Dr M and sovereignty

— Ronald Benjamin

The Malaysian Insider

Aug 20, 2011

AUG 20 — Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad’s speech that the Malay community has been split into three groups and that this could create a scenario for foreign intervention is another type of opinion that does not understand the nature of politics and what makes a nation vulnerable to foreign intervention.

This type of view has been used by authoritarian leaders around the world on the pretext of safeguarding national sovereignty but who contradict themselves by building political barriers for their own people with laws and economic systems that infringe on human dignity.

This in turn gives opportunities to foreign powers to manipulate shortcomings in these nations with larger agendas in mind.

The question is how could a nation call itself sovereign when it denies its own people the right to express themselves?

Don’t the privatisation policies embraced by Dr Mahathir for the benefit of the connected few at the expense of the majority go against the very grain of national sovereignty?

Where does the so-called ideology of neo-liberalism come from? Is it not the powers that Dr Mahathir is trying to protect the nation from?

Does not the Malaysian Gini co-efficient of 0.45 show equity issues from the time of Dr Mahathir? Is it not true that the common good of the majority is a better reflection of what constitutes national sovereignty? How could so-called ethnic unity be really achieved with such glaring discrepancy?

Do we find other developing nations using ethno-religious ideology as the means to achieving and clinging on to power? Why are many Islamic nations are not progressing? Is it due to authoritarian, rigid religious ideology that has impeded creativity and freedom?

Therefore it is vital to understand that substance related to national sovereignty is something beyond opposing policies of the West politically, but to look critically on the ideological make-up of our own nation and the equality aspect that defines the political economic and social scenario.

When we look at countries in the developed and developing world, we see homogeneous societies divided by opinions and class but we do not find foreign powers interfering with them because these societies have strong democratic systems that absorb and neutralise grievances.

Developing nations like Venezuela have shown how citizen participation in grassroots movement have neutralised imperialistic designs of foreign powers. Bringing in the foreign bogeyman would not solve the problems associated with unity.

Being honest and coming up with innovative ideas on the political, economic and social fronts that involve the participation of the common men and women in the country would be a better option. This is would enhance national sovereignty in the long run.

                This entry was posted on Sunday, 21 August 2011, 11:53 am and is filed under
Mahathir
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Anwar: “I categorically deny the charge against me.”

DALAM MAHKAMAH TINGGI DI KUALA LUMPUR

DALAM WILAYAH PERSEKUTUAN

PERBICARAAN JENAYAH NO: 45-9-2009

PENDAKWA RAYA

LAWAN

DATO’ SERI ANWAR BIN IBRAHIM

STATEMENT FROM THE DOCK

My name is Anwar bin Ibrahim. I am the leader of the Opposition in Parliament. In the 1990s, I was the Finance Minister and Deputy Prime Minister until September 1998 when then Prime Minister Dato’ Seri Dr Mahathir bin Mohamad sacked me after I had refused to resign. He had told me to resign or face dire consequences including criminal prosecution for alleged sexual and corruption offences. I refused and all hell broke loose. My unceremonious and grossly unjust dismissal simultaneously orchestrated with a trial by media under Mahathir’s complete control triggered mass and widespread demonstrations throughout the country and launched the movement for change and reform known in our history as the Reformasi era.

After a series of show trials during which every rule in the book on evidence and criminal procedure was violated with impunity at the hands of the prosecution and the courts, I was convicted and sentenced to a total of 15 years.

THE CHARGE AGAINST ME

First and foremost, I categorically deny the charge against me. I want to state in no uncertain terms that I have never had any sexual relations with the complainant Mohamed Saiful. His allegation is a blatant and vicious lie and will be proved to be so.

This is a vile and despicable attempt at character assassination.  In this regard, let me reiterate that they can do all they want to assassinate my character and sully my reputation and threaten me with another 20 years of imprisonment but mark my words, they won’t be able to cow me into submission. On the contrary, it only serves to fortify my conviction that the truth will eventually prevail. Come what come may, I shall never surrender. With apologies to Jean Racine in Phaedra:

“You know how well your tyranny favours my temperament and strengthens me to guard the honour of my reputation.”

Yes indeed, I will guard it with my life if I have to. And if I may bring the message closer to home, let me quote the words of Nelson Mandela in his speech made from the dock in the famous Rivonia show trial of 1963 under the Apartheid regime:

“I have fought against white domination, and I have fought against black domination. I have cherished the ideal of a democratic and free society in which all persons live together in harmony and with equal opportunities. It is an ideal which I hope to live for and to achieve. But if needs be, it is an ideal for which I am prepared to die.”

Back in 1998, blindfolded and handcuffed, I was beaten senseless by the Inspector General of Police and left to die in the lock up at the Federal Police headquarters. However, it was by the grace of God that a few of the rank and file of the police took pity on me and nursed me to recover from the near lethal blows. There was then a cover up by Gani Patail (now the Attorney-General) and Musa Hassan (the IGP at the time that I was charged in this new episode) with the full knowledge and connivance of Dato’ Yusuf, the current chief prosecutor in this trial. All these personalities were linked in one way or the other with the 1998 show trial and more insidiously with the suppression of evidence in respect of the black eye scandal and attempts to pervert the course of justice. These are the same personalities who are now actively involved in the current prosecution against me. Res ipsa loquitur, as they say, but in this regard I’m not talking about negligence but rather proof of criminality in this heinous plot betraying indeed “the deep damnation” of the conspiracy.

The circumstances are compelling that I elect to make a statement from the dock. And in this statement I shall attempt my utmost to place the truth ahead of the web of lies and deceit that has been spun thus far. To quote Shakespeare:

“And let us once again assail your ears,

That are so fortified against our story…”

Which has set me from the outset of the trial to have been deprived of a level playing field and subjected to inequality of arms vis-a-vis the prosecution.

The Prosecution’s Failure to Discharge its Duties Professionally

1) Even though these matters are done as a matter of routine in criminal proceedings, the Prosecution has consistently refused to disclose material critical to my defence, including: (a) prosecution witness list; (b) primary hospital examination notes written by the medical examiners of the complainant at HBKL; (c) witness statements (including that of complainant); and (d) forensic samples and exhibits for independent examination and verification. All this has caused considerable prejudice to my defence and occasioned grave injustice. The only conclusion that one can reasonably draw from the prosecution’s persistence in this act of perversity is that unseen hands are at work and it is certainly not the hand of God.

2) Your failure to respond during the course of the trial to several attempts by persons hostile to me to discredit me by commenting on aspects of the trial. These included whether I should provide samples of his DNA; blaming the defence for the delay of the proceedings; and reporting on matters that were the subject of a suppression order. These public comments were made either in defiance of your orders that they not be made. They were made by UMNO officials and politicians, including Dato’ Seri Najib orchestrated through the controlled electronic and print media, such as Utusan Malaysia, Berita Harian, the New Straits Times and TV3. The constant comments by the Prime Minister and UMNO officials in the media and adverse comments on the progress of the trial were clearly calculated to influence you and illustrates the political motive behind the charge.

3) The latest act of blatant disregard occurred just last Tuesday and Wednesday over TV3 which broadcasted a pre-recorded interview with the complainant saying things which are clearly in contempt of the proceedings in respect of the trial. In particular, the audacious portrayal of himself as the victim who is a pious and God fearing Muslim who has sworn on the Quran that he is a witness of truth.

4) But the truth is that even as the trial was in progress, the complainant who was engaged to someone else was shamelessly having an affair with a member of the prosecution team. Quite apart from the consequences of such an affair on the conduct of the prosecution, the complainant’s facade of moral rectitude is shattered by this scandalous affair with the lady prosecutor who herself was also engaged with another man.

5) In spite of all this, the complainant, assisted by the full force of the UMNO propaganda machine, via their media, has gone to town to vilify me. The point is that all comments were calculated to discredit me, adversely influence the course of the proceedings and to intimidate the witnesses at the trial. In spite of all these blatant transgressions, you have persistently refused to respond to any of these acts of contemptuous behaviour.

The solemn duty of a judge is not to sit mute when the law provides for a court of its own motion to issue show-cause notices against those who interfere in the administration of justice. I am reminded of the maxim Judex Habere Debet Duos Sales, Salem Sapicutiae, Ne Sit Insipidus, Et Salem Conscientiea, Ne Sit Diabolous, the English translation of which is,

‘A judge should have two salts, the salt of wisdom, lest he be insipid; and the salt of conscience, lest he be devilish’.

The office of a judge is one of the most honourable in the country; he is the voice of the legislator and the organ for dispensing justice; he holds the balance between the executive and the subject.

Even more significantly, in the discharge of his duties, the judge should be mindful of Allah’s command:

“…and let not hatred of others

Swerve you into error

And depart from justice.

Be just, that is nearer to piety

Fear Allah, For Allah is

well acquainted with all that you do”

Surah al-maidah: 8

In the middle of the Second World War in 1942, Lord Atkin, in Liversidge v Anderson, had occasion to say in the House of Lords,

‘It has long been one of the pillars of freedom…that the judges are no respecters of persons and stand between the subject and any attempted encroachment on his liberty by the executive, alert to see that any coercive action is justified by law’

In my case, Y.A., presiding in an adversarial trial, had the residual power and the jurisdiction to have invoked Y.A.’s powers relating to contempt of court. Y.A. chose not to do so for reasons best known to Y.A.. What has happened is not in the best traditions of the Judiciary. In the ongoing Banting murder trial, the learned trial judge in that case, Y.A. Datuk Akhtar Tahir, took it upon himself to summon a local television producer over a clip it aired during its prime news slot relating to the defence in the murder trial of Datuk Sosilawati Lawiya and three others. A newspaper clipping of that report is annexed herewith. Y.A. Datuk Akhtar Tahir has courageously demonstrated judicial activism in the name of human rights and the essential requirement of a fair trial.

