How should we judge a government?

In Malaysia, if you don't watch television or read newspapers, you are uninformed; but if you do, you are misinformed!

"If you're not careful, the newspapers will have you hating the people who are being oppressed, and loving the people who are doing the oppressing." - Malcolm X

Never argue with stupid people, they will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience - Mark Twain

Why we should be against censorship in a court of law: Publicity is the very soul of justice … it keeps the judge himself, while trying, under trial. - Jeremy Bentham

"Our government is like a baby's alimentary canal, with a happy appetite at one end and no
responsibility at the other. " - Ronald Reagan

Government fed by the people

Government fed by the people

Career options

Career options
I suggest government... because nobody has ever been caught.

Corruption so prevalent it affects English language?

Corruption so prevalent it affects English language?
Corruption is so prevalent it affects English language?

When there's too much dirt...

When there's too much dirt...
We need better tools... to cover up mega corruptions.

Prevent bullying now!

Prevent bullying now!
If you're not going to speak up, how is the world supposed to know you exist? “Orang boleh pandai setinggi langit, tapi selama ia tidak menulis, ia akan hilang di dalam masyarakat dan dari sejarah.” - Ananta Prameodya Toer (Your intellect may soar to the sky but if you do not write, you will be lost from society and to history.)

Thursday, February 26, 2015

How can there be a 'big and fat female pigeon strutting along Jobstreet' ?(Cantonese: 'tai chek kap nah chui kai thiu')?

Read a report somewhere about Jobstreet Corp Bhd's Rm1.961 billion pre-tax profits in their last FYE 31.12.14. Checked its share price and found it low and its shares turnover not high for that kind of profits.

Checked its share capital and other relevant info and found the following:

For both Last FYE 31/12/14 and Last 4Q 31/12/14:

Revenue: Rm186.251 million

Net Profit: Rm1.961 billion

EPS: 290.63 sen

P/E Ratio: 0.17

Dividend: 272 sen per share

Dividend Yield: 584.95%

NAB: 0.40

No. of shares: 707.953 million

Par Value: 0.10

Paid up capital: Rm70.795

Market Capitalization: Rm329.198 million

When I checked the price late this morning, the trading volume was way below 100,000 and the price moved up only 1.5 sen at 45.5 sen.

Then I suppose, rumours spread a bit (though the good things already happened) and at 3.20pm, the last done price was 47 sen and the volume was already 136,000!

I suppose, even with incorrect information, with enough people chasing the shares, its price can go up a bit.

Further information revealed the following events which explains why the price was unexciting:

The current Cum price refers to the 3rd Interim Single Tier Dividend of 1.75 sen per share;

A Special ST Dividend of Rm2.65 per share had gone Ex since 10/12/14! Lodgement date was 12/12/14 and payable on 24/12/14.

The market did react to the news (though I wasn't aware) because the highest price for the past year was Rm3.00 on 28/11/14 and the lowest was 25 sen on 15/12/14.

In other words, almost all the extraordinary earnings had been paid out to shareholders: each shareholder holding 1,000 shares would have received Rm2650 in Special Dividend.

Like the masked magician revealing the tricks, now we know why the price shot up and how it was done! It would be naive to think there were no insiders trading and made good gains from the information.


Egalitaria - How independent is the MACC?

'The MACC comes under the Prime Minister's Department, from which it also receives funding for its operations. This raises some serious questions as to its independence, especially if it were to receive reports on corruption stemming from this very department it would therefore be expected to investigate.

Despite the three independent panels, in addition to five oversight committees that the MACC has introduced in recent years, there is obviously a need for an all-encompassing solution. One problem is that the MACC's officers are drawn from the same pool of civil servants, as mandated by the Public Service Commission and run by the Public Service Department. This makes it inherently difficult for the MACC to employ independent officers who would be able to carry out investigations on other civil servants without fear or favour.

The MACC, in its present governance structure, would still remain tied to the government's executive influence, and any proposed reform would need to deal with institutional independence, both from the structural and practical standpoints.

To this end, IDEAS, together with the Malaysian Bar Council, has been working closely with other civil society organisations to propose several recommendations. These recommendations are aimed at making the MACC truly independent. The first of which would involve a constitutional amendment to form an independent Anti-Corruption Service Commission that would give the MACC hire-and-fire authority over its own officers. This would mean the MACC is no longer dependent on the Public Service Commission to supply their investigating and case officers.'
- See more at:

With reference to the 26 members of the three independent panels of the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC), 19 of whom are new appointees, will it be like ex-Transparency International Paul Low, being put in the PM's Department just to provide some show of credibility?


Wednesday, February 25, 2015

Section 377: Everyone claims to be right... so who is?

I did a quick search for Bar Council President Christopher Leong's letter but could find a few responses to what he had stated but not his actual letter or statement.

