Not another Augustine: Anwar acts to pre-empt bias

| Print |

E-mail

Wong Choon Mei    of Harakah daily

KUALA LUMPUR, Feb 8: In a move to pre-empt the kangaroo court and injustice he suffered in 1998, Opposition Leader Anwar Ibrahim has sought to disqualify the presiding judge in his current sodomy trial on the grounds of gross bias. “We are afraid that the judge may be subjected to political pressure and may continue to make adverse decisions towards Anwar to help Umno win. We don’t want another Augustine Paul,” one of his lawyers told Harakahdaily. He was referring to the late Federal Court judge Augustine Paul, who had overseen much of Anwar’s first sodomy trial in 1998. Augustine's rulings were widely slammed for being skewed, making him an object of much ridicule both among the Malaysian public and his own legal fraternity. Refusal to cite Utusan for contempt On Monday, which was to have been Day 4 of the sodomy case brought against him by the Umno-BN government, Anwar applied to disqualify High Court judge Mohd Zabidin Mohd Diah for partisanship. In particularly, he pointed to Mohd Zabidin's refusal to cite Umno newspaper Utusan for contempt over its malicious coverage of the trial. “As a result of the rulings made by the learned trial judge, there has been a departure from the standard of even handed justice upon the applications made by my counsel with an independent mind,” Anwar said. “With respect, a fair-minded and informed bystander would, under the position obtaining, entertain a fear of real danger of bias on the part of the learned trial judge.” The sodomy trial will now continue on Tuesday at 9.30am and the court will also hear the details of his application to disqualify Mohd Zabidin. Flashbacks from the past Umno-owned Utusan had spearheaded the government's smear campaign against Anwar by publishing both photos and text that blatantly insinuated the latter had repeatedly sodomised his complainant Saiful Bukhari Azhari. On February 4, the Malay-language daily front-paged an article with the heading “Not willing to be sodomised again”. On page 3 of the same edition, it wrote “Resigned from my job because I did not want to be sodomised again”. The paper also carried photos of a bed in the master bedroom of a condominium, where the alleged offence took place, with a caption showing Saiful as telling the judge he had been sodomised on that bed. But despite objections from Anwar's lawyers, Mohd Zabidin sided with Utusan, saying the newspaper had done nothing wrong. His comments raised eyebrows amongst the legal fraternity and the dozens of observers sent by various embassies to follow the trial. “Political tricks and intentional damage to my character which is continually being done by Umno-owned newspapers are being allowed. The statements published are blatantly inaccurate, yet the judge did not take any action,” Anwar chided. Torrent of international condemnation The 62-year leader is facing sodomy charges that have been internationally condemned as being rigged and politically motivated to destroy his career. A torrent of pleas to Prime Minister Najib Razak and his Umno party for fair play and to respect human rights have poured in from civil society and international watchdog bodies, including the foreign press. “For the second time, the Malaysian legal system is being manipulated by supporters of the incumbent government to drive Malaysia’s best-known leader, Anwar Ibrahim, out of national politics," Michael Danby, who chairs the Australia’s foreign affairs subcommittee, told his Parliament in Canberra last week. “For the second time, documents are being forged, witnesses are being coerced, and evidence is being fabricated. This trial, like the first trial, is a disgrace to Malaysia, a country that aspires to democratic norms.” In 1998, Malaysia's then-prime minister Mahathir Mohamad had forced through sodomy charges against Anwar that were so manifestly fabricated that it outraged the citizenry and split Umno in two. But the courts still threw Anwar into jail. However a year after Mahathir retired in 2003, the charges were overturned and Anwar was finally freed. Najib's order to jail Anwar at all costs may backfire Indeed, few first world governments have not either directly or indirectly criticized the sham trial that Anwar has been subjected to. But that has not stopped Najib and his Umno party from turning a deaf ear and raising their arsenal against the storm of protest throughout the country and overseas. As far as the ruling Umno-BN coalition is concerned, Anwar must be stopped at all costs or he will end their 52 years of cushy political hegemony. From the mainstream local media to the police to the Chemistry Department to the judiciary, Najib has pulled out all stops to ensure a conviction, which could spell a 20-year jail term and whipping for his political arch enemy. “The ruling party no doubt hopes a conviction will cause the opposition coalition to crumble. But it could just as easily provoke a backlash against Najib or street demonstrations that could destabilize the country," the influential Washinton Post wrote in a rare editorial on Southeast Asian politics. "That’s why the Obama administration and other Western governments interested in stability in Asia should make clear that the imprisonment of Anwar would be a blatant human rights violation – and not in Malaysia’s interest.”

* This article is the personal opinion of the writer or publication. The blog owner does not endorse the view unless specified.

The Independence of the Judges Revisited

by NH Chan*

 

What does the term ‘the independence of the judges’ mean? I pose this question because it appears that there are many of our judges today who do not seem to know the true meaning of separation of powers in constitutional law.

This is most apparent especially among those judges in the higher echelon of the judicial hierarchy. The bad judges seem to think that independence means that they can do what they like – because the dictionary says the word means ‘free from the control or influence of others’.

The recalcitrant judges think that words can mean whatever they want them to mean. They think like Humpty Dumpty who says that it depends on who has the power – “the question is,” said Humpty Dumpty, “which is to be master”. These Humpty Dumpty judges also think that they are independent of the legislature.

They think they could ignore the federal and the Perak constitutions, even the statutes enacted by Parliament so long as they side with the government in power. By so doing, these judges have exposed themselves to the rest of us because they have refused to perform their duty which is to do justice according to law. It is their duty to do the right thing. The right thing to do is to deal out impartial justice and to apply the law of the land as it stands.

The notion of separation of powers or the independence of the judges seems to be beyond the comprehension of these judges. But we are here today to explain to the ordinary people of this country what it means to have an independent judiciary. Once the ordinary people have a grasp of the concept of separation between executive and judicial powers they will be able to judge the judges.

When it comes to explaining the law so that it could be easily understood, I believe the late Lord Denning had no equal. In ‘The Family Story’, at pages 191,192, he explains the concept: The independence of the judges.

“The keystone of the rule of law in England (and elsewhere) has been the independence of the judges. It is the only respect in which we make any real separation of powers. There is here no rigid separation between the legislative and the executive powers, because the ministers, who exercise the executive power, also direct a great deal of the legislative power of Parliament. But the judicial power is truly separate. The judges [in England] for nearly 300 years have been absolutely independent. And when I speak of judges, I include not only the High Court Judges, but also all the magistrates and others who exercise judicial functions.

No member of the government, no member of Parliament, and no official of any government department, has any right whatever to direct or to influence or to interfere with the decisions of any of the judges. It is the sure knowledge of this that gives the people their confidence in the judges, and I would add also the chairmen of tribunals when they are independent of the executive, for they too are judges. It does not depend on the name judge or chairman but on the substance. The critical test which they must pass if they are to receive the confidence of the people is that they must be independent of the executive”.

The judges must be independent of the executive, how did this happen? For the answer to this question I have to return to Lord Denning who had, in his lifetime, explained the law in a way that ordinary people can understand. He said in The ‘Family Story’, page 190:

“… for nigh on 700 years, the judges of England laid down the common law which precisely defined the rights of the individual and made the life and liberty of every law-abiding citizen secure from injury on the part of others or of the State. …The principles laid down by them have sunk deep into the mind of the nation and have been more powerful than anything else in creating the spirit of the British Constitution. (Here, ’spirit’ means ‘typical character, quality or mood.)”