To compound the position to incredulity, the open scandal relating to DPP Farah Azlina Latiff having an affair with PW1 did not concern Y.A. This invidious relationship should have alerted Y.A. in that I was been denied a fair trial for the simple reason that Farah Azlina Latiff would have had access to the investigation papers being a member of the prosecution’s team and, therefore, PW1 would, through this relationship, would have had knowledge of the statements given by witnesses, including my alibi witnesses in the course of the investigation.

Y.A. did not even chastise Farah Azlina Latiff for the illicit affair with SP1. All that was done was that Farah Azlina Latiff was taken off the prosecution team at the behest of the prosecution which was an open confirmation of the existence of that illicit affair. Farah Azlina Latiff did not deny the allegations against her. Neither was PW1 recalled by the prosecution to deny the existence of this unsavoury affair.

The Attorney-General had publicly stated the reasons would be given later to account for the sordid affair. That has yet to eventuate.

Yet, in the face of this, Y.A., at the close of the prosecution case, made a finding that PW1 was a truthful witness from this passage in the judgment as follows,

‘Nothing came out from the lengthy cross-examination of PW1 or from the evidence of other prosecution’s witnesses that could suggest what PW1 had told in his evidence was something which was not probable. I find PW1’s evidence remains intact. He had truthfully and without embellishment or exaggeration in his evidence narrated in minute detail how he was sodomised by the accused on the date and at the place stated in the charge. I find him to be truthful witness and his evidence is reliable and if accepted would establish all the facts required to prove the charge against the accused.’

My lawyers had clearly made the submission that Y.A. had made a prejudgment when Y.A. ought to have only made findings as to who was telling the truth at the conclusion of the defence, in which event, I would have given evidence under oath. My lawyers did not, at any time, advert to the passage above in isolation. They zeroed in on the obvious, namely, whether a witness was truthful or not had to be decided at the close of the defence case. The provisions of section 182A(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code provided the judge with that guidance but to no avail. That section bears repeating. It states:

‘At the conclusion of the trial, the court shall consider all the evidence adduced before it and shall decide whether the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt.’

Pursuant to what I have stated above, I have been denied the benefit of putting up my defence under oath. That amounts to deprivation of a fair trial and the existence of a level playing field.

The Court of Appeal going out of line

My appeal to the Court of Appeal over the recusal of Y.A. on account of prejudgment, following which would have resulted in biasness was heard on 6th July, 2011. A copy of the order is annexed herewith. No written judgment was handed down by the Court of Appeal on 6th July. The appeal was dismissed summarily on the preliminary objection taken by the prosecution that the order appealed against was not a final order. Those were the reasons given in open court. Nothing more, nothing less. The Court of Appeal took no more than five minutes to dispose of the appeal.

Unbeknownst to me or my lawyers, there was at the same time a 40-page judgment under the hand of Y.A. Datuk Haji Abdul Malik Bin Haji Ishak also dated 6th July, 2011. A copy of that judgment is annexed herewith.

Why did the Court of Appeal not read out the 91 paragraphed grounds of judgment dated 6th July on 6th July itself? Obviously, this judgment was at hand on 6th July but had surreptitiously been concealed from my knowledge and the knowledge of the public. The letter dated 11th August, 2011 supplying a copy of this judgment to my lawyers is annexed herewith. As is usual, Y.A. must have had the benefit of reading this judgment which will further exacerbate your bias against me. The judgment is an open and flagrant attack on me to which I will advert in due course. Suffice to say at this juncture that here is a judgment of the Court of Appeal written after 6th July, 2011 which contains harsh criticism against me without my being given the opportunity to reply.

But that begs the question: the appeal had been dismissed in limine on the ground that the order appealed against was not a final order. That should have been the end of the matter because it followed that the court had no jurisdiction to entertain the appeal. [Y.A. Datuk Haji Abdul Malik Bin Haji Ishak sat mute during the course of submissions on the preliminary objection]. The matter did not go beyond into the merits. That is what the Court of Appeal announced on 6th July without going an inch further. The preliminary objection is adverted to, not as the main part of the judgment. The major part of the judgment goes beyond. It is a frolic of his own used for the purpose of hitting out at me.

If that was so, why did Datuk Haji Abdul Malik Bin Haji Ishak embark upon a relentless attack on me in the rest of the judgment? In fact, he had no jurisdiction to do so. This is a blatant abuse of judicial power, perhaps in a surreptitious attempt to curry favours of the political masters? Otherwise, how else can one explain as to why he embarked upon such a scurrilous attack on me by stating in the following paragraphs as numbered:

‘[5]	This case will fall in history. It will be chronicled as the only known case in our country or for that matter within the Commonwealth enclave where the appellant as an accused person persistently and consistently filed one application after another in an attempt to recuse the learned trial judge from hearing and continuing to hear the sodomy trial which is ongoing.

[6]	It seems that the appellant here is trying his level best to scuttle his sodomy trial for reasons best known to him, much to the chagrin of the prosecution and the exasperation of the members of the public at large.

[15]	It was certainly an uncalled for criticism [against the learned judge] bent to deceive and confuse the uninitiated. It is easy to criticise but it is always difficult to justify it.

[18] 	It is also difficult for us to accept that the Notice of Motion was filed out of a genuine belief that the learned trial judge had been biased against the appellant.

[49]	The charge graphically described what the appellant did to Mohd Saiful Bukhari Bin Azlan [PW1.] [It is elementary that it is the evidence, not the charge, which proves an offence].

[50]	The trial was unduly prolonged. It received wide media coverage.

[56]	After such a fine display of judicial impropriety, Y.A. Datuk Haji Abdul Malik Bin Haji Ishak now has audacity to patronize us about a sound judicial system by stating, in what sounds like a broken symbol, as follows:

‘The perquisites of a sound judicial system are independence and impartiality. For an effective and a strong judicial system, the impartiality of its judges are of paramount importance. But it cannot be denied that the public’s confidence in the judicial system is shaped and moulded more by appearances.

Y.A. Datuk Haji Abdul Malik Bin Haji Ishak rather ungraciously, and without jurisdiction, took a swipe at the judgment of his brother judges of the Court of Appeal including Richard Malanjum, now Chief Judge (Sabah and Sarawak), with the obvious purpose of humiliating them when stating:

‘[72]	Rowstead did not consider the “real danger of bias” test in determining whether the learned JC should have recused himself notwithstanding the Federal Court had earlier on applied the said test in:

(a)  Majlis Perbandaran Pulau Pinang v Syarikat Bekerjasama-sama Serbaguna Sungai Gelugor dengan Tanggungan [1999] 3 MLJ 1, FC; and

(b) Mohamed Ezam bin Mohd Nor & Ors v Ketua Polis Negara [2002] 1 MLJ 321, FC

[73] 	Consequently, Rowstead’s suggestion that the request for recusal to be heard

by another judge is quite radical. We categorically say that the recusal request, like the present matter, was rightly heard at the first instance by the learned trial judge and followed by this court.

[74]	Rowstead did not consider nor ventilate on section 3 of the CJA read with section 50(1)(a) of the CJA and the Explanatory Statement thereto.

[75]	The recusal application housed in the Notice of Motion concerned a long protracted trial that saw the legal manoeuvrings activated by the appellant at every nook and corner in an attempt to scuttle the criminal trial of the appellant for an offence of sodomising PW1. It is the mother of all trials in Malaysia.’

	[I had every right to exhaust all legal remedies open to me. No attempt has been made by anyone, or any quarter, to prevent me from doing so by seeking an order to declare me a vexatious litigant].

As alluded to earlier in this statement, Y.A. would have had the advantage of reading this judgment after it was distributed by letter dated 11th August, 2011. This, in effect, amounts to placing, by Y.A. Datuk Haji Abdul Malik Bin Haji Ishak, alleged bad character evidence on my behalf.

In view of this, how can I get a fair trial or even the semblance of one before the trial judge now who has been further put in a position to compound biasness against me?

How can I possibly give evidence under oath when the DPP has, in his possession, the same judgment which could be used against me in cross-examination? Y.A. cannot be disabused of what has been fed to Y.A. by Y.A. Datuk Haji Abdul Malik Bin Haji Ishak when delivering a judgment dated 6th July, 2011 which obviously, having regard to the length thereof, must have been prepared well before 6th July, 2011.

This is scandalous.

Then again, why wasn’t the judgment which, even if written after midnight on 5th July, 2011 read out in open court so that I could counter and demolish all the allegations made against me by Y.A. Datuk Haji Abdul Malik Bin Haji Ishak?

