Anwar’s RM3 billion in foreign accounts is a figment of UMNO’s imagination

November 11, 2009

ACA had cleared Anwar of ‘RM3 billion bank account’

by Hafiz Yatim

Former ACA director of investigations Abdul Razak Idris told the High Court today he had cleared Anwar Ibrahim of allegations of stashing RM3 billion in foreign accounts and having foreign links to Western interests.

Abdul Razak, 60, who is now retired but a director of several companies, said ACA had investigated the matter following allegations made in a statutory declaration by former assistant governor of Bank Negara Abdul Murad Khalid.

He said a team of ACA officers went to Singapore and United Kingdom to probe the allegations.

“We went to meet Murad and several British witnesses. But the investigations resulted in ‘No case’ against Anwar pertaining to allegations made in Murad’s statutory declaration.”

“Further, I concluded that the allegations contained in the SD (statutory declaration) were baseless and unsustainable, and I consequently ordered that the investigations be closed.”

Murad signed the statutory declaration on Oct 29, 1999 – about one month after Anwar was arrested following his sacking as deputy prime minister in early September that year.

In the declaration, Murad claimed there were 20 master accounts established for Anwar by his cronies and believed the amount to be more than RM3 billion.

Abdul Razak, who was the second witness called after Anwar, then submitted his own statutory declaration on the matter and tendered it in court. The former top ACA investigator was testifying in a RM100 million defamation suit by Anwar against New Straits Times Press (M) Bhd and its former group editor-in-chief, Abdullah Ahmad. The alleged defamatory article, ‘Anwar’s link to US lobbyist’, was published on March 2, 2002.

The opposition leader filed the suit on July 4, 2003, where the NSTP article was based on another article – ‘The Bush Administration’s dubious envoy to Taiwan’ – that was published in the political weekly magazine New Republic’s March 2002 issue.

Abdul Razak told the court on being cross-examined by NSTP’s lead counsel Nad Segaram that he had directed the investigations following the allegations made by Murad. He admitted he did not carry out the probe himself.

Abdul Razak said he went to Singapore to interview Murad, as well as to the United Kingdom to interview two European witnesses. However, he admitted he did not go to the United States or direct investigations to be conducted there.

He said he also directed investigations on one Douglas H Paal, who headed the Asia Pacific Policy Centre (APPC), a United States lobbyist group, following Murad’s allegations. However, Abdul Razak said he did not meet or interview Paal, or directed the ACA to go to the US as he found it unnecessary.

The witness said after the ACA completed investigations, a copy of its findings was handed to the senior federal counsel in the attorney-general’s chambers. Responding to a question from Karpal during re-examination, Abdul Razak said after handing over the papers, and holding discussions, he and AG’s chambers found there was no case against the former deputy premier.

Anwar: Article affected his dignity and standing

Anwar said the defamatory article made him out to be a person with no integrity, morals and dignity, bereft of principles; disloyal to Malaysia, dishonest; a corrupt and untrustworthy leader and politician.

“It also suggested that I am an American agent and a person who has abused my position for my personal gains. I felt defamed by these paragraphs and in the full context of the entire article.

“It had exposed me to hatred, ridicule or contempt in the minds of reasonable men,” he said, adding that he could not defend himself then as he was imprisoned in Sungai Buloh in 2002.

Asked by Karpal (below) whether he challenged the veracity of the article, Anwar said he had challenged the Malaysian government, the prime minister and cabinet to conduct an independent inquiry into the said allegations made by Murad, and into the wealth of the present and former leaders.

“I also made a clarion call to the authorities to investigate the same and also demanded the setting up of a Commission of Inquiry into all allegations contained in Murad’s statutory declaration. In fact, Murad had also publicly denied free consent to the statutory declaration,” the opposition leader said.

Anwar, who is also Permatang Pauh MP said he filed the action as the article contained false and baseless allegations against him, and he complained about the 10 paragraphs containing the defamatory words.

“The article is a scurrilous attack on my character. I was in prison. Newspapers owned by UMNO and the ruling alliance were used to attack me and my character.”

“I am defenceless because the newspapers would not even carry a word of my denial. This said article is just one in a series of character assassination against me,” he said.

Cross-examined by Nad, Anwar said the Prime Minister’s office then, along with the Institute of Strategic and International Studies (ISIS), had established ties with APPC to establish better rapport with Asia Pacific leaders and in particular from the US.

“APPC along with ISIS (was) tasked is to invite US congress leaders to come to a series of dialogues here,” he said. These events, the opposition leader said, would be officiated by the then Prime Minister Dr Mahathir Mohamad and not by him. “I knew my place,” he quipped in responding to a question by Nad.

Anwar admitted he knew Paal and agreed that the APPC head had ran an article favouring him (Anwar) following his arrest in 1998 by the government. “It was not only him who had written such articles on me but there are hundreds of articles in Arabic and Chinese. This is just one of them,” he said.

Article was based on New Republic

Rose Ismail, formerly the New Straits Times managing editor, who wrote the article said she had based it on an article that was published on the New Republic article.

“I found the magazine to be a reputable publication when I was doing a Masters in Journalism at Boston University in 1984. I have continued to subscribe to it as it contained stories of substance”. She agreed she did not contact Anwar to verify the facts as her intention was merely to highlight the New Republic article, and that the NST article did not carry her name as the article was based on another report.

“It was not an article that carried my own views or comments on the subject matter of the same. In circumstances where an article is based on another article that has already been published, it was not always the practise of the NSTP to set out the name of the author of the article”.

Cross-examined by Karpal, Rose agreed the article contains serious allegations made against Anwar and she agreed she did check and speak to people before writing it.

Rose however admitted she did not speak with Anwar as he was in prison and that she did not attempt to contact him through Anwar’s lawyers.

Karpal: It could possibly have been done.

Rose: Possibly.

Karpal: Did you verify its contents with Murad or with Paal?

Rose: I could not locate Murad or Paal, I tried to look at the APPC website for contact details but it was not possible.

Karpal: So you ran the report without verifying the truth of the article.

Rose: I would say I did, I (verified) through earlier reports including from the US congressional website based on its hearing and reports.

Karpal: You make allegations recklessly without taking steps to verify the truth?

Rose: I disagree as all (matters) is within the public sphere.

The hearing continues before Judicial Commissioner Harmindar Singh Dhaliwall for submissions.

MACC’s Red Herring

November 11, 2009

Dr Lim Teck Ghee on Pay Rise and Corruption: MACC’s Red Herring

On the MACC prescription to curb corruption headlined in the NST on November 10, firstly, the case for a pay rise of legislators must be considered on its own merit.

Perhaps this is necessitated by the increase in responsibilities and the cost of running and maintaining political office. Such a case must be set out in full and made transparent so that the public has the data on all the payments and other entitlements that the different categories of elected representatives currently obtain.

The pros and cons of any salary increase should be discussed and analysed but increasing the salaries of our elected representatives at this time of financial crisis will send the wrong signal to the nation.

Secondly, it is necessary to note that there are no authoritative studies which show a correlation between the salaries of legislators and the extent of corruption. To suggest that a pay rise for legislators will help curb graft is quite ludicrous. The example of Singapore’s highly-paid ministers and the relative absence of corruption in the city state may have prompted some senior officials of the MACC to come out with the proposal.

If this is the case, the MACC should also come out into the open with more data. A comparison of the Singapore and Malaysian corruption perception ranking is certainly worth undertaking in view of the many similarities in the population and socio-economic structures of the two countries. Transparency International’s annual index is quite revealing on the progress or lack of progress made on combating corruption in Malaysia over the last five years.

To suggest that the better performance of Singapore on this key indicator is due to the higher salaries their legislators enjoy is simplistic to say the least. However, a reasonable inference can be drawn that the battle against corruption in Malaysia has certainly not improved since the MACC came into existence — in fact, the situation has worsened.

But let us for argument’s sake accept the point that our legislators are underpaid and therefore more susceptible to corruption. It is not only legislators who may feel they are underpaid and overworked. Ask everyone who is working — not only ministers or assemblypersons. Ask the police officer, local council gardener, the teacher or the private sector employee whether they are adequately compensated for their work, and I am sure they will mostly answer in the negative.

Is the MACC also suggesting that we increase the salaries of everyone in the country to reduce graft? Using the same logic, perhaps a large increase in the salaries of the MACC staff could also enhance its effectiveness in curbing abuse of power and corruption. Or perhaps that increase may be not enough for some members of the MACC going by the allegations in a mystery letter on the “Bribery, misconduct and corruption of a superior officer of MACC  Selangor” that has been doing the rounds of the Internet since August. (See blogger Hussein Hamid’s post in his blog.)

Finally, most Malaysians are well aware that the reason why graft is so rampant is because the laws pertaining to it are only selectively enforced and a culture of corruption is especially found at the high levels of authority and power.

Put simply, the senior officials in the agencies charged with combating graft, especially in the MACC, are not doing their job properly. They should not throw a red herring to mislead the public on why they cannot execute the functions they are paid to do.

Lingam Affair: Bar Council reacts, finally

November 11, 2009

Bar Council “appalled” at Government’s stand on Lingam

By Asrul Hadi Abdullah Sani

The Bar Council said today it was disheartened by the government’s  position in the V.K. Lingam controversy which it said had brought the Malaysian justice system into shameful disrepute.

Bar Council president Ragunath Kesavan said today that he was appalled at the government’s stand that no wrongdoing could be established in the probe into the V K Lingam video clip incident. Lingam, a senior lawyer, had been secretly recorded on video engaged in a telephone conversation where he appears to be brokering senior judicial appointments.

The video first surfaced in 2007 and became a major campaign issue in Election 2008 for the opposition. Minister in

It is definitely him, says the Haider Royal Commission

the Prime Minister’s Department Datuk Seri Nazri Aziz sparked an uproar in Parliament on Monday when he said “judiciary fixer” Lingam had been let off the hook “because he had broken no law”.

Nazri also suggested that Lingam breached no laws as he might “have just acted to fix the appointment of judges as if he was brokering the appointment of senior judges to impress people”.

Nazri argued that from the legal perspective Lingam could have merely made a suggestion as to who should be appointed to senior posts in the judiciary.

A royal commission had proposed that action be taken against Lingam and several others purportedly involved in the recording including former Chief Justice Tun Eusoff Chin, Tun Ahmad Fairuz Sheikh Abdul Halim and tycoon Tan Sri Vincent Tan, a close friend of former Prime Minister Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad.

Nazri revealed that investigations by the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC) on the figures named also found no conclusive evidence that there was any form of power abuse by any of them.

“Such a simplistic and irresponsible conclusion is an affront to the Royal Commission of Inquiry (RCI)’s commendable work of thoroughly and objectively sieving through the evidence presented.

“The RCI found that wrongdoings had indeed been committed, and it further identified some breaches of statutes applicable to the circumstances,” Ragunath said in a statement today.

He added that Lingam’s statement that he was able to fix the appointment of judges “brings into contempt the administration of justice.”