What does the spirit of the constitution mean? Lord Denning explains it at page 191:

“It lies, I believe, first, in the instinct for justice which leads us to believe that right, and not might, is the true basis of society; and secondly, in the instinct for liberty, which leads us to believe that free-will, and not force, is the true basis of government. These instincts for justice and liberty are abstract ideas which are common to all freedom-loving countries: but the peculiar genius of the British Constitution lies in a third instinct, which is a practical instinct leading us to balance rights with duties, and powers with safeguards, so that neither rights nor powers shall be exceeded or abused. But who are the guardians of this spirit? Who are they who interpret it on our behalf?

They are twofold. On the one hand – Parliament. On the other hand – the Judges. Our (the British) Constitution is unwritten. But it is founded on two strong pillars. One is the sovereignty of Parliament. The other is the independence of the Judges.

The only difference between the British constitution and ours is that ours is a written one. With a written constitution everything is contained in the entrenched clauses of the constitution (which is a statute).”

In an unwritten one like the British constitution they have no entrenched clauses. They have no fundamental constitution by which other laws can be tested. They will have to rely on the common law as laid down by the judges of England. In this respect the common law of England is wove into the fabric of the history of England.

Rigid separation of powers

But we are here today to look at the independence of the judges. This will take us back to the opening paragraphs of this address where I read from Lord Denning.

Shortly stated, the independence of the judges means that there is a rigid separation of powers between executive power and judicial power. The critical test which every judge must pass is that he must be independent of the executive. If a judge does not appear to be independent of the executive then he will lose the confidence of the people.

Once the people has no confidence in a judge that is the end of his reputation and integrity as a judge. Haven’t you heard the often repeated remark, ‘I don’t respect our judges any more’ among the people of this country, ever since the Perak debacle exploded onto the local scene?

Why do the people feel so strongly about this? It is because the keystone of the rule of law has been the independence of the judges. For the English people, Lord Denning has expressed it in this way, ibid, on page 192:

“Why do the English people feel so strongly about this? It is because it is born in them. We know in our bones that it will not do for us to allow the executive to have any control over the judges: and we know it because our forefathers learnt it in their struggles with the kings of England – the kings who in the old days exercised the supreme executive power in the land.”

We, Malaysians, also feel very strongly about this. But it is not born in us. It is not in our bones that it will not do for us to allow the executive to have any control over the judges because our forefathers did not experience any bitter struggle with our rulers – our sultans and governors. Ours is a new nation; it is only 52 years old. But we have inherited the Common Law of England – see the Civil Law Act 1956 – and from the common law we have learnt how the separation between executive power and judicial power came to light.

It is this awareness of the true meaning of justice that the common man can judge the judges. Anyone can be a judge. All that you need to be one is to be fair-minded yourself and to show by your conduct and behaviour in a court of law that you deal out impartial justice – for justice must not only be done, it must be seen to be done. The other attribute of a judge is to administer justice according to law.

Shortly stated, justice means that the judge’s duty is to do the right thing. The right thing to do is to deal out impartial justice. The right thing to do is also to apply the law as it stands. The so-called Perak crisis has brought out a host of cases that showed that the judges gave the impression that they were one-sided. The perception of the people is that they sided with the BN government.

A classic example is the shocking case of Zambry v Sivakumar in the Federal Court. We all remember the infamous five (judges) who were Alauddin Mohd Sheriff , Arifin Zakaria, Nik Hashim Ab Rahman, Augustine Paul and Ahmad Makinnuddin.

They decided in favour of the BN-appointed Mentri Besar Zambry Abd Kadir. They held that the speaker of the Perak legislative assembly V Sivakumar has no power to suspend Zambry and six executive council members from attending the assembly.

I posted this criticism of the decision on the Internet. I wrote:

“This is a perverse decision of the Federal Court. It is perverse because it is a decision that was made in blatant defiance of Article 72(1) of the federal constitution that says ‘The validity of any proceedings in the Legislative Assembly of any State shall not be questioned in any court’. The judges of the Federal Court have failed the people and the government of this country when they chose to ignore the law of the constitution of Malaysia. In other words the judges have refused to do justice according to law.

The words in Article 72(1) are specific. The words mean exactly what they say. Even a child can understand them. Yet the infamous five chose to ignore the plain meaning of the words. They gave their own meaning to them. They said, under the pretext of interpretation, that the constitutional provision did not allow the speaker to suspend the seven applicants. But who are they to say that the speaker was not allowed to suspend the MB and the turncoats when the supreme law of the land says ‘the validity of any proceedings in the legislative assembly of any state shall not be questioned in any court’?”

Law of the land

Even in the unwritten British Constitution there is an almost similar provision as ours, but it is called the privileges of Parliament. This is how Lord Denning put it in ‘The Family Story’, page 192:

“The Houses of Parliament enjoy certain privileges. One of them is freedom of speech. Erskine May says: ‘What is said or done within the walls of Parliament cannot be enquired into in a court of law”.

“The Bill of Rights 1688, art. 9, s 1, says that the freedom of speech and debates or proceedings in Parliament, ought not to be impeached or questioned in any court or place out of Parliament.”

Not even the great Lord Denning could assail this. The case is reported in the ‘Law Reports – re the Parliamentary Privilege Act 1770 [1958] AC 331′. He tells it on page 193 of ‘The Family Story’:

“On February 8, 1957 Mr Strauss MP wrote a letter – on House of Commons paper – to Mr Maudling, the Paymaster-General. He complained of the behaviour of the London Electricity Board. He said that they were disposing of scrap cables at too low a price. He said their conduct was a scandal. Mr Maudling … passed the complaints on to the London Electricity Board.

On March 4,1957 the Board’s solicitor wrote to Mr Strauss threatening a writ. That simple solicitor’s letter raised the great constitutional issue. Who was supreme? Parliament or the courts of law? Mr Strauss said the letter (threatening a writ) was a breach of the privileges of Parliament, and that the Board and its solicitor were punishable by the House itself. The London Electricity Board said that they were entitled to have recourse to the courts of law and that the House of Commons could not stop them.

The issue was referred to the Privy Council. Seven Law Lords sat to hear it. I was one of them. I found myself in a minority of one. Six of them…held that the House of Commons could treat the issue of a writ against a Member of Parliament – in respect of a speech or proceeding in Parliament – as a breach of its privileges.”

Lord Denning’s dissent was that every Englishman had a right to seek redress in the courts of law and then Mr Strauss in his defence could plead the defence of Parliamentary privilege as being a ‘proceeding in Parliament’ within the Bill of Rights.

You will not find his dissent in the opinion of the Privy Council – in those days dissenting opinions were not allowed. In a sense Lord Denning was right; no one could be prevented from seeking redress in a court of law. But in the case in question the issue was referred to the Privy Council for its opinion. This had preempted the writ action. Had the issue to be decided by a court of law, parliamentary privilege is still a complete defence.

Now that you have been apprised of the law, you will know that there is a rigid separation of powers between the executive government and the judiciary. You will also know the true meaning of the independence of the judges. You are also sure that the separation between executive power and judicial power is real. It is not a myth. It is the law of this country.

It is only those judges who had made all those decisions on the Perak crisis who have created the confusion by refusing to apply the law of the land as it stands. But to the good judges and the dedicated lawyers and to all right thinking people of this country, I urge all of you not to give up the struggle.

