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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

November 9, 2009

Generasi Gelombang Kebangkitan Asia

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.

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

]]> http://dinmerican.wordpress.com/2009/11/08/down-memory-lane-with-sodomy-1-trial-will-najib-do-a-mahathir-on-anwar-ibrahim/feed/ 5 Din Merican RPK-2009 Augustine Paul