I found one from a blogsite which posted a letter from an observer to TMI:

Saturday, February 21, 2015

Why Christopher Leong is right - An observer

I refer to Bar Council president must retract statement on Anwar verdict - Aidil Khalid and others.

I shall refer to this hereinafter as the "Aidil Letter".

It is not my intention to reply at great length to every point in a letter that attempts to castigate Bar Council president Christopher Leong, for his recent remarks on Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim's Federal Court case, popularly dubbed "Sodomy II".

I merely want to pick up on one point raised by Leong, viz, why the complainant, Mohd Saiful Bukhari Azlan, the alleged participant in the act of sodomy, was not charged for abetment.

This point sparked a great deal of sound and fury, signifying nothing, in the "Aidil Letter".

Leong concluded his remarks with these words: "It is a strange world that we live in".

One does not even need to venture beyond the four walls of the various Anwar Ibrahim sodomy trials to see how right he was – at least where this particular point is concerned.

Some facts:

In "Sodomy I", both Dr Munawar Anees and Sukma Darmawan were charged, convicted and sentenced under S377D of the Penal Code, the essence of the charges being that they had "allowed Anwar to sodomise them".

The exact wording of the charge against Munawar was:

"That you in the month of March 1993, at night, at No.8, Jalan Setia Murni 1, Bukit Damansara, in the Federal Territory of Kuala Lumpur, committed an act of gross indecency with one Dato' Seri Anwar Ibrahim by allowing him to introduce his penis into your anus and you had thereby committed an offence punishable under section 377D of the Penal Code".

(The charge against Sukma was identical, mutatis mutandis.)

This puts paid to any assertion that in S377 offences, it is only the "active" partner who can be liable, not the "passive" one.

In full, S377D provides:

"Any person who, in public or private, commits, or abets the commission of, or procures or attempts to procure the commission by any person of, any act of gross indecency with another person, shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to two years."

Hence, Sukma and Munawar were treated, in effect, not as victims, but as accomplices.

That is wholly consistent with the long history of S377, a provision that exists throughout the Commonwealth.

It was as long ago as 1918 that India recognised that a passive consenting party to the offence of unnatural carnal intercourse, if a rational being of full age, should naturally be treated as an abettor (Ganpat v. Emperor [AIR 1918 Lah. 312 (2)], a contention supported by case law ever since.

The fact that S377B was invoked is critical. Abetment could not have applied, nor could S377D, if this had been a "sodomy rape" (to coin a phrase) charged under S377C.

In that case, there would be no question whatsoever of charging Saiful. But that was not the way the prosecutor's discretion was exercised.

They went under S377B, perhaps because proving all elements of S377C would have been harder on the facts. But it has to be one or the other – it is either consensual, or not. Suggesting coercion and then charging under S377B is trying to have your cake and eat it, too.

But the Aidil Letter meanders erratically past this point, without even seeing it:

"A plain reading of Sections 377A and 377B of the Penal Code must certainly lead a reader thereof to conclude that the statutory provisions do not criminalise homosexuality per se but sodomy, namely the act of insertion by a man of his penis into the anus of another person, be that a man, woman or child. Such an act is considered vile by the values held by the vast majority of Malaysians and rightly attracts sanction."

This betrays a lack of knowledge of the Labouchere Amendment and the history of S377, but more importantly is irrelevant, as it does not address Leong's question (clearly justified, as I have demonstrated) about why no charge was preferred against a (by definition) consenting party?

Why the difference between Sodomy 1 and Sodomy 2? The anomalies are indeed "glaring".

It is then said, however, that by analogy to a corruption case (in which the receiver is charged while the giver is used as a witness) Saiful cannot be charged.

But this is both fallacious and begs the question. There is no presumption that an accomplice who "turns Queen's evidence" (as they used to say), thus becomes completely exempt from prosecution. If X and Y have a history of 7-8 corrupt past transactions, would X therefore completely escape punishment if he appeared as a prosecution witness against Y for the 9th transaction only?

It may result in a lighter sentence, or other mitigating benefits, but the fact is that sodomy offences (as the cases above show) are "absolute": once it's in, you're in.

If Saiful had been charged as an accomplice, this would raise very interesting further questions relating to corroboration. But that is another story.

I personally do not subscribe to the histrionic sentiments expressed in the Aidil Letter that "…(t)his is a direct attack on the Federal Court without any legal basis with the effect of bringing the Federal Court into disrepute and odium."


(The Aidil Letter seems not to know the difference between the Federal Court's eventual judgment and pre-trial prosecutorial discretion, which is the main point addressed by Leong.)

Temperate and measured analysis of a concluded case, with a legal basis, is not an attack on any court. Nor are fair questions.