Keep on commenting on their conduct in court. Keep on writing articles about their decisions that do not apply the law of the land as it stands. Educate the people of their rights and the law that is applicable to the decision, and should the judges divert it or depart from it – and do so knowingly – they themselves would be guilty of a misuse of power: see Lord Denning’s ‘What Next in the Law’, page 319.

On my part, I shall try to ensure that the names of the bad guys will remain in infamy for generations to come unless they recant the wrongs that they have done to the country and to the people. I shall write their obituary when they die. If they outlive me I am sure there will be others who will take my place.

*NH CHAN was admitted to the Bar in 1961 and was a lawyer for almost two decades before becoming a High Court judge. He was then elevated to the Court of Appeal before retiring in 2000. He is the author of two books, ‘Judging the Judges’ (2007) and ‘How to Judge the Judges’.

* This article is the personal opinion of the writer or publication. The blog owner does not endorse the view unless specified.

The hunt for Bala is on

NO HOLDS BARRED

Your mission, ASP Suresh, if you decide to accept it, will be to try and locate private investigator Balasubramaniam a/l Perumal somewhere in Chennai, India, whereby you will attempt to silence him by whatever means necessary. If you are captured or detected, the government of Malaysia will deny having any arrangements with you. This DVD will self-destruct in ten seconds.

NO HOLDS BARRED

Raja Petra Kamarudin

Does the opening line above sound like the opening scene from Mission Impossible? I hope so because it was intended that way. A few days ago ASP Suresh flew into Chennai, India, to launch his mission. And his mission is to try to locate PI Bala and deal with him.

Who sent him there? Was it Prime Minister Najib Tun Razak or IGP Musa Hassan? Ah, the police officers from Bukit Aman who report to me did not say. That is because they are not too sure who ASP Suresh is currently reporting to. But if it is IGP Musa Hassan then ASP Suresh will be on official duties and therefore would have been given clearance to leave the country. However, if he is not on official duties and has not been given clearance and is instead on leave, then it is 'on a frolic of his own’. And this would mean PM Najib sent him to India without IGP Musa’s knowledge.

I am sure if IGP Musa did not send ASP Suresh to India and was in fact kept in the dark about this matter then he would be hitting the roof as soon as he reads this piece. It would be very interesting to see how IGP Musa reacts to this news, which he has had to read in Malaysia Today and was not kept abreast of.

Yes, someone in the corridors of power in Putrajaya is getting extremely nervous. There is this unresolved matter about the recently deposed Special Officer to the Prime Minister, Nasir Safar -- who uttered that most racist statement that Chinese immigrants were prostitutes and Indian immigrants beggars -- who has now been identified as that mystery man in the blue Proton Saga who was in front of Razak Bgainda’s house the day Sirul and Azilah picked up Altantuya and subsequently murdered her.

But there was one other man also there that day. And that man is private investigator Balasubramaniam a/l Perumal. So they need to get to Bala before the MACC does. If the MACC gets to Bala first and records his statement and he testifies that the man in the blue Proton Saga was Najib’s Special Officer, Nasir Safar, the shit will really hit the fan, if it not already has.

The MACC wants to meet Bala to record his testimony. They said so in their letter to his lawyer. But they want Bala to fly to Singapore and meet them in the Malaysian High Commission in Singapore. That would be a most foolish thing to do. That would be like meeting in Bukit Aman.

Singapore and Malaysia have a ‘special arrangement’. All Malaysia has to do is to request the Singapore police to detain Bala as soon as he touches down in the country and drive him across the Causeway and hand him over to the Malaysian police. They do not even need to apply for a court order or apply for extradition. The Malaysian police just have to request the Singapore police to detain Bala ‘on their behalf’.

This is what the Singapore police did on the Mas Selamat case. They just requested the Malaysian police to detain the wanted man and keep him in Kamunting ‘on behalf of Singapore’. And now Mas Selamat is under Internal Security Act detention in Kamunting although he committed a crime in Singapore and not in Malaysia.

Bala’s lawyer wrote to the MACC to offer to set up a meeting in London. But the MACC did not respond to that letter. They still want to meet in Singapore as per their first letter. So we now have a stalemate. The MACC wants to meet in the Malaysian High Commission in Singapore while Bala’s lawyer insists on meeting in London.

The MACC also inserted other terms and conditions in their letter to Bala’s lawyer. They want all correspondences and communications to be marked RAHSIA. That means it comes under the Official Secrets Act (OSA). And this would also mean if anyone leaks any of these letters and publishes them in Malaysia Today that would be a violation of the OSA and he or she could be arrested and charged.

Furthermore, the MACC wants to meet Bala alone and not in the presence of any lawyers, plus they refuse to allow a video recording of their interview with Bala. Both these conditions have of course been rejected. Bala’s lawyer insists that a team of lawyers be present during the interview and that the interview must be recorded.

Bala will be telling the MACC about ASP Suresh’s role as middleman in the negotiations, the meeting he had with PM Najib’s brother, the threat they made against his family coupled with the offer of RM5 million to buy his silence, and the role played by two of PM Najib’s aids in this entire episode -- his ADC Musa Safri and Special Officer Nasir Safar. The MACC, therefore, does not want Bala’s lawyers to be present or a video recording made of the interview since what Bala would be saying would be most damaging indeed to PM Najib and his family.

So now we have a stalemate. Both sides are sticking to their guns. And it looks like the MACC will only be able to interview Bala on his terms and not on the MACC’s terms. So where do they go from here? They can’t drag this matter forever. Sooner or later the MACC will have to explain to the public why they have not yet met Bala to record his statement. And it would appear like the MACC does not want to meet Bala because they fear what Bala will be telling them. And this would certainly not bode well for PM Najib.

And that was when ASP Suresh was sent on his ‘Mission Impossible’ a few days ago. He is to track down Bala and try to persuade him to not meet the MACC. Bala will need money, of course, to disappear for good. ASP Suresh has been authorised to promise Bala a payment of RM5 million, to be paid in monthly instalments of RM50,000. And the monthly commitments will be handled by Rosmah Mansor’s Carpetman cum Bagman cum Toyboy, Deepak Jaikishan.

But they failed to take into consideration some very crucial elements in ensuring the success of this plan. And one of these crucial elements is RPK of Malaysia Today. RPK knows what is going on and his silence can’t be bought. Another very crucial element is Bala himself. They are assuming that Bala is in Chennai and that he can be bought. Oh, and maybe a third crucial element is Bukit Aman. They still have not discovered which police officers in Bukit Aman report to me. So I get to know about ASP Suresh making his trip to Chennai even before he can land in India.

Ooh, I just love this cloak-and-dagger stuff. They are trying to look for me and are trying to find out who my ‘backers’ are when they fail to realise that some of my backers sit in Bukit Aman itself and that they keep me abreast of what transpires on the top floors of the police headquarters even before the plan is launched.

ASP Suresh, have a good holiday in Chennai, eat plenty of Roti Chennai, and go back and tell your masters that you failed to find Bala.

Till we talk again, goodbye ASP Suresh, wherever you are.

* This article is the personal opinion of the writer or publication. The blog owner does not endorse the view unless specified.

GEMPAR - KENAPA DITANGGUH LAGI? APAKAH PEGUAMBELA TAK TAU MACAMANA NAK PERTAHAKAN CIFUT BABI?

