mysinchew.com: Anwar waves his magic and thrills European audiences — by Tunku Abdul Aziz

Anwar waves his magic and thrills European audiences — Tunku Abdul Aziz

mysinchew.com, October 04, 2010

OCT 4 — I have had to come all the way to Brussels and Berlin to discover a side of Anwar Ibrahim that I was wrong about.

Reading the Barisan Nasional-owned newspapers that consistently portrayed him as a “traitor to Malaysia” who exaggerated the situation obtaining in the country given half a chance, I have, I must admit, tended to view him as a self-serving political demagogue who could not care less about the fate of his country as long as he achieved his ambition of becoming prime minister.

Anwar spoke last Monday evening (September 28, 2010) on “Liberal Values in the Muslim World — Why Islam and Democracy are Destined to Coincide” to a packed hall of some of Europe’s powerful decision-makers. These were men and women with wide international experience and could not be easily hoodwinked even if he had tried.

It was vintage Anwar, perfect smooth-as-silk delivery of a complex, serious subject to a critical audience. He knew his stuff. His was more than a speech; it was an intellectual journey mapped out by someone who knew the area traversed like the back of his hand.

There he stood, under the spotlight, his charming and quietly confident self as always, speaking without a note for a full hour. Earlier in the day, when he said to me he had to go back to his hotel room to give his speech the once over, I told him half in jest that he could make his speech standing on his head. He did just that and more.

He successfully won the audience over with his argument, supported by historical antecedents and more recent examples that completely demolished the conventional wisdom in non-Muslim circles that Islam and democracy were somehow incompatible bedfellows. He challenge the unfounded belief that it was against the order of nature for Islam to embrace democracy as seriously flawed because of the underlying assumption that Muslims, unlike others, were not born free to exercise their democratic rights.

As I sat listening to the prime minister Malaysia never had, thanks to Mahathir the Maverick, and who
might yet take the country by storm, Anwar, I mean, not Mahathir, I could not help thinking how utterly sad and absurd for Najib, whose articulation of his 1 Malaysia slogan invariably finishes in a cul-de-sac, offering his services to Obama to help bring about greater understanding of Islam, the religion of peace, among the majority American non-Muslims. My dear fellow, charity begins at home.

The only Malaysian politician, who can, without making a fool of himself, stride the world stage with the right combination of strong intellectual credentials and honesty, is not to be found within the serried ranks of the BN, but in the person of Anwar Ibrahim, Malaysia’s iconic liberal democrat.

As I saw here in Brussels, he had the European parliamentary leadership, figuratively speaking, eating out of his hands. Many have already put the champagne on ice; they clearly see this victim of a rotten political system as the next man to lead the country.

For all our sakes, I hope they are right. Malaysia needs a thorough overhaul and Najib whom we need like we do a great big hole in our head is unlikely to understand the dynamics of change for the great leap forward. Even if he understands the urgent necessity for change, would he be allowed to by the reactionary forces with the party ever so gingerly as the prospect of a palace coup remains a distinct possibility? He is not only busy watching oversized baggage, but also his back with the sort of loyal friends he has had foisted on him. There simply isn’t much time for anything else while the ship of state springs more leaks by the day.

I was asked by a senior European Parliament bureaucrat over coffee what the Pakatan Rakyat coalition’s priorities would be on taking over the federal government? In brief, I said revamp institutions of state that have been virtually destroyed and have, in many cases, been rendered dysfunctional, overhaul policies, systems and procedures that have tended to divide rather than unite Malaysians, pay special attention to economic policies centred on orderly growth and sustainable development, and generally to put things right and undo the excesses and abuses of that began under Mahathir so that democratic principles and practices may have a real chance of taking root. A tall order but with fairness, and integrity grounded in the rule of law, God willing, we will get there. — mysinchew.com

Anwar Ibrahim again battles dubious sex charges by Mark MacKinnon

Anwar Ibrahim again battles dubious sex charges

by Mark MacKinnon
Globe and Mail Aug. 27, 2010
 
Prosecution appears to be thinly veiled attempt to ruin Malaysian opposition leader’s reputation and political career

There is an uncomfortable pattern to life for Anwar Ibrahim, the charismatic leader of Malaysia’s opposition. In 1998, shortly after he quit the authoritarian government of Mahathir bin Mohamad, he was convicted and jailed on trumped-up sodomy charges.

Six years after that conviction was quashed and he was released from prison – and just as it looked like he and his multi-ethnic coalition might finally oust the long-ruling United National Malays Organization from office – Mr. Anwar finds himself trapped in the most awkward of reruns, once more accused of “consensual intercourse against the order of nature.”

The charges again look to be a thinly veiled attempt to ruin Mr. Anwar’s reputation and sabotage his political career in this Muslim-majority country. The trial to date – dubbed “Sodomy II” in Malaysia’s unsubtle government-controlled press – has produced a succession of lurid headlines about lubricant tubes and stained underwear, while Mr. Anwar and his lawyers have been denied the right even to see the medical records of the man with which he is alleged to have had anal sex.

But instead of letting the scandalous court proceedings force him to the sidelines, the eternally optimistic Mr. Anwar has been using good humour and his ever-present BlackBerry to turn even the most awkward of headlines to his advantage, holding up the charges against him as proof of the absurdity of the system he’s trying to change.

As a lone judge contemplates whether there is evidence to convict Mr. Anwar and sentence him to up to 20 years in prison, as well as a flogging, Mr. Anwar has continued his ferocious assault on a government he derides as repressive and corrupt, blogging from the courtroom and sending cheeky and upbeat 140-character updates to his followers via Twitter.

“Sodomy circus turns into sex opera!” reads one of Mr. Anwar’s mid-trial posts, which linked to a video of a lawyer discussing the lurid details of the case. “Courage of conviction. Que sera sera,” was his response to a fellow Twitter user who worried the energetic 63-year-old was headed back to jail.

The odds do seem stacked against Mr. Anwar, a former deputy prime minister who was once considered the rising star of Malaysian politics. But to hear him tell it, his déjà-vu legal ordeal is evidence that Prime Minister Najib Razak and his party are losing their grip on power, and they know it well.

“They can’t deal with me politically – either my economic programs or policies. They can’t debate me. So they resort to this ludicrous exercise to demonize me,” he said in an interview at the offices of his People’s Justice Party in western Kuala Lumpur, a confident grin fixed on his narrow, goateed face.
“We will win the next election and we will change the courts.”

It seems unlikely things will go quite that smoothly. Mr. Anwar’s political career has seen his fortunes change as often and as quickly as the weather in this peninsula thrust between the Indian and Pacific oceans. The leader of a Muslim youth organization during his student days, he shocked his followers by joining UNMO in the early 1980s and taking a succession of cabinet posts in the authoritarian government of Mr. Mahathir, eventually rising to become his powerful finance minister and deputy prime minister.

But the two men never saw eye-to-eye on key issues, and they eventually fell out during the 1997 Asian financial crisis over economic policy and Mr. Anwar’s accusation that cronyism at the top was hurting the country’s economy. Shortly thereafter, Mr. Anwar – frequently held up in the West as an example of a moderate Muslim democrat – was in jail.

Though initially barred from politics upon his release, Mr. Anwar steered the opposition to a surprisingly strong finish in 2008 elections, and – even as the new sodomy charges were being laid –very nearly won the long-sought prime minister’s chair in the aftermath when he called for a vote of non-confidence in Mr. Najib’s government. Mr. Anwar said he had the support of a majority in parliament, including an unspecified number of UMNO defectors, but the vote never happened. Instead, 40 key lawmakers were sent on a government junket to Taiwan during which some were apparently convinced to rethink supporting Mr. Anwar’s bid for power.