But temperance, fairness and measured analysis seem sadly lacking in some responses to Leong's remarks. - TMI

Gani: Bar Council president wrong on section 377C
February 13, 2015

Shafee: Charge Leong, Ambiga with contempt of court

FMT Reporters | February 18, 2015

Comments meant that the government had influence over the judiciary, says prosecutor.

Bar president told to retract statement questioning Sodomy 2 verdict

Sections 377A, 377B - Bar Council misleading public

No wonder the public seem confused and none the wiser.


Tuesday, February 24, 2015

A complete family reunion after more than 10 years

It was difficult to have everybody around during Chinese New Year Eve when children were either studying or working abroad.   

This year, Cheng could spare 4 days from Bangkok, to join us while CY could easily fit in when she is on 3-week vacation from Dubai.

This post is more about my experience dealing with various companies' customer service.

Having past experience and information on terrible traffic jams during Chinese New Year period, Cheng's expected arrival on CNY eve had to be planned well. It is better for her alone to be delayed than for us to be caught in jams as well. Weeks before, all train tickets from KL to Ipoh had been taken up. Managed to get a Yoyo coach ticket having taken into account her time of arrival. One good thing about Yoyo is the flexibility of choice for passenger to choose an earlier coach, if there was a last minute vacancy. I suppose they could sell the later one given up if someone happens to need a ticket. I can imagine, with the details of passenger available, the intended person could even board if he or she had lost the ticket. But this has yet to be tested.

Anyway, it was my first visit to Amanjaya Bus Terminal. I enquired at Yoyo's reception counter and was told the expected time of arrival 3.40pm. I was actually surprised it arrived on time despite the expected traffic jam. Anyway, the announcements over the PA system could hardly be heard, either because of poor voice control or unsuitable mic and/or speaker equipment. Having got a ticket upon entry to the carpark, I was looking for an auto payment machine but could not find one. I was told by a stallholder that it is free! The bus ticketing counters and the shouting by their agents were just like any old station despite the new premises.

I have a Digi number registered under Cheng's name which I ensured it is kept valid when she is abroad so that she can use it when she is back on holidays.

On her last visit, she returned to me her spare phone and I actually asked if she might need it on our way to the airport. She said no, and I remember I actually took it with me for just in case she needs it. That was all I could remember when I tried to find it a month later. With the phone battery flat, any attempt to call and hope to hear its ringing tone was of no use. As is usual with losing something, it is not so much the value of it (anyway it was a cheap phone which costed less than Rm100 and had about Rm80 in credit) but it was the idea that I could not find it which kept me thinking about it. I even sent a message to inform finder to contact me.

I asked at a local Digi dealer whether it is possible to find out the location of the phone eg. whether it is in PJ or BG. He said I must have seen too many films which showed capabilities beyond what are available.

So it was a relief when I enquired at the Digi Centre in Greentown Business Centre, Ipoh, that it is possible for registered owner to apply for a replacement sim card and that the other Digi Centre in D' Garden will be open from 10am to 10pm and closed only on Chinese New Year day. Cheng was due to be back on CNY eve for only 4 days.

When I fetched her at Amanjaya bus terminal, I told her we will be going to the Digi Centre because it has been bothering me. Each time I called that lost phone number, I got a recorded reply, 'The number you have called is unavailable.'

At the Digi Centre, next to the queue number machine, the guard was able to direct us to a special counter instead of taking a number. With the IC and phone number, the lady could easily access their system and supply us with a replacement card which costed Rm10 and that it will be activated within 15 minutes. I could not resist asking her whether the phone had been inactive for the last 2 months or so. I was surprised when she checked and replied, 'No, it had been used and the balance is now only Rm6.00'! She even mentioned it was used to call only 3 numbers late at night: 0126272367; 01132090892; and 0107641170.

I wonder how many people know that Maybank has a branch in KLCC which is open on Sunday? It was manned by 2 at the entrance to deal with credit card and ATM card matters, 4 persons at the counter, and 2 financial advisors.

It was during CNY period and on a Sunday morning, so KL was exceptionally light in terms of vehicle traffic. At the entrance of Jalan Sultan Ismail, there was an electronic message informing about 3,000 vacant parking lots at KLCC! It was a breeze, getting into the carpark and finding a space, and even though it was a tight one, we did not bother to find others. What Cheng needed to do at Maybank was done within minutes, so we were in good mood to look for brunch and then souvenirs. Leaving KLCC we even had time to look up one of my brothers for a chat before it was time for Cheng to leave for the airport.

Having experienced terrible traffic jams on our way from BG to PJ, we decided that Cheng should use the ERL at KL Sentral instead. CY actually checked the ERL times and frequency as well as how long it would take to reach KLIA2. Cheng had checked in online and had no luggage, so it should be rather straightforward, even though she had not used ERL from KL Sentral before.