“The video clip raises grave questions but there is also other evidence of serious misdeeds, for example Dato’ V.K. Lingam’s authorship of a judgment in a case in which he had himself appeared as counsel for one of the parties.

“Another example is the clear evidence of the joint New Zealand holiday taken by Dato’ V. K. Lingam and then-Chief Justice Tun Eusoffe Chin and their respective families, which wholly discredited their claims for many years that they had met only by chance,” he said.

Ragunath stressed that these incidents must be investigated to determine if the allegations were true.“What happened has undoubtedly brought the Malaysian judicial institution into shameful disrepute.  To now say that no laws have been broken and to classify the affair as ‘No Further Action’ is to selectively and arbitrarily apply justice.

“The tragic irony will not escape the Malaysian public – the very system of justice that Dato’ V. K. Lingam has been found to have abused and made a mockery of now refuses to mete out justice against him,” he said.

Pakatan Rakyat MPs yesterday presented the alleged key witness that may support their claims that Lingam and Eusoff had planned their New Zealand trip together.

They had hoped the alleged key witness, Lingam’s former secretary Jayanthi Naidu, would prove that the government was attempting to cover up the scandal which has raised suspicions about possible collusion. However Nazri refuted today that Jayanthi was the witness that MACC was looking for.

APEC after 1989 in Seattle: New Challenges

November 11, 2009

Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation: Old Promises, New Challenges

by Barry Desker

The ongoing Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) Leaders Week in Singapore marks the 20th anniversary of APEC.

Critics of the grouping have highlighted its failure to promote regional economic integration or voluntary sectoral liberalisation. They doubt its ambition to create a free trade area (FTA) across the region will be achieved by 2020. APEC summits, they charge, are better remembered for the attire of the leaders than for its substantive pronouncements. The grouping is seen as a talk shop with few concrete achievements to boast of, unlike the European Union.

This negative assessment ignores the dynamic growth that has occurred in East Asia over the past 20 years. The region’s rapid recovery from the current global economic crisis bears testimony to the emerging shift in global economic power from West to East. Trans-Pacific trade and investment is now far more significant than transatlantic trade and investment. The regular meetings of APEC leaders have facilitated this global adjustment as well as created an informal web of relationships across the Pacific. Even if APEC’s developed members do not meet the Bogor 2010 Goals next year, cooperation through APEC has enabled East Asia to emerge as the fastest growing region in the world.

A{EC’s role in promoting trade liberalisation tends to be forgotten. China’s participation in APEC since 1991 provided the impetus for its unilateral liberalisation. It was a valuable learning experience prior to China’s accession to the World Trade Organisation (WTO). APEC served as a template for China’s “early harvest” concessions to the Asean states during the China-Asean FTA negotiations.

APEC also provided the leadership for the 1996 WTO Information Technology Agreement (ITA), which facilitated the elimination of customs duties on computers, telecommunications products, semiconductors, semiconductor manufacturing equipment and scientific equipment. The central role of the electronics manufacturing sector in East Asia meant that the ITA had a greater trade liberalising impact than many of the bilateral free trade agreements that have been signed in recent years. APEC is now embarking on reducing non-tariff barriers to trade, which offers potentially the greatest gains to the trading community.

Though APEC  initiatives on multilateral trade liberalisation have stalled, recent summits have been marked by useful consultations on political issues. APEC discussed East Timor in 1999, terrorism since 2001 and is now involved in exchanges on “trade-related” security issues such as supply chain security, maritime security, energy and environmental well-being. Here APEC seems to be entering ground covered by the Asean Regional Forum (ARF). It is time to rationalise the areas covered by APEC and the ARF.

Indeed, it would be beneficial if back-to-back APEC and ARF summits could be held when an ARF member hosts Apec Leaders Week. Such a move is likely to win Chinese support. Back-to-back APEC/ARF summits would mean that APEC would focus on economic cooperation while ARF would become the apex regional security institution. Taiwan attends APEC meetings as “Chinese Taipei”, so it would be included in regional economic institution building. But it would be excluded from regional security dialogues.

The vision that should underpin our efforts to rethink the relationship between APEC and ARF is the critical need for institutions that will bind the United States, still the world’s sole superpower, and rising powers such as China within a framework that would allow also for the representation and participation of medium powers and smaller states. Such inclusive institutions can serve as the basis for the emergence of a regional identity.

An alternative view is that regional economic and security affairs should be shaped by the more powerful states in the Asia-Pacific region. A paper at a recent Pacific Economic Cooperation Council conference in Singapore called for a G-10, comprising the Asia-Pacific members of the G-20, at the apex of Asia- Pacific decision-making. Proponents of such a grouping argue that effectiveness matters more than broad representation.

But this turn to a structure based on a concert of powers reminds one more of a 19th-century rather than a 21st-century response to the challenge of creating stable regional orders.

One of APEC’s strengths is that its practices have been shaped by the norms and values of Asean, which played a critical role in establishing  APEC as well as the ARF. The Asean approach emphasises consultation, consensus decision-making and an inclusive approach to regional institution-building.

The opportunities for informal exchanges and consensual decision-making in APEC could help ensure that the concerns of both Western as well as Asian states are reflected in the evolving regional order. We need to recognise that there are divergent norms and values present in international society and that those differences could lead to possible conflict. Inclusive institutions such as APEC could serve as harbingers of cooperation on a larger scale. — The Straits Times, Singapore

Najibonomics: Malaysia to grow its GDP at 9 per cent per annum until 2020

November 10, 2009

Does Najib really understand economics?, asks Kim Quek

I bet not a few among the participants at the 21st Multimedia Super Corridor (MSC) Malaysia Implementation Council meeting were held aghast when Prime Minister cum finance minister Najib Razak announced that Malaysia was aiming for a nine percent annual GDP growth until 2020.

In an opening speech at the meeting held in the morning of November 9, Najib said: “We aim to be a developed nation by the year 2020 and we are looking to more than double our per capita gross national income from US$7,000 (RM24,500) to at least US$17,000 by then in order to qualify as a high-income nation according to World Bank classifications.

“This would also mean that Malaysia has to grow its GDP by over nine percent annually until the year 2020.” (Malaysian Insider, Nov 9.)

Playing with the totally unrealistic growth figure of nine percent at a time when Malaysia and the world are still going through one of the worst recessions in memory with no definite light at the end of tunnel yet, did sound surreal indeed.

More so, when Malaysia’s growth record in recent years have been anything but robust. Obviously advised by his aides that his gung-ho expectation was way overboard, Najib scrambled to control damage via a press conference several hours later when he denied having said nine percent.

He said: “I did not say nine per cent, I said around six per cent as nine is not realistic.” But of course, Najib’s denial came too late, as several news media including Bernama and Star had already quoted him at nine per cent.

Clumsy amendment

Though these media dutifully replaced the figure of nine per cent by six per cent in their updated versions in the afternoon, some betrayed their clumsy amendment by retaining the incongruous per capita GDP growth from the current US$7,000 to US$17,000 in 2020.

If indeed Najib had quoted six per cent, then compounding US$7,000 at the increase of six percent per annum can only bring us to US$13,000 by 2020. Only when we compound it by nine percent can we reach the figure of US$17,000.

Figures tell no lies. It was clearly a deliberate statement, not a typing or reading error. So the big puzzle: How could a finance minister, who is supposed to be the economic czar of a country, make such an unforgivable blunder?

Granted that a man of Najib’s position is expected to have his speech writers lighten his work, but he should remain the master as policy formulator and decision maker, not a robot reading out speeches he could not fully comprehend.

Chairing over such an important meeting which deliberates the agenda of MSC Malaysia, which in Najib’s words, serves as “a foundation to build a world-class technology sector to kick start a vibrant Malaysian ICT industry”, I would expect Najib to be in full possession of a macro view of the nation’s economy, the direction it is going, and the specific role the budding ICT industry is playing in relation thereto.

Void of substance

And central to all these is of course a realistic assessment of current and potential strength of our economy. As finance minister, Najib is sitting at the apex commanding a vast bureaucracy of economic and financial experts and planners, and he should, therefore, be the best judge of our economic realities.

In fact, he should be the first one to spot any gross irregularity in major economic figures. If he is a competent finance minister, he should be the final arbiter as to what growth figure to adapt for policy making purposes.

Even allowing the fact that he is new to the job, he should at least be able to discern when a wildly unrealistic target is presented to him. Not to be able to sense that nine percent growth is way out of the reasonable realm is a horrible admission of ineptitude.

Under the circumstances, it is not unreasonable to surmise that this could be a case of an economic novice writing out a speech which was read out by an equally ignorant financial boss. That may not be a far-fetched assumption, given that Najib’s premiership so far seem to have been one gigantic public relation exercise void of substance to create the impression of change when in fact nothing has been changed. Not in our hopelessly decadent institutions nor in our utter lack of rule of law.

Re-Open Investigations on Tun Dr. Mahathir,VK Lingam and the rest

November 10, 2009

R. Sivarasa's Press Conference at Parliament House

I attended a press conference at Parliament House this morning by the MP for Subang R. Sivarasa and his Pakatan Rakyat colleagues where Ms. Jayanthi Naidu read out her statement (below).

It is clear to me that the Najib government does not have the political will to implement the recommendations of the Haider Royal Commission which was appointed  by DYMM Yang DiPertuan Agong to verify and authenticate the Lingam Tape.

Dato Nazri Aziz knows the facts of the case, and is defending a hopeless cause. The 1Malaysia government is rapidly losing its legitimacy. Najib is all hype.—Din Merican

November 10, 2009

Statement by Ms.  Jayanthi L.G. Naidu, former secretary of Datuk VK Lingam at Parliament House

I had heard in the media the announcement by Datuk Seri Nazri Aziz that the MACC had cleared Datuk VK Lingam and

Looks like him, talks like him but its not him

Tun Eusoff Chin of any wrong doing or corruption,  I also read that the MACC had closed the case on the investigation into the New Zealand holiday taken together by Datuk VK Lingam and Tun Eusoff Chin in 1994 because they could not locate a key witness.

As for the inability to locate a key witness as alleged, I have been contactable at all times.  The ACA/MACC officers have at all times been able to contact me earlier for my statements.  After the press announcement by Datuk Seri Nazri Aziz reported on 23.10.09, I called the MACC and asked who was the key witness that they were looking for.  They were unable to answer me.

I gave a full statement in 1998 regarding this New Zealand trip to the former ACA ( now the MACC ), some of which I repeated in the Royal Commission proceedings.  After the Royal Commission proceedings, I gave another statement to the MACC in the presence of my lawyer En Amer Hamzah Arshad.  Amongst the matters I told the ACA/,MACC and the Royal Commission were that VK Lingam and Eusoff Chin and families’ holiday trip to New Zealand in 1994 was planned and paid for by VK Lingam.  On the instruction of VK Lingam, I had assisted to book and pay for their air tickets in accordance with their itinerary. The documents and holiday photographs have all been given to the ACA and the Royal Commission.