Menurut The Unspinners pasukan peguambela sepatutnya memulakan 'cross examination' atau sesi pemeriksaan balas saksi hari ini, seba itu ramai pemimpin PKR yang turun kerana mereka tidak sabar untuk mendengar perbicaraan hari ini, tujuan mereka untuk mencari kelemahan kes ini.

Malang sekali, hajat mereka tak kesampain apabila Peguambela CIFUT BABI  iaitu Karpal Singh datang lewat dan minta untuk hakim ditukarkan!

Kalau dilihat alasan Karpal ni adalah tidak kuat dan semua orang tahu Utusan Malaysia hanay melaporkan apa yang dibicarakan di Mahkamah. Kenbanyakan pemimpin Pakatan Pembangkang terutama DAP dengan sengaja menyalahkan Utusan atas tujuan Politik. 

Kalau nak dikutkan dengan laporan dan fitnah yang dilakukan oleh portal dan bloggers Pakatan Pembangkang adalah lebih teruk lagi namun tiada sesiapa pun bising! Kenapa mereka minta supaya Hakim tersebut ditukarkan?

Bila terjadinya perkara sebegini maka ianya menimbulkan pertanyaan, apakah pihak Peguambela belum bersdia lagi untuk melakukan 'cross examination'? Dan ada juga yang percaya bahawa Peguambela percaya kepada segala testimoni yang diberi Saiful! Apa yang diceritakan Saiful adalah benar dan tepat memang susah hendak disangkal lagi!

Sememangnya Pendakwaraya dari awal lagi sudah pun membentangkan segala bukti dan hujah tentang kes ini, maka apa lagi yang menjadi penghalang untuk peguambela menangguhkan kes ini, tidak lain dan tidak bukan adalah kerana mereka tidak tahu bagaimana lagi untuk memusing atau memutar belit lagi akan kes ini!

Segala cerita mengenai KONSPIRASI TEORI dan macam-macam teori lagi sudah tidak boleh jalan lagi, pihak peguambela tahu yang mereka tidak cukup hujah untuk lawan kes ini dari aspek undang-undang, ingat Karpal dan kawan-kawannya bukan calang-calang peguam!

Mereka juga tahu kali ini Pendakwaraya sudah cukup bersedia menghadapi segala macam persoalan dari pihak Peguambela, ketakutan paling besar mereka adalah sekiranya pihak pembela terperangkap dalam segala macam perangkap yang telah dipasang oleh Pendakwaraya, kalau silap tanya soalan nanti takut semakin terbongkarlah kemungkaran Anwar!

Sesungguhnya pihak peguambela sudah tak tahu nak buat apa sekarang ni selain dari menangguhkan kes ini, mereka juga mengetahui segala bukti baik dari segi forensik mahupun bukti nyata serta segala hujah yang menyokong Pedakwaraya adalah kuat!

Hanya satu sebab untuk tangguhkan kes ini, mereka cuba menghidupkan gerakan Reformasi dan sekaligus untuk menimbulkan kekacauan supaya rakyat menjadi rimas, mereka sanggup lakukan apa saja demi untuk mengelakkan kes ini dari diteruskan! Inilah wajah sebenar CIFUT BABI AND THE GANG!

Di bawah ini, ada Hansard dari Parlimen yang telah diambil beberapa tahun dulu, persoalan yang timbul sekarang bagaimana seorang manusia yang pernah mengatakan CIFUT BABI sebagai Peliwat tetapi hari ini sedang membela orang tersebut? Saya rasa karpal kena jawab la ni kan?

Sila klik pada imej untuk membaca dengan jelas.

Bukti sudah jelas sekarang,sebab itu Karpal Singh minta Anwar Ibrahim bertaubat. Ini kerana dia tahu cerita sebenar.

Selepas Karpal Singh, orang kedua yang membuat tuduhan secara terbuka yang Anwar seorang peliwat adalah Ahli Parlimen Kubang Kerian pada masa itu,iaitu Hj Mohd Sabu. Secara terang-terangan dalam satu ceramah di Kubang Kerian pada bulan Ogos 1998, Mohd Sabu menggelarkan Anwar dengan gelaran 'Anwar Ibrahim Al-Juburi'.

Untuk mencapai 'klimaks' cerita ini,anda bolehlah merujuk kepada blog Unspinners.Anda padankan hansard parlimen di blog saya ini dengan apa yang dikatakan oleh Unspinners.Pasti akan akan mendapat 'kepuasan' cerita yang sebenar.(Rujukan,disini)

Terima kasih kerana sudi membaca dan sila berfikir.

* This article is the personal opinion of the writer or publication. The blog owner does not endorse the view unless specified.

UMNO leaders in Federal Government should not play with fire and mortgage credibility and success of 1Malaysia GTP Roadmap and Malaysia 2.0 new economic model

by Lim Kit Siang

UMNO leaders in the Federal Government, from the Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak, Deputy Prime Minister Tan Sri Muhyiddin Yassin to Cabinet and sub-Cabinet levels should not play with fire and mortgage the credibility and success of the 1Malaysia Government Transformation Programme (GTP) Roadmap and Malaysia 2.0 new economic model yet to be announced by Najib.

They should be mindful that Malaysians and the world are watching whether they could separate their responsibilities as Federal Government officials from those of Umno leaders, which would have a great bearing on the credibility, trustworthiness and success of of Najib’s 1Malaysia GTP Roadmap and Malaysia 2.0 new economic model which is to be the basis for the Tenth Malaysia Plan to be presented to Parliament in June.

For instance, national and international credibility in the system of governance which plays a very important role in a country’s international competitiveness, would suffer grievously if Malaysians and the international community believe that the Najib premiership is unable to rise above narrow political party considerations to give top priority to national interests as to continue to compromise the independence, professionalism and integrity of national law enforcement agencies.

There is for instance growing national and international concern about double standards in government where irresponsible elements provoking sensitive racial and religious outbursts are given immunity and leeway if they are aimed at destabilizing Pakatan Rakyat state governments, even when these demonstrations are founded on baseless allegations or half-truths, like the outrage of the cowhead demonstration against the Selangor Mentri Besar Tan Sri Khalid Ibrahim in Selangor in August last year and the demonstration against the Penang Chief Minister, Lim Guan Eng last Friday.

Malaysians are witnessing a reversal of role of mainstream media (msm). Since more than a decade ago from the outset of the Anwar Ibrahim reformasi movement in 1998, mainstream media will play down the crowds at demonstrations by dividing them with a factor of 10. Now, we have mainstream media magnifying the crowd at anti-Pakatan Rakyat demonstrations by multiplying it by a factor of ten – which explains Bernama reporting a demonstration of 3,000 against the Penang Chief Minister last Friday.

The 1Malaysias GTP Roadmap makes many proposals about promoting “a truly 1Malaysia government” and an “all-inclusive 1Malaysia media” but they will have neither credibility nor public confidence if “a truly 1Malaysia government” and “an all-inclusive 1Malaysia media” fail the daily test of actual day-to-day governance in the eyes of Malaysians and the world.

* This article is the personal opinion of the writer or publication. The blog owner does not endorse the view unless specified.

Why the prosecution of Anwar Ibrahim matters to the West

The Washington Post

FEB 7 – In the past two years, Malaysia, which has been a one-party state since it gained independence in 1957, has made remarkable strides toward becoming a democracy. That it has done so is mostly due to the efforts and political talent of one man – Anwar Ibrahim.