But the smooth running of things had to be spoiled by a LRT ticketing woman. This was what I had posted on my FB page:

'Why some people shouldn't work at customer service and why they deserve not being promoted. Just imagine myself at Asia Jaya LRT station and asked for 1 normal ticket and 1 for Warga Mas. Was told WM could be bought from her but for the other ticket I must use the machine. 'Dia boleh baca kan?' (She can read, can't she?) There was no queue on a quiet Sunday at about 5 pm. Why do I get the impression she was either unhappy with my entitlement to half fare or jealous of the fact that the young lady shouldn't have it so easy? I'm sure a reminder that she should use the machine next time would not have spoiled my mood.'

It might be company's policy to encourage use of the machines, especially during peak hours, but chances are that now and again there will be some people who are foreign tourists or visitors from out of town, who do not know the rule nor how to use the machine.


Wednesday, February 18, 2015

Unprecedented road show to explain Anwar's case

As Umno Youth leader, Khairy thinks he needs to do something about the bad publicity created by Anwar's conviction and sentenced to five years in jail.

In my humble opinion, Shafee is well known as Umno's lawyer and he was appointed ad hoc lead prosecutor in Anwar's case, without regard to what the public think about it. I remember him as the one who boasted that he could 'nail Anwar within 2 to 3 hours'. He even sought to increase the jail sentence from 5 years. With so much hatred and vindictiveness in him, it is only natural that most members of the public hated him. Therefore, opportunistic Khairy might think he is going to gain from having a road show with Shafee, ostensibly to try and explain the case. I think it is going to backfire on Khairy instead. The more they try to explain, those who have already made up their minds will only be reminded of the cruelty in the persecution and hate them more.

In The Malaysian Insider:

Umno’s turn to go public on Anwar’s sodomy case, says Khairy

Barisan Nasional (BN) will be going on a nationwide road show, which will feature Tan Sri Muhammad Shafee Abdullah, to explain the Federal Court judgment on Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim's sodomy case now that the judiciary process has ended.

Umno Youth chief Khairy Jamaluddin said that the party has been accused and criticised for orchestrating a political conspiracy against Anwar since he was first charged in 2008, but it has kept silent all these years.

"We have kept silent for six years because the trial was in progress, fearing that we would be in contempt. We waited for the case to be over," he told some 300 people at a dialogue in Petaling Jaya tonight.

"Now that the case is over, do you expect us, as a political party, to keep quiet?" The dialogue tonight also featured Shafee, who was the deputy public prosecutor in the Anwar case, which ended last week after the Federal Court affirmed the appellate court's conviction.

- See more at:


Saturday, February 14, 2015

Gerard Lourdesamy: The Judgement of Anwar; and opinions related to Section 377

'The judgment of the Federal Court in Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim’s final appeal against his conviction for sodomy comes as no surprise to many of us. The purpose of a criminal trial is to do justice. The role of the prosecutor is not to seek a conviction at all costs but to ensure that justice is done to both the victim and the accused. The process has to be fair and impartial. The golden thread that runs through our system of criminal justice is the presumption of innocence. The accused does not have to prove his innocence. It is for the prosecution to prove the charge beyond a reasonable doubt which simply means that a judge or jury must be sure before they can convict. The benefit of any doubt must be given to the accused. But the doubt must be a rational and not improbable doubt. Since consent is not required for a charge under section 377A of the Penal Code by implication what it means is that this section deals with cases of consensual unnatural sex in the form of sodomy or fellatio (oral sex). Section 377C of the Code deals specifically with unnatural sex without consent and by implication it may involve some element of force or violence. That is why a heavier penalty is imposed by this section on offenders.'

See more at:

In Malaysia Chronicle: BOASTFUL UMNO MINION: Shafee draws flak with uncouth boast 'Anwar would’ve fainted' if he took the stand
'Those intent on continuing to politicise the Federal Court’s unanimous decision convicting Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim of sodomising his former aide Mohd Saiful Bukhari Azlan will not have a leg to stand on if Anwar had been called to the stand.

The grilling by the prosecution team, Tan Sri Dr Muhammad Shafee Abdullah said, would have been incessant. The torrent of questions would have come in rapid-fire, staccato bursts, withering and unrelenting. Anwar, Shafee said, would have been cut to pieces.

The scale would have also tipped in the prosecution’s favour from the start, had Anwar’s alibi witnesses taken the stand, he said.

Shafee began leading the prosecution team only when the case was brought to the Court of Appeal in 2012. He said if Anwar had, at the High Court in 2010, agreed to subject himself to questioning by the deputy public prosecutor, it would have been like bringing the proverbial knife to a gunfight.

"If the prosecution had been cross-examined, I think he would have fainted in the witness box because he would not be able to explain a lot of things, like why he put in his defence of alibi and then backed off.

"He made silly remarks from the dock, saying this was because his alibi witnesses would be interviewed by the police. Look, that’s the whole idea of a notice, isn’t it? You give a notice of alibi so that the police can interview the alibi witnesses as provided for by the law (under the Evidence Act 1950).