The next election, which can be called any time before 2013, is set to be a high-stakes affair in this rapidly developing country of 28 million, which has seen freedom of speech blossom since the 2003 retirement of Mr. Mahathir and the rise of the Internet. Any kind of conviction would keep Mr. Anwar – who heads an improbable coalition that consists of liberal reformers like himself and an Islamist party that seeks to impose Koranic law – on the sidelines for another five years.

Mr. Anwar, a married father of six children, denies the new charges that he had sex with a 25-year-old former aide to Mr. Najib. (The sodomy law, which dates back to the British colonial era, has only been used seven times since independence, with four of those charges being levelled against Mr. Anwar.)

The case recently devolved into further farce when it surfaced that the complainant was having an affair with a member of the prosecution team. Though Judge Mohamad Zabidin Diah acknowledged the affair as fact, he denied Mr. Anwar’s application to have the charges thrown out on that basis.

Mr. Anwar, who counts Al Gore, Nelson Mandela and former Canadian prime minister Paul Martin among his friends, said that while the Malaysian court system would do him no favours, he thinks his case is high-profile enough that the government won’t dare jail him again. “It’s a catch-22 for them. If they put me in jail, they invoke more sympathy, certainly the government will lose … And unlike Mahathir, Najib wants to be seen to be acceptable in the international community.”

Mr. Anwar’s undimmed ambition to be prime minister clearly infuriates his political opponents. Even in retirement, his mentor-turned-nemesis Mr. Mahathir uses his own blog to mock his former protégé and lash back at accusations that the case against Mr. Anwar is trumped up. “Could it be that it was actually the victim of anal rape who decided to tell things as they happened? I would like to say we should wait for the court to decide, but that can take a very long, long time or even never,” Mr. Mahathir wrote recently.

Despite a near-complete ban on his speaking to the official media, Mr. Anwar appears to be winning the public-relations battle, in part because of his savvy online efforts. A poll conducted by the independent Merdeka Centre for Opinion Research shortly after the new charges were filed found that only 11 per cent of the more than 1,000 respondents believed the new sodomy allegations against Mr. Anwar. Two-thirds said they agreed with the statement that the trial was “a politically motivated action to disrupt Anwar Ibrahim’s political career.”

Former US Ambassador John Mallot: 'Anwar-CIA': Rais Yatim should apologise

'Anwar-CIA': Rais Yatim should apologise

John Malott
Jul 12, 2010
3:48pm

 

Minister of Information, Communications, and Culture Rais Yatim owes Anwar Ibrahim, the Malaysian people, and the US government an apology.

Rais recently was named as one of three persons in Malaysia whose job it is to "thwart the dissemination of false news by irresponsible people."

That is indeed a worthy goal. No one want to see false news disseminated.

So one would have hoped that at the first opportunity he had to perform the job he was appointed to do, Rais would ensure that the news he received was true. But that was not to be.

Here's what happened.

On July 11, Utusan Malaysia published an article claiming (not for the first time) that Anwar is a CIA agent and stooge. For its evidence, Utusan quoted a blog in America that no one has ever heard of. Utusan falsely said that it is a “well-known” blog.

Rais didn't check the background of the blog's author, and I doubt he even read the blog before he spoke. Instead, he ran with what Utusan reported.

If Rais had checked, then after a 15-second Google search, he would have learned that Utusan's "expert" says she has been struck by lightning 10 times - inside her house - and that the Queen of England is engaged in money laundering.

She says she lives on a mountain in New York with her horses and cats and dogs and chickens.

So how could she know anything about Malaysia and who is a CIA agent?

Before Rais disseminated false news from such a person, why didn't he check the truth and save himself from embarrassment? Why didn't he do the job he was recently appointed to do?

But it is not just Rais and Utusan. It amazes me that today people in Malaysia still continue to disseminate the nonsense that "Anwar is a CIA agent" for their own political gain.

I dealt with this issue 10 years ago in an article I wrote for Malaysiakini ('Anwar was never an American spy', Sept 2, 2000) in which I said categorically that Anwar is not and never has been an American agent.

If I was lying 10 years ago, then why couldn't Mahathir - after 22 years in control of the Special Branch - prove me wrong? And why hasn't anyone been able to prove it in the seven years since Mahathir left power? Why can't they prove it today, instead of relying on the ramblings of mountain top bloggers in New York? Why hasn't Anwar ever been arrested on espionage charges?

It's an easy answer - because it is not true. Anwar is not and never has been an American agent.

I say this for the same reason I told then-foreign minister Abdullah Ahmad Badawi in 1998: If you say that Anwar is an American agent, you also are saying - falsely - that America is interfering in the internal political affairs of Malaysia, and that is not true.

As I wrote in Malaysiakini a decade ago ( I had then said I went to 'a very senior official in the Malaysian government. I can reveal now that the official was Abdullah), I said that on behalf of my government, Anwar was not a CIA agent.

And if the Malaysian government arrested Anwar and claimed that he was an American agent, we would immediately issue a denial of the strongest order and challenge the Malaysian government to issue any proof to the contrary.

I also bluntly told Abdullah that his government would be embarrassed because they could never offer any proof to the contrary – because it does not exist.

I went on to say that the Malaysian government might have its internal political differences with Anwar, but if it made a false claim against the US, namely, that we have interfered in your internal affairs, that someone in the government is an American agent, then it is involving the US, and we will expose it for the lie that it is.

Today, twelve years after I met with Abdullah, Malaysia still has not offered any proof that Anwar is an American agent - because it is not true.

Finally, there is one more person that Rais Yatim needs to apologise to, and that is Prime Minister Najib Abdul Razak. That is because Najib has made a special effort to improve relations with the US. People in both countries think that so far he has succeeded.

So why are you now undercutting your prime minister's efforts and claiming that the American government is interfering in Malaysia's internal affairs and supporting the opposition?

And if the US government is happy with Najib's efforts, then where is the logic in supporting Anwar and the opposition?

JOHN R MALOTT was the United States ambassador to Malaysia 1995-1998.

malaysiakini: Canada concerned over Anwar trial - Margaret John

Canada concerned over Anwar trial

Margaret John
May 6, 10
3:29pm

 

Dear Prime Minister Najib Abdul Razak,

I write with respect in order to inform you about high-level concern in Canada regarding opposition leader Dr Anwar Ibrahim and to request your urgent intervention.

As you must be aware, there is worldwide concern about events relating to this prominent opposition leader's current situation, thus putting a critical spotlight on Malaysia. As prime minister, you are undoubtedly concerned, for example, that the respected Inter-Parliamentary Union (IPU) recently declared that Dr Anwar Ibrahim's current trial on a charge of sodomy is riddled with defects.

The IPU has now made a decision to send an observer to the coming court hearings. The US expressed its intention to continue to scrutinise this controversial trial. Hundreds of participants, including former Canadian Prime Minister Kim Campbell, at the World Movement for Democracy, signed a petition calling for a fair trial as well as for the release of Daw Aung San Suu Kyi of Myanmar.

Further, some fifty Australian parliamentarians recently signed a letter calling for an end to the ongoing sodomy trial. Joining the international outcry, concern is increasingly expressed at a high level in Canada.