So the fact that Anwar went on criminal trial last week should deeply concern the democratic world. The outcome could determine whether one of Asia’s most economically successful countries preserves its stability and embraces long-overdue reforms.

A former deputy prime minister in the ruling party, Anwar was deposed and jailed in 1998 by former Malaysian strongman Mahathir Mohamad.

A manifestly unfair trial followed in which Anwar was convicted of homosexual sodomy, which shamefully remains a crime in Malaysia.

Six years later, the conviction was overturned by a court, and Anwar resumed his political career – this time as an open champion of democracy in Malaysia and other Muslim countries.

Anwar succeeded in forging a coalition of opposition parties, including his own multiracial People’s Justice Party (Parti Keadilan Rakyat or PKR), an Islamic party (PAS), and a secular party (DAP).

He has campaigned against the government’s toxic policy of racial discrimination, which funnels economic favours to well-connected members of the ethnic Malay majority.

In the past two years, his coalition has pulled off a string of stunning victories in state and parliamentary by-elections; it now controls four of 13 state governments. If led by Anwar, it would have a fair chance of winning the next national election in 2013.

That’s one reason it’s suspicious that, three months after the state election victories in 2008, Anwar was once again accused of sodomy.

Another is that his young male accuser was seen with aides of Najib Razak, who is now prime minister; Anwar says he has evidence that the accuser met with the prime minister and his wife shortly before making his charge.

A third is that the case has been transferred from criminal court to a higher court whose judges are closely linked to the ruling party.

If Anwar is convicted, he could be sentenced to up to 20 years in prison and would be banned from politics for five years. He is 62.

The ruling party no doubt hopes a conviction will cause the opposition coalition to crumble. But it could just as easily provoke a backlash against Najib or street demonstrations that could destabilise the country.

That’s why the Obama administration and other Western governments interested in stability in Asia should make clear that the imprisonment of Anwar would be a blatant human rights violation – and not in Malaysia’s interest.

* This article is the personal opinion of the writer or publication. The blog owner does not endorse the view unless specified.

First movement of multi-movements

Dr Daphne Loke 

COMMENT Three school girls from the Chung Hwa High Chinese School stayed back at least three times a week after school for band rehearsals.

Yen had to refine her handling of the baton – throwing it into the air then catching it again, while marching. May was the trumpeter and Fei, my little girl, was the flutist. Mom, the driver designate, never heard her utter a word of complaint about her team members in the rehearsals.

Besides being members of the school band, the three girls had other things in common: top scorers in the same class, all had passed piano grade 8, idealistic, artistic and very demanding of their own performance.

How many pieces of musical instruments are needed to compose a school band? 20? 30? Or more!

The basics:

They vied to be in the school band because they shared the same love for music. They qualified because they have the basic training in music, the same temperament of being patient and willing to help team members so that the whole band could harmonize in symphony. The reward was the opportunity to perform in public, perhaps less than sxi times in a year – in top form - representing the school.

Synchronize or be ostracized :

Chung Hwa High, being a top-notch Chinese school in town was never short of candidates for the school band. So if the student wanted to be in public performance, perfection, unison, and excellent team work were the imperatives.

Could anyone of the band members dislike a note in any of the tunes they played? How many times could a member boycott rehearsals? Or not take care of the musical instruments assigned to them? The Band Master was a renowned composer in the country. How many of the band members would be in a position to tell him to change his formation? The degree of tolerance of being out of tune was zero.

Highest level of social organisation:

Eusociality is a term to represent the highest level of social organisation in a hierarchical colony - this time it is about insects such as bees, ants and even termites. In an insect colony, how many worker ants mutate to become drones?

If a band member were to tell the band master he/she would not want to play a certain tune, that member would straight away be replaced. That is because the choice of songs was not a mere minnie-minnie miney-mo affair. Each member's capability to contribute needed to be carefully evaluated for the best rendition. Who would take the lead position in the march depended on how well the members behind him or her could follow .

Dealing with waywardness:

I have stated earlier that in the case of the school band, a wayward member would be replaced. In the insect colony, the units from the back would merely stomp on those who boycott advancement, or refused to, or did not progress. Their organisations had no choice but to relinquish such dissidents and advance with the demands of a progressive society. Not even the termite colony could contain such wayward action, as the speed of destruction of the building would be side-stepped.

Are you in the right colony?

MCA is a hierarchical organisation. Those vice-presidents, the chairmen of the Youth and the Wanita factions are high up in this hierarchy within the party. This recent declaration of boycotting events organised by the president and deputy president is simply shocking behaviour per se of the 13 members in the party. Yes, they have down-graded themselves from the level of leaders to mere members, who may not lead, perhaps, may not even know how to follow in the first place.

Their declaration of boycott, was not a mere announcement. Rather it was a call for other members to join in the boycott. How should we look at this type of action?

In labour terms, the act of boycott falls under a category of industrial action which this country has an Act of Parliament to deal with. So what action should the party take in this case?

I remembered Fei's piano teacher telling her that all great musical compositions were created with passion. Ants have the passion to construct. Termites have the passion to destroy. Are you in the right colony?

NOTE: Sonata, the very popular musical form is referred to as the First Movement of Multi-movements

* This article is the personal opinion of the writer or publication. The blog owner does not endorse the view unless specified.

Ku Li says Malaysia is a sham democracy

By Debra Chong

KUALA LUMPUR, Feb 8 — Tengku Razaleigh Hamzah (picture) called Malaysia a democracy which only existed in name only, and said that reforms could not be expected from the incumbents in power, in an apparent attack against Umno and Barisan Nasional (BN).

“To modify Tunku’s words, we now have a democracy existing in name, but grievously compromised in substance, reality and fact,” Tengku Razaleigh said today when launching Ideas, a new think-tank set up to promote democratic ideals, at the Tunku Abdul Rahman Memorial today.

Razaleigh appeared to also single out Umno and former Prime Minister Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad in his remarks about the current political situation, and for the attacks against democratic institutions and the judiciary.

He said original founding ideals laid down by Malaysia’s first Prime Minister Tunku Abdul Rahman had been warped.

“We have left it to the deranged for too long ...To expect change from the incumbents is to expect, in the Malay saying, the mice to repair the gourd…‘Bagai tikus baiki labu.’ ”

“Tunku Abdul Rahman was the founder of Malaysia…He brought together a Malaysia that had come together ‘through our own free will and desire in the true spirit of brotherhood and love of freedom’, in a union arrived at ‘by mutual consent by debate and discussion…through friendly argument and compromise,’ and ‘in the spirit of co-operation and concord’,” Razaleigh said in his speech at the launch of the new think tank set up and rooted in memory of the visionary late Kedah prince, fondly called Tunku.

“That basis has been replaced by something alien to it, his memory has been suppressed, and our history revised,” he added.

Razaleigh, more popularly known by his moniker Ku Li, bemoaned how the “founder” would not recognise today’s Malaysia because it has been replaced with the “cult of the great leader”.

“Tunku built up a system of good civil service in which ordinary citizens did not need to see so-and-so to get things done. This has been replaced by a domineering style of leadership in which what you get done depends on who you know.

“In place of the protection for ordinary citizens guaranteed by popular representation, rule of law and the checks and balances of independent institutions, we have the cult of the great leader,” said Razaleigh, who was a close friend of Tunku.