In my evidence before the Royal Commission, I also described how the judgment delivered by Datuk Mohktar Sidin in the Vincent Tan v MGG Pillai libel case was written in the office of VK Lingam. I was amongst the various staff present in the office assisting in the process by photostating and looking for the cases. The written draft judgment with corrections in VK Lingam’s handwriting  and other related documents was given to the Royal Commission and ACA.

I am also aware of a few other incidents in VK Lingam’s office where VK Lingam (and other lawyers) have also written or assisted the writing of draft judgments which included such cases like Ayer Molek where he also appeared as counsel for one of the parties. I was aware that the judgments were being drafted as I was present in the office but not assisting directly.

On the instructions of VK Lingam, I have at least on three occasions withdrawn large sums of money (accompanied by a bodyguard) between RM100,000 to RM300,000 which I then wrapped in gift boxes with the understanding that they were to be hand delivered by others to individual judges.  On one occasion, I saw one of these money boxes being placed together with a box containing a cake to be delivered to a judge.

I also told the Royal Commission that in 1998 after I had given my statement, the ACA officers told me then that they could not proceed with the case because it involved top government people.

Farish Noor on the ‘Wahabi Scare’

November 9, 2009

Revisiting the ‘Wahabi Scare’ of the Past and Present

By Farish A. Noor

It would appear that there are some in Malaysia who are fearful of the influence of Wahabis in the country, and what this might entail in the future. But before I continue this writer would like to congratulate Abdar Rahman Koya for his article ‘Asri’s Arrest Born of Ignorance and Fear’, where he correctly notes that the term ‘Wahabi’ is often taken out of context and sometimes incorrectly or indiscriminately applied.

From that premise, allow me to write about the use (and abuse) of the term Wahabi in the history of Malaysia and the Southeast Asian region, which ultimately has brought us to the present state of affairs in Malaysia where the former Mufti of the state of Perlis, Dr. Mohd Asri Zainul Abidin, was recently taken to task for preaching in public without a permit issued by the religious authorities of Selangor.

The former Mufti has become the target of much speculation and slander, and among the accusations leveled at him is the claim that he is a Wahabi, or has allowed himself to be influenced by the school of Wahabi thought.That such a charge can be made today in Malaysia is interesting for the precedent has been set from the turn of the century at precisely the moment when modernist-reformist Islam was in the ascendant in the former colony of British Malaya.

During the early 1900s, a number of progressive Ulama and Islamist educational activists gathered in the Straits Settlements of Penang, Malacca and Singapore and came to be known as the ‘Kaum Muda’ generation. They were made up of prominent Ulamas like Syed Sheikh Al-Hady, Sheikh Tahir Jalaluddin and others. Many of them were deeply influenced by the writings of the Egyptian reformist thinkers like Muhammad Abduh and Rashid Rida, and were themselves persuaded that the time had come for Muslims to free themselves from the shackles of superstition, chauvinism, bigotry and outdated traditional practices that were neither Islamic nor rational.

To this end men like Syed Sheikh Al-Hady and Sheikh Tahir Jalaluddin formed the nucleus of what would become the nascent modernist Muslim movement in Malaya. The launched journals, magazines and set up modern madrasahs that were different from the pondok schools of the past that were still teaching a mode of traditionalist Islam based on the kitab kuning texts.

Syed Sheikh Al-Hady was himself responsible for the launching of many educational initiatives in order to teach Muslims to think and act rationally, as he was convinced that Islam was a religion of reason and the intellect. His fear was that the state of Muslim thinking among many traditionalist Ulamas had crippled the Muslims of Malaya to such an extent that they were reduced to the status of slave-subjects to the colonial order, and unable to improve their economic and political condition themselves. Reason, he argued, was at the heart of Islam and rational agency was the universal quality that equalizes all human beings. To this end he even wrote the first feminist novel in Malay literature – the Hikayat Faridah Hanum – where the heroine was a woman who rationally chooses to determine her own future and place in society.

For their efforts, men like Syed Sheikh Al-Hady and Sheikh Tahir Jalaluddin were condemned by traditional Ulamas as being ‘Wahabis’ and Syed Al-Hady was even called the ‘Khalifah Wahabi’ in Malaya. They were banned from the Malay states, their journals stopped and they were not allowed to teach and preach anywhere except the Straits Settlements of Penang, Malacca and Singapore.

At the same time, the Kaum Muda movement in Indonesia was also growing strong and being led by the Muhamadiyah movement that likewise pioneered modern Islamic education through new modern schools that taught Islam as well as the hard sciences and social sciences.

In Indonesia the modernist movement was likewise accused of being ‘Wahabi’, but this did not stop them from spreading the message of a rational Islam that was founded on reason and will. Among the greatest modernist intellectuals that emerged from this movement were men like Hamka and Mohammad Natsir, who later led the Islamist challenge to Dutch colonialism while also battling against the forces of neo-feudalism and blind traditionalism in their own society.

Today the Muhamadiyah movement remains as one of the biggest Islamist movements in Indonesia and the world, and it still leads the way in the struggle for intellectual emancipation through universal education for all. Those who have seen the film ‘Laskar Pelangi’ will note that it is the tale of a school boy who managed against the odds to get a decent education that eventually led him to pursue his studies in France, all thanks to the effort of the school teachers in a small Muhamadiyah school in Banka-Belitung.

With these efforts behind them, why is it that modernist and rationalist Muslim thinkers in Malaysia still have to face the constant accusation of being Wahabis? The term here is taken out of context to apply to any Muslim intellectual who insists that faith cannot be blind and that reason is also one of the paths to God.

If the former Mufti of Perlis has been criticised by some, it may be due to the fact that he has constantly spoken out against outdated traditional practices that are illogical, irrational and possibly even Bid’ah from a theological point of view. In this respect, the modernists of today are no different from the modernists of the Kaum Muda generation, who likewise condemned the practices of the Muslims of Malaya as outdated and superstitious: The belief in bomohs, witches, witch-doctors, shamans, practices such as saint-worship and praying at graveyards were all regarded as un-Islamic then and now.

Such a standpoint may not sit comfortably with some of the more traditionalist-conservative Muslims who may not take kindly to being told that their traditional practices are outdated and un-Islamic, and perhaps the charge of ‘Wahabism’ lies in the apparently puritanical approach and stand taken by some of the reformers. But to conflate all attempts at rational reform with Wahabism, and to claim that Wahabism is a ‘threat’ may be stretching the point a little.

All in all, it remains unclear as to how or why the former Mufti has been targeted like this. But if  Dr. Asri Zainul Abidin is disliked by some on the grounds that he has spoken up against traditional practices that he regards as bid’ah and shirik, then all that can be said is that the man is more of a modernist and rationalist than anything else. In this respect at least, he is another figure of a long line of ‘Kaum Muda’ progressives whose struggle to liberate Muslims from the shackles of traditionalism is going on, still.

Anwar delivers a tough message to PKR MPs and ADUNs in Penang

November 9, 2009

Ultimatum to PKR leaders

by Athi Shankar

PKR de facto leader Anwar Ibrahim has issued an ultimatum to party leaders and elected representatives – toe the line or leave the party. Stressing that they should be loyal to the party, the parliamentary opposition leader also pointed out to PKR divisional leaders, assemblypersons and parliamentarians that they should always adhere to party policies.

“A person shall not think that he or she would be leaders and elected representatives forever,” he warned while opening the Penang PKR convention in Komtar Dome, Georgetown last night.

“You must deliver, reach out to the people and adhere to the party’s reform principles and policies. Otherwise, you will be sacked from the party.”

Anwar said that while certain criticisms against the party leaders and elected representatives were acceptable, he would not compromise when it came to those refusing to follow the stipulated party policies. “If you cannot do that, then leave and join UMNO,” he told the PKR crowd.

Anwar said the stance was taken as there were many PKR leaders who wanted stern action taken against errant members. He also gave a stern warning to grassroots leaders who wanted to be division chiefs, parliamentarians, state representatives and councillors – all at the same time.

“If this is the case, go form your own party … then you can hold all the positions,” said Anwar, the Permatang Pauh parliamentarian.

According to Anwar, party leaders and elected representatives should not become arrogant and forget that they were sitting in their current positions because of the people’s support. “The people are the ultimate judges in deciding our political fate. We shall never forget them,” he said.

Pro-BN Hindraf leaders slammed

He also accused certain Indian Malaysian leaders of being Umno stooges in hijacking the spirit of Hindraf, or Hindu Rights Action Force.

Pointing out that Makkal Sakti (people’s power) was Pakatan Rakyat’s battle cry in the last general election, he accused these UMNO-sponsored Indian leaders for usurping the “spirit of Hindraf” for their own selfish gains.

“I would like to tell them that I’m a Malay and a Muslim leader who will fight for Indian interests and defend Hindu rights,” he said drawing applause.

Anwar also touched on the PAS national seminar yesterday, saying party president Abdul Hadi Awang had vowed that the Islamist party was fully committed to Pakatan. “Hadi has made it clear that PAS rejects UMNO,” said Anwar.

Generasi Gelombang Kebangkitan Asia

November 9, 2009

oleh Eekmal Ahmad* (diterima melalui Facebook)

Dari segala deretan memori, izinkan saya kongsi bersama cebisan ini. Semuanya bermula pada tahun 1999. Berbekalkan duit dari PTPTN yang saya simpan berdikit-dikit, akhirnya tertunailah hasrat untuk memiliki sebuah motosikal Honda model EX5. Ianya memudahkan untuk saya bergerak ke sana ke mari, juga untuk aktiviti pergerakan mahasiswa Islam di Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia. Motosikal itu kiranya dibenarkan untuk berbicara, pastinya banyak cerita saya terbongkar, yang manis, pahit, gembira, ketawa dan menangis.

Selepas melalui beberapa peringkat tarbiyah, bersenjatakan motosikal honda itu, saya dan rakan-rakan sering ke Kuala Lumpur untuk menyertai demonstrasi. Baik demonstrasi tersebut menyanggah kewujudan sebuah kerajaan yang diterajui UMNO-Barisan Nasional ataupun membantah aktiviti dan acara, yang pada pendapat kami bertentangan dengan hukum syarak. Negara Islam wajib ditegakkan, dan Anwar Ibrahim yang masih merengkok dalam penjara bukanlah tokoh yang wajar dipercayai. Kecurigaan ini, mengikut perkiraan saya, adalah mirip kecurigaan al Ikhwan al Muslimoon terhadap Gammal Abdel Naser. Apa yang pasti kami sentiasa bergelora, idealistik dan yakin, kemenangan pada suatu hari milik kami.

Di pertengahan jalan, saya tertewas, hilang pertimbangan, lalu menamatkan pengajian undang-undang saya di UKM. Beberapa ketika, saya pulang ke Alor Setar, tetap setia bersama motosikal EX5. Buat menenangkan hati, sering saya berulang alik, sudah tentu bersama motosikal setia, ke pondok Dehrang mendengar kuliah Ustaz Nuruddin Al Banjari dan Ustaz Fahmi Zam Zam. Memperoleh ketenangan dan sokongan ibu bapa, permohonan memasuki kuliah undang-undang Uitm diajukan. Tahun 2002, ianya bermula kembali. Saya ke Shah Alam menjadi pelajar fakulti undang-undang walaupun minat untuk menjadi seorang peguam sudahpun padam.