It is elementary no one should be condemned, unheard. This is axiomatic. As far back as 12th August, 1999 the Federal Court, the highest court in the land, in Insas Bhd and Anor v Ayer Molek Rubber Company Bhd and others had occasion, after adverting to the authorities on the position to rule,

‘The offensive remarks made by the Court of Appeal against the High Court, the applicants and their counsel ought to be expunged from the judgment of the Court of Appeal, as it had a tendency to bring the whole administration of law and order into disrepute. Judicial pronouncements should be judicial in nature and should not depart from sobriety, moderation, and reserve. It also should not display emotion and intemperance, as displayed in the judgment of the Court of Appeal.’

Adverting to an Indian Supreme Court case of State of Uttar Pradesh v Mohd Naim, the Federal Court had occasion to adopt what was said there as follows;

‘If there is one principle of cardinal importance in the administration of justice, it is this: the proper freedom and independence of judges and magistrates must be maintained and they must be allowed to perform      their functions freely and fearlessly and without undue interference by anybody, even by this court. At the same time it is equally necessary that in expressing their opinions, judges and magistrates must be guided by considerations of justice, fair play and restraint. It is not infrequent that sweeping generalizations defeat the very purpose for which they are made. It has been judicially recognized that in the matter of making disparaging remarks against persons or authorities whose conduct comes into consideration before courts of law in cases to be decided by them, it is relevant to consider: (a) whether the party  whose conduct is in question is before the court or has an opportunity of explaining or defending himself; (b) whether there is evidence on  record bearing on that conduct justifying the remarks; and (c) whether  it is necessary for the decision of the case, as an integral part thereof, to animadvert on conduct. It has also been recognized that judicial pronouncements must be judicial in nature, and should not normally depart from sobriety, moderation and reserve.’

In Insas, the Federal Court adopted what was said in AM Mathur v Pramod Kumar Gupta & Ors  when dismissing an apparently unsustainable review petition which had certain derogatory remarks against Mr AM Mathur, a senior advocate and also the ex-Advocate General of the State. The Court had occasion to hold,

‘Judicial restraint and discipline are as necessary to the orderly administration of justice as they are to the effectiveness of the army. The duty of restraint, this humility of function should be a constant theme of our judges. This quality in decision-making is as much necessary for judges to command respect as to protect the independence of the judiciary. Judicial restraint in this regard might be better called judicial respect, that is, respect by the judiciary. Respect to those who come before the court as well as to other co-ordinate branches of the State, the executive and the legislature. There must be mutual respect. When these qualities fail or when litigants and public believe that the judge has failed in these qualities, it will be neither good for the judge nor for the judicial process. The Judge’s Bench is a seat of power. Not only do judges have power to make binding decisions, their decisions legitimate the use of power by other officials. The judges have the absolute and unchallengeable control of the court domain. But they cannot misuse their authority by intemperate comments, undignified banter of scathing criticism of counsel, parties or witnesses. We concede that the court had the inherent power to act freely upon its own conviction on any matter coming before it for adjudication, but it is a general principle of the highest importance to the proper administration of justice that derogatory remarks ought not to be made against persons or authorities whose conduct comes into consideration unless it is absolutely necessary for the decision of the case to animadvert on their conduct.’

Chief Justice of India, Bhagwati, in State of Madya Pradesh & Ors v Nandlal & Ors, in expressing his strong disapproval of the strictures made by the judge, stated:

‘We may observe in conclusion that judges should not use strong and carping language while criticizing the conduct of parties or their witnesses. They must act with sobriety, moderation and restraint. They must have the humility to recognize that they are not infallible and any harsh and disparaging strictures passed by them against any party may be mistaken and unjustified and if so, they may do considerable harm and mischief and result in injustice. Here, in the present case, the observations made and strictures passed by BM Lal J were totally unjustified and unwarranted and they ought not to have been made.’

How could I under these circumstances give evidence under oath?

Y.A., when making the order for the witnesses offered to the defence for interview in court, gave a lifeline to the witnesses in stating in open court that they could refuse to be interviewed. Y.A. did not in doing so evenly handle the scales of justice. Y.A. created and perpetuated an imbalance unbecoming anyone holding the mantle of justice. In fact, the Prime Minister, Dato’ Seri Najib Tun Razak, and his wife, Datin Seri Rosmah binti Mansor, former Inspector General of Police, Tan Sri Musa Hassan, and SAC Dato’ Rodhwan bin Ismail who featured prominently in the evidence of PW1 came to the interview room echoing similar protests namely, “We are not prepared to be interviewed” with the Prime Minister saying Y.A. suggested this could be done. These were material witnesses compelling the defence now to resort to causing subpoenas to be issued for their presence.

Y.A. has created a position under which I cannot give evidence under oath. I say, with all the force at my command, that I would have been prepared and willing to give evidence under oath but for the handicaps foisted on me, in the manner Y.A. has conducted the trial and in the manner in which the Court of Appeal judgment dated 6th July, 2011 would have come to the notice of Y.A. with regard to what I have stated herein before.

My trial is an adversarial one and Y.A. ought not to have descended into the arena by suggesting witnesses offered to the defence could deny to be interviewed. It did not come within the province of Y.A. to do so.

My alibi witnesses made known to the prosecution were in fact included in the prosecution list of witnesses which was not supplied to my lawyers. They were defence alibi witnesses. I am informed this is the first time this has been done.

In fact, the owner of the unit 11-5-2, Haji Hasanuddin bin Abd Hamid, had been harassed by the police for  a total of thirty hours in the recording of his statements which were all video recorded. This was obvious when he was interviewed by the defence lawyers in my presence. The police investigation has scuttled my defence.

To make a mockery of the situation, the prosecution offered at the close of their case an alibi witness named, Fitria binti Dipan, who by their own admission cannot be traced.

THE COMPLAINANT’S ALLEGATIONS ARE PURE FABRICATION

As I have said at the outset, I categorically deny the allegations made against me by the complainant.

The complainant stated in evidence on 26th June, 2008 he arrived at Kondominium Desa Damansara at 2.45 p.m. to discuss work matters and hand-over documents given to him by one Ibrahim Yaakob [my Chief of Staff] to myself. He says he stopped his van at the security post and mentioned the code name ‘Mokhtar’ to the guards at the condominium before being allowed in. He parked his vehicle and took the lift to Unit 11-5-1 where I was allegedly seated at a dining table in the living room. He says he sat down at the same table and started the discussion. He told the court of the crude manner in which I had allegedly asked for sex.

The following appears in his evidence thereafter (as attached)

When questioned, he answered that he was angry and scared and that he was not prepared to do it but purportedly because I had appeared angry, he eventually obliged. It has to be observed at this stage the complainant could have, on his own admission in examination-in-chief, left the room as there is no evidence of any attempt by me to latch the door from inside.

He had further alleged that he was ordered into the bedroom and that he did enter out of fear. Even at this stage, the complainant had the opportunity to leave the living room. He did not do so. The rest of the evidence in this regard clearly showed that the complainant had every opportunity on every occasion to flee but he did not do so. His reason was that he was petrified by fear. But such a reason flies against the facts. Here is a man in his early twenties, a six-footer, physically fit and robust and with powerful connections in the top police brass as well as the political elite with access to the very inner sanctum of power. Additionally, he has also been a key UMNO student operative, having undergone the rigorous training conducted by the Biro Tats Negara of the Prime Minister’s Department. And here I was a 60-year-old man with a history of back injury who had undergone a major back surgery holding no position of power. If indeed I could have exercised any kind of undue influence or mental pressure on him, this could have been easily neutralized by a quick phone call to his connections. As regards the fear of physical harm, it would take a great stretch of the imagination to suggest that I could pose any physical harm to him.

Under cross-examination, the following significant evidence was elicited from the complainant. He admitted that he had brought along lubricant and had himself voluntarily and without hesitation applied it. He claimed that carnal intercourse took place and that it was painful and coarse. However, this was clearly not borne out in the medical evidence in the prosecution case suggesting fissures or tears. After the alleged act, he testified that he had a drink and engaged in a friendly conversation with me. Startlingly, no attempt was made by the complainant to seek immediate medical attention. Instead, he attended a PKR function the following day. In the evening, he joined a meeting of the Anwar Ibrahim Club at my house without showing any sign of either emotional or physical discomfort let alone trauma. On the contrary, he was going about matters in a calm and confident manner. His conduct therefore is totally inconsistent with having been violated. In any event, he neither made a police report nor sought medical attention, notwithstanding that two days prior to the alleged act, he had met with Najib and Rosmah as well having talked on the phone with Musa Hassan and met with Rodhwan at a hotel.

It is obvious, from the evidence above, that the complainant was lying through his teeth although Y.A., despite the compelling evidence to the contrary, found him a truthful witness at the close of the prosecution case. This defies logic, let alone the law.

Then again, the expert evidence with regard to DNA led in the course of prosecution case through PW4, Dr. Seah Lay Hong and PW5, Nor Aidora bt Saedon was highly questionable in that crucial information pertaining to the DNA analysis of both the said witnesses which they were obliged to furnish to the court was suspiciously withheld despite them confirming the existence of such information. The real possibility that the samples analyzed were contaminated and even planted were completely disregarded despite such possibilities coming clearly within guidelines set by the international forensic community which were completely ignored, if not, blatantly disregarded by PW4 and PW5 to fit the prosecution’s case. It is obvious had the said possibilities been explored, the conclusions reached would have been very different in that the complainant’s own semen was found in his own anus, there was ample evidence of contributors other than Male Y around the complainant’s perianal, lower and higher rectal region and there was clear evidence of the samples having been tampered with before they were sent for analysis. In such circumstances, the integrity of the said samples was surely compromised. Furthermore, the impartiality of PW4 was highly questionable having regard to the way in which she completely dismissed the very high possibility that the samples sent to her would have degraded to a certain degree by the time they reached her which such degradation was completely absent from all samples in this case. This clearly points to the obvious reality that the samples sent for analysis could not have been what were extracted from the complainant’s person.