"I can easily tell you hundreds of facts that would have been zoomed in on if he was cross-examined. He knew that, so that is why I believe he took the cowardly step of giving a statement from the dock," he told the New Straits Times in an interview, a day after he secured the conviction against Anwar under Section 377B of the Penal Code.'


Malaysiakini: Section 377C more serious than 377B, says AG

'Opposition leader Anwar Ibrahim, who was convicted and sentenced to five years’ jail for sodomising his former aide was charged under Section 377B of the Penal Code, a less serious offence than section 377C.'


Kim Quek:

'AG Gani Patail’s deliberate misinterpretation of Section 377B in order to cover up his dereliction of duty to also charge Saiful for sodomy must be condemned.
Let me quote Section 377B of the Penal Code: "whoever voluntarily commits carnal intercourse against the order of nature shall be punished …..". Is it not crystal clear that this section is designed to punish specifically those who have committed the act VOLUNTARILY? Then on what basis could Gani claim that an offender of sodomy "with or without consent" can also be charged under this section? Explain please, Gani.
Since Saiful was adamant that he was sodomised without his consent, which essentially means that he was raped, why wasn’t Anwar charged under Section377C which was meant for such cases?
Gani claims that he has discretion to charge Anwar under either Section 377B or 377C, but the truth is that he hasn’t. He has only the discretion under Federal Constitution, Article 145(3) to either charge or not to charge for an offence, but he certainly does not have the discretion to charge for an offence under the wrong law.
Actually, the AG had 3 options at the outset of the case: a) charge both Anwar and Saiful under Section 377B, b) Charge Anwar under Section 377C, or c) not to charge Anwar.
And at the finality of the case now, the AG is left with only one option, and that is: charge Saiful under Section 377B. He is bound to do so, as Anwar has already been convicted under Section 377B by the Federal Court, meaning that sodomy was committed by the two parties - voluntarily.

Thursday, February 12, 2015

The judges involved in Anwar's Sodomy 2 case

2012: High Court: Justice Mohamad Zabidin

Jan 9 : The High Court acquitted and discharged Anwar of sodomising Mohd Saiful. In the 80-page written judgment, Justice Mohamad Zabidin reveals there was penile penetration but it was uncorroborated by other evidence.

He said the court could not be 100 per cent certain on the integrity of samples taken for DNA testing from Mohd Saiful as the samples could have been compromised before they reached the chemistry department for analysis.

2014: Court of Appeal: 3- men Panel headed by Justice Datuk Balia Yusof Wahi, with Datuk Aziah Ali and Datuk Mohd Zawawi Salleh.

'March 6 and 7 : The Court of Appeal heard submissions from Muhammad Shafee and lawyer Karpal Singh.

March 7 : Anwar was sentenced to five years' jail by the Court of Appeal after the court found him guilty of sodomising Mohd Saiful, six years ago.

Justice Datuk Balia Yusof Wahi, who led a three-man panel in hearing the prosecution's appeal in the case, however, granted Anwar's application for a stay of the sentence, pending appeal with bail of RM10,000 in one surety.

In overturning the High Court's decision in acquitting Anwar, Balia said the panel unanimously held that the trial judge had erred in his findings that the integrity of DNA samples used in the case had been compromised.

Karpal Singh, speaking to reporters later, said that with this ruling, Anwar could not file his nomination papers for the Kajang state seat by-election on March 10.'

'April 24 : The opposition leader filed a petition of appeal against his five-year jail sentence for sodomy at the Federal Court Registrar's Office, citing 35 grounds why his conviction and sentence should be set aside.'

'The Court of Appeal has allowed lawyer Muhammad Shafee Abdullah to represent the prosecution in its appeal against Anwar Ibrahim’s acquittal of a second sodomy charge.

Justice Ramly Ali who is leading the three-member bench, said the decision was unanimous.'

'Court of Appeal judge Justice Ramly Ali (now elevated to be Federal Court judge), who chaired a three-man panel, has allowed Anwar's application on Sept 17 to recuse a judge from hearing the prosecution's appeal.

With him in the panel then are Court of Appeal judges Justice Tengku Maimun Tuan Mat and Justice Mohd Zawawi Salleh.

Karpal had applied to recuse Justice Tengku Maimun on grounds that there was a likelihood of bias in view of her ruling in Anwar's defamation suit against former premier Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad on July 9, 2007.'

2015 February 10: 5-men Panel headed by Chief Justice Tun Ariffin Zakaria, with Court of Appeal president Tan Sri Md Raus Shariff and Federal Court judges Tan Sri Abdull Hamid Embong, Tan Sri Suriyadi Halim Omar and Datuk Ramly Ali.