Ketika masa ‘pemulihan’ di Alor Setar, oleh kerana kemaruk mendapatkan bahan bacaan, Berita KeADILan yang dipimpin Khalid Jaafar adalah antara bacaan wajib selain dari kitab-kitab fiqh dan Tafsir al Azhar.( olehHamka ).Minat itu saya teruskan ketika di Shah Alam. Ligat saya mengelilingi bandar tersebut mencari Berita KeADILan buat menghilangkan ketagihan. Tulisan dan wacana yang dicetus menggasak saya memikirkan kembali beberapa keyakinan serta sikap perjuangan.

Saya mulai menaruh minat untuk mengenali Anwar Ibrahim. Tapi melalui apa? Makanya berbekalkan duit, sekitar RM 30 dan motosikal itu, saya mencapai nashkah “Asian Renaissance,” (1995) karya versi Inggeris mantan timbalan perdana menteri, yang dihumban ke dalam penjara, di toko buku berdekatan. Dan buku itu menemani saya siang dan malam.

Secara tiba-tiba perasaan cemburu menyerang saya. Bibliografinya mengejek-ngejek saya. Senarai nama seperti Syed Naguib al Attas, Syed Hussein al Attas, Karl Popper, Tagore, T.S Elliot, Sutan Takdir Alisjahbana dan Dead European Males lainnya menerbitkan resah berpanjangan. Perpustakaan diserbu, mencari buku-buku yang ditulis oleh mereka semua dengan nafsu yang bergelojak. Kerap kali pemburuan berakhir dengan kekecewaan dan sumpah seranah. Misalnya, The Open Society and Its Enemies karya Karl Popper, pemikir dan ahli falsafah dari Vienna, langsung tidak terdapat di rak-rak buku perpustakaan. Bagi saya ianya adalah antara mehnah dan tribulasi yang paling besar pernah saya hadapi.

Perlahan-lahan gagasan Nahdah Asia Anwar Ibrahim menjelma. Meratib saya mengingati di antara pesan Gelombang Kebangkitan Asia (judul versi Melayu); “the cultivation of good taste take the place of mediocrity and philistinism.” Mengunyah bab demi bab seperti Keunggulan Budaya, Ekonomi Manusiawi, Timur dan Barat serta Demokrasi dan Masyarakat Madani, merubah saya menjadi insan yang yakin.

Kini saya menyendiri ber ‘usrah’ dengan membedah dan menghadam satu demi satu faham yang terkandung di dalam

FA Hayek

Gelombang Kebangkitan Asia. Ke ‘Melayu’ an dan Ke ‘Islam’ an tidak menghalang saya dari menerobos tembok khusus intelektualisme yang selalu dikaitkan dengan golongan kelas menengah dan tinggi. Akar budaya dan juga agama menjadi jendela meneropong Islam dalam Sejarah dan Kebudayaan Melayu, Hamlet, John Keats, perdebatan seputar sekularisme, Ibsen dan Friedrich August von Hayek.

Gelombang mempertemukan saya dengan sekelompok anak muda ataupun yang berhati muda. Dengan motosikal EX5 itulah saya berulang alik dari Shah Alam ke Jalan Telawi, meredah kedinginan malam dan kehangatan petang. Kami yang datang baik dari utara, timur dan selatan tanah air, membentuk komuniti kecil para seniman, penulis, wartawan dan pelajar. Akal, tradisi, kebebasan, moraliti, budaya, kuku besi dan agama menjadi tema perbincangan dan renungan. Usrah baru saya terdiri dari mereka yang fanatik berbahasa Melayu, sering menyeru agar menguasai, bukan sahaja bahasa Inggeris, bahkan bahasa Jerman, Mandarin, Pali dan Greek kuno serta menyanggah ketuanan perkauman yang meminggirkan etnik lainnya.

Rasa rendah diri disingkir jauh-jauh. Syarahan Karamah Insaniah, Pico della Mirandola bahawa ‘tiada yang lebih dikagumi selain manusia’ bagaikan petir dan guruh yang berdentum di langit. Bingit dan mengejutkan. Gelombang memaksa sekaligus meyakinkan saya bahawa dikotomi di antara timur dan barat semakin kabur. Manakala Kebebasan dari regim yang tirani dan mengangkat martabat Budaya bangsa dari kelaihan berpanjangan merupakan tanggungjawab generasi perubahan; Generasi Gelombang Kebangkitan Asia.

Mulai saat itu saya mengenali, ataupun dengan lebih tepatnya, cuba mengenali sosok Anwar Ibrahim. Sudah tentu tidak sepenuhnya. Akan tetapi saya tidak perlu untuk bersekolah dengannya ataupun mengaku mengenali beliau selama berpuluh-puluh tahun. Cukup buat saya, menyedari serta memahami gagasan-gagasan beliau. Tidak perlu untuk membandingkan Anwar Ibrahim dengan tokoh-tokoh silam seperti Dr. Burhanuddin al Helmy, Dato’ Onn  Jaafar ataupun Alexander dari Macedonia itu!

Anwar adalah Anwar. Beliau melakar Gagasan Gelombang dan terbukti ampuh meroboh bongkah-bongkah Nilai-nilai Asia anutan beberapa pemimpin tua yang gusar legasi mereka akan lenyap dimamah keyakinan baru. Mentaliti pasca kolonialisme sudah tidak relevan. Sikap secara borongan membenci barat hanya menjadi alasan buat kebanyakan diktator memungkinkan kezaliman di tanah air sendiri. Manakala kita mengkritik pusat tahanan Guantanamo, pada ketika yang sama, negara ini juga memiliki pusat tahanan versinya sendiri di Kamunting.

Sekian lama kita berhadapan dengan politik hipokrasi. Dasar yang menguntungkan sebilangan kecil samada hanya untuk kepuasan elit pemerintah bumiputera ataupun tauke tauke kaya seharusnya ditolak tanpa ragu. Tidak ada justifikasi munasabah untuk kita menerima dalih membantu bangsa sedangkan hanya dua tiga kerat pimpinan barisan nasional sahaja yang kaya raya. Itulah manifestasi tertinggi politik perkauman sempit. Hakikatnya ianya cerita lama yang sudah basi.

Rakyat Malaysia terutamanya anak muda dari segenap lapisan masyarakat, merentasi sempadan agama dan etnik mempunyai kesedaran yang lebih baik dari apa yang disangkakan oleh sesetengah pihak. Pembentukan politik baru sesungguhnya tidak terelakkan. Acuan baru itu akan mengambil tempat, lalu bersaing dan mengalahkan politik lama yang bergantung kepada ketakutan, kecurigaan dan pemisahan antara kaum di negara ini. Kezaliman bukanlah hak milik mana-mana kaum, dan Keadilan adalah untuk semua.

Syaratnya ialah untuk terus beriltizam dengan Perubahan yang mengakar kepada hasrat untuk memelihara keluhuran perlembagaan, membanteras rasuah sehingga ke akar umbi, menjamin kedaulatan undang-undang, pengukuhan masyarakat demokratik dan berakhirnya politik perkauman.

Abad baru akan menjadi saksi, warisan pemerintah yang sekian lama “tahu apa yang terbaik untuk kita” sudah berakhir. Generasi Gelombang adalah kekuatan anak muda, suaranya, suara anak muda dan ianya arus deras yang mampu merubah lanskap politik serta sejarah negara ini. Anak muda mahukan sesuatu yang menyegarkan. Bahasa politik parokial perlu disisihkan. Perubahan yang luhur akan melibatkan semua untuk berbicara. Conversational Democracy adalah ciri penting penciptaan sebuah negara demokratik. Perdebatan dan wacana tidak menjurus kepada ungkapan seperti “pengkhianat bangsa” dan “agen yahudi.”

Generasi Gelombang tidak perlu menjadi apologetik dan mesti berani untuk mengaku bahawa bahasa demokrasi, kebebasan, keunggulan budaya dan pertumbuhan ekonomi yang mampan bukanlah monopoli mana-mana peradaban. Berbekalkan semangat baru, akan kita buktikan ungkapan Kipling bahawa, “There is too much in Asia and it is too old” adalah tidak benar sama sekali. Generasi Gelombang perlu merebut peluang mencipta dan menempa haluan baru buat negara ini.

Namun ini tidak beerti kita berhasrat mencipta yang baru dan terlepas dari pesan-pesan leluhur mahupun tradisi. Penggalian teks-teks klasik bagi saya menemukan kita dengan anjuran dasar untuk mengolah pandang dunia yang segar dan bertepatan dengan semangat zaman. Kebijaksanaan Bendahara Paduka Raja untuk menderhakai perintah Sultan misalnya, menyelamatkan Melaka dari hangus diberengus Jebat. Penulis Hikayat Hang Tuah menganyam cerita dan peri membiarkan pembacanya menilai di antara kesetiaan Hang Tuah, keterlanjuran Jebat, sikap tanpa usul periksa Sultan Melaka dan penderhakaan Bendahara Paduka Raja. Ternyata akhirnya penderhakaan Bendahara jualah yang menyelamatkan rakyat serta kerajaan.

Saya menyanggah beberapa telahan kononnya teks klasik ini menganjurkan taat setia tidak berbelah bahagi kepada pemerintah. Saya juga menolak untuk mengagung-agungkan perbuatan Jebat. Hikayat Hang Tuah adalah antara karya yang menampilkan kejelikan pemerintahan tanpa batasan. Ianya menjadi iktibar kepada kita untuk mencipta sebuah negara yang mempunyai batas-batas jelas untuk melindungi hak rakyat dari digasir pemimpinnya. Ini menguatkan hujah kita untuk menuntut sebuah negara dan masyarakat yang demokratik.

Kecurigaan di antara agama juga perlu dikikis. Islam tidak sewajarnya dipandang sebagai sebuah agama yang kuno, mandul daya intelektualismenya dan zalim semata-mata. Kegagalan penguasa dan sesetengah pemikir Melayu-Islam untuk mengangkat harakat agama adalah antara punca kecurigaan ini bertunas. Keilmuan Islam dan kekayaan tradisi kepustakaan Melayu dibiarkan usang kerana kebanyakan mereka lebih berminat untuk mengejar kerusi-kerusi empuk di institusi pengajian tinggi dan terpasung kerdil menjadi jiwa hamba. Manakala taraf keilmuan dan intelektualisme jauh merosot tatkala wacana-wacana falsafah, ekonomi dan agama yang rancak di luar negara langsung tidak dipedulikan. Kita masih menanti siapakah bakal mampu menandingi Syed Muhammad Naguib al Attas dan Syed Hussein al Attas.