Trial within a Trial

The Gestapo-like manner in which I was arrested and the subsequent detention and interrogation by the police all betrayed the hands of the political masters at work. What was the need to send in balaclava clad commandos to effect the arrest if not to attempt to flex political muscle and to display pure vindictiveness? These startling facts were completely ignored by Y.A.

Y.A. had made an earlier ruling to exclude the recovery of certain items including water bottle, Good Morning towel, tooth paste from the lock-up at IPK, Kuala Lumpur where I had been detained overnight from 16.7.08 to 17.7.08. However, you reversed this ruling subsequently which is something most shocking and unprecedented.

Although in the Trial Within a Trial, I had adverted to the role of Taufik and Supt. Jude Pereira, the prosecution elected only to call Taufik in rebuttal in the Trial Within a Trial. Taufik attempted to produce a photostat copy of the warrant of arrest which was only marked as an ID and, therefore, could not be considered as evidence in the Trial Within a Trial. A photostat copy of a document is not admissible as evidence in a court of law. It was in the Trial Within a Trial that primary evidence of the document ought to have been given if the original record had been lost or destroyed.

The prosecution could not, by producing the original warrant of arrest in the main trial, cure the infirmity. It is in evidence that 3 copies of the warrant of arrest were in the possession of Supt. Jude Pereira. The evidence of the warrant of arrest was available during the Trial Within a Trial.

Even Supt. Jude Periera, whose role was adverted to by me during the Trial Within a Trial, chose not to take the stand despite having had the opportunity to have produced the original copy of the warrant of arrest in the Trial Within a Trial.

It was during the Trial Within a Trial that Supt.Jude Periera should have testified. It was clearly unlawful for the court to accept Supt. Jude Periera’s evidence in the general trial for the purpose of rebutting my evidence in the Trial Within a Trial that the DNA profiling from the Good Morning towel, toothbrush and mineral water bottle had been obtained by unfair methods and unfair means and my arrest, therefore, had been procured unlawfully.

In fact, Supt. Jude Periera’s evidence in the general trial confirms that there had been non-compliance with Rule 20 of the Lock-up Rules, 1953 in that I, after my arrest on 16.7.08, had not been placed in the lock-up from 6pm to 6am the following day. The provisions of Rule 20 are mandatory.

If this was the position in our case, which it was, then, clearly, my being taken to the HKL in breach of Rule 20 reflected unfair means and unfair methods being employed by the police to obtain the DNA profiling from the items set out hereinbefore. The position is further compounded by the evidence of Supt. Jude Periera in the general trial that he did not direct police personnel in charge of the lock-up not to touch the said items despite the police personnel in the general trial before the Trial Within a Trial, clearly, saying that Supt. Jude Periera had done so.

So the position comes to this, Supt. Jude Periera, in his evidence on oath in the main trial, supports the defence case that unfair methods and unfair means had been used by the police to obtain DNA profiling from the items set out hereinbefore.

From the ruling made by the court to exclude the items, it is clear it was based on unfair means and unfair methods employed by the police meaning it was by trick and deception that the police attempted to introduce the DNA evidence.

In any event, from the evidence of DSP Taufik given in the Trial Within a Trial and the general trial, the grounds of arrest could not have been given by him to me in Segambut as this is, clearly, contradicted by the evidence of S.N. Nair and myself.

The question of challenging evidence given in the main trial by DSP Taufik and Supt. Jude Periera does not arise. It was the assertions made under oath by me that my arrest was unlawful and unfair methods and unfair means had been used to obtain his DNA profiling in the Trial Within a Trial stood unchallenged by the prosecution by leading lawful evidence in rebuttal of those assertions. In fact, Y.A. should have drawn an adverse inference against the prosecution for not having done so.

FORENSIC EVIDENCE

The prosecution case rests on the evidence of the DNA and so called “findings of seminal fluid” or “sperm” as they claim. As a matter of fact, this is the only forensic evidence upon which the foundation of the prosecution’s so-called proof rests. Yet, this foundation is erected on shaky grounds though this has not prevented them working in hand in glove with the powers that be to mount an insidious and relentless campaign to vilify me.

The fact is that there is not an iota of evidence, DNA or otherwise, that has ever been found in the premises of the alleged act, not in the wash room, bed room, carpets or anywhere else where such evidence ought to have been found.

Supt. Pereira, despite being instructed to keep the HKL samples (marked B1 to B10) in a freezer, deliberately defied the instruction of Dr Siew Sheue Fong (HKL Forensic Doctor) and also admitted that he was in serious breach of the IGSO, (he even stated he took full and personal responsibility for breaking of the IGSO), when he deliberately kept the HKL samples in his office cabinet for about 43 hrs before delivering them to the Chemist. One must not forget that the alleged act was supposed to have occurred two days prior to the said samples having been extracted. Coupled with this 43-hour delay in delivery to the Chemist, it would mean that the samples were already at least 90 hours old by the time they were examined by the Chemist. Undoubtedly, the samples would have totally degraded. Yet evidence by the prosecution claimed that no degradation of any consequence had occurred.

In any event, even the 43-hour delay alone would have seriously compromised the integrity of the samples in terms of its deterioration due to bacterial action. Also, by not storing the samples in the police exhibit store (which will accord access only to him), his deliberate omission of such strict rules of the IGSO has by his very act, presented an opportunity and possibility of tampering of the samples as access to others was made easier. This was disregarded.

There are also no cogent or compelling reasons both in law and practice for Supt Jude Pereira to cut open P27 (the big tamperproof bag containing all the HKL samples which was sealed and handed over to him), ostensibly to remark them (B1 to B10). It is clear that this act was just a convenient excuse to get access to the individual samples which by themselves were clearly not tamperproof as they were deliberately “sealed” with ordinary and easily removable tapes and easily removable HKL paper seals.

Dr Siew Sheue Fong , as evident in court, was most reluctant to refer to his medical notes during cross examination despite being unable to remember details. During the break he was caught surreptitiously taking a sneak peek of his notes. This dishonest act of a professional doctor who ought to have conducted himself in a fair and independent manner was blatantly ignored. Many a time Dr. Siew and Dr Mohd Razali Ibrahim deliberately chose not to answer pertinent questions put to them by my counsel. Instead Dr Siew  and Dr Razali’s evidence was accepted without reservation.

Dr Seah Lay Hong  (the Chemist) gave evidence that when she received the 12 HKL samples there were 2 samples that were marked as taken on very different dates, she testified she did nothing to seek clarification from Dr Siew . She further testified that she “gave the benefit of doubt” to Dr Siew. My lawyers submitted strenuously that such acts and/or omissions amount to a serious breach of the cardinal rules of international lab protocols and those of the Jabatan Kimia Malaysia. Despite such blatant exposures and abject failures of non observance of strict rules, Dr Seah’s evidence was well received and in totality when it ought to have been jettisoned in totality for reasons of incompetence and gross negligence.

The defence evidence will show that the prosecution claim to have proof of the presence of “seminal fluid” or “sperm” is completely unfounded. In fact, this purported proof is nothing but pure fabrication, a fact which is not that unusual considering the past history of the prosecution in this regard. If they had had any such forensic evidence, they would have guarded it for dear life rather than let it being handled in such a sloppy manner.

SUMMATION

Your Lordship has failed to ensure a fair trial as demonstrated, inter alia, by the following instances:

1. Your refusal during the course of the trial to order disclosure of material critical to my defence, most of which you thought was sufficiently relevant and which fairness required that you should order it to be disclosed before the trial. Your failure to fairly and properly exercise his judicial discretion to order disclosure was not only contrary to Malaysian laws but violated the international standards expected of a modern state which purports to practice the rule of law.

2. Your refusal to act accordingly either to take cognizance or to hold to account those responsible for the flagrant acts of leaking and publishing in the media of prosecution submissions before the matter was heard in court; your utter indifference to my protestations about these transgressions has wittingly or unwittingly facilitated the conspiracy to vilify me in the court of public opinion even as the trial is in progress.

3. Your failure to order that witnesses critical to my defence attend the trial to testify, in circumstances where their involvement was patently material to the issues at trial and recorded under oath in the complainant’s testimony and admitted by statements made by these witnesses to the media. These witnesses relate to the circumstances in which the complainant came to make his early complaints against me. Nothing could be more material to the credit of the complainant.

4. Your finding the complainant to be “a truthful witness” at the close of the prosecution case clearly amounted to prejudgment demonstrating in the process a clear bias against me. Consequently, you have deprived me of my constitutionally guaranteed right to a fair hearing the effect of which is to entitle me to an unconditional release with the charges leveled against me falling to the ground. Notwithstanding this, you have not only failed to order my release but have adamantly refused to recuse yourself from further presiding at the trial.