“It is no accident that the erasure of his memory has gone hand in hand with the erosion of our institutions,” he noted further.

Razaleigh pointed out that Tunku did not help Malaysia achieve independence alone but did it with “an entire class of individuals schooled in the culture and practice of parliamentary democracy.”

* This article is the personal opinion of the writer or publication. The blog owner does not endorse the view unless specified.

Najib and Anwar: How do you explain to your children?

By Steadyaku47

“We cloak ourselves in cold indifference to the unnecessary suffering of others--even when we cause it.” James Carroll

I want to write today about a friend of mine - Anwar Ibrahim. About what he is going through now. About what personal pain he must be feeling in spite of the brave front that he puts for us all to see. About what he is going through as a father and husband. He is again living the nightmare he went through a decade ago. A nightmare that ended only after years of incarceration when he was pronounced innocent of sodomy. But that did not spare him the pain, the embarrassment and the humiliation of going through that first sodomy trial. Mahathir and Mahathir alone perpetuated that suffering. Mahathir is no longer Prime Minister. However God has not given Mahathir the grace to accept that he is no longer Prime Minister. Why God has not done so is for God to know. So maybe Mahathir really is to be pitied rather then reviled. We do know that God did not make UMNO leaders very bright either but even HE outdid HIMSELF when HE threw Najib Tun Razak into our midst.

In UMNO relentless search for power and great wealth we have been privy to many a scenario. The colossal road show pitting Mahathir against the Sultans. The sacking of Tun Salleh Abbas. The very public confirmation by UMNO’s own President of money politics  - invoking damnation and hell to those who practice it – a classic instance of the pot calling the kettle black! And a lot of good that did to UMNO! Huh!

We had to suffer the embarrassment of Mahathir babbling away teary eyed on stage for all to see because he knew  that it was time for him to go. Even he could no longer do anything about money politics in UMNO – so better to leave then be in the predicament that Najib and UMNO are now facing! Say what you like about Mahathir but in hindsight did he not engineer his exit at precisely the right moment? Give credit where credit is due I say!

And now Najib. I am not going to ask him how he sleeps at night after Altantuya. After pushing out Pak Lah. After Teoh Beng Hock. After Kugan. After PKFZ, after the death of the three innocent schoolgirls over the suspension bridge tragedy, even about his own sordid sexual past…..because in the privacy of your house doctors can give you medications - uppers or downers to manage your mental and physical state and still give you a good night sleep. So he sleeps ok at night. I am not going to ask him how he will face his maker when his time comes because hopefully for him, that is still a long way off and he still thinks that there will be time to wash his sins away.

But this I will ask of him. As a Father to Riza Shahriz,  Nooryana Najwa and Norashman how does he deal with his children’s queries about these things that are happening around them. Najib’s children are adults and educated enough to read, digest and think for themselves what is right and what is wrong. Their education, the best that money can buy, should enable them to make their own conclusion as to what Uncle Razak Baginda has done. If they can condone the Ringgit $500 million as commission for “services rendered” to our Nation that Najib has given to Razak’s – what about Razak’s Baginda’s keeping of Alatantuya as his mistress? What about her murder? What about the SMS that Najib send to Razak? What about the involvement of UTK in the murder? What about Bala’s statutory declaration about Najib’s connection with Altantuya? If anything I would like to believe that their education would give them the ability to conclude for themselves what is right and what is wrong. And I would also like to believe that they are educated enough to understand that the swearing by Najib on the Koran that he is innocent of Altantuya’s murder does not, and I repeat, does not, makes their father innocent of that crime. That, as any educated person understands, is for the court to decide.

So Najib, I ask you – have you sat down with Riza Shahriz,  Nooryana Najwa,  and Norashman to explain your part in the whole matter? Or have your family been conditioned to accept that in politics the ends justifies the means? And that is your excuse to them for hounding Anwar through the courts in the sodomy two trial. Your excuse for this disgraceful and shameful act of bringing another Father to disrepute and embarrassment in front of his children? You  know that Anwar is a father. A father with six children. He too, like you, will have need to explain to his children what is happening around them.

But then Anwar’s children know of their Father's commitment to help others less fortunate then him even before he joined UMNO. They have seen their Father imprisoned under ISA before he became the anointed successor to Mahathir. Then from being Deputy Prime Minister they have seen their Father taken away from them, from the sanctuary of their home by balaclava clad armed men and then hounded through a corrupt Judiciary by Mahathir for sodomy. Jailed and then finally vindicated. They have seen their father bashed black and blue by the Inspector General of Police. They have seen their father in Prison again – for a much longer period this time. And while he was in prison they grew up. They have seen their father come back from prison to become leader of the opposition. They have seen more than what any father would want their children to see of themselves in life and yet there is more.

Now Sodomy two. Najib do you think Anwar has to explain anything to them in as far as sodomy two is concern? Or are Anwar’s children already resolute and firm in their belief in the innocence of their Father and prepared for anything that you and your cohorts will throw at him – at them? And I am not even going to start about Azizah. Don’t anybody doubt Azizah’s ability to shoulder more then her share of bringing up that family and defending Anwar!

So again back to your family Najib. How do you deal with Riza Shahriz,  Nooryana Najwa and Norashman? The ends justifies the means? Huh! As for Rosmah I can only quote Bill Cosby who said “Let us now set forth one of the fundamental truths about marriage: the wife is in charge”. Camna? 

* This article is the personal opinion of the writer or publication. The blog owner does not endorse the view unless specified.

Nasihat tentang liwat

Takut mati kebuluran
kerana spesis kaum
cinta sejenis

Oleh Shanon Shah

shanonshah@thenutgraph.com
 
MINGGU lepas, saya memang pening kepala mencari idea untuk kolum saya kali ini. Tiba-tiba, setelah berjam-jam melayari internet, saya terjumpa satu laman web baru, www.tepikain.com, yang berkisarkan hiburan, gaya hidup, dan kemusykilan agama. Saya tertarik dengan ruangan nasihat untuk minggu tersebut. Saya rasa baik saya muatkan semula di sini kandungan soalan utamanya, sebab ia mungkin dapat menjadi teladan untuk kita semua, wallahualam:

---

Assalamualaikum Kak Nora,

Saya sekarang menghadapi dilema. Saya ada dua orang sahabat karib, A dan B, dua-duanya lelaki. Isunya rumit, kak.

A ini macam ada hati dengan B. Dan A merupakan majikan kepada B. Tambah-tambah pula, A sebenarnya sudah berkahwin dan B sudah bertunang. Bulan lepas, B mendedahkan kepada saya yang A telah meliwatnya! B mendakwa A telah menjemputnya ke sebuah kondominium mewah dan meminta untuk meliwatnya dengan menggunakan kata lucah dalam bahasa Inggeris. B kata dia marah dan takut, tetapi terpaksa akur sebab A sudah mengamuk.

Sekarang B berkata dia mahu mendedahkan A kepada seluruh media massa dan mengheret A ke mahkamah. Dia bersumpah di atas Al Quran depan saya, kak.

Saya sudah keliru. Saya memang tidak mahu campurtangan sebab saya rasa memang kedua-dua A dan B mengada sikit. Tapi hati kecil saya bertanya, kalau betul B diliwat secara paksa bagaimana? Bukankah ini satu dosa besar, kak? Dan bukankah saya bersubahat jika saya terlibat dalam apa cara sekalipun?