Pilihanraya umum ke 12 menyaksikan Anwar Ibrahim dengan dokongan rakyat berbilang kaum dan agama, berjaya memimpin permuafakatan politik yang berjaya menafikan majoriti dua pertiga barisan nasional. Berbekalkan mesej Perubahan, permuafakatan tersebut berjaya menambat jiwa raga para pengundi. Perubahan secara mendadak menjadi komoditi hangat di pasaran. Saya rasa ini lah kali pertama dalam sejarah moden negara, rakyat Malaysia berada di kedudukan untuk menentukan ‘harga’ dan ‘tawaran’ siapa yang terbaik.

Inilah juga masanya buat kita, Generasi Gelombang menawarkan pakej yang terbaik untuk rakyat. Jelmakan keyakinan kita terhadap sebuah negara madani yang berpaksikan masyarakat demokratik, keluhuran perlembagaan, keunggulan budaya dan kemakmuran ekonomi. Jelaskan kepada rakyat mereka berhak kepada yang terbaik, makanya menjadi tanggungjawab kita untuk menjadi yang terbaik. Sudah tiba masanya kita menjayakan cita-cita “the cultivation of good taste take the place of mediocrity and philistinism.”

*Eekmal adalah analyst politik dan penulis muda yang berbakat di pejabat Ketua Pembangkang, Parliam Malaysia, Dato Seri Anwar Ibrahim.

Down Memory Lane with Sodomy 1 Trial: Will Najib do a Mahathir on Anwar Ibrahim?

November 8, 2009

In a sex crime, the sole testimony of the alleged victim is not sufficient but corroboration is required. In the case against Anwar Ibrahim, however, there was no corroboration other than the sole testimony of the alleged victim.

THE CORRIDORS OF POWER (November 7, 2009)– http://www.malaysia-today.net/

Some of you may have been too young in 1998 to remember the first Anwar Ibrahim sodomy trial. With the latest court ruling on Anwar’s second sodomy trial (http://mt.m2day.org/2008/content/view/28387/84/), maybe it is time I take you for a walk down memory lane so that you can get a better understanding of how the first sodomy trial was conducted.

I will try to make it as simple as possible without too much legal jargon and ‘lawyer talk’. What you need to understand is how the trial was conducted and why I say it was a sham trial in a kangaroo court.

Anwar was found guilty and sent to jail for six years and seven months whereas in any other country the court would have thrown the case out without even requiring him to defend himself in a trial. In other words, in any other country the trial would not have gone on but instead Anwar would have been discharged without the defence being called.

Let us first see what was revealed in the trial and then in part 2 we shall look at the other issues:

1. The police admitted that no police report was ever made against Anwar and that the basis for launching the prosecution were unfounded rumours and the contents of a book.

2. The alleged victim, Azizan, had been ‘turned over’ to say that Anwar sodomised him (the term used for ‘coercing’) – which is the ‘normal’ practice of the Malaysian Police, the court was told.

3. The Special Branch had earlier sent the Prime Minister (Dr. Mahathir Mohamad) a report saying that the allegations against Anwar are lies and fabricated by conspirators trying to bring Anwar down.

4. The alleged sodomy act was supposed to have occurred ‘one day in the month of May 1994’. The police testified that this date was based on the information obtained during the interrogation of the ‘victim’, and this was what the first charge read.

5. The so-called victim then testified that the sodomy act never occurred after May 1992, only before that, so the ‘May 1994’ charge suddenly became defective. The charge was then changed to ‘May 1992’ to fit this testimony while ‘typographical error’ was cited as the reason for the amendment to the charge.

6. Anwar then file his Notice of Alibi proving that in May 1992 the Tivoli Villa, the alleged scene of the crime, was still under construction and was not completed yet, so it could not have happened at that time, date and place in question.

7. The ‘victim’ was then interrogated a second time to ‘help him remember the correct date’. After he ‘remembered’ the ‘correct date’, the charges were then, again, amended to ‘one day between 1 January 1993 and 31 March 1993’.

8. When the defence argued that the law requires the charge to specify, precisely, the time, date and place of the alleged crime, and when Anwar managed to provide an alibi for the entire 90 days from 1 January to 31 March 1993 to prove he was never at the scene of the crime, the prosecution argued that ‘from time immemorial, dates have never been important’. Though they cannot pinpoint the precise time and date the alleged crime was supposed to have occurred, argued the prosecution, this does not matter as long as they can pinpoint the place.

9. The trial judge would interview the defence before any witnesses are called to find out what they will be testifying. The judge would then rule those defence witnesses irrelevant and would not allow them to be called.

10. Halfway through the defence witnesses giving their testimony, the trial judge would cut them off and dismiss them without allowing them to complete their testimony.

11. The trial judge would rule certain evidence not relevant and would expunge them from the records whenever the prosecution was not able to rebut this testimony and it looked like it would damage the prosecution’s case.

12. In a sex crime, the sole testimony of the alleged victim is not sufficient but corroboration is required. In the case against Anwar, however, there was no corroboration other than the sole testimony of the alleged victim.

13. When the defence asked that the so-called victim be sent for a medical examination to determine whether he had indeed been sodomised – as there was still time to do so – the prosecution refused, saying that a medical examination is not conclusive anyway.

14. Anwar’s alleged partner-in-crime, his adopted brother Sukma, who was jointly-charged with him – and earlier sent to jail for six months for ‘allowing Anwar to sodomise him’ – was examined by a doctor, Dr Zahari Noor, who testified that he found no evidence he was ever sodomised. In fact, he suffers from piles due to an extremely small anal passage so it would have been impossible for Anwar to have sodomised him – he had to be operated upon to widen his anal passage so that he could move his bowels. (Anwar’s adopted brother was convicted and jailed on the strength of his ‘confession’ that was obtained under police torture).

15. Witnesses came to court to testify that various people in high places had bribed the so-called victim and his co-conspirator to fabricate evidence against Anwar. However, the prosecution refused to call these people to court to rebut or confirm this allegation, and when the defence tried to subpoena them instead, the court would not allow it to do so. The judge then ruled the testimony of these witnesses as ‘hearsay’ – since it was never confirmed or denied – and refused to consider it.

16. The prosecution witnesses contradicted themselves and changed their testimonies all along the way. The court, however, ruled that though they may have been inconsistent, ‘these inconsistencies have been explained’ and the court was satisfied. The court also said that no one human can be expected to be 100% consistent and that everyone, however honest and truthful he may be, will be inconsistent.

17. A prominent lawyer and one-time Malaysian Bar Council Chairman, Manjeet Singh Dhillon, testified and signed a Statutory Declaration alleging that the Attorney-General and the Chief Prosecutor had blackmailed his client with the death sentence unless he (the client) testified that he had procured women for Anwar. No action was taken against them and they continued to head the prosecution against Anwar. No action was taken against the lawyer for ‘malicious lies’ either, so the allegation remains undisputed.

_________

Comment: For a fuller and accurate account of  Sodomy 1 Trial, please read Pawancheek Marican’s ANWAR ON TRIAL: In the Face of Injustice (Petaling Jaya: Gerakbudaya Enterprise, 2009). The author who was a member of the Anwar Ibrahim 1998 Defence Team which included, among others, Raja  Aziz Addruse, Sulaiman Abdullah, the Late Aris Rizal Christopher Fernando and Sankara Nair, concluded his book with :

“The case against Anwar Ibrahim has been blatant political persecution wrapped in the guise of legitimate legal action by the state. The political stakes had been high indeed, given the fact that if Mahathir and his cronies had lost the political battle, they would have had to account for the many years of abuses inflicted upon the ordinary people of the country (p. 334)… The Mahathir rule may have ended, but the legacy of the abuses of that period (1981-2003) lives on. In this regard, the Malaysian -born Australia-based constitutional lawyer H.P.Lee contributed a perceptive observation of Mahathir’s legacy in his book, Constitutional Conflicts in Contemporary  Malaysia (1995):

‘When the legacy of the Mahathir era is finally debated, the economic achievements will have to be balanced against the recorded destruction of those checks and balances crucial for the vitality of a nation founded upon the belief of government  by law and not by men.’ “(p.336)

Recently, the Najib Government closed the Lingam Tape investigations with the Attorney-General stating that there was no case to answer by those who were identified by the Haider Royal Commission to have committed acts that violate the provisions of certain laws including the Official Secrets Act, and the Penal Code. This means that  Dr. Mahathir and others including Tun Ahmad Fairuz, Tun Eusoff  Chin and Tan Sri Vincent Tan will not be asked to account for their actions. Even the Iago (of William Shakespeare’s Othello) of the whole saga, VK Lingam himself, is spared.

It is sheer cynicism on the part of Dr. Mahathir to lament the fact that as a result of Najib government’s decision to close the case, he would not have his day in court to clear his name. Well, in my view, he still can ask Prime Minister Najib to give him the opportunity to do so by re-opening the investigations. I am, therefore, saddened that Dr. Mahathir has been denied his rights as a citizen to redeem himself in a court of law.

My concern is that what had happened during the Sodomy 1 trial will be repeated when Anwar is put on the stands for Sodomy II. Developments in recent months are indicative of the possibility that justice will again be denied to the de facto leader of Parti KeADILan Rakyat and Leader of the Opposition in Parliament.

Raja Petra’s article serves to remind us what happened under Mahathir in 1998 .I believe that the Sodomy II trial will be a repeat, maybe command, performance, this time by a Prime Minister who is scared of his shadow and will do everything within his power to put Anwar Ibrahim back in the slammer.

Will we Malaysians  allow this “blatant political persecution wrapped in the guise of legitimate legal action by the state” to go on by our indifference. What had happened to Anwar Ibrahim in 1998 (and now in 2009) and his friends and associates in Parti KeADILan Rakyat and Pakatan Rakyat since March 8, 2008 and other dissenting Malaysians cannot be taken lightly. We are a nation ruled by law, not by men.

Finally, may I quote Edmund Burke as a reminder to all Malaysians who love freedom, democracy and justice . Burke  said most eloquently that : “All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing”. —Din Merican

Sodomy II Trial: Will there be Justice?

November 8, 2009

Sodomy II trial: ‘A second death for justice’

‘If there is real evidence, there’s no need to resort to such low-handed tactics. The prosecution’s behaviour shows that they have no real case against Anwar but must depend on ambush tactics, dubious DNA evidence, and a compliant judge to win.’

Sodomy case: Court deals blow to Anwar

Ghkok: I salute Anwar, and I salute Perak Pakatan MB Mohd Nizar Jamaluddin for their courage, perseverance and defiance against the tyranny of the BN. Never say die. Never give up. They kick you, you fall, then you get up. Over and over again.

Day after day, week after week, year after year. One day, they will fall. One day, the tyranny of BN will collapse. That will be the day. And we will be ready.

Greyhame: Can we afford a second death to justice? I say let them try. If the people remain stupid yet again, then this country deserves to be damned. Woe to every Malaysian child of the future.

If this regime is not brought to its knees, they will sound the death knell of our beloved nation. There is no way on God’s earth will any honest Malaysian stand by and see Anwar be put through a circus again. He was an eagle when you burned him, but he is the phoenix now.