5. Your arriving at the conclusion that the complainant was a witness of truth without first hearing the evidence of the defence would render the continuation of this trial an exercise in futility. What use would there be for me to adduce evidence to show that the complainant is in fact a liar if you have already found “him to be a truthful witness” and that his evidence is reliable and conclusive and by virtue of that irrefutable? It is untenable and the law does not allow you to do what you have done.

6. Your finding that the complainant has corroborated himself by complaining to the medical doctors of sexual assault was a glaring error of law apart from it being in gross disregard of a finding of fact, that is, that the clinical finding had indicated no evidence of penetration. Additionally, your failure to question why the prosecution has for no apparent reason refused to call in the first medical officer who had examined the complainant to testify. Did it not cross your mind that this failure was prompted by the need to suppress evidence that might be unfavourable to the prosecution?

7. Your accepting without hesitation the forensic evidence as corroborative of the complainant’s account in circumstances where there were obvious concerns about how those samples were obtained, labelled, stored and analyzed.

CONCLUSION

This entire process is nothing but a conspiracy by Prime Minister Dato’ Seri Najib Razak to send me into political oblivion by attempting once again to put me behind bars. I therefore declare that I have no faith whatsoever that justice will prevail in these proceedings notwithstanding the valiant efforts made by my defence team. As I have said at the outset, this is not a criminal trial. It is a charade staged by the powers that be to put me out of action in order that they remain in power.

In 1998, Tun Dr. Mahathir Mohamad did just that and by his Machiavellian use of all the organs of power of the State, succeeded in getting me convicted for fifteen years for offences that I had never committed. Such was the tyranny and injustice done to me then. And such is the tyranny and injustice being perpetuated today.

Najib Razak is doing the same thing as his mentor did, which is to employ all means within his power through the media, the police, the Attorney General and the judiciary in order to subvert the course of justice and to take me out of the political equation.

This relentless conviction to send me back to prison became all the more imperative because of the major victories gained by the opposition Pakatan Rakyat in the March 2008 elections. Their worst fears were confirmed when it became clear that once my legal disqualification was over I would be contesting for a parliamentary seat and if I won, would be elected leader of the opposition.

It was therefore no coincidence that this new conspiracy surfaced three months after the March 2008 victories and the formal charge against me was made just one month prior to my contesting the Permatang Pauh parliamentary seat. The sequence of events that unfolded prior to the formal charge appeared to be lifted from the plot of 1998 minus, in this latest episode, the black eye affair and the purported victims being led into court as partners in crime. In this second episode, the conspirators have tweaked the plot to make the complainant take on the role of a helpless victim, having realized that the 1998 method of employing Stalin-like confessions and the portrayal of the alleged victims as remorseful and repentant sexual deviants were just too much for the public to believe.

Hence, during the entire examination of the complainant, the prosecution left no stone unturned in their attempt at painting the picture of a helpless, naive and innocent young man who is a witness of truth and whose testimony should be believed regardless of any evidence to the contrary. The fact is that in the entire scheme of things, the complainant, who was just a university drop out working part time helping out my chief of staff, is essentially a pawn being employed by the shady plotters to achieve their devious ends in the conspiracy. And yet it was the decision of the court after the close of the prosecution case that he indeed is a truthful witness.

The preparation entailed in this conspiracy was most elaborate and went all the way to the Prime Minister himself and his wife Rosmah Mansor both of whom by the complainant’s own admission had met him in their residence where he purportedly complained of being sexually assaulted. The initial statement by Najib that he had met with the complainant merely to discuss about a scholarship was a blatant lie only to be retracted later after various exposes were made via the social media and the internet blogs. It was obvious that neither Najib nor Rosmah would not want to be seen to be part of the conspiracy being themselves embroiled in a series of other scandals the details of which have been raised in Parliament which to date have never been categorically refuted. But the stakes in this conspiracy are so high that nothing can be left to pure chance for indeed the prospect of the UMNO led Barisan Nasional losing power to Pakatan Rakyat is becoming more real by the day.

The main thrust of the conspiracy was to fabricate this sodomy charge in order to inflict maximum damage to my character in the run-up campaign to the by-elections.  Towards this end, an intense and virulent media blitz was launched concurrently with the staging of rallies and ceramahs where the focus of the debate was not on any social, economic or even political issues but purely on my person and my morality. The plotters for reasons known only to themselves became privy to information which would be used subsequently by the prosecution and went to town in an orgy of character assassination calculated no doubt to ensure a humiliating defeat for me in the polls. But Allah is Great and instead of losing, I won the Permatang Pauh seat with a thumping majority of 15,000 votes.

But the zeal to consign me to political oblivion continues unabated. Najib seems to think that by destroying my political future, it would also destroy the prospects of Pakatan Rakyat ever coming to power.

Hence, nothing is spared to ensure that I will be convicted in order that the UMNO led Barisan government continues to rule.

Having regard to all the above, I now wish to state that this trial is for all intents and purposes a show trial. I say this not to mock your Lordship nor with animosity towards anyone personally but I sit before you in the dock only to speak what I know and what I believe with conviction to be the truth. And this conviction is borne by having been in public service for more than forty years a quarter of which was spent within the walls of incarceration in Kamunting and in Sungai Buloh. The fact remains that I was condemned to imprisonment not because of any crime that I had committed but for my political beliefs and convictions and more significantly because back in 1998 I had posed a clear and present threat to the more than two decades of autocratic rule of Mahathir.

I say it because as I’ve stated earlier, the court’s integrity has been completely compromised and bears all the classic symptoms of a show trial where the script has been effectively written and the outcome a foregone conclusion. I say it because as a presiding judge you have demonstrated beyond the shadow of a doubt your complete lack of impartiality. I say it because you have consistently refused to recuse yourself even in the face of mounting evidence of your bias against me. I say it too because you have persistently turned a blind eye to the gross violations of protocol and procedure committed by the prosecution while at the same remaining impervious to my protestations about these blatant irregularities that would have without more alerted any impartial judge as to the malice and bad faith of the prosecution.

In the matter of the duty of a judge, the Holy Qur’an commands:

“And when you judge between mankind

Then you judge justly”

Surah An-Nisaa:58

ANWAR IBRAHIM

                This entry was posted on Monday, 22 August 2011, 1:40 pm and is filed under
Anwar Ibrahim
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Guan Eng: Insinuations I want to be PM are false

by
Susan Loone

Malaysiakini

Aug 21, 2011

MCA has been accused of conspiring with Umno-owned Malay language daily, Utusan Malaysia, to insinuate that Penang Chief Minister Lim Guan Eng wants to be prime minister.

Lim told the party’s president Dr Chua Soi Lek to refrain from ‘lying’ as he had neither the ambition nor the qualifications to be PM.

He asked Chua to stop following in the footsteps of Utusan Malaysia by inciting racial sentiments to attack him, the DAP or Pakatan Rakyat.

“Chua is unethical, immoral, and irresponsible for referring to a Facebook page ‘1M Malaysians Support Lim Guan Eng To Be Prime Minister Of Malaysia’ when making his remarks,” Lim told the media in Butterworth today.

“It seems that the MCA is now working with Utusan Malaysia to attack us, they are in the same boat, playing the same dirty tactics,” he added.

Lim, who is DAP national secretary general, denied that his party or Pakatan was responsible for the page, which currently has 44,000 likes.

He called on the relevant authorities to take the necessary action against the page, which does not indicate its initiator.

Lim was referring to Chua’s statement in Kelantan yesterday when asked about a blog said to be promoting him as prime minister.

Chua had said that initially, opposition leader Anwar Ibrahim had crowed that he would lead Pakatan as the PM.

However, that never materialised and now, they want Lim to be the one, said the former health minister.

He also pointed out that Pakatan may face an internal power struggle to decide the candidate for prime minister should it wrest power from the BN in the coming polls.

He added that in BN, the coalition was committed that Najib Abdul Razak will continue to be prime minister if it wins in the next election.

Lim, who is the Bagan MP, said he was not interested in the post as he was not qualified to be the country’s seventh prime minister.

“I have already mentioned that there is someone more qualified than me to be PM and that man is Anwar,” he said.

“It would not be a problem if I had wanted to be one (PM) but I do not…I am happy as the chief minister of Penang,” he added.

                This entry was posted on Monday, 22 August 2011, 11:17 am and is filed under
Lim Guan Eng
,
MCA
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Malaysia in the Era of Globalization #79

By
M. Bakri Musa

Chapter 9: Islam in Malay Life

Reform in Islam

Islamic Economics

Dealing With the Concept of Interest

As alluded to earlier, the biggest stumbling block to Islamic economics is the concept of interest. Stripped of its complexities, the issue can be simply reduced thus. When B borrows money ($X) from A, there is a cost involved. Regardless of the terminology, someone has to bear that cost. If at the end of the year B returns to A the same amount of money he borrowed the year earlier, that is $X, he claims to have satisfied the Koranic admonition that he repays his loan at its original amount, nothing more and nothing less. But has B done that?

            Consider two facts. First is what economists refer to as the opportunity cost for A; he could use that money for something else that would give him profit or pleasure, instead of lending it to B. Assume the monetary value of that opportunity cost incurred by A to be $Y. The second factor is inflation. Inflation can be simply defined as the diminishing purchasing power of a given nominal sum of money. That is to say, an $X today does not buy quite the same amount of goods and services as a year earlier, or stated in another way, an $X today is not the same (“real”) value as the $X of a few years ago. It is only nominally the same. In actuality X is valued less now than in the past because of inflation. If B were to repay A fully a year later, B should also include the amount lost due to inflation. Had inflation rate been 10 percent, then B should return to A $X plus that 10 percent more. If B only repaid the original $X, then he has only nominally paid the whole sum. In actual practical value, B has only partially repaid in the amount of only $(X minus 10 percent).