Officers of the Canadian High Commission in Kuala Lumpur remain in private and public contact with Anwar Ibrahim and have observed the trial proceedings with great interest. In a recent article, former Canadian Prime Minister the Rt. Hon.Paul Martin called for the charges to be dropped to enable Anwar Ibrahim to 'pursue his vision of a democratic Malaysia, properly respectful of human rights'.

Opposition Liberal Party Foreign Affairs spokesperson, Bob Rae MP, called on Canada's Parliament to take note of continuing political and legal harassment of Anwar Ibrahim, who has 'long been a compelling spokesperson for democracy and for human rights in his country, and despite an unjustified prison sentence continues to speak out with courage and with determination'.

4. Forty-four Bloc Quebecois Party members of Parliament signed a letter petitioning you avec respect et amitie pour la Malaisie and declaring Nous sommes preoccupes par les accusations de sodomie portees contre Dr Anwar' (with respect and amity for Malaysia….We are concerned about the charges of sodomy against Dr Anwar).

5. Twenty-eight New Democratic Party Members of Parliament have signed a petition, acknowledging the longstanding friendly relationship between Malaysia and Canada, referring to the damage to Malaysia's reputation with Anwar Ibrahim's previous imprisonment and urging that current charges be dropped.

Amnesty International has repeatedly called for the protection and promotion of human rights in Malaysia – a call that was a clear focus of the United Nations' 2009 Universal Periodic Review of Malaysia and strongly supported by Canada's representatives.

Prime Minister, is it not time for Malaysia to become a truly progressive state in the area of human rights? As evident from the widespread concern about Dr Anwar Ibrahim, your leadership into a new twenty-first century era of human rights progress in Malaysia would be welcomed worldwide as a historic, major step forward.

I urge for such a new beginning the ensuring of treatment of Dr Anwar Ibrahim according to international human rights standards.

The writer is Amnesty International's coordinator for Singapore and Malaysia.

Stand Up for Justice by William Leong Jee Keen, Selayang MP

Stand Up for Justice
by William Leong Jee Keen, Member of Parliament for Selayang
February 12, 2010
 

On February 2, 2010, the battle for Malaysia moved into a decisive phase, the trial of Anwar Ibrahim. Although Anwar Ibrahim is in the dock, Malaysians are on trial .

Malaysians are put to the test.

Do Malaysians want Ketuanan Melayu or Ketuanan Rakyat ?

Are Malaysians prepared to pay the price for change ?

Are Malaysians prepared to fight for change ?

Malaysians have to decide whether to act or allow our institutions to be perverted for political ends.

Malaysians have to decide whether they want democracy, equality and liberty enough to fight for them.
Malaysians are tested on their will to fight.

Will we find the going too difficult ?

Will we find it easier, more convenient and expedient to accept rampant corruption, abuse of power and oppression ?

Anwar was fully aware after his release that they will lock him in again if he returns to fight.

That is the price Anwar is prepared to pay.

Anwar is prepared to fight.  Anwar will never surrender

The question is whether Malaysians are prepared to fight with him and never surrender ?
Attempt to tar and tarnish Anwar

Anwar Ibrahim is in the dock for a second time because he wants to lead Malaysians out of the darkness of racial politics, religious intolerance and authoritarian arrogance.

Anwar wants to lead us into the light of multiculturalism, mutual respect for religions and the rule of law.
Those in power are afraid of Anwar.

They dare not face him one on one.

They dare not face him and Pakatan Rakyat on a level playing field in open battle.

They prefer to ambush him.

They prefer to snipe at Pakatan from the cover of the bush.
They dare not face all Malaysians in open debate.

They prefer closed door meetings.

They are so afraid they are continuously adopting ever increasingly extreme positions on race, religion and royalty to hold on to power.

They want to tar and tarnish Anwar Ibrahim as a traitor to his race and religion.

They want to make sure he will not be able to lead and to open the minds of those who have been closed by half a century of propaganda and misinformation.

Race, Religion and Royalty

It is no coincidence that before the trial, Muslims and Non-Muslims have to deal with such sensitive issues as the use of “Allah”, the burning and attack on churches and other places of worship and when the desired response was not forthcoming, suraus have been attacked.

Malaysians were put to the test.

I am proud to say that Malaysians passed the test.

They showed Malaysians have the wisdom and the tolerance not to be provoked by these trouble makers.
It is no coincidence that these mischievous troublemakers have been desecrating religious symbols after the 12th General Elections.

They stomped on cow heads and now resort to throwing boar heads.

Boar heads wrapped in newspapers and plastic tied with a string so that the person throwing will not have to touch it.

I have never come across a Chinese who hold a pig with a string !
It is no coincidence the special assistant to the Prime Minister calls Indians beggars and Chinese women prostitutes.

Last year one of their leaders called Malaysians of Chinese descent “Pendatang”.

It was a seditious statement.

He was suspended as an UMNO member but it was Teresa Kok and a Chinese newspaper reporter that were detained under the ISA.
It is no coincidence Kapal Singh is charged for sedition for insulting the King.

It is no coincidence that Biro Tata Negara holds civics courses for civil servants that race and religion comes before the nation.

It is no coincidence we hear the repeated cries that only UMNO can save the race and religion.
Those that have tasted power and money that comes with it will not give up easily.

They will use all means fair or foul to stay in power.

They have used the government agencies.

They have used the institutions.

They have used the institutions to grab Perak from its people’s government.

They have used all in their power grab the Perak government from its people.

They are using all within their power to destabilize Selangor.

They are now using all their power to lock away Anwar.
Malaysians must fight back.

People want Change

All these happened because you want change.

All these desperate acts are because you want fairness, you want justice, and you want the rule of law.

Today we are tested again.

We were tested 10 years ago.

Too many of us then were afraid.

Too many of us then knew it was wrong but we had property to look after, we had our business to think about, we had a wife and family.

Let someone else protest. Let someone else demonstrate.

We will cheer from the safety of our homes.

We will stay on the sidelines out of harm’s way.
We failed.

Ketuanan Melayu won. Ketuanan Mahathir won. Ketuanan wang won.

The system was perverted so they could put Anwar away.

Anwar was jailed for 6 years but they damaged our constitutional institutions and took away our fundamental rights in the process.
For some of those that stayed on the sidelines because they had property, the perverted system stole their property.

The Federal Court decision of Adorna Properties vs Boonsom Boonyanit turned Malaysia into a thieves’ paradise.
For some of those that stayed out of harm’s way because they had a business, the perverted system robbed them of their business.

The Federal Court decision of Insas Berhad vs Ayer Molek was so unjust the judge said that “ Something is rotten in the House of Denmark” [where the courts were located at that time].
The police and enforcement agencies instead of protecting us became a danger to us.

Kugan went into a police station and was found dead.

Teoh Beng Hock went to the MACC office and was found dead.

Altantuya went into a police car and was found blown into bits by C4.
Malaysians did not go to jail with Anwar in 1998 but Malaysian paid the price for allowing the checks and balance to be dismantled.

Malaysians allowed the institutions to be perverted.

Malaysians allowed our agencies to be abused.

Malaysians are paying for it.
Today the script is taken out a second time.

Are we going to allow them to win a second time ?

Are we going to stay silent again ?

Are we going to let them take us down the road to perdition again ?
Are we going to allow them to win a second time ?

Are we going to stay silent ?

Are we going to let them take us down the road to perdition again ?
Or are we going to stand up? Are we going to shout in one voice and say Stop this nonsense !

Are we going to say give Malaysia back to Malaysians !

Give us back our pride and dignity.

Stop taking us for fools.
The people have woken up that the people can make a difference.