Francis Loh: Dismal state of Malaysian justice, political leadership

'The guilty verdict on DSAI was not unexpected. Not for the first time, the Malaysian judiciary has revealed to the world how it can no longer be relied upon to uphold justice in our land.

By proclaiming that Mohd Saiful Bukhari Azlan is a credible witness, in the face of the commonsense counter arguments offered by his defence team, the judges have brought shame to our land.

Apparently, the learned judges do not understand simple principles of justice and first-year law school textbook notions of what constitutes evidence too. On the contrary, the decision of the so-called learned judges in the so-called Palace of Justice reveals, simply, how politicised the Malaysian judiciary has become.

After being found guilty, Anwar Ibrahim lamented: "You have sold your souls to the devil, bartering your conscience for material gain and comfort and security of office….you chose to remain on the dark side and drown your morals and your scruples in a sea of falsehood and subterfuge."

Who can blame the common people in the streets for believing that the higher one goes up the judicial system, the closer one gets to the Palace of Justice, the less one will have access to justice. Don’t take my word on how ordinary Malaysians (and non-Malaysians) view the disappointing performance of the judiciary.'



Kim Quek: THE GREAT SELLOUT: Malaysia’s darkest day for justice & democracy

'Chief Justice Arifin Zakaria’s judgment upholding Anwar Ibrahim’s sodomy conviction is not only full of holes, it has set a dangerous legal precedent whereby innocent persons may be wrongly convicted for sexual crimes that they have not committed.

Despite complainant Saiful Bukhari Azlan’s evidence being flawed by inconsistencies and falsehood, Arifin Zakaria is adamant that Saiful’s testimonies are reliable, for which no corroboration is necessary.

How did Arifin come to have such unshakable confidence in Saiful? Arifin attributed his faith in Saiful to two factors: Saiful was able to give "minute details", and he had stuck to his testimony despite a thorough cross-examination.

But such legal rationale does not seem to hold water. This is because anyone with a reasonable acting ability and memory would be able to do what Saiful had done, if given proper coaching and rehearsals by someone experienced in such sexual activities. And lo and behold, such an actor would then practically be able to get anybody in trouble for a concocted sexual offence under Malaysian law, if corroborative evidence is waived. And that effectively is what the current Federal Court ruling will lead to.'



Tuesday, February 10, 2015

Transcipt of what Anwar Ibrahim said in court

Statement by Anwar Ibrahim upon the judgement of the Federal Court on 10th February 2015

I maintain my innocence of this foul charge - this incident never happened.

This is complete fabrication- coming from a political conspiracy to stop my political career.

You have not given proper consideration to the case presented by my counsel from day one - that this incident never happened at all.

I can go on and on but I see from your statement today that it will be fruitless - it appears as I have been condemned again as I was in the court of appeal. only here we went through a facade of an 8 day hearing!

It is not a coincidence how the office of the PM was able to release a full written statement on your decision barely minutes after you handed your judgment today even before sentencing.

In bowing to the dictates of the political masters, you have become partners in crime for the murder of judicial independence and integrity. You have sold your souls to the devil, bartering your conscience for material gain and comfort and security of office.

You had the best opportunity to redeem yourselves – to right the wrongs of the past and put the judiciary on a clean slate and carve your names for posterity as true defenders of justice.

But instead you chose to remain on the dark side and drown your morals and your scruples in a sea of falsehood and subterfuge. Know you not that you are now wallowing in filth and foulness and the stench of your injustice will permeate through every nook and cranny of this so-called Palace of Justice and I do pity you all.

Yes, you have passed judgement on me – and I will, again for the third time, walk into prison but rest assured my head will be held high. The light shines on me.

But the shame is on you for you will be judged by history as the great cowards of humanity. Sitting on that high horse of judicial power, you have stooped so low to become the underlings of the political masters.

Students of law and professors of jurisprudence will scrutinise your judgments and as they dissect your reasoning and your decision, your credibility and integrity will be torn to tatters. And you will be exposed as the fraudsters who don the robe of judicial power only to pervert the course of justice.

Do not forget that, as all of us will have to, you too will have to answer, to your Maker. You will have to answer why you turned your backs on the principles that you had so solemnly sworn to uphold.

People who come into your court have to bow their heads and address you as ‘My Lords’ but don’t you know that you too will have to answer to your Lord one day? By then you will need more than bowing and prostration to justify why you wilfully transgressed Allah’s command as ordained in Surah an-Nisaa, verse 58:

Going to jail, I consider a sacrifice I make for the people of this country.

I have fought most of my life on behalf of the people of this country - for the people I am willing to go to jail or face any other consequence.

My struggle will continue, wherever I am sent and whatever is done to me.

To my friends and fellow Malaysians let me thank you from the bottom of my heart for all the support you have given me. And Allah is my witness. I pledge and I will not be silenced, I will fight on for freedom and justice and I will never surrender!