Kgan: Why this cat-and-mouse game by the prosecution? First they fought tooth-and-nail to transfer the case from the Magistrate’s Court to the High Court. Next, they deny Anwar Ibrahim access to evidence to prepare his defense – this in violation of normal judicial procedures.

If they have real evidence, there’s no need to resort to such low-handed tactics. The prosecution behaviour shows that they have no real case against Anwar but must depend on ambush tactics, dubious DNA evidence and a compliant judge to win their case.

Lim Chong Leong: How can one defend himself against charges against him when he is not allowed to see the evidence stacked against him? The prosecution is playing cloak-and-dagger litigation in the dark and this is grossly unfair.

Raj Kumar: How is anyone supposed to conduct a defence when they do not know what they are defending against and the courts won’t allow the handing over of documents so that the defense can mount a case against the supposed evidence that the prosecution have?

‘Innocent until proven guilty’ and the onus is on the prosecution to prove that Anwar is guilty – not for Anwar to prove he is innocent.

Rayfire: Is it not obvious? The evidence is non-existent or still in process of being created to send Anwar off for another cooling-off period in jail. This is the expected decision and more will come and it will not be a surprise to us, the rakyat.

It is a well-known fact that we indeed have kangaroo courts. Despite being a laughing stock of the entire world, they will continue to deliver illogical and unjust decisions to satisfy the agenda of an evil regime. The question is, what are we as people of Malaysia collectively going to do about this?

Ong Guan Sin: This is further evidence of the trumped-up charges against Anwar. Either there is no evidence at all, or the evidence is too unreliable to be shown. I have never heard of a public prosecution who are afraid of disclosing evidence or what-not.

Chipmunk: Now that we got the official news (and as expected by all), there is not going to be any surprise over the verdict of MB vs MB case in the Silver state. A clear indication that the executive holds the judiciary by strings (or like a yo-yo).

So ‘1Malaysia’ is all about one man’s dream and one man’s pocket with 1self-interest and 1power. Pakatan Rakyat, with all due respect, your only chance will be at 13th general election so buckle up, saddle up and get going to the rakyat.

The rakyat will be with those who acknowledges themselves to be the ’servant of servants’. God help Malaysia.

Loyal Malaysian: Oh, well. Might as well accept that fact that the powers-that-be are going all out to put Anwar Ibrahim behind bars.

Malaysia goes Islamic

From Guardian

Malaysia has reached a state where it is impossible to distinguish moderates from radicals. Where next?

By Maznah Mohamad

In Malaysia’s current political climate, it is no longer possible to distinguish Islamic radicals from Islamic moderates. Despite official boasting about the country’s diverse population and commitment to pluralism, Islam and the government have essentially merged.

For two decades, the ruling United Malays National Organization (UMNO) government invested enormous public resources in building up a network of Islamic institutions. The government’s initial intention was to deflect radical demands for an extreme version of Islamic governance. Over time, however, the effort to out-do its critics led the UMNO to over-Islamicize the state.

The UMNO’s program has put Sharia law, Sharia courts, and an extensive Islamic bureaucracy in place, a collective effort that has taken on a life of its own. The number of Islamic laws instituted has quadrupled in just over ten years. After Iran or Saudi Arabia, Malaysia’s Sharia court system is probably the most extensive in the Muslim world, and the accompanying bureaucracy is not only big but has more bite than the national parliament.

Islamic laws in Malaysia are based on religious doctrine but codified and passed as statutes by state parliaments. Not much debate attends their enactment, because a fear of heresy keeps most critics from questioning anything deemed Islamic.

While the UMNO still trumpets its Islamic advocacy, the party is facing difficult choices, particularly as it wishes to maintain foreign investment in an increasingly polarized environment.

For example, Minister of Home Affairs Hishammuddin Hussein recently held a press conference to support Muslims who demonstrated against the construction of a Hindu temple in their neighborhood. The protestors paraded a severed, bloodied cow’s head in the street, then spat and stomped on it. This was an offense to Malaysia’s Hindus, who consider the cow a sacred animal.

Just a week earlier, a young mother by the name of Kartika was sentenced by Malaysia’s Sharia court to six lashes by cane and fined $1500 after she was caught drinking beer at a hotel. Although the sentence is still in limbo, Hussein publicized his acceptance of the punishment by inviting the official floggers to his office to demonstrate how an Islamic caning would be carried out. They used a chair as a mock target, leaving him satisfied that Islamic caning can be appropriately used as a punishment for women.

Ironically, Hishamuddin Hussein is far from an Islamic hard-liner. The son of Malaysia’s third prime minister and a cousin of the current prime minister, he is widely considered modern, moderate, and cosmopolitan.

A true hard-liner is Nik Aziz, the chief minister of Kelantan state, who is also the spiritual leader of Malaysia’s largest Islamic party, PAS, which now controls two state governments. However, Aziz opposed the anti-Hindu protest, even calling a group of anti-Muslim protestors in the United Kingdom more civilized in their approach.

Hence, it is no longer accurate to think of the PAS as a fundamentalist party and the UMNO as moderate. Party strategies are leading them in unexpected directions. The UMNO’s more radical turn is being matched by the PAS’s attempts at moderation. The PAS is aiming for the most unlikely of voters: non-Muslims, who account for 40% of Malaysia’s population and are increasingly alienated from the UMNO.

The UMNO, meanwhile, is intent on dividing the opposition coalition, of which the PAS is a member. The coalition is currently led by former Deputy Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim, and has picked up political momentum from real gains in last year’s general election.

Concerned by its losses, the UMNO has staked a claim to the defense of Islam in Malaysia. The “cow head” protest, which was led by UMNO members, quickly fuelled racially-charged manipulation of public sentiment. The formula is simple: portray Islam as being threatened by infidels, and then have the UMNO ride to the rescue of the besieged Muslim community.

The caning of Kartika, on the other hand, is not an example of political manipulation, and for this reason is perhaps even more worrisome. Her sentence was roundly supported by modernist Muslim intellectuals, who insisted that the punishment was justly applied and cannot be questioned because it has divine sanction. These are not politicians, but former idealists who are happy that their goals of Islamicizing the state are being realized. Most are anti-UMNO and support the PAS.

As a result, the UMNO finds itself squeezed between an Islamic lobby that presses for greater “Talibanization” of the country and the rising voices of international critics, who cannot be ignored, because the party needs both radical supporters and foreign investors to stay in power.

Balancing these two constituencies is becoming increasingly difficult for the UMNO. Islamic politics has now taken on a life of its own. But the opposition will also be forced to figure out the role of religion in Malaysia, if ever they get an opportunity to form a government. As a young Islamic radical, Anwar Ibrahim used to ask: How does one Islamicize government? Now he has to figure out how one governs it.

Copyright: Project Syndicate, 2009.

Pakatan Rakyat: A Tome,or a Footnote?

November 7, 2009

Is Pakatan Rakyat wasting a historic opportunity?

by Tunku Abdul Aziz

A mere footnote at the bottom of a page of Malaysia’s political history or a tome on political change that recreated and revitalised a sick and openly corrupt society into a vibrant and prosperous democracy for all? Pakatan Rakyat must decide quickly where it wants to be.

On present showing, it has not a ghost of a chance to ever breach and occupy the still impregnable Putrajaya citadel, in spite of the credible March 8, 2008 electoral onslaught. It does not have to look far to find out why it is in such a sorry state. Lim Kit Siang’s warning of a “one-term miracle” could well become self-fulfilling and Putrajaya would be just a gleam in the eye if his words are not taken to heart.

Pakatan Rakyat leaders must come to terms with the reality that is Barisan Nasional. We may despise its politics of immorality, of corruption and injustice, but even the most rabid alternative political practitioners must readily concede that it is still a formidable organisation with an armoury of unsavoury tricks they have to contend with.

Remember Perak, and the bad after taste that lingers on and on. Pakatan must wake up from its euphoric pie in the sky self-induced dream that the one-off massive voter handouts would be there for the asking at the next general election. There will be no repeat performance until and unless it gets its act together.

The electorate owes PR nothing. The truth is that Pakatan Rakyat owes its supporters everything. PR leaders must lead by putting the larger interests of the nation above individual parochial party issues with their tendency to be unnecessarily divisive, emotive and controversial.

Are these issues really so fundamental that they are incapable being discussed rationally without adding to the fragility of a coalition that is apparently about to be torn asunder?

I wrote some time ago about the difficulty of reconciling the conflicting claims of the many different ideological and doctrinal sacred cows represented by the PR partners, but they must direct their intellectual energies to finding a solution to what the people of multi-racial Malaysia will and will not put up with.

They must open their minds to the larger, and therefore, more relevant social, economic, political, religious and cultural concerns of our people than to insist on playing the same old race and religious cards with their declining appeal to right-thinking people. These are barriers to overcome.

If PR is, as it seems, incapable of even getting to the most important item on the new national agenda, then it is offering nothing better to the people of this nation than what BN has been doing for half a century and more. More of the same is an unworthy option for a long-suffering people who deserve better.

PR leaders must, in all good conscience, ask themselves whether they can lead this complex and difficult nation if they themselves are apparently incapable of agreeing on basic fundamental principles of cooperative engagement to deepen their commitment to values of justice in its widest sense for every Malaysian.

If PR leaders feel that they have neither the will nor the stomach for the sacrifices they are expected to make in order to take the new national non-race-based agenda forward on the long march to Putrajaya, they should come out with a straight answer that should leave the people of this country in no doubt where they stand.

There is no place for personal agendas in the national scheme of things; certainly not where it is a matter of saving the people from a particularly rotten and unjust system of governance.

Pakatan Rakyat has a great deal to offer by way of a commitment to a clean corruption-intolerant administration and it deserves to be given a chance to govern Malaysia. It cannot be worse than the UMNO-dominated administration. But then the political game is not about sentimental nonsense. It is determined solely by the dictum “Perform or Perish”, and the PR state governments must prove to the satisfaction of the people in those states, and by extension the nation, that they can be trusted to govern good, and to govern well.

This coalition, even if it were made in heaven, could still come a cropper. PR leaders have themselves to blame in the event. — mysinchew.com

Be constructive, says Harvard educated Nathaniel Tan

November 7, 2009

Be constructive when we make criticisms

Malaysia’s “Drama Minggu Ini” appears to be rich in political parties apparently entering self-destruct mode. High up in the headlines are the problems besetting Pakatan Rakyat, PKR and MCA.

The endless infighting and jostling, as well as the apparent impossibility of achieving true unity even within a party or coalition, compels us to ask: why is it politicians so often seem to put their own seemingly petty interests above those of their party, or of the nation as a whole?

Raja Petra Kamarudin, a friend I’m proud to know (and who is somewhat responsible for my current hairstyle), recently wrote an article comparing Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim in somewhat unfavourable light to Alexander the Great, and the last general election to the French Revolution.

I don’t know enough about either to comment extensively on the comparisons, but I think on aggregate I wish to respectfully posit a slightly different perspective.