Each vote counts.

Each vote can make or break us.

But there are still those who have not woken up.

They are still those who cannot see.

They read Utusan Malaysia and The Star.

There are still those who have not heard.

They listen to RTM.

There are still those who do not realize that UMNO and BN are taking Malaysia to the backwaters.

They are frightened by the propaganda and the misinformation.

This is why Dato Seri Anwar and KeADILan are important.

Dato Seri Anwar can touch them.

Dato Seri Anwar can touch their hearts and their minds.

KeADILan can show Malaysians we can have a multiracial party, a multicultural party, a multicultural nation and together we can regain our place in the international arena.

We can regain our pride and dignity.We can live in harmony and prosperity.

Frustration and Despair

On March 8, 2008, you voted for change.

I know today you are frustrated, angry and in despair.

The mainstream BN controlled media reports that the three parties in Pakatan Rakyat are bickering amongst themselves.

Perak was lost because  three elected representatives jumped across.

Zulkifli Nordin is running around and saying things that UMNO will say and not what Pakatan Rakyat MP will say.

Zahrain Hashim, Tan Tee Beng and Wee Choo Keong are given wide media coverage for saying that things are not all going well in Pakatan.

What, you ask, is going on ?
Firstly, if we believe in the freedom of expression, we must accept that just as some people will not like to hear what we have to say, we have to accept that these people will also have the right to say what we do not like to hear.

Secondly, if we believe in the rule of law and the rules of natural justice, then we must apply the rule that no man is to be condemned unheard.

The right to be heard is an important rule of procedure.

If we believe in these principles then we must follow them.

Party discipline will be instilled.

Those who can explain and justify their actions will be excused, those who cannot will be dealt with and punished in a manner that fits the severity of the offence.

The party will cleanse the impurities and straighten the indiscipline.

Traitors

KeADILan representatives have been tested and are constantly being tested. Unfortunately, several have failed the tests.

If you are angry and frustrated, I am angry and frustrated one hundred times more than you.

The problem of traitors and treason has been with us since history began.

We will never know what lurks in the hearts of men.

Caesar found out too late and was assassinated by Brutus his closest friend.

Jesus Christ was betrayed by Judas, one of his own 12 handpicked apostles.

France elected Marshall Petain to lead them in  World War II against Germany only to see him surrender and hand over France to Hitler after only a few weeks.

Americans appointed Benedict Arnold in their war of independence as its general only to see him cross over to the British.
However, I know that truth and right will always prevail for many more who answer the call and come forward.

Marc Anthony came forward and saved the Romans from Brutus.

The apostles spread the message of Jesus Christ after Judas.

General Charles De Gaulle liberated the French from the Germans.

George Washington won the war of independence for the Americans.
I take heart that there are many leaders in Pakatan Rakyat who are loyal and honest.

They seek to serve, to strive and not to yield.

I know that many more of you will come forward and offer yourselves to serve our cause.

Focus

You and I  started a journey on March 8.

We are walking on a tight rope from the 12th General Elections to the 13th General Elections.

We have to focus on the rope in front of us.

BN is trying to shake us and throw us off balance.

Some of those whom we trust have fallen and some others may fall in the days to come.

You must know that in this walk you are not alone.

There are many of us who will walk with you.

We will walk with you and take you from the darkness in the valley of shadows to light at the mountain top.

Nelson Mandela said it is a long walk to freedom.

We must stay focussed in this walk.

We must keep our faith and take heart that right and truth always prevail.

We must take heart that if we hold on together we will overcome.

It always has and always will.

Free Anwar

We must focus on the threat before us.

It is not Anwar that is on trial.

We, Malaysians, are on trial.

The world is watching us.

We, Malaysians, must stay the course.

We must continue our fight for truth and justice.

Anwar is a victim of injustice.

Malaysians are victims of injustice.

The trial is not Anwar’s fight alone.

It is not Keadilan’s fight alone .

It is all Malaysians’ fight.

It’s everyone’s fight.

All of us who desire democracy, justice and liberty must stand up and with one voice call on Najib to release Anwar, to release Malaysia.

We must stand up and be counted.

We must stand up against corruption, abuse of power and oppression.

We must not allow those who use racial disharmony, religious sensitivities and misguided nationalism to rob us.

The price of liberty is eternal vigilance.

The price of justice is constant action.

Justice and liberty must be fought and refought every day.

We must be prepared to pay the price before we can begin to enjoy the blessings.

I am sure that if we stay focussed, if we stay together we will prevail.

1Malaysia April Fool's Day redoubt?: Transcript of Najib Razak interview — Al-Jazeera

Transcript of Najib Razak interview — Al-Jazeera

APRIL 2 — The following is a transcript of satellite news channel Al Jazeera’s interview with Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak.

FI: Fauziah Ibrahim

NR: Najib Razak

FI: Sir, thank you very much for joining us today.

NR: My pleasure.

FI: In your outline for the New Economic Model, you emphasised inclusiveness in the plan, for all races. But you’ve also kept affirmative action for the bumiputeras — which is made up of about 53 per cent Malays and 12 per cent of the indigenous people. But then you’ve also said that affirmative action in your plan is different from the one from previous. What’s so different?

NR: It’s different because you know we’ve learnt from implementing the affirmative action in the past. We know where the weaknesses are.

FI: What are the weaknesses?

NR: Well, I think basically, you know, we have to change the way we implement it so that it is more attuned with the current market, especially the market expectations – that it should be market friendly. It should be based on merit. It should be more transparent. It should also be on needs basis. And, you know, I’ve emphasised that we have to be fair. When we implement affirmative action, it means for the bumiputera and when we say bumiputera it’s not just for the Malays. It must also include the other indigenous people especially in Sabah and Sarawak.

FI: Well, there has been criticism that the way it’s been implemented has been corrupted, has been abused in the past. Would you agree with that?

NR: There’ve been shortcomings, yes. I’m not entirely disappointed with the results. I think if you look at it across the board a new generation of bumiputeras have emerged. You know, the entire middle class, for example, would not be there if not for the New Economic Policy. And quite a number of bumiputeras in the corporate field, managing huge enterprises with a great sense of confidence now.

FI: There is no doubt that some bumiputeras have definitely benefited from the plan itself. But you know there are some who sort of say after nearly forty years of affirmative action, why is there still a need for affirmative action for the Malays and the indigenous people?

NR: It’s because, you know, the goals have not been fully achieved, number one. Number two, in an unbridled capitalistic market economy, without some degree of affirmative action, then you will get this marginalisation to appear once again. And that’s going to be quite catastrophic for our society because our society is predicated on stability. I think stability is a bed rock in terms of where Malaysia has come from. In the past we went through a very painful experience.

FI: Are you talking about racial stability?

NR: I’m talking about political and racial. I mean racial stability is part of political stability. And that’s so important because if you have, stability benefits all.

FI: Many people have said that the affirmative action has led to a generation of Malays who feel that they are entitled to these special privileges. There are some minority groups who feel sidelined. They feel second classed because of the affirmative action. These are what the critics are saying about affirmative action. Do you really think that there is still a need for affirmative action? Why not just make it affirmative action for all races?

NR: Well, when I said that it should be implemented in a fairer way, I mean if you talk about affirmative action, it should benefit you know 65 per cent of the population, right. And then there’s of course the non-bumiputeras and you must have programmes for them as well. And because they are in a market economy, if you give, promote private sector investment for example, and opportunities for the private sector, and naturally the non-bumiputeras will benefit from it. So to say that we have excluded the non-bumiputeras from government policy is entirely wrong.