Anwar Ibrahim

10 Feb 2015

(Courtesy of Charles Santiago in Facebook)

Federal Court verdict: Anwar is guilty... awaiting sentence

As expected, though no less painful, Anwar Ibrahim lost his final appeal against sodomy conviction. It is public opinions against legal opinions which are subject to different interpretations, even among lawyers and judges.

According to Malaysiakini's summary of the case:

Sodomy II beginning
Mohd Saiful Bukhari Azlan meets then Deputy Prime Minister Najib Abdul Razak, at the latter's Taman Duta home to relate a previous sodomy incident.

June 25, 2008
Saiful meets DPM's ADC
Saiful meets a senior police officer - who was also Najib's aide-de-camp - at a KL hotel.

June 26, 2008
Where it happened...
The alleged sodomy incident at the Desa Damansara condominium.

June 28, 2008
Medical check-up
Saiful goes to the Pusrawi Hospital before being referred to the Kuala Lumpur Hospital.

June 29, 2008
The police report
Police report lodged against Anwar Ibrahim in the early morning and the opposition leader seeks refuge at the Turkish embassy. He comes out of the embassy following assurances from the prime minister.

June 30, 2008
Samples sent for investigation
Saiful's bodily fluids samples are sent to the Chemistry Department after being kept overnight by police.

July 9, 2008
Anwar's defence
Anwar files a 'qazaf' application against Saiful at the Kuala Lumpur Syariah Court.

July 15, 2008
Warrant of arrest
A warrant of arrest is issued against Anwar.

July 16, 2008
Anwar arrested
Anwar is arrested by armed Special Action Unit commandos while on his way home from the MACC. He is detained overnight and the next morning police take his DNA samples from a towel and water bottle he used.

July 17, 2008
DNA samples analysed
Anwar's DNA samples are sent to the Chemistry Department.

August 7, 2008
Charged with sodomy
Anwar is charged with sodomising Saiful. At this time, he is represented by a team led by Sulaiman Abdullah.

August 15, 2008
Saiful's religious oath
At the Federal Territory Mosque, Saiful swears on the Holy Quran that the alleged sodomy incident did indeed occur.

February 3, 2010
Trial begins
Anwar's sodomy trial begins at the KL High Court with Saiful as the first witness. Senior lawyer Karpal Singh takes over for Anwar from the ailing Sulaiman.

January 9, 2012
The oppositon leader is acquitted of 'Sodomy II' by the KL High Court.

July 11, 2013
New prosecutor enters
Senior lawyer Muhammad Shafee Abdullah is appointed government prosecutor by Attorney-General Abdul Gani Patail in the latter's appeal against Anwar's acquital.

January 27, 2014
The Kajang Move
The popularly-dubbed 'Kajang Move' is engineered by Pakatan Rakyat to catapult Anwar into the Selangor MB's position replacing Khalid Ibrahim.

March 7, 2014
Anwar found guilty
Prosecution's appeal against Anwar's acquittal brought forward from April to March, Appeals Court finds him guilty of sodomy, sentences him to five years in jail.

April 17, 2014
The loss of Karpal Singh
Anwar's lead counsel Karpal Singh dies in road accident.

October 24, 2014 — November 10, 2014
Anwar's final appeal at federal court
The Federal Court to decide on Feb 10 whether to uphold the Appeals Court decision to jail Anwar five years or to free him.

* BFM radio reports that Mohd Saiful Bukhari Azlan's lawyer confirms that Saiful will not attend court proceedings today.

* Datuk Seri Dr Wan Azizah Wan Ismail says the judges not only have to answer to the people but to conscience and God. "Judgement has to be based on facts With that, I'm confident that Anwar is innocent and should be released. Let me not have reason to question the judiciary. Judges have to honour justice entrusted to them," she said.

GUILTY! Anwar to be jailed

12.35PM: This is the official statement by the Prime Minister's Department:

"The judges will have reached their verdict only after considering all the evidence in a balanced and objective manner. Malaysia has an independent judiciary, and there have been many rulings against senior government figures.

"The police report against Anwar Ibrahim was brought by a private individual - Anwar's employee and personal assistant - not by the government. As the victim of a serious sexual assault, he had every right to have his case heard in court.

"In this case, exhaustive and comprehensive due process has been followed over many years. That process is now complete, and we call on all parties involved to respect the legal process and the judgment".

The Malay Mail:

PUTRAJAYA, Feb 10 — Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim is headed to prison again after the country’s apex court today upheld an earlier Court of Appeal ruling that reversed his acquittal of sodomising former aide Mohd Saiful Bukhari Azlan.

The verdict today effectively ends Anwar’s legal options to challenge the conviction. He now stands to lose his Permatang Pauh parliamentary seat as the law bars anyone fined over RM2,000 or imprisoned more than one year from serving as a lawmaker.

The decision also leaves the Pakatan Rakyat opposition pact without a leader.