            Then there is the opportunity costs incurred by A in lending the money to B; that is the $Y discussed above. Thus to fully repay A, B would not only have to repay the 10 percent inflation rate but also the additional $Y opportunity cost incurred. Thus to really fulfill the Koranic requirement of equivalency, the $X of a year ago is now in reality $X plus Y plus 10 percent for inflation. Note that there is no interest at all involved here; these are all real, tangible costs.

            My essential point is this: when things are nominally (seen to be) the same, it may not be so in reality. Money was invented in part to put a quantitative value on a transaction so as to make it easier to compare the various costs. If economic transactions were accounted in terms of commodities, for example the number of durians, there will be the added issue of the quality of the fruit, size, and whether it is ripe, unripe or rotten and good only for making tompoyak and not for eating.

            Ancient Arabs chose precious metals like gold and silver. Those can be standardized by weight and their quality cannot be adulterated.

            Today money is merely paper or beeps of “on” or “off” signs on the digital highway. It is backed not by precious metals but by the people’s faith in the underlying supporting economy. Inflation apart, money may loose its value though formal devaluation or changes in the foreign exchange market. To take an extreme example, a ringgit immediately before September 1, 1998 (the date Malaysia imposed capital control and devalued the rinngit) was not the same value immediately afterward; it had lost 40 percent of its value with respect to the dollar. Thus if you borrowed one ringgit the day before the devaluation and then returned that same ringgit the next day, you have not returned the original loan even though nominally you have returned exactly what you borrowed.

            I can further simplify my argument, this time by not using money but a concrete example. Suppose last year my friend “borrowed” a she-camel from me. A year later he returned the same camel to me. Many would consider such a transaction halal (not sinful) as no riba (interest) was incurred; he returned what he borrowed, nothing more and nothing less. But is that true? Imagine my camel was in heat at the time he borrowed it and was later “serviced” in the pasture by some loose bull. After a year (and a few weeks before he was to return my camel), she delivered a baby. Of course that baby camel would belong to my friend, but two questions would immediately arise. One, is the camel he returned a year later the same one (in monetary value as well with common sense assessment) he borrowed? Obviously not; not only is my camel now “worn out” (depreciated, to use a business term) but also I cannot immediately breed her as she had just delivered a baby. That baby camel may be my friend’s gain but it is definitely my “opportunity cost” loss. Had I not lend him the beast I would have a baby camel.

            Another is a real life example. During the Japanese occupation a neighbor back in my old village borrowed some money for a short term to buy land. The working currency then was the Japanese “banana” notes. A few months later, as promised, he repaid the loan in full. But by this time there were rumors of the Japanese defeat, and although the currency was still accepted officially, in the marketplace it was rapidly becoming worthless. The crux of the issue: Has the man repaid his creditor in full? Nominally and technically he had; in practical and real terms he had not. This is a very dramatic example, much more than the ringgit depreciation case noted earlier.

            In both examples there was no interest calculation to complicate the issue. Yet even without interest involved, defining whether one has actually repaid in full what one has borrowed can be problematic. There is a difference between nominal and real values. Most of the time the difference is small or very subtle, but there are times when it can be very dramatic. When the Koran says you must repay in full, it means to my common sense thinking to repay the real original value. Modern economists differentiate between real and nominal interest rates. If a bank charges an (nominal) interest rate of 15 percent per year but during that time the inflation rate is 10 percent, then the real interest is only 5 percent (15-10). Had the bank charged a rate of 10 percent, then the real interest rate would have been zero, that is, no interest, technically as well as in reality. Looked at another way, the interest rates charged by banks are not interests at all, rather the anticipated inflation rates.

            Again this concept can be readily adapted to tangible the items of life. Suppose last year there was a drought and the rice fields were damaged. The price of rice jumped because of the shortage. I borrowed ten pounds of rice from my neighbor. Two years later, the rains came and the harvest was bountiful and the price of rice dropped. At this time I repaid my neighbor with exactly ten pounds of rice. Have I returned exactly what I borrowed? Common sense says no. Two years ago during the drought, ten pounds of rice was worth $20, but with the glut it dropped to $5. To fully repay my neighbor, I should have given him 40 pounds ($20 worth), not 10. And that extra 30 pounds would not be riba.

            A comparable episode occurred during the prophet’s time. One of his companions had borrowed a sac of dates. They were the premium first pick of the season: thick, sweet, and luscious. A few months later he repaid with an equal sac of dates, but this was at the end of the harvest season and the nuts were dried up, less sweet, and plentiful. The lender rightly asked for more. The companion asked the prophet whether the added amount demanded was not riba. The prophet emphatically replied that it was not, and indeed asked the companion to go back to the marketplace to ascertain the price differential between the premium first-pick dates versus the season’s leftovers, and make up the difference.

            Two important points arise here. One is the concept of nominal versus real. The two sacs of dates may be nominally the same, but in reality they are worth a quite a bit different. Two, the prophet (pbuh) trusted the marketplace to determine what the true value of the two sets of dates. I will return to this second point later in Chapter 11 when I discuss free enterprise as an Islamic tradition.

            Modern Islamic bankers have learned well from their predecessors in trying to circumvent the prohibition on riba by resorting to service charges, commissions, and other charges. Those ancient Muslims also published their bag of “tricks” in a book they blatantly titled The Book of Escapes and Ruses! It was these novel interpretations of traditional teachings that enabled the Muslim economic empire to expand. At least those ancient Arabs traders were honest enough to admit that they were circumventing the system. And being honest is the first precept in any religion.

            My central thesis is this: money, deprived of its mystique, is like any other commodity and property. I can rent my house and rightly claim rental income. I could similarly “rent” out my capital (money) to someone and collect rental income (return on investment). This rental on my capital can be collected in a variety of forms: interests as in simple lending; dividends with bond investments; company shares with stock market (equity) investment; or co-ownership as with venture capital investments. The differences are only matters of degree and not in kind, quantitative not qualitative. They reflect gradations in magnitude of the risk/benefit ratio. The simple interest with bank deposits represents the lowest risk and also correspondingly the lowest returns. Venture capital investments represent the biggest potential for profits but also the greatest risks. It is an investment axiom that high rewards come only with high risks.

            Enthusiasts of Islamic banking go through contorted reasoning in trying to differentiate between riba and other forms of returns on investments that are deemed religiously acceptable—halal. Techniques like cost-plus sales (Murabaha), deferred payment sales (Bay Mu’ajjal), deferred delivery sales (Bay’ Salam), and credit sales (Bay Bi-Thaman ‘Ajil) all carry hidden costs that, as El-Gamal rightly observes, any high school student could easily calculate their imputed interest rates. All these Islamic bankers have achieved is simply to complicate an ordinary and simple traditional credit transaction in an effort to camouflage the cost of the funds (interest) by calling it some other fancy name. In the process it makes “comparison shopping” difficult for the consumers.

            The beauty of modern credit sales is that they reduced the costs of the credit to a simplified figure that can be used for easy comparison. Credit, which is a manifestation of lending, is a modern fact of life. If everything had to be done on a cash basis, the economy would be crawling. We use credit to build hospitals, schools, and hosts of other activities that benefit society.

            Grameen Bank’s Muhammad Yunus asserts that credit is a basic human right. Everyone is entitled to it, especially the poor. Grameen Bank has improved immensely the livelihood of many Bangladesh peasants with its micro credit lending programs. In any religion, that would be considered a praiseworthy deed.

            Credit is a matter of faith, and not repaying a loan would be a breach of faith. And breach of faith is not only a sin, it is also a crime, and rightly so. Today we have some Muslim zealots who rationalize that they can borrow money but need not repay it, claiming that interest is haram, and therefore the loan itself is haram. They suddenly discover religion when it comes time to repay the loan. How convenient!

            If they feel that way, then they should not have borrowed the money in the first place. To me the greater sin is to borrow with no intention of repaying.

            The greatest obstacle to the economic growth of Malays and Muslims generally is that we have denigrated the rewards of savings by labeling them as interest and thus haram. Thus I purposely choose the neutral term “rewards on investments.” We can encourage Malays to save even more if we can dispense with the theologically loaded term “interest” and substitute my “rewards on savings” instead. This is more than just a semantic change or an attempt at “spinning,” rather it represents a qualitative change in concept. It recognizes that lending is a legitimate human activity – a valid service – and therefore profits on it are as valid as in with other economic activities. I will elaborate on this point in the following section on Islamic banks.

Next:   Islamic Financial Intermediaries

                This entry was posted on Monday, 22 August 2011, 5:15 pm and is filed under
Bakri Musa
,
globalisation
,
Islam
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Resisting Any Witch Hunt Aimed at Blaming the Illegals

Commentary by
Dr. Lim Teck Ghee

The statement by the Home Minister Datuk Seri Hishammuddin Hussein that the presence of more illegal workers compared to the legal ones is a cause of concern and could undermine national unity reveals either an ignoramus or an idiot. Did he expect many less illegals given the super-efficiency of his Ministry and the other government agencies sharing responsibility on this vital matter of securing our borders against unauthorized intrusion and stay in the country?