FI: But there has been some opposition from Malay rights groups who fear that perhaps these special privileges, their rights, may be taken away from them as well.

NR: No, I didn’t say they’ll be taken away.

FI: Well this is what they fear. This is what they’re saying.

NR: Yeah, I mean it is up to us now to engage them.

FI: This is what PERKASA is saying.

NR: But Perkasa is not so extreme, if you listen to them carefully. They can shout about Malay rights as long as they are not extreme in their views and you know to the extent that we can accommodate Perkasa. And we can accommodate also the non-Malays as well. I do engage the non-Malay groups as well, so as Prime Minster, I’ve always said I’m Prime Minister for all Malaysians.

FI: But Perkasa has said as the group that represents the Malay groups that fear their special privileges may be taken away from them, they have said that you know in the next election, they may not support Umno because of the actions that you may be taking.

NR: No, no, that’s not true. They are by and large supportive of Umno and they believe that Umno is the only vehicle that can really, not only promote Malay interest but really hold this country together. I think Umno is a strong party. Umno is well-established. Umno can deal with the emergence of Perkasa as well as other groups as well.

FI: Prime Minister, we’re going to have to take a break there. When we come back we’ll have more when we speak with Malaysia’s Prime Minister Najib Razak. Stay with 101 East.

FI: Welcome back to 101 East. This week we are talking with Malaysia’s Prime Minister Najib Razak as he completes his first year in office.
Prime Minister you’ve introduced the concept of 1 Malaysia. What is 1 Malaysia to you?

NR: 1 Malaysia is about a sense that we are together as one people, as one nation. And I’ve said that it is based, it’s predicated on a change of mindset. And a very minimum would be tolerance. In other words, you tolerate one another. You know, the differences, racial differences, religious differences, you tolerate. But that is a basic minimum. Then you go on to the next stage which is to accept it. You know, you accept diversity as something good for the country. That’s the next, the next echelon if you like, in terms of value system, in terms of mindset. And ultimately, the final if you like, will be to celebrate diversity. I mean if you celebrate diversity, means you are entirely comfortable with the notion of a multi racial, multi religious society.

FI: But surely sir, after 50 years of independence, Malaysia needs to be thought how to live harmoniously?

NR: Absolutely. The fact…

FI: Why? Why after five decades of independence?

NR: Come on. Come on. Look what happened in Europe. I mean Yugoslavia broke up, okay. You have problems in Northern Ireland. You have extremists even in America. You have modern-day Klu Klux Klan as well in America, okay. There are extremists in any society and including us. And the very fact that there are some extremists in our society means you need 1 Malaysia.

FI: Well, you also lead a party that champions Malay rights, Malay needs, Malay interests. And you’re also trying to push the agenda of a united Malaysia.

NR: It’s not a zero-sum game.

FI: Do you see the irony of it?

NR: It’s not a zero-sum game. It’s not. It’s a reality. It’s not a zero-sum game because if you promote the interest of the Malays, it’s not at the exclusion of the non-Malays. I think there’s enough resources for us to help everyone in this country. And I think, I’m confident in fact, you know with the policies based on the spirit and philosophy of 1 Malaysia, that everyone will have a rightful place under the Malaysian sun.

FI: But you can’t get away from the fact that Malaysia runs on race based politics.

NR: Well that’s history. I mean I can’t change history overnight. I have to take it from where it is or where it was when I took over and slowly get Malaysians to be together in this journey to transform Malaysia.

FI: How long will it take before Malaysia can be rid of race based politics? Before someone stops seeing someone as a Malay or an Indian or a Chinese and says they are Malaysian first.

NR: It’s an evolution, it’s a change of mindset. You cannot legislate. You cannot make laws. It’s a change in mindset and I think it might take a bit of time but for as long as we live in a peaceful harmonious society, it doesn’t matter. You can be a Malay, a Chinese or an Indian but as long as you believe that you are a Malaysian.

FI: Let me then just ask you, are you a Malay first and a Malaysian second?

NR: Well technically, if we talk about the constitution, I am a Malay but I’m comfortable being a Malay in a Malaysian society. And I want us to work towards becoming a truly One Malaysia society. But I’m proud to be a Malay. I’m proud to be a Muslim. But the fact that I’m proud to be a Malay and a Muslim it doesn’t mean I cannot relate to others.

FI: However there is this large group of Malays feel that with you pushing that, their special privileges, that their rights might be trampled upon.

NR: I never said I was going to change the constitution. I never said that. I said that 1 Malaysia is predicated on the constitution of Malaysia and the constitution has provision to protect Malay special rights. And those things will be in the constitution.

FI: But some people have said that is that statement in the constitution that is the basis for the social and racial problems that are in Malaysia today. That make the Chinese, the Indians feel sidelined.

NR: No, I think it is the way you implement things. I think if you implement things in a fairer way, you can reach out you know, to the Malays, to the non-Malays as well. Don’t forget, when we implemented the New Economic Policy back in the 70s and 80s, and even in the 90s before the Asian Financial Crisis, it coincided with the growth rates in Malaysia being at break neck speed, you know 8-9 per cent was the norm in those days. So, New Economic Policy, affirmative action has never really hampered the growth of Malaysia into a modern economy.

FI: There are critics who have accused Umno of becoming arrogant, self-indulgent after over 50 years of being in power and that Umno has lost touch with the ground sentiment. Take for example the last elections; Umno did lose a lot of seats in those elections. Umno has also lost the last 8 out of 10 by-elections as well. Is Umno still relevant in Malaysia?

NR: Of course, I truly believe so. We did badly, ok, to some extent that’s true. But it’s a party that’s been in power for so long so the challenge is for us to present Umno as a progressive, dynamic party and not for us to be in this kind of a syndrome that we’re too complacent or we feel that whatever we do, we’re going to get the support of the people. I keep on telling people that if we don’t change, we’ll be changed by the people. I’m very frank and I admit we have shortcomings because otherwise we wouldn’t have done badly. But in the international context, people would love to have the kind of majority we have in parliament.

FI: I want to go back to talk about the NEM which you are trying to implement to try and attract more foreign investment in Malaysia, to make Malaysia a more globally competitive economy. But many financial analysts have been rather lukewarm in their response to your recent outline. And they are actually pointing to more deep-seated problems like a perceived lack of judicial independence in the country, a seemingly growing rise in Islamic fundamentalism, and they also point to the fact that Malaysia has slid down the corruption index last year. In 2008 you were at 47. In 2009, you find yourself at 56. How do change these perceptions?

NR: Metaphorically, I’ve described this like a façade of a house. You have the roof which is the overarching philosophy of 1 Malaysi — people first, performance now. Then you have the two pillars. One is the government transformation programme, another one the economic transformation programme. And you have the floor which is the tenth and eleventh Malaysian plans. So the government transformation programme is designed to address. And one of the issues is corruption, to reduce corruption and reduce the crime rate in Malaysia, plus the other six, altogether six key result areas. So we’ve recognized it and this is work in progress. It’s too early. It is work in progress but I’m generally quite happy with the progress thus far.

FI: While you’re implementing the NEM to try to attract foreign investors and to try to boost their confidence in Malaysia, the world is also watching very closely the trial of Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim. How do you think this trial is affecting Malaysia on the international stage?