When reading out the summary of the case, Chief Justice Tun Arifin Zakaria said the offence under Section 377B of the Penal Code was concerned with acts of carnal intercourse against the order of nature, and that consent was not a necessary ingredient to the commission.

Earlier, Chief Justice Tun Arifin Zakaria said the Federal Court concurred with the subordinate courts that Saiful was a credible witness.

He also said that the apex court accepted the DNA evidence tendered by the prosecution, explaining that degradation did not prevent the samples from being usable and that there was no break in the chain of custody as claimed by Anwar’s lawyers.

"Based on the above findings, we agree with the Court of Appeal judges," Arifin said.

Further, the Chief Justice said there was not merit to Anwar’s claim of a political conspiracy in the charge and that such a defence was not considered by the three courts hearing the case.

Despite the claim, Anwar did not deny being present at the time and place of the alleged sodomy, Arifin noted.

"We hold no merit in in the appellant’s unsubstantiated claims of political conspiracy," he said.


Thursday, February 05, 2015

Looking at the possible successors to Najib... uninspiring... even worrisome

Logically, as DPM, Muhyiddin is supposed to take Najib's place for whatever reason he is out of office. But Muhyiddin's 'I'm Malay first' though not unexpected from a leader in race-based Umno, will certainly put off many who are for Malaysian Malaysia.

Next in line is Zahid Hamidi, having gained highest votes among the 3 Vice Presidents of Umno. But this brash and rash minister, has been making one politically incorrect statement after another, and even sent a good reference letter to the FBI to support a Malaysian under investigation for running an illegal casino, would send shivers to some of us if he were to be PM.

Next comes Hishamuddin Hussein Onn (or better known as H2O), cousin of PM Najib, son of our third PM. Like his cousin, being son of our second PM, his pedigree is impeccable, but his performance uninspiring. Some people might be impressed by his excellent English especially as Acting Transport Minister at daily press conferences (MH 370), faced with an array of video cameras and international journalists. His ability to handle such press conferences has been honed from his years of education in Britain and years of experience as minister of education, home affairs and defence.

Being an all-rounder, he seems best suited to take over from Najib. But he has to contend with accusations of nepotism and continuation of political dynasties, something most Malaysians would not see as a problem, being used to such politics.

For the past 57 years, we have a system in which the President of Umno (later Umno Baru) inevitably becomes Prime Minister of Malaysia. It is not going to change so long as Umno and Barisan Nasional remain in power.

The most credible opposition alliance, Pakatan Rakyat, is now faced with the possibility of having their leader behind bars, come February 10, when Federal Court delivers its verdict. How this will affect the next General Election is anybody's guess. It can either be a stronger PR with Anwar still at its helm, or even a much stronger PR supported by public sympathy if Anwar is put behind bars again.

All over the world, people are surprised at how an opposition leader had been charged for sodomy twice over 16 years. How low can we go?

Monday, February 02, 2015

In 1997 we had George Soros, in 2015, we have Tong Kooi Ong?

Mentor, Dr Mahathir and his protégé, Najib, seem to see history repeating itself?
If I were Tong Kooi Ong, I would be flattered by the accusation that he, all by himself, was responsible for trying to bring down our Malaysian Ringgit and our economy, and in the process, making billions from it. But on the other hand, I would be worried by the widespread accusations, of being a big traitor of our country, generated after the so-called expose.

TKO is being compared with George Soros, who had been singled out and blamed for our financial problems in 1997 by our then PM, Dr Mahathir.

To think that it is so simple to 'short' our MYR and make billions is rather naive. In theory it can be very simple as in 'Sell High and Buy Low'. It is like 'short-selling' a company's shares in Bursa Saham KL which is strictly prohibited because one cannot sell shares which one does not own. But on a small scale, I believe there are punters who sold shares and made profits (if they guessed right) by buying at a lower price (within the time set to deliver). But the danger is having to chase to buy shares at rising prices if he was wrong in his prediction.

In the first place, can someone sell our MYR in the forex market on a very large scale without flouting the existing rules and attracting attention from other speculators? I can imagine he must have in place, many accounts with currency traders, in order to be able to have any significant impact on the exchange rates.

While people accuse TKO as a traitor for allegedly shorting our MYR with the help of his publishing units, The Edge and The Malaysian Insider in spreading adverse news about Malaysia, TKO had alluded earlier to the fact that he was forced to sell his Phileo Allied Bank. So it was obviously a case of political leaning in the past (for siding with the wrong horse, Anwar Ibrahim), which led to his having to relinquish his then most innovative bank. It was a pioneer in online share trading (nothing to shout about by today's standard) which made it attractive enough for Maybank to acquire. Therefore it is also unsurprising that he is accused of being a traitor now for unrailing Najib's economic policies. Isn't he a convenient scapegoat for our present financial quagmire?