According to the current ongoing exercise, as of Friday, a total of 2,088,358 foreign workers had been registered, of whom 1,135,499 were illegals. Probably everyone else in the country knows that this number is an under-estimate and that a very large number are still waiting processing or are avoiding being included in the count altogether.

Since his appointment in 2009 as the Minister in charge of this portfolio, Hishammuddin has been lurching from one self inflicted debacle to another.  From bending over backwards to defend the indefensible conduct of demonstrators in the infamous cow head incident to his most recent use of repressive force against the Bersih rally, he has shown a standard of leadership of this important Ministry which must be plumbing new lows or matching those lows attained by Dr. Mahathir.

Perhaps he has not had time to study and understand the situation with illegals in Malaysia, given the so many other important distractions posed by alleged anti-national and possibly terrorist groupings such as those Parti Rakyat members members recently taken in under the Emergency Ordinance  for sporting Che Guevara and other communist attire; or the Bersih supporters who needed tear-gassing and perhaps even a big clout on their thick skulls for upsetting the traffic flow on a weekend; or the MoSC supporters who want to tear down the lily white and incorruptible reputation of one of the country most trusted and respected leaders through their Kuching walk rally aborted on “friendly police advice” – by  the way, is Hishammuddin related in any way to Taib?

If he has still not been briefed by his Ministry officials on the foreign labour issue, this quick summary of facts, figures and other considerations may be useful.

The 10th Malaysian Plan document has a chart showing that the number of foreign workers in the country exceeded over 2 million in 2008.  This figure has most likely increased rather than decreased.  The current hi-tech, hi-cost biometric exercise seems to have registered only half of all workers with permits and probably fewer than half of those without.

The presence of so many foreign workers is due to not only to economic factors but also socio-political ones which everyone in the country, except the non-Malay Barisan parties seem to be aware of.

Thanks to ‘enlightened’ Barisan policies, Malaysian economy and society is presently hopelessly and irredeemably addicted to foreign workers.

The great majority of foreign workers work a lot harder for a lot less than their Malaysian counterparts.  They deserve to be treated with fairness and respect, and there should be no witch-hunt to blame them for self inflicted socio-economic and political ills.

The profits in the foreign labour market have generated pervasive corruption amongst all levels of the police force, the Immigration Department, RELA, agents and other agencies – public and private.

The extortion of payments, services and loyalty from this marginalized segment and attempts to use them as a pawn in the demographic and racial power game will continue whatever the changes in policy and new stances adopted for public consumption.

In the view of some though who have observed the Home Minister closely, this graduate from the University of Wales and London School of Economics is not an ignoramus or idiot.  He is a political animal aiming for the top position through scrupulous or unscrupulous means.  According to the latest hot news in the internet, there is more at stake behind the Home Minister’s new found enthusiasm for pursuing the registration of foreign workers such as the disclosure that the new biometrics is the cash cow for the coming UMNO and general elections.  Much of this hot news cannot be verified but readers can visit the website
http://biometricscandal.wordpress.com/
 for details.

                This entry was posted on Monday, 22 August 2011, 5:29 pm and is filed under
Foreign
,
Hishammuddin
,
Labour
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


‘Racism and fanaticism’ exploited in Malaysia for politics, Asri tells WSJ

By
Clara Chooi

The Malaysian Insider

Aug 23, 2011

Asri: Islam must be described as a religion of love for others, with a respect for rights, respect for knowledge, rejecting superstition and basing all practices on real arguments.

KUALA LUMPUR, Aug 23 — Muslim scholar Dr Mohd Asri Zainul Abidin took a swipe at Malaysia’s religious authorities in a recent Wall Street Journal (WSJ) interview, claiming that “racism and extreme religious fanaticism” are often used to protect certain political interests.

The former Perlis Mufti, who was recently placed on a terror watch list for Wahhabism, told the influential newspaper that the authorities here needed to be more open-minded, adding that the term “Wahhabi” was recklessly used in Malaysia as a derogatory term to slander others.

“Religious authorities in Malaysia should be more open-minded. Their attitude is to force others to think in only one way, and that is not the attitude of a civilised people,” he said, according to an excerpt of the interview found on WSJ’s website yesterday.

He lamented that Malaysia’s more progressive Muslims were “marginalised” by the conservatives who controlled the religious institutions in government, and accused the administration of fearing criticism from the former group.

While Asri insisted that he was not a follower of Wahhabism, he noted that the teaching had its own distinctive contribution for Muslim societies across the globe.

“If ‘Wahhabi’ means inviting people to be fanatical, rigid, stern, uncompromising, and the like, I oppose it. (But) There are also a lot of sound and relevant opinions among them. However, even if we disagree with their views, that doesn’t mean we can accuse them of terrorism,” he said.

Asri was first linked to Wahhabism and the terrorists group Jemaah Islamiah (JI) early last year, along with PAS President Datuk Seri Abdul Hadi Awang, former Perlis mentri besar Datuk Seri Shahidan Kassim dan Perlis Mufti Juanda Jaya.

Last month, the National Security Council (NSC) ordered religious authorities to monitor Wahhabism in the country, placing influential former Asri, Juanda and over 40 young Umno ulamas. Putrajaya, however, later agreed that Wahhabism is not a threat to national security.

“In Malaysia, the word ‘Wahhabi’ is quite a mysterious term. Many use the term or slander others by it, without a clue about its meaning.

“In some places, a person is accused of being a Wahhabi for disagreeing with superstitious rituals and beliefs…. When people begin to criticise the practices, they simply say, ‘you are Wahhabi’,” Asri told WSJ.

He defended his position on Islam, pointing out that the religion blesses everyone regardless of race or religion and that any other interpretation that leads to “injustice, oppression, hostility to other people, ignorance, caste systems in society, racism and fanaticism that doesn’t respect the rights of others” should be rejected.

“Islam must be described as a religion of love for others, with a respect for rights, respect for knowledge, rejecting superstition and basing all practices on real arguments,” he said, when pointed out that his interpretation of Islam has often been linked to Wahhabism.

Asri said Malaysia’s Muslim society needs “tajdid”, which he defined as the restoration of Islam’s original look and the innovation of certain elements to fulfil “contemporary needs”.

“A lot of the contemporary issues we are encountering these days were not known in the past. To ensure a continuous survival of society, various new opinions are required.

“The opinions of preceding theologians may not be wrong, but may have expired due to changes in time and circumstance,” he said.

                This entry was posted on Tuesday, 23 August 2011, 10:41 am and is filed under
Islam
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Anwar’s unsworn statement an indictment of Malaysia’s political, justice systems

by
Ramli Zain

The Malaysian Insider

Aug 22, 2011

AUG 22 — By making an unsworn statement from the dock today in his sodomy trial, Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim has now put the whole country, its judiciary, the media and our entire justice system on trial.

More than that, he has given notice to politicians like Datuk Seri Najib Razak and other players in his prosecution that he intends to place them on trial as well.

Whether one agrees with this move or not, the message is clear.

Sodomy II is no longer about whether he is guilty of sodomising his aide — if it ever was in the first place — but will now be an attack against the political and justice system which he claims has conspired to put him in this position.

Make no mistake; what Anwar did today was make a political statement from the dock.

Anwar played by the rules in Sodomy I more than a decade ago and it got him a few years in jail.

His attempts then to introduce evidence of political conspiracy were met with the constant refrain of “irrelevant, irrelevant, irrelevant.”

So any attempt now to examine from a legal perspective his unusual decision to make a statement from the dock is in fact irrelevant.

Anwar explained today that he was opting to testify from the dock, where the prosecution has no recourse under law to cross-examine his statement, because he had no confidence he would be tried fairly, and declared the entire court process “is nothing but a conspiracy by Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak to send me into political oblivion by attempting once again to put me behind bars”.

In his own words:”As I have said at the outset, this is not a criminal trial. It is a charade staged by the powers that be to put me out of action in order that they remain in power.

“Najib Razak is doing the same thing as his mentor did, which is to employ all means within his power through the media, the police, the Attorney-General and the judiciary in order to subvert the course of justice and to take me out of the political equation.

So what Anwar is telling Malaysians is that he thinks that whatever the evidence he puts before the court he is still going to jail.

So he chose to have his say in court today.

                This entry was posted on Tuesday, 23 August 2011, 10:47 am and is filed under
Anwar Ibrahim
,
Court
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


MCA Chua Soi Lek, Gerakan Koh Tsu Koon caught in a time warp?

by
Richard Loh

Respectable and honorable leaders during the 20th century but what have become of them in the 21st century?

Are MCA Chua Soi Lek and Gerakan Koh Tsu Koon caught in a time warp? Both of them have to be reminded that we are living in the 21st century and the present political scenes and what the rakyat wanted are different from what they used to be. From their talks and political speeches one can see that they are truly out of touch with reality.

Since I am from Penang I will write and use examples from this state.

First, we must acknowledged that no government is 100 per cent perfect, it is just which government performs better than the other in terms of acceptability by the rakyat. Of course the choice of government elected must be from a free and fair election.

Penang is now under Pakatan Rakyat with YB Lim Guan Eng as the Chief Minister. After three years, CM Lim Guan Eng’s performances are being challenged, not by the rakyat but from individual opposition party like MCA, Gerakan and Umno.