NR: Well, I think we have to make people understand that it’s not the Malaysian government against Anwar Ibrahim. This is not a political trial. It’s about a young, well not intern but a young officer chosen by him in his office, a 22 year-old man who feel very aggrieved, made a police report against his employer. And that was the genesis of the present case. It’s got nothing to do with the government. If that person did not make a police report, there’d be no case against Anwar Ibrahim.

FI: You can’t get away from the fact that this is the second time Anwar Ibrahim is going to court. And it seems like…

NR: I know. It should not be compared.

FI: It is being compared to the previous case.

NR: I mean it shouldn’t because this is the message we’re telling. It’s got… it’s not the same as the first trial. This is an individual in his own office, appointed by him, who has felt very strongly that he has been made to do certain things that he found totally unacceptable, made the police report and investigation was launched. And as you know under the law, whether it is Saiful or whether it is Anwar Ibrahim, everybody has the same right under the law.

FI: Do you think the first case was political?

NR: I don’t think it was political, the first case. But there was maybe lack of corroborative evidence, if you like. And I think this case, I wouldn’t like to comment on it because it would be considered sub-judice but we want it to be a fair process. We want it to be transparent and the Malaysian government knows at the end of the day, we’re going to be judged. International is one thing but the people in Malaysia will judge us and we realise that.

FI: You come from political aristocracy. What do you think your legacy will be?

NR: I haven’t gone that far yet to think. I don’t think I want to put the cart before the horse. What I’d like to do is get on with the 4 pillars I mentioned as part of our main agenda of the government and let the people judge me in time to come.

FI: Prime Minister thank you very much for speaking with us.

NR: Thank you.

Malaysian Insider: Praba Ganesan: Looking for Anwar

Looking for Anwar

by Praba Ganesan
Malaysian Insider, MARCH 25 — You have to understand, for a long time I loathed Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim. And today I stand by him and for the politics he envisions for the country. So I have a bit of explaining to do.

It was the late Sixties — the summers of perpetual love in tropical Malaysia — and this kid from an Umno family, who went to a very Umno school in Perak, was unsurprisingly accepted to the only university in the country to study the only language he was willing to champion — the Malay language.

The Abdul Rahman administration — haunted by right-wingers — ended soon after and Tun Abdul Razak was prime minister by the time Anwar was an established activist and student leader.

Razak had already replanted all the ultras like Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamed and Tun Musa Hitam in the leadership conveyor belt to sustain a long period of Malay rule, national prosperity — in that order.
Anwar was in a group keen on pushing the Malay/Muslim agenda further and ended up opposed to Razak.

Within Angkatan Belia Islam Malaysia (Abim), Anwar and other young renegades appeared to want to push on the revolution agenda similar to developments in the rest of the Middle-East.

In 1981 you had the Islamic Republic of Iran and Mujahideens in the Afghan mountains, and all roads were leading to an Anwar joining PAS to lead a more Muslim face to the ideologically fluid working class party.

The same year, Mahathir unexpectedly became prime minister, and the next year Anwar became an Umno member.

It is often asked if Anwar would have made that decision if Tun Hussein Onn had stayed on. Others ask, what did Mahathir offer Anwar which was so tantalising, so amazing that he went back to this father’s party?

1982. Italy wins the World Cup in Spain beating the West Germans 3-1. The same year, Anwar joins the party, secures a parliamentary seat and grabs the Umno Youth chief position from its incumbent — and was made deputy minister.

In 11 years, he just kept rising meteorically — VP by ‘87, education minister, finance minister — to win the deputy presidency by trouncing the incumbent at the nomination stage.

Through that spell I had to live through the free-wheeling Islamisation of government — the schooling system. The guy with the Malay BA kept tinkering with the school system to prioritise Malay, actually the “baku” variant. Anwar and Islamisation were synonymous, and Dr M loved not being behind PAS in theocratic fervour. And let me not get into how the majority Kadazan-Dusun community lost Sabah to Umno through the dubious and now-common method of defections in 1994.

The holier than thou “spirit” Anwar engendered in a pretentious government nauseated me.

Which is why I was always sceptical of his wooing of the business class — the Chinese in focus, the self-rebranding as a modern democrat with fiscal sense rather than a firebrand to foreign governments and leaders and spouting the renaissance in the region.

To me Anwar was having his cake and eating it too. To be the “Malay nationalism” poster boy and at the same time the face of a changing and reforming Asia of egalitarian rigour.

I was convinced that the new-age look was just about getting on with the Western media. Number two in the country, and a popularity outstripping the PM’s, plus an economy bursting with activity, the world was just waiting for PM Anwar to emerge.

But spectacularly the Dr M – Anwar partnership fell apart, as an exasperated prime minister sacked his own successor from government. Some accusations, several trials later, Anwar was sent to prison.

This set the stage for the third reincarnation of Senor Anwar.

The series of happenings in the last 12 years — half of them behind bars, are well-documented.
I don’t buy the simplistic line that Anwar is in politics for power. I mean it is literally true, but everyone is in politics for power. Politics is power.

If Anwar was bent on power irrespective of principles sacrificed, he’d still be an Umno man. Umno has always received back its worst rebels as long as they were no longer a threat — expediency is Umno’s patron saint.

The speed in which Anwar rose in Umno initially, and the following he still has in the party, indicates Anwar has the better chance to Putrajaya by returning to Umno.

These whys are academic and open to permanent debate.

To me, Anwar’s evolution from a domestic nationalist to an internationalist upholding natural law may even dumbfound Anwar. Like an accidental Eliza Doolittle.

He is larger than life, and only competes with Tunku Abdul Rahman and Mahathir for space in the private thoughts of Malaysians.

He is Mandela-like. Now I am not arguing his attributes match the father of modern South Africa’s. I am talking about symbols. Some with unique life-paths become symbols irrespective of the actual value of their lives and the mistakes they make.

Mandela executed economic sabotage of the Apartheid government in the 1960s which involved bombs. Anwar was a primary character in anti-secularisation and anti-democratisation in many instances.

But in the present, he has done three things. One, committed to the downfall of a dictatorial Barisan Nasional government; second, the setting-up of a more egalitarian nation for all Malaysians; and third, facilitating the longest and closest partnership of all the opposition parties.

He wins the moral authority argument because he has spent more years in prison for his beliefs than the whole present Cabinet in total.

Tolstoy postulates that events are always greater than the individuals, and that events are not shaped by any particular individual but by historical inevitability. Probably, but when you want to galvanise people to a cause, to a desired outcome, you’ll need a flag.

The flag for change in Malaysia is Anwar Ibrahim, for now. That’s why they want to lock him up again real soon.

* Praba Ganesan is a Hulu Langat boy with a penchant for durians and debate. He is part of balairakyat, an NGO promoting ideas exchange.

The views expressed here are the personal opinion of the columnist.

-----------------------oooo00000oooo------------------------------------

Comments (DQ)

Good perspective about Anwar and probably crystallizes what many people think he stands for these days. 

Quite honestly, many of us have been wary about him since his younger days as an ultra-Islamist, and an UMNO man par excellence. 

But his incarceration, his unfair dismissal and grotesque victimsation had certainly reshaped him into what hopefully will be the rallying point for ultimate change for modern Malaysia--more egalitarian, more equal, more attuned to human and ethnic rights, as well as less corruption and greater justice for all!

malaysiakini-Judge NH Chan: Court erred in dismissing Anwar's bid for review

Court erred in dismissing Anwar's bid for review

NH Chan
malaysiakini, Mar 9, 2010, 1:12pm

 

comment On Feb 25, 2010 Malaysiakini reports that Anwar Ibrahim failed to convince the Federal Court to review its Jan 29 decision to bar him from obtaining more key evidence from his sodomy trial.