Dan kak, saya sekarang memang terfikir-fikir kalaulah A dan B ini daripada spesis kaum cinta sejenis. Sampai saya dah tak berselera nak makan. Tolonglah saya, kak. Saya tak mahu lama-lama sakit anorexia dan mati kebuluran.

Deq Non

Tivoli Villa, Damansara

---

Wahai Deq Non yang prihatin,

Pertama sekali, akak rasa orang zaman sekarang memang kurang beradab, kan? Contohnya, kalaulah betul si A menaruh hati terhadap si B, adakah patut A bertanya, "Can I [tebuk] you?" Sungguh tidak sopan. Bagi salam pun tidak, hidang kuih pun tidak, tiba-tiba nak beromen pulak.

Tak bolehkah nyatakan hasrat dengan manis sikit? Akak boleh cadangkan beberapa alternatif untuk rujukan si A pada masa depan:

"Kepala I peninglah, boleh you tolong picit sikit?"

"You nampak letih — tak nak baring dulu?"

"Jomlah kita baca marhaban sama-sama."

Atau habis teruk kalau nak tayang sangat kefasihan speaking the London, boleh juga A melembutkan permintaannya dengan menambah hanya satu perkataan:

Lembutkanlah permintaan ini dengan "please"

"Can I [ting tong] you, please?"

Tapi nampaknya dalam era globalisasi dan keruntuhan akhlak yang diterajui oleh Barat yang hina, orang Melayu zaman sekarang sudah lupa budi bahasa. Nauzubillah.

Dan itu baru si A. Apa pula jawapan si B? "Tak nak, you! I marah dan takut, okay?" Kemudian terus menanggalkan baju, berkemban dengan tuala, dan menaiki ranjang menanti serangan hendap?

Si B sebenarnya ada beberapa alternatif jika "diserang" dengan begitu biadab oleh A, contohnya:

"You dah ter-over, bang. I cakap dengan bini you baru tau."

"Kepala hotak engkau!"

"Nak kena penumbuk?"

"Aku penyekkan barang kemas kau, baru tahu."

Lainlah kalau B memang seronok diperlakukan dengan ganas. Kalau begitu, dia tidak perlu berkata apa-apa. Mulutnya boleh dipakai untuk pekerjaan lain yang akak rasa tidak manis disebut dalam ruangan suci ini.

Bak kata the orang-orang London, ini semua common sense belaka. Pendapat peribadi akak, benda ini tidak perlu dihadapkan di mahkamah, atau dibincang dengan panjang lebar di muka hadapan suratkhabar, atau disumpah laknat atas kitab suci Al Quran.

Tapi Deq Non sekarang risau bagaimana kalau ini bukan lagi kes mengurat tetapi satu kes rogol? Bukankah rogol itu satu jenayah dan dosa yang keji?

Akak setuju 100%. Kalau ini kes rogol, maka memang B perlu bertindak segera supaya mendapat keadilan. Contohnya, membuat laporan polis dengan serta-merta, mendapatkan kaunseling, membuat laporan dengan pertubuhan hak asasi manusia, dan kemudian cuba memelihara keselamatan diri dengan sebaik mungkin. B tidak sepatutnya memberitahu orang yang tidak berkaitan, tidak kiralah sama ada pihak itu menerajui puncak pemerintahan negara pun.

Sebab jika benar ini kes rogol, besar kemungkinan B perlu memberi keterangan di mahkamah, dan dalam banyak kes memang ramai mangsa rogol yang takut dan keberatan untuk berbuat demikian. Malah, pihak media seringkali akan cuba mengorek butir-butir peribadi tentang mangsa rogol — B sepatutnya berwaspada dalam keadaan ini dan mengelak dari membuat kenyataan media dengan sewenang-wenangnya. Deq Non boleh cuba bantu B dalam semua aspek ini.

Tapi Deg Non kata tak mahu bersubahat. Akak pun setuju. Tak payah buang masa dengan kawan-kawan yang drama gitu. Daripada penerangan Deq Non, akak rasa dua-dua pun lebih kurang macam hipokrit. Akak rasa ada isu negara yang jauh lebih penting. Contohnya, baru minggu lepas akak kena ragut depan rumah akak sendiri. Ha, itu baru betul kalau akak kata akak "marah dan takut". Pipi akak berdarah, kaki pula terseliuh, dan sekarang akak kena pakai gigi palsu, Deq Non, sebab gigi betul patah bila akak terjatuh!

Akak pun banyak buat kerja sukarela dekat rumah perlindungan wanita — ha, kalau Deq Non pergi sana barulah Deq Non akan dapat lihat sendiri betapa menyayat hatinya pengalaman orang yang dirogol.

Satu saja benda yang akak bengang dengan Dek Non. Engkau bengap atau apa? Yang kau tiba-tiba nak jadi bintang Hollywood yang glamorexia semata-mata kerana skandal A dan B ini kenapa? Bukankah ini masalah antara A dengan B dan bini/tunang masing-masing?

Akak tahu ramai orang kuat agama yang akan kata mereka ini jijiklah, berdosalah, mesti dihukumlah. Tapi akak tak ada tauliah dalam bidang agama. Yang akak tahu, akak memang lebih berdendam dengan setan yang meragut akak minggu lepas berbanding A dan B. Memanglah, akak kesian dengan anak bini mereka, tapi akak memang tak mahu ambil kisah tentang hal peribadi mereka. Nanti di akhirat, Allah juga yang akan mengadili mereka.

Engkau pula biarlah pakai otak sikit, noh? Jangan mengada sangat tentang A dan B. Malam ini cuba engkau keluar makan dengan kawan-kawan lain. Mana tahu, lepas makan bolehlah kau baca marhaban dengan mereka beramai-ramai.

Salam ikhlas tapi nakal,

Kak Nora

* This article is the personal opinion of the writer or publication. The blog owner does not endorse the view unless specified.

The Reunion Of Reformists: Anwar Ibrahim Challenges Prime Minister or His Deputy to a Debate on Who Has Committed Treason onto The Malays ….”

post info

By Anwar Ibrahim

 

Categories: Agenda Baru, Aktiviti, Analisis, Antarabangsa, Anwar, Demokrasi, Ekonomi, Hebahan, Islam, Isu Semasa, Mahkamah, Malaysia, Media, Pakatan Rakyat, Perutusan, Pilihanraya, Politik, Propaganda, Umno and Video

0 Comments

---

Responses to “The Reunion Of Reformists: Anwar Ibrahim Challenges Prime Minister or His Deputy to a Debate on Who Has Committed Treason onto The Malays ….””

Feed for this Entry Trackback Address View blog reactions

---

* This article is the personal opinion of the writer or publication. The blog owner does not endorse the view unless specified.

Setahun sudah berlalu, Perak masih tak menentu

by Amin Iskandar

FEB 8 — Buat pertama kalinya istilah “Adun Bebas Menyokong Barisan Nasional” diperkenalkan didalam kamus politik Malaysia. Selain daripada itu, krisis politik di Perak juga telah menyebabkan nama Datuk Seri Nizar Jamaluddin menjadi sebutan.

Bagi penyokong Pakatan, Nizar dilihat sebagai wira kerana keberaniannya untuk mempertahankan hak rakyat negeri Perak untuk menentukan kepimpinan negeri. Dalam masa yang singkat, Nizar Jamaluddin yang sebelum ini tidak begitu dikenali diangkat menjadi tokoh yang diletakkan sebaris dengan Ketua Pembangkang Malaysia, Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim.