The tone of RPK’s article is, as is typical, one of reproach and warning. He writes:

“Anwar Ibrahim and many of the opposition leaders have this false feeling of grandeur about themselves. But they are not grand, and certainly far from great. They did not make March 8, 2008 happen. The people made it happen. And what the people make the people can break.”

I have no intention here of defending Anwar or anyone else, but I think it is inaccurate to place a false feeling of grandeur at the root of Pakatan’s problems. Pakatan’s leaders suffer from a platitude of problems, but I don’t think sheer arrogance is among the top five.

In trying to get to that root, I found myself thinking back to the momentous 2008 election. I remember that almost all of my office mates, where I was working in PKR at that time, eventually ran for public office and, I am proud to say, won.

That’s in hindsight, of course. I remember the days before the election — how hard it was to fill the candidate roster, and how the leadership scrambled like crazy to finalise the list.

It was hard because so few wanted to step up. This was a time when Barisan still commanded its largest majority in history, and where there were serious repercussions to being associated with their enemies.

It was a time when one of the benefits of being in the opposition was that the only colleagues you had were those with real passion — there wasn’t anything in it for anyone else, no money, no power; only plenty of headaches.

I wasn’t asked to run (I suppose someone had to take care of the office), but even if I had been, I had already decided then not to accept. For my own reasons, I was like many others who requested that the bitter cup be passed from our lips.

Indeed, as RPK suggests, it was the people who enabled the political tsunami, and not the charisma of any one man or candidate; but there would have been no tsunami to speak of if not for those who did step up, and for those who led them.

I recently received an e-mail from one such colleague who had no such hesitation in answering the call and stepping up, detailing a near breakdown from the sheer stress and pressure of having to maintain more responsibilities and deal with more conflict than one human should ever have to bear.

I see the same in those former relatively carefree colleagues of mine — thrown into the vicious maelstrom of politics, and facing constant overloads of work, endless bickering and backstabbing, and every obstacle imaginable apparently designed to frustrate even the most idealistic of individuals.

I have watched how wearing certain hats eventually transforms people into those hats. Fame can certainly be fun, but on aggregate I count myself lucky.

Once again, my purpose is not to weave some sob story to create sympathy or plead leniency. These people are our leaders after all, and why should they not be held to the highest standards?

I have made it a rule, however, to hesitate in criticising too harshly someone whose job I wouldn’t be willing to take on myself.

It is all well and good to espouse populism, and to rip into those leaders we feel have failed us. It is imperative, however, that constructiveness be the hallmark of our criticism. When we decry something, we must always be mindful of identifying a practical (and I stress “practical”) road to improvement.

I don’t know if we get the government we deserve, but I do know we get the leaders we make. Like RPK, I don’t harbour any illusions about politicians. In all my years trying to understand politics, I have found a realist, interest-based approach to analysis most useful. People usually do what they perceive to be in their own interests, and it is generally unwise to too often expect them to do otherwise.

The political problems Malaysia faces on both sides of the divide, including a dearth of quality in leadership, are real and enduring. It is my belief that they must be dealt with with full cognizance of personality dynamics, the baggage of the past, and the dark realities of politics.

No one much likes to play in such a murky landscape, but those are the cards we’ve been dealt, so we must play them as best we can — and we must play them to win.

It is more fun to make scathing remarks and aspire to loftier heights, and indeed, we should never lose sight of our ideals; but we have nothing to gain by cutting the nose to spite the face.

It is entirely wrong to say that outsiders of the political sphere should have no right to criticise or point out shortcomings. Rather, it is more encumbent on us to think carefully about how we can bring success closer rather than just “lepas geram”. In doing so, we should endeavour to shape our criticisms into those that work (knowing politicans, many types don’t).

It is clear that we have charismatic leaders, a few efficient managers and even fewer noble statesmen, but perhaps no one who is all three. Until such a person steps forth, we must find a way of working as best we can with what we have towards achieving common goals, or we must ourselves seek to be that person.

Let us not relent in calling a spade a spade in renouncing pettiness and mismanagement, but let us be clear with regards to providing alternative plans, and workable solutions — including those that may involve putting our own selves on the line.

Rosli Dahlan files two additional summons

November 6, 2009

Comment:

Sometime in September, 2009 (September 20?), I carried in this blog a report with due acknowledgment to Malaysia-Today that respected Malaysian lawyer Encik Rosli Dahlan filed a rm50 million suit against MACC, the Government of Malaysia and Utusan Malaysia (a paper owned by UMNO) for defamation and unlawful detention.

Most of my blog readers were sympathetic towards Encik Rosli. They respected his  passion for justice and fair play, and admired his courage  as they could identify with his plight.  Most of us including  myself feel at that time –and we still do — that the courts, despite its imperfections, remain the last bastion of justice.  Encik Rosli, as an ordinary citizen like the rest of us (but with the added advantage of years of legal practice to his credit and a reputation to go with it), has  rights guaranteed under our constitution and these rights are inviolable.  But for some mysterious reasons, that report was expunged from my blog.

Today, I am posting a report which appeared in Berita Harian, Singapore, and posted in Malaysia-Today, that Encik Rosli made two additional summons against The Star, its Chief Editor, Dato Seri Wong Chun Wai and Chief Reporter Charles Lourdes, and another English language paper. It is interesting to note that none of our mainstream media carried Encik Rosli ’s latest action.–Din Merican

November 5, 2009

Peguam Terkenal Rosli Dahlan fail dua lagi tuntutan saman

By Darwis Said, Berita Harian Singapore

SELEPAS membuat tuntutan saman ke atas Suruhanjaya Pencegahan Rasuah Malaysia (SPRM), kerajaan  Malaysia dan akhbar Utusan Malaysia kerana memfitnah, menyerang dan menahannya secara salah, seorang  peguam tersohor di Malaysia, Encik Rosli Dahlan, kini difahamkan mengajukan dua lagi tuntutan saman  terhadap dua akhbar arus perdana di negara itu.

Dalam pernyataan tuntutan keduanya yang difailkan di Mahkamah Tinggi Kuala Lumpur 21 Oktober lalu  yang salinannya diperolehi akhbar Berita Harian, Encik Rosli, sebagai plaintif, mengemukakan tuntutan  saman ke atas tiga defendan: The Star Publications (Malaysia) Bhd, syarikat pemilik dan penerbit akhbar The  Star; ketua editor akhbar itu, Datuk Seri Wong Chun Wai; dan ketua wartawannya, Encik Lourdes Charles (kini bergelar Datuk).

Peguam itu juga difahamkan membuat tuntutan saman ketiga terhadap sebuah lagi akhbar bahasa Inggeris,  SPRM (dulunya Badan Pencegah Rasuah, atau BPR), dan beberapa individu berhubung penyebaran laporan  berunsur fitnah terhadapnya.

Dalam saman pertamanya September lalu terhadap 17 defendan, termasuk pegawai SPRM, Jabatan Peguam  Negara, Bank Negara dan akhbar Utusan Malaysia, Encik Rosli, 48 tahun, menuntut ganti rugi sejumlah RM50 juta ($20.4 juta).

Dalam pernyataan tuntutan keduanya, beliau tidak menyatakan jumlah ganti rugi tetapi menuntut bayaran  ganti rugi am, ganti rugi teruk/atau teladan, faedah, kos, permintaan maaf tanpa syarat dan perintah lanjut  yang dianggap wajar oleh pihak mahkamah. Difahamkan Encik Rosli berbuat demikian atas dasar prinsip dan menegakkan keluhuran undang-undang.

Encik Rosli adalah rakan kongsi kanan firma guaman terkemuka di Kuala Lumpur, Lee Hishammuddin Allen & Gledhill, yang diasaskan oleh Datuk Seri Hishammuddin Tun Hussein Onn, yang juga Menteri Dalam  Negeri Malaysia.

Encik Rosli mewakili bekas Pengarah Jabatan Siasatan Jenayah Komersial (JSJK) Polis Diraja Malaysia  (PDRM), Pesuruhjaya Polis Datuk Pahlawan Ramli Yusuff, pada 2007 dan juga menasihati Datuk Johari Baharom, yang menjadi Timbalan Menteri Keselamatan Dalam Negeri Malaysia ketika itu. Ia melibatkan kes kontroversi mengenai kegiatan sindiket pinjaman wang haram atau ‘along’, yang disiasat  pegawai kanan polis itu atas arahan Datuk Johari.

Encik Rosli juga terlibat dalam kes tuntutan sivil syarikat penerbangan milik negara, Malaysia Airlines  (MAS), terhadap bekas Pengerusinya, Tan Sri Tajuddin Ramli, yang melibatkan kerugian melebihi RM8 bilion, yang turut disiasat oleh JSJK di bawah arahan Datuk Ramli ketika itu.

Pada 2007, akhbar arus perdana Malaysia telah memetik sumber BPR sebagai berkata bahawa Datuk Ramli  disiasat di bawah satu akta pencegahan rasuah negara itu kerana disyaki memiliki aset bernilai RM27 juta. Sebaliknya, pertuduhan ke atasnya ditukar menjadi penyalahgunaan kuasa, manakala aset yang dikatakan gagal  diisytiharkannya itu melibatkan isu dua unit pejabat bernilai RM1 juta dan beberapa saham yang tidak  mencapai jumlah RM27 juta seperti yang dilaporkan terdahulu.

Malah, Datuk Ramli telah pun dibebaskan daripada pertuduhan menyalahgunakan kuasa, iaitu menggunakan  pesawat polis bagi kepentingan peribadi oleh Mahkamah Sesyen Kota Kinabalu kerana pihak pendakwaan  ‘gagal membuktikan kes prima facie dan Tertuduh berhak dilepaskan’ kerana mendapati Datuk Ramli  sebenarnya menjalankan tugas rasminya ketika itu.

Dalam siri tindakan guamannya, Encik Rosli juga mendakwa bahawa beliau dianiaya kerana kes kontroversi  yang dikendalikannya dan juga kerana membela Datuk Ramli.

Berita Harian difahamkan bahawa Datuk Ramli juga telah membuat aduan yang sama dalam laporan polis  yang dibuatnya terhadap pihak terbabit. Semasa proses pembelaan itu, BPR sebaliknya turut mendakwa, menahan dan mengaitkan Encik Rosli dengan  dakwaan yang dibuat mereka terhadap Datuk Ramli.

Dalam tuntutan terbarunya terhadap The Star, Encik Rosli merujuk kepada dua artikel akhbar itu pada 12 dan  13hb Oktober 2007 yang bertajuk: ‘ACA Arrest Singapore Lawyer’ dan ‘Lawyer Charged With Hiding  Information On His Assets’.

Beliau menyifatkan dua laporan itu mengandungi fitnah apabila memberikan gambaran bahawa beliau adalah  rakyat asing dan mendakwa akhbar itu gagal mengesahkan fakta laporannya termasuk hakikat bahawa beliau  sebenarnya adalah rakyat Malaysia.