The report quotes the judges saying: "Rule 137 (of the Rules of the Federal Court) does not confer jurisdiction on the Federal Court to review its own decision."

Why not? Why can't the earlier decision of the same Federal Court be reviewed? Rule 137 of the Rules allows it. This is what it says:

137. Nothing in these rules shall be deemed to limit or affect the inherent powers of the Court to hear any application or to make any order as may be necessary to prevent injustice or to prevent an abuse of the process of the Court

Aren't the words, "Nothing in these rules shall be deemed to limit or affect the inherent powers of the Court … to prevent injustice or to prevent an abuse of the process of the Court", in Rule 137 clear enough? Those words clearly allow the Federal Court to review its own decision so as "to prevent injustice or to prevent an abuse of the process of the Court".

We, the ordinary citizens of this country, are stunned by the ignorance of our judges of the highest court in the land for saying "Rule 137 (of the Rules of the Federal Court) does not confer jurisdiction on the Federal Court to review its own decisions". What utter nonsense are those ignoramuses talking about?

These inane judges cannot even understand plain English when even a child can understand the plain meaning of ordinary words. Now you can appreciate what I have been saying all the time that the ordinary people are better qualified than most of our judges when it comes to understanding the law. Since the common people are smarter than those judges, they can judge them. They would not be wrong if they think the judges are incompetent.

These three judges also say, "There must be finality. To re-litigate a case which has been heard and finally disposed of is not one of the circumstances as envisaged by Rule 137" (Star Online, Feb 25). No one is asking for the case to be re-litigated. All that the aggrieved party, in this case Anwar, was asking is for the earlier judgment of the Federal Court declared null and void because it was an unjust decision.

Court empowered to prevent injustice
Unequivocally, the Federal Court has the inherent power to prevent an injustice whenever it had been occasioned by an earlier decision of the same court. This is clearly defined in Rule 137 where it says "Nothing in these rules shall be deemed to limit or affect the inherent powers of the Court … to prevent injustice".

As if this atrocity is not enough, there is yet another horror to come out of those three judges. Only an incompetent lawyer or judge could say something as silly as this, "Even assuming that there is a limited inherent power, the applicant has failed to come within the limited exceptions that have been distilled from earlier decisions of the Federal Court," said Judge Zulkefli Ahmad Makinuddin.

But what "limited exceptions" can there be? The inherent powers of the court to prevent injustice or an abuse of the process of the court have no limitations nor are they affected by exceptions.

The words in Rule 137 are so precise and clear that even a child could understand them. And the Rule says that nothing is to limit or affect "the inherent powers of the [Federal] Court … to make any order as may be necessary to prevent injustice".

Yet those three incompetent judges – perhaps they were clowns as their statements were laughable - still insist that the applicant, namely, Anwar, has failed to come within "the limited exceptions" when nowhere in Rule 137 are such preconditions imposed.

The Rule allows for review by the Federal Court of its own decision if Anwar, the aggrieved party, can show that the earlier decision of the Federal Court was unjustly made against him.

The errant judges do not even know that it is never the duty nor function of a judge to administer injustice

A wrong decision based on an error of law is not the same as an unjust decision. Anwar is applying for a review because the decision of the Federal Court is unjust and not because it is wrong in law.

When it comes to truth and justice, there is never to be any choice at all because falsehood and injustice must never be the alternative. It has to be Hobson's choice. So that for those who do not know right from wrong; who do not know justice from injustice, such lowly individuals should never be allowed to sit on the seat of Justice. They should never be allowed to be judges at all. And yet there are so many of them in the judiciary today ever since the rot begun.

I think I have said enough to prove my point. If our judges say that there are "exceptions that have been distilled from earlier decisions of the Federal Court", then they and those other judges of the Federal Court who have held that there are such exceptions are unfit to sit on the seat of justice as judges.

They are unfit to be judges because they do not know the difference between right and wrong; between justice and injustice and between truth and falsehood. Our country does not need imposters, who pose as judges, to deceive the common people any longer. The common citizenry can now uncover the imposters hiding beneath the mantle of the judicature.

Two instances

Having said that, I can now proceed to identify the errant "earlier decisions of the Federal Court" on Rule 137. There are two. The two misguided decisions are Adorna Properties v Kobchai Sosothikul [2006] 1 MLJ 417 and Asean Security Paper Mills Sdn Bhd v Mitsui Sumitomo Insurance (Malaysia) Bhd [2008] 5 AMR 377.

Practicing lawyers will tell you that not too long ago the Federal Court have been exercising their inherent powers to right a wrong which is to prevent injustice as envisaged in Rule 137.

In the case of Adorna Properties Sdn Bhd v Kobchai Sosothikul [2006] 1 MLJ 417 (PS Gill and Rahmah Hussein FCJJ and Richard Malanjum JCA, as he was then) Mr Kobchai Sosothikul - who was substituted for his late mother Mrs Boonsom Boonyanit - applied under Rule 137 of the Federal Court Rules 1955 to review the Federal Court's decision in Adorna Properties v Boonsom Boonyanit. Justice PS Gill dismissed the application for review. He said:

Our reasons may be shortly stated. Firstly, although the consequence and effect of the main judgment [What main judgment? There is only Eusoff Chin's judgment] may be harsh when viewed without the benefit of the relevant statutory provision, we do not think this is a case where "grave injustice had occasioned" due to clear infringement of any principle of law thereby making it permissible for successive application to be made under the said rule.

Without going into the merits of this application we find that the substance of the main judgment revolves in the interpretation of section 340 subsection (3) including the proviso thereof of the National Land Code 1965.

And having read the reasoning therein and bearing in mind the words used in the said subsection including the proviso we are not convinced that the interpretation given in the main judgment is patently wrong thereby resulting in grave injustice thus warranting successive applications under Rule 137.

And even if we are wrong [in] our view it should be left to another occasion to further debate on the issue. For now we are of the opinion that … this is not a proper case for us to proceed to hear the merits or to grant the order as sought for.

This is the silliest judgment I have ever read. But then this is not surprising at all these days considering that we are being surrounded by a bunch of idiots in high places.

The facts of the Adorna case are well known. Recently the Federal Court has held in another case that Adorna is no longer good law. But PS Gill - the judge who has revealed himself to be an ignoramus in the law - was not convinced that the decision of Eusoff Chin in Adorna was patently wrong "thereby resulting in grave injustice thus warranting successive applications under Rule 137".

The late Mrs Boonyanit who is the registered owner had lost her two plots of land in Tanjong Bungah, Penang because some unscrupulous person had forged her signature and transferred the two plots to Adorna Properties.

Such registered titles now in the name of Adorna are clearly defeasible (it means "capable of being defeated or rendered void") because the registration of the transfer from the forger to Adorna was obtained by forgery. If it is defeasible it can be set aside.

Yet she lost her action to render void the registration of the transfer to Adorna. Is this not the gravest injustice committed against Mrs Boonyanit by Eusoff Chin who gave a perverse decision through a false interpretation of section 340 of the National Land Code?

Despite the unjust decision of Eusoff Chin in Adorna, PS Gill still holds that Eusoff Chin was not patently wrong as would result "in grave injustice thus warranting" the application of Rule 137.

