali ini sebagai calon. Jika berita ini benar maka Gua Musang juga akan jatuh ketangan PAS. Jika Pasir Mas dan Gua Musang jatuh ketangan PAS maka Jeli juga akan jatuh justru BN tidak akan mendapat apa-apa kemenangan di Kelantan.

Jika ini berlaku maka angka 67 kemenangan BN di Semenanjung tadi akan jatuh kepada 64 sahaja. Saya berkesempatan untuk berbincang dengan pemimpin-pemimpin Umno di Terengganu akhir-akhir ini. Saya di beritahu oleh mereka yang Umno di negeri Terengganu tidak akan mampu memenangi di sekurang-kurangnya 3 kerusi Parlimennya kerana pergolakan besar di dalam Umno di negeri itu Jika berita ini benar maka bilangan kerusi BN di Semenanjung akan turun lagi kepada 61 kerusi sahaja.

Angka kemenangan BN sebanyak 61 kerusi ini belum lagi mangambil kira kerusi-kerusi BN yang dijangka dengan jelas akan menghadapi kekalahan. Satu-satunya kerusi yang dimenangi MCA di Selangor iaitu Ampang yang sekarang di sandang oleh Ong Tee Keat akan menjadi milik DAP atau mana-mana parti PR.

Di jangkakan kerusi BN Raub akan tumbang juga dengan berbagai-bagai isu peribadi Ng Yen Yen dan di Johor sahaja BN dikatakan akan kehilangan sebanyak 3 lagi kerusi Parlimen. Jika di tolak 5 lagi kerusi ini dari 61 untuk BN tadi maka BN di Semenanjung akan hanya memenangi 56 kerusi kesemuanya.

Jika 56 kerusi di Semenanjung ini di campurkan dengan 41 kerusi di Sabah dan Sarawak maka angka kemenangan BN keseluruhannya akan berlegar di angka 97 kerusi sahaja. Sejak beberapa bulan yang lepas ada pihak yang sentiasa memberitahu saya yang BN akan memenangi lebih sedikit dari 90 kerusi.

Semasa itu saya tidak dapat mempercayainya kerana tidak diberitahu angka itu secara saintifik. Tetapi apabila perkiraan ini dilakukan maka saya sudah nampak lojiknya bagaimana 97 kerusi itu hampir menjadi kenyataan. Yang penting yang mesti diketahui ramai ialah di Semenanjung BN itu hanyalah Umno kerana parti-parti komponennya akan pupus dalam politik negara selepas pilihanraya yang akan datang.

Nazri Aziz telah menafikan yang beliau melamar DAP untuk bersama BN tetapi sebenarnya beliau benar-benar membuat tawaran tersebut. DAP telah menolak lamaran itu kerana tawaran itu hanyalah sebagai tindakan desperate satu parti yang telah lemas dengan kuasa serta telah hilang segala hidyahnya.

Oleh kerana itu jika kita dasarkan kepada hukum akal kita jelas BN akan tewas di dalam pilihanraya yang akan datang. Hanya perkiraan Tuhan sahaja yang akan mengubah apa yang telah di kira tadi. Perkiraan yang ditulis ini hanya perkiraan manusia yang serba serbi lemah ini dengan tambahan sedikit dengan “intuition” yang ada pada diri saya. Masalahnya “intuition” saya selama ini banyak juga yang menjadi kenyataan.

Kepada sesiapa dan pihak yang tidak suka kepada “intuition” yang ada pada diri saya ini supaya berdoa agar kali ini apa yang saya rasakan itu adalah salah. Semua pihak hanya perlu berdoa sahaja sekarang ini agar yang maha menghakimi akan membuat penentuan. Setakat ini itu semua hanyalah perancangan manusia sahaja.

Hanya DIA sahaja akan menentukan segala-galanya. —

Monday, August 15, 2011

Polis: Antara London dan Kuala Lumpur....

Antara professionalism dan macai...

Sir Hugh was responding to David Cameron’s call for more extreme measures – such as water cannons and batons – to be taken by the police in order to deal with the rioting. Below are his replies published in the Guardian newspaper

Sir Hugh on the position of the UK police:

“One of the greatest strengths of British policing is that operational decision-making is conducted not by politicians, but by professional chief police officers who have spent their whole career in policing. While David Cameron today referred to some of the more extreme measures available to us, they are not new, and responsibility for their deployment remains entirely a matter for chief officers. There can be no confusion here at all; it is a fact that we cannot be ordered to police in a certain way but we will be held robustly accountable for what we choose to do or not do.”

The usage of water cannons and batons:

“As one of only two officers in the country to have ordered the use of water cannon and baton rounds in public-order policing, my professional judgment is it would be the wrong tactic, in the wrong circumstances at this moment. Both require an extremely precise situation. The use of water cannon, while logistically difficult, works against large stationary crowds throwing missiles at police or, as I witnessed in Northern Ireland, at other communities. It achieves distance between police and unlawful crowds that is often vital.

"Utilising baton rounds, an even more severe tactic, is fundamentally to protect life. When I ordered their use, again in Northern Ireland, my officers were being attacked by blast bombs and live fire. I would always use both with a heavy heart, but it is always an issue of proportionality.”

The need for a long-term model of policing:

“What we have seen so far is not soft policing, and although I understand the enthusiasm of politicians and communities for robust measures, excessive force will destroy our model of policing in the long term. What we must hang on to in all of this is the British model of policing, premised on human rights and the minimum use of force.”