Menurutnya, laporan itu menyebabkan kegelisahan dan keaiban kepada beliau dan keluarganya serta  kehilangan klien guamannya. Encik Rosli kini difahamkan sedang menyiapkan tuntutan terbarunya terhadap SPRM dan sebuah lagi akhbar bahasa Inggeris arus perdana kerana mengulangi dakwaan fitnah terhadapnya.

TRANSLATION

After issuing summons on MACC, the Government of Malaysia and Utusan Malaysia for defamation and unlawful detention, respected Malaysian lawyer, Encik (Mr) Rosli Dahlan is believed to be issuing two additional summons against two mainstream media in that country.

His statement of claims against them which were filed in the Kuala Lumpur High Court on October 21, copies of which were obtained by Berita Harian, Encik Rosli, as plaintiff, served the summons on three defendents; The Star Publications (Malaysia) Bhd, the owner and publisher of The Star; its Chief Editor Datuk Seri Wong Chun Wai; and its Chief Reporter, Mr. Lourdes Charles (now a Datuk).

The lawyer is also believed to have made a third summon toward another English language, MACC and several individuals in connection with the publication of reports about him for defamation.

In his first summon last September against 17 defendants, including officers of MACC, Attorney-General’s Office, Bank Negara and Utusan Malaysia, Encik Rosli sought damages totalling RM50 million ($20.4 million).

In his second summon, he did not state the amount of damages but he sought damages, punititive or defamatory damages, interest, costs, unconditional apology and other damages considered appropriate by the courts. It is understood that Encik Rosli did so on principle and in the interest of upholding the rule of law.

Encik Rosli is a partner in a well known legal firm in Kuala Lumpur, Lee Hishamuddin Allen & Gledhill, which was founded by Datuk Seri Hishamuddin, also Minister of Home Affairs, Malaysia.

Encik Rosli represented former Director, Commercial Crimes Division, Royal Malaysian Police, Datuk Pahlawan Ramli Yusuff in 2007 and also advised Datuk Johari Baharom, who was at that time Deputy Minister, Ministry of Home Affairs. Datuk Johari had instructed Dato Ramli to investigate the activities of illegal moneylenders (alongs).

Encik Rosli was also involved in the civil claims of Malaysia Airlines against its former Chairman, Tan Sri Tajuddin Ramli, involving losses in excess of RM8 billion which was being investigated by the Commercial Crimes Division under the direction of Datuk Ramli at that time.

In 2007, Malaysian mainstream media quoted Anti Corruption Agency sources as stating that Datuk Ramli was investigated under the Anti-Corruption Act on the suspicion of owning assets valued at RM27 million. Subsequently, the charge against him was change to one of abuse of power, when the so-called undeclared asset involved two office units worth RM1 million and a number of blocks of shares, which did not amount to RM27 million as reported previously.

Datuk Ramli has been freed from the charge of abuse of power, that of using police premises for personal interest by the Kota Kinabalu Sessions Court because the prosecution ‘ failed to make a prima facie case and the accused is entitled to be freed’ for it was found that Datuk Ramli was actually performing his official duties at that time.

In a series of his summons, Encik Rosli claimed that he was being victimised for his defence of controversial cases and Datuk Ramli.

Berita Harian was given to understand that Datuk Ramli had made a similiar claims in his police report against those involved. During defence, the ACA charged, detained and linked him with the charges that were made against Datuk Ramli.

In his new summon against The Star, Encik Rosli referred to two articles on October 12 and 13, 2007 captioned “ACA Arrest Singapore Lawyer” and “Lawyer Charged With Information on his Assets”.

He viewed the two articles as malicious and defamatory by giving the impression that he is a foreign national and charged the newspaper of failing to report facts including the truth that he is actually a Malaysian.

According to him, the newspaper report was caused emotional strain and embarassment to him and his family serta loss of clientele. Encik Rosli is understood to be completing his new claims against MACC dan another English language newspaper for repeating and spreading malicious rumours about him.

Great Weekend to All: Celebrating Swinging Frank Sinatra

Friends,

drkam

Din is taking a deep breather from blogging this week, after doing it practically non-stop since November, 2007. He has asked me to play some Frank Sinatra  swinging tunes for your weekend pleasure. I hope you like what I have chosen for you. I have become a Sinatra fan  of late , largely due to Din’s influence.

He has a fine collection of cds featuring some great names in jazz and the crooning business ( from Nat Cole, Mel Tome,  Dick Hymes, Perry Como, Eddie Fisher, Frank Sinatra, Samy Davies Jr., and Dean Martin et.al). Have a good weekend.—drkam for DJ Din Merican

That’s Life

The Summer Wind

New York, New York (for Dr. Bean alBakaq Bata)

A sentimental Tribute to Ava Gardner by Frank Sinatra–I think of You

Din’s Favourite Sinatra Swing Tune–You make you feel so young

The Essentialist Reduction of Muslim in Inter-Faith Dialogue

November 1, 2009

The Essentialist Reduction of Muslims in Inter-Faith Dialogue

By Farish A. Noor

The inter-religious dialogue process is a risky yet necessary vernture. For more than a decade now I have been part of the so-called international dialogue circuit and during this time I must have participated in around a hundred of these dialogues between the Western world and Islam. Notwithstanding the physical cost of these dialogue sessions that have worn me out by now, I still would like to argue that they are necessary despite the numerous epistemic and ideological pitfalls that we need to negotiate when we enter the process.

But before I continue, allow me to state my reservations first:

For a start, I am doubly worried that we have inadvertently contributed to what can be called the ‘inter-faith dialogue industry’. By this I am referring to the fact that too many of these dialogues have been harnessed upon the bandwagon of realpolitik geopolitical interests and that too often the terms of the dialogue have been set by nation-states and governments who are, in terms of their status as actors and agents in the dialogue process, not the best models of dialogue at work. If and when the dialogue process is beholden to the state and the interests of governments, they become useless for the simple reason that what we have instead are dialogues between elites who are really talking politics rather than ethics, and what often passes as dialogue is little more than the meeting of kings, presidents and prime ministers that take place in plush hotels and sponsored by corporate giants. Precious little time is spent on serious philosophical discussion and instead more time devoted to photo sessions and celebrity talk shows. This is, frankly, useless and a waste of public resources.

Secondly there is always the attendant worry that during such abstracted dialogues when subjectivities are squeezed out of the discussion all we have left are abstracted discussions that create and perpetuate the divisions they purportedly aim to overcome in the first place. The very notion that there is a singular, simplied ‘West’ that can dialogue with an equally simplified ‘Muslim world’ is self-defeating and gets us nowhere, save to prop up the very same stereotypes that have bedevilled real dialogue all along.

But the real danger we face is an epistemic as well as ontological one: In many of these dialogue initiatives there is the propensity to present the ‘Muslim’ as a fully completed and fully defined subject that is complete, static and mono-dimensional. At the risk of repeating the trite observation of there being ‘many Islams’ or many Muslim realities, we nonetheless emphasise that crude metaphors aside, this is the truth as well: That Muslim subjectivity is complex and therefore cannot and should not be reduced to primordial essentialisms.

My worry here lies in the fact that the terms of dialogue themselves are often not balanced, and indeed there is sometimes dialogue where the two sides are not even of the same ontological status: The ‘Muslim subject’ that is invited to dialogue is assumed to be a fully-constituted and defined subject whose identity is determined in the most complete sense. This in a way repeats the same old Orientalist myth of the colonial other as being fully defined by Culture, History or some kind of exotic primordial essentialism that is all-powerful and all-encompassing.

The ‘Western subject’ however is cast as a more complex entity that is free and able to engage in his/her own existentialist wanderings and search for truth, and is seen as being intellectually as well as psychologically alert, endowed with agency and choice, and capable of self-reflection, objective distance and auto-critique.

Put together, these straw figures then enact the concert of dialogue which is actually more of a courtship of the universal rational subject (blind to his/her own eurocentrism) for the Muslim subject that has to be persuaded,taught, cajolled or compelled to shed his essentialist attachments and adopt a more fluid sense of selfhood and identity. But tell me, when were Muslims ever such fully determined and impoverished subjects in the first place?

Dialogue has to begin from the standpoint of respect and recognition of the Other, even when the other is a complex other. The Muslim Other is such an other whose own identity is a case of work-in-progress rather than a completed edifice with the garden installed and the curtains hung.

It is imperative to recognise the fact that millions of ordinary Muslims claim that Islam defines them, their values and their choice of actions and behaviour. But at the same time this centring of Islam in the lives of Muslims does not and should not imply that Muslim identity is fully constituted or achieved from day one.

For Muslim identity is also a project, that plays with the double-meaning of the word: Being a Muslim is a personal project, a life-quest, a setting of the compass in a certain moral or ethical direction; but it is also a project that – like all projects – is deferred and whose completion may come later, or even never.

Muslims are Muslims not because they are fully constituted thus, but rather Muslims because they wish to be so and are trying to reach that goal. The self-identification of ‘Muslim’ here works in the operative sense as a statement of intention as well as Identity: To declare oneself a Muslim (or Christian, Hindu, Budhist, etc) is as much a statement of a goal or ambition as it is a statement of self-identity.

If we see Muslim identity in these terms, then we remind ourselves that all human subjectivities are never fully constituted from the start but rather are negotiated subjectivities that need to be developed and constantly redefined and built upon. This restores agency and rational choice to Muslims, and reminds all of us that Muslims – like everyone else – are likewise on the path to self-discovery and fulfilment of identity.

This also explains why some Muslim intellectuals and activists are wary of the dialogue process, for it tends to cast the Muslim subject as a given, fixed and closed off entity that cannot progress any further. Those who object to the dialogue process on these terms do so not because they think dialogue is useless or cannot lead to better understanding, but rather because they think that by framing Muslims thus as closed subjects, understanding has already been denied and rendered impossible.

So how do we get any really meaningful dialogue off the ground and to give us some really interesting results? For a start, we need to restore to the Muslim subject its contingency, complexity and above all rational agency in the manner in which Muslims live and make their life-choices. To stop thinking of Muslims as determined and fixed zombie-like automatons would be a start. This would then entail accepting that when a Muslim (or Christian, Hindu, Buddhist or whomever) states that religion is the center of his life this is not an absolute statement that denies the reality of a more complex identity-in-formation and in-the-making.

Muslims – like other religious people – who place Islam at the centre of their lives are merely setting an Islamic compass needle for their future development and life-path. But the needle points the way, and is not the journey itself. Being religiously inclined and ethically concerned does not deny the possibility of engagement with a world that is shaped by secular details on its landscape; and indeed religious people live with and adapt to the secular realities around them all the time.

Such a dialogue that sees Muslims as being religious and ethical – and more importantly rationally religious and ethical by choice – will restore an equal status to the dialogue partner who has hitherto been typecast as an  emissary of the revenge of God. Dialogue does not guarantee peace and love, and dialogue cannot even make us like each other. But even if dialogue leads us only to respectful antagonism, let that antagonism be shaped by respect where the rational agency and choice of the religious other is acknowledged and respected at least. It may not lead us to the happy world of the Teletubbies, but at least it allows us to understand each other on the basis of universal respect.