The other errant Federal Court decision on Rule 137 is Asean Security Paper Mills Sdn Bhd v Mitsui Sumitomo Insurance (Malaysia) Bhd [2008] 5 AMR 377. This is what Abdul Hamid Mohamad, the then Chief Justice said, on page 381:

In an application for a review by this court of its own decision, the court must be satisfied that it is a case that falls within the limited grounds and very exceptional circumstances in which a review may be made. Only if it does, that the court reviews its own earlier judgment.

But that is not what Rule 137 says. Rule 137 is emphatic that the Federal Court has the power to hear or to make an order to prevent injustice or to prevent an abuse of the process of the Court.

However, this Federal Court ignored the Rule completely. Instead, it substitutes its own perverse prerequisite for any review of its own decision.

In a Rule 137 application, the aggrieved party is only concerned with whether an injustice was occasioned by the earlier decision of the Federal Court as in Adorna Properties v Boonsom Boonyanit or whether the process of the Court has been abused as disclosed in the Ayer Molek case.

The "limited grounds and very exceptional circumstances" has nothing to do with the application of Rule 137 at all. The conditions were manufactured by the bad judges of the Federal Court themselves in order to conceal the true intent or purpose of Rule 137 which is to avert an injustice or to prevent an abuse of the process of the court.

As usual the judges of the highest court in the land have shown their incompetence by missing the point altogether. The point is not "the limited grounds and very exceptional circumstances in which a review may be made". The point, in truth and reality, is whether the earlier decision has occasioned an injustice or whether it has abused the process of the court.

It seems that bad judges are birds of a feather. They flock together and support each other.

Uphill battle for Anwar

On Thursday 25 February 2010 the Federal Court unanimously decided not to review its January 29 decision barring Anwar from access to the documents “which would be tendered as part of the evidence for the prosecution” and “a written statement of facts favourable to the defence” which he is entitled to under section 51A(1)(b) and (c) of the Criminal Procedure Code.

Such evidence would have included CCTV footage, medical reports and witness statements from the prosecution.

Anwar made the application for the evidence to be delivered to him by the prosecution under section 51A (1) (b) and (c) of the Criminal Procedure Code. The Code was amended in 2006 to add this new provision: section 51A. It reads:

51A. (1) The prosecution shall before the commencement of the trial deliver to the accused the following documents:

1. a copy of the information made under section 107 relating to the commission of the offence to which the accused is charged, if any;

2. a copy of any document which would be tendered as part of the evidence for the prosecution; and

3. a written statement of facts favourable to the defence of the accused signed under the hand of the Public Prosecutor or any person conducting the prosecution. (The emphasis is supplied by me)

(2) Notwithstanding paragraph (c), the prosecution may not supply any fact favourable to the accused if its supply would be contrary to public interest.

As rational members of the general public you would say at once that the words in section 51A (1)(b) and (c) are clear and unambiguous. They mean exactly what they say. Without a doubt Anwar is entitled to the documentary evidence and the statement he is asking under section 51A (1).

Yet when Anwar applied for the documentary evidence and written statement of facts to be supplied to him under section 51A(1)(b) and (c) the application was rejected by the Court of Appeal and by the Federal Court on the spurious ground that section 51 of the Criminal Procedure Code has restricted the application of section 51A to within the confines of section 51.

In other words, so say the Federal Court, section 51A has no meaning other than what case law has already determined on section 51. This is how the Federal Court puts it:

The Appellant cannot say at this stage that his defence is going to be so and so and that he needs to have access to such and such documents and materials to prepare for the defence. One settled principle attached to the application for discovery under s.51 CPC is that, at this pre-trial stage, a roving and fishing inquiry for evidence is not permissible. A catch all net cannot be cast.

The Appellant is not entitled to know by what means the prosecution proposes to prove the facts underlying the charge he faces. This remains the prerogative of the prosecution.

Mohd Azmi J, at the intermediate appeal in PP v RAYMOND CHIA (1985) 2 MLJ 63, described this situation neatly in this manner – "The important thing is to keep a proper balance between the right of the accused to know exactly what the charge is against him so as to give him reasonable opportunity to prepare his defence, and the right of the prosecution not to disclose their evidence and the manner in which they are to prove their case before trial in order to sustain our adversary system of criminal justice.

"To what extent the right of the prosecution not to disclose documents specifically referred to in the charge before trial is qualified by the right of the accused to be given reasonable opportunity to prepare his defence is of crucial importance in the administration of criminal justice."

In our view, the Appellant has thus not met the dual requirements of necessity and desirability laid down in s.51 CPC. We concur with the finding of the Court of Appeal on this issue.

The judgment of the Federal Court makes no sense at all. It is a non sequitur. It is gibberish to us all. Anwar Ibrahim is applying under section 51A of the CPC and not under section 51. Therefore, "the dual requirements of necessity and desirability laid down in section 51 CPC" does not apply to his application.

For one thing, section 51A came into force in 2006. The case law relied on by the prosecution on section 51 were those cases decided by the courts well before section 51A ever existed.

For another thing, section 51A states, "The prosecution shall before the commencement of the trial deliver to the accused … a copy of any document which would be tendered as part of the evidence for the prosecution" and "a written statement of facts favourable to the defence of the accused".

There is no ambiguity in those words. They mean exactly what they say. Now compare this with the wording of section 51 of the CPC. It reads:

51. Summons to produce document or other things.

(1) Whenever any Court or police officer making a police investigation considers that the production of any property or document is necessary or desirable for the purposes of any investigation, inquiry, trial or other proceeding under this Code by or before that Court or officer, such Court may issue a summons or such officer a written order to the person in whose possession or power such property or document is believed to be requiring him to attend and produce it or to produce it at the time and place stated in the summons or order.

(2) Any person required under this section merely to produce any property or document shall be deemed to have complied with the requisition if he causes the property or document to be produced instead of attending personally to produce the same.

(3) Nothing in this section shall be deemed to affect the provisions of any law relating for the time being in force or to apply to any postal article, telegram or other document in the custody of the postal or telegraph authorities.

Anwar entitled to documents

Anyone, unless he is an imbecile, can see immediately that section 51 and section 51A are as different as a chicken from a duck. Since section 51A stands separate and apart from section 51, Anwar is, therefore, entitled to make his application solely under section 51A for all the documentary evidence before the commencement of his trial that would be tendered as part of the evidence for the prosecution.

He is also entitled to a written statement of the facts favourable to his defence. Any denial of his statutory right by the Federal Court is an injustice to him. The decision of the Federal Court is unjust to Anwar because as a person who is the accused in a criminal prosecution he is entitled as of right, under the mandatory provisions of section 51A of the Criminal Procedure Code, to the documentary evidence "which would be tendered as part of the evidence for the prosecution" as well as to the "written statement of facts favourable to the defence of the accused".

Since Anwar has suffered injustice at the hands of both the Court of Appeal and the Federal Court for not applying the mandatory provisions of section 51A of the Criminal Procedure Code as they stand, the decision of the Federal Court in defiance of section 51A is, therefore, an unjust decision.

On an application for review under Rule 137 the Federal Court has no option but to set aside the earlier decision of the Federal Court to prevent injustice. But in the instant case, the reviewing Federal Court has defied Rule 137 by not exercising the inherent powers of the Court to set aside the unjust decision of the earlier court and, as a result, has allowed an injustice to be perpetuated.

With judges such as these in the Malaysian judiciary where, to them, the principles of the law are not to be consonant with justice to be manipulated by them to uphold injustice, it is no wonder that the errant judges have forfeited the confidence of the people. The general public does not respect such judges anymore! They have put themselves beyond the pale. Just like pariahs.

Don't you think they should be despised?

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.