Nizar juga popular dikalangan penyokong BN dan sering menjadi sebutan dalam penulisan blog penyokong-penyokong BN cuma bezanya dikalangan penyokong BN beliau dikutuk. Nizar dikatakan dikawal oleh pemimpin DAP Perak seperti Ngar Kor Ming dan Datuk Ngeh Koo Ham.

Krisis di negeri Perak telah menyebabkan ramai pihak terpaksa membuat pendirian bagi memastikan Perlembagaan Negara dihormati. Keputusan menyokong agar DUN Perak dibubarkan agar pilihanraya negeri dijalankan bagi memberikan peluang kepada rakyat di negeri Perak untuk memilih kepimpinan negeri tersebut melangkaui parti politik.

Ahli Parlimen BN bagi kerusi Gua Musang merangkap bekas Menteri Kewangan secara terbuka meminta agar krisis politik di negeri Perak diselesaikan melalui pembubaran DUN.

“I stated at the beginning of this crisis that by our Constitution, a change of government can only be brought about by democratic means, which is to say, through the ballot box or through a formal vote of confidence in the elected Legislative Assembly. These are the constitutionally mandated means by which the people decide on their government. Any other means of changing the government is unconstitutional and undemocratic, and subverts the basis upon which we are a civilised society”. (Petikan dari artikel yang bertajuk “What is at Stake in the Perak Crisis” dari www.razaleigh.com yang disiarkan pada 12 Mei 2009)

Pada 9 Febuari 2010 ini Mahkamah Persekutuan akan mengumumkan keputusan mengenai siapakah Menteri Besar Perak yang sah. Keputusan ini telah lama ditunggu oleh penyokong kedua-dua BN dan Pakatan.

Sebelum ini, pada 11 Mei 2009, Mahkamah Tinggi Kuala Lumpur telah memutuskan bahawa Nizar Jamaluddin masih lagi Menteri Besar Perak yang sah.

Hakim Mahkamah Tinggi (Bahagian Rayuan dan Kuasa-kuasa Khas) Datuk Abdul Aziz Abd Rahim memutuskan bahawa Nizar tidak mengosongkan jawatannya itu kerana beliau tidak kehilangan kepercayaan majoriti anggota DUN.

Pada 12 Mei 2009, belumpun cukup 24 jam keputusan Mahkamah Tinggi mengesahkan Nizar sebagai MB Perak yang sah, Mahkamah Rayuan telah menangguhkan keputusan berikut. Maka Zambry Kadir pun menjadi MB Perak semula sementara menunggu keputusan yang bakal diputuskan oleh Mahkamah Persekutuan.

Pengerusi Suhakam, Tan Sri Abu Talib Othman turut menyokong agar DUN Perak dibubarkan dan memberi laluan kepada pilihanraya negeri agar kuasa dikembalikan kepada rakyat bagi menentukan siapa yang seharusnya menjadi pemimpin mereka.

Menurut Abu Talib Othman yang juga bekas Peguam Negara didalam sebuah kenyataan yang diedarkan kepada media pada 12 Mei 2009, artikel 21, Deklarasi Hak Asasi Manusia Sejagat 1948, mengatakan bahawa rakyat harus menjadi teras kepada pembentukan sesebuah kerajaan.(Article 21 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights 1948 provides that the will of the people shall be the basis of the authority of the government.)

Antara hujah yang digunakan oleh pihak BN untuk mempertahankan rampasan kuasa di Perak ialah Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahimlah yang memulakan permainan tersebut dengan “Projek 16 Septembernya”.

Akan tetapi, bukankah BN begitu membenci Anwar Ibrahim? Jika benci mengapa diikut apa yang cuba dilakukan oleh Ahli Parlimen Permatang Pauh itu?

Bayangkanlah jika “Projek 16 September” Anwar Ibrahim berjaya, apakah BN boleh menerima keputusan kerajaan mereka tumbang akibat daripada “lompatan” dan bukan pilihanraya? Saya percaya BN dan penyokong tidak boleh menerimanya.  Dalam sebuah survey yang dilakukan oleh Merdeka Center baru-baru ini, 74 peratus mengatakan bahawa mereka mahukan DUN dibubarkan dan pilihanraya negeri diadakan semula.

Ini menunjukkan bahawa walaupun setahun telah berlalu, rakyat masih belum melupakan peristiwa rampasan kuasa di negeri Perak tersebut. Rakyat mahukan agar kuasa untuk memilih kepimpinan negeri dikembalikan kepada mereka.  Setakat ini, Nizar Jamaluddin dan rakan-rakannya dalam Pakatan Rakyat konsisten untuk membunarkan DUN jika disahkan sebagai MB Perak oleh mahkamah.

Komitmen masih belum ada lagi dari pihak Dr. Zambry Kadir. Zambry tentu hidup dalam keadaan tidak tenang apabila sering dipanggil dengan panggilan “MB Haram”. Sudah tentu Zambry lebih senang hati jika beliau menjadi MB dengan jalan yang dipilih oleh rakyat dan bukannya melalui pintu belakang.

Jika diadakan pilihanraya, masih belum pasti lagi siapa yang akan menang. Kedua-dua Nizar dan Zambry mempunyai peluang.  Dr. Zambry Kadir baru-baru ini mengumumkan bahawa melalui “kajian” yang dilakukan oleh pihaknya, kerajaan pimpinannya menjadi semakin popular. Berdasarkan kajian yang mengatakan bahawa rakyat Perak semakin menerima kerajaan kepimpinannya, maka wajarlah Zambry membubarkan DUN untuk membuktikan kebenaran kajian tersebut.  Jika Zambry melakukan perkara ini, secara tidak langsung beliau akan dilihat menjayakan kempen Perdana Menteri Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak dengan slogan kepimpinannya yang berbunyi, “Rakyat didahulukan, pencapaian diutamakan”.

Jika rakyat didahulukan, serahkanlah kembali kuasa mereka untuk memilih. Jika DUN tidak dibubarkan, Perak akan terus berada dalam keadaan tidak menentu. Lebih parah lagi jika rakyat hilang keyakinan terhadap perlembagaan dan demokrasi sepertimana yang dialami oleh Ferdinand Marcos, bekas diktator Filipina. Sebab itu Marcos akhirnya dijatuhkan melalui “People Power”.  Selain daripada itu, Zambry akan dikenang sebagai pemimpin yang sayangkan negeri Perak oleh kerana Pilihanraya Negeri akan memberikan “economic Stimulus Package” kepada negeri-negeri tersebut. Ini sangat diperlukan pada ketika ini dikala ekonomi negara bergerak dalam keadaan yang lembab.  Pilihanraya akan membantu ekonomi penduduk tempatan secara langsung. Hotel-hotel penuh. Rumah tumpangan penuh. Begitu juga dengan rumah-rumah sewa. Tidak lupa juga dengan kedai-kedai makan. Semuanya akan mengaut keuntungan besar di musim pilihanraya.Bayangkanlah, jika di hari biasa “Nasi Ganja” di Jalan Yong Kalsum di Ipoh boleh dijual sebanyak 1000 pinggan, berapa banyakkah yang akan terjual pada musim pilihanraya negeri?

* This article is the personal opinion of the writer or publication. The blog owner does not endorse the view unless specified.