From local Penangnites and throughout most of the country and far beyond people are saying that Penang is performing better under PR and that is a fact. Can Chua Soi Lek and Koh Tsu Koon admit this fact is true?

Going down stream and into more details of policies and progress developments there are bound to be some dissatisfaction from the rakyat, some for personal reason that may have affected their lively hood, some not getting what they asked for and those opposing just for the sake of opposing.

There are surely some flaws in the state government if MCA and Gerakan were to really look into it. Instead of telling the rakyat the flaws of the government (if any) they rather wedged senseless and baseless accusations (or because they could not find any flaws?) against CM Lim Guan Eng.

Lets have a look at a few senseless and baseless accusations from MCA and Gerakan:

1) Insinuate that Penang Chief Minister Lim Guan Eng wants to be prime minister.

I see nothing wrong if it is true that YB Lim Guan Eng wanted to be the PM. There is no law or any clause in the constitution that barred anyone that aspired to be a PM as long as they can get the mandate from the rakyat. But common sense tells us that it is not possible for a Non Malay to be a PM at least not for the next few decades. What purpose does it serves Chua Soi Lek, MCA or the rakyat for this stupid insinuation? (You can read CM Lim Guan Eng’s
reply
 to this here).

2) Tsu Koon claims sowed seeds of Guan Eng’s gains

What does this kind of statement proves “(But) I would say that if BN were to [have won] in March 08, based on the momentum we have created 21 years under Tun Lim Chong Eu, [and] 18 years under me, Penang would have achieved the same achievements (as the present DAP government.)” (Read the
full press report
here.)

Claiming credit is not wrong but you must question yourself why after 18 years the seeds that you sowed cannot grow and bear fruits. Does it really takes Koh Tsu Koon 18 years plus 21 years of Tun Lim Chong Eu’s hard work to enable CM Lim Guan Eng to complete and achieve both previous CMs hard work within three years?

When the first three runners failed to reached their targeted time and lagging behind others in a 4 X 400 meters relay before the last runner pull in all effort to catch up lost time and still manage to win the race, whom do you think the spectators will praised?

3) Penang MCA has repeatedly accused the DAP-led state government of being anti-Chinese

Is this the best that MCA can do to stir the Chinese sentiment against DAP? MCA did not response to Umno’s accusation of the Penang administration under Lim being racist for allegedly discriminating against the Malay community.

Now I put the question back to MCA, if CM Lim Guan Eng discriminate against the Malay community and is also anti-Chinese at the same time, whom then is CM Lim serving or favoring?

By now MCA and Gerakan should have known very well that the Malaysian Chinese can stand on their own two feet, work with their two hands using the brains inside their heads to survive without any handouts.

My personal views why the Malay contractors are getting the bulk of the state government projects are,

i) the tenders are open and transparent, no more cronies getting the jobs without tender hence better opportunities

ii) proves that the Malays are capable in a competitive environment and are willing to stand on their own two feet

iii) fewer Chinese tendering state projects most probably they prefer private projects

There is no point for MCA and Gerakan to use race, claiming historic credit or accusations as basis to win votes, its not going to work anymore but again they may still be caught in the time warp of the 20th century.

MCA & Gerakan should instead challenge CM Lim that they can perform better, by proving the following examples that;

1) BN can give RM500 to each senior citizen yearly instead of RM100 being given now.

2) All schools, government or private, religious or non religious as long as they are legal will be allocated RM2 million each, every five years

3) BN will subsidised 50K for first time house owner earning less than 3k and given priority to own an apartment costing less than 200k build by private developers

4) All straight A’s student will received state scholarship for tertiary education should they failed to get from Federal.

The list can go on, just think of how you can assist the rakyat like what CM Lim has being doing and show that BN can do even better instead of all the silly and meaningless  politiking.

                This entry was posted on Tuesday, 23 August 2011, 12:16 am and is filed under
Gerakan
,
Lim Guan Eng
,
MCA
,
Penang
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


BN govt should state what are the 8 demands of Bersih 2.0 which could be implemented before Parliament meets on Oct 3

The Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department, Datuk Seri Nazri Aziz pressed most of the right buttons about public demands about electoral reforms when he announced without naming Bersih 2.0 that the parliamentary select committee on electoral reforms will base its framework on Bersih 2.0’s eight-point demands, viz:

1. Cleaning up the electoral roll

2. Reforming postal or advance voting

3. Use of indelible ink versus the EC’s proposal of a biometric system

4. Extending the campaign period to 21 days

5. Free and fair access to media

6. Strengthening the credibility of the EC

7. Ending vote-buying

8. Ending dirty politics

But on the most vital issue of a firm and unequivocal government commitment that the electoral reforms will be implemented before Parliament is dissolved to make way for the 13th general election, Nazri could offer no assurance except to say lamely: “That is not my problem…I don’t know when the election will be held.”

This has brought back to the fore the question about the relevance and usefulness of the parliamentary select committee, whether it is a genuine, sincere and serious government change of heart on electoral reforms or whether it is a mere political ploy to stonewall electoral reforms for the next general elections.

Without naming Bersih 2.0, Nazri said the Election Commission has been tasked with drawing up a framework for the parliamentary select committee based on the eight demands of Bersih 2.0 to be  sent to the cabinet on Sept. 7.

This follows the meeting convened by Nazri with representatives from Parliament, the Attorney-General’s Chambers and the Election Commission.

It does not escape notice that  the Chairman and Deputy Chairman of the Election Commission attended the meeting in person and  agreed to draft the framework for the parliamentary select committee based on the eight demands of Bersih 2.0 when in the past few months they had been in the forefront not only disagreeing but attacking the bona fides of both Bersih 2.0 and these eight demands.

What is the credibility that the parliamentary select committee is not a political ploy but represent a sincere, serious and genuine change of heart of the Barisan Nasional government on electoral reforms if Bersih 2.0 continues to be banned as an illegal and anti-national organization, its Chairperson Ambiga Sreenevasan defamed as “enemy of Islam” and its leaders and activists smeared as “front for foreign powers” out to create chaos, racial riot, violence backed by Christian Jewish and communists and other imaginary anti-national elements?

There are three steps the Cabinet can take at its meeting tomorrow to demonstrate that there is a sincere, serious and genuine change of heart on electoral reforms and that the parliamentary select committee is no political ploy, viz:

•	revoke the ban on Bersih 2.0 and drop all charges against the 1,600 Malaysians arrested for taking part in the peaceful Bersih 2.0 rally for free and fair elections on July 9 and all others related to Bersih 2.0 rally, including those for wearing Bersih T-shirts or just wearing yellow;

•	fully consult with and secure the agreement of the  Pakatan Rakyat parties on the issue of parliamentary select committee – it terms of reference, membership, time-line and other parameters; and

•	the Election Commission and the BN Government to announce what are the Bersih 2.0’s eight demands on electoral reforms which could and could not be immediately implemented even before Parliament meets on Oct. 3.

As time is of the essence considering the imminence of the next general election, it is of vital and paramount importance that the Election Commission and BN Government should clarify what are the Eight Demands of the Bersih 2.0 which could and could not be immediately implemented even before Parliament meets on Oct. 3.

                This entry was posted on Tuesday, 23 August 2011, 2:19 pm and is filed under
Bersih
,
Elections
,
Parliament
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


BN pushing the panic button

— Douglas Tan

The Malaysian Insider

Aug 24, 2011

AUG 24 — What a flurry in government giving we are seeing these days!

Bonuses, dividends, loans, grants and scholarships and now doled out like candy by Umno, MCA and the like to the masses and their constituents. Acting more like NGOs or charities, the Barisan Nasional component parties have engaged on a charm offensive by handing out our money back to us, and trying to discredit the Opposition.

It really got going when our Prime Minister announced that the government half month Hari Raya bonuses for all civil servants, which would cost in excess of RM1 billion to taxpayers, despite reduced subsidies and mounting budget deficits.

When austerity is the name of the game, does not look particularly good when billions are handed out at the drop of a hat. Furthermore, the announcement that the first Volkswagen cars to be produced in Malaysia would be out of Pekan, the Prime Minister’s constituency, it certainly looks like an attempt to protect his interests.

The second big announcement was from the Finance Ministry, with their intention to provide assistance to urban poor earning below RM3,000 a month while keeping mum on how exactly this fund is going to be distributed and how they are going to afford the assistance, when subsidies are going to be reduced left, right and centre for the fact that they say they cannot afford it! Is this rational or is it just to pander to a certain section of society to buy them over?

On the political scene, Barisan Nasional is pulling out the stops through the Main Stream Media to give the impression that they are making substantive gains throughout the country. A report appearing on The Malaysian Insider mentioned that BN is confident of taking back Penang, a Malaysiakini report had Umno Kedah saying that the people were tired of the PAS government, and an independent report from the Mederka Centre saying that rural folk would be more likely to vote for BN than otherwise.

The issues do not stop there. The Parliamentary Select Committee (PSC) to review Electoral law is now seen as mere lip service to the Rakyat as our Prime Minister saw it fit to declare that the timing of Elections was the Umno/BN government’s prerogative. This is irrespective of whether reforms can be made on time. Obviously, when Najib Razak tells us not to question his sincerity to pursue, we can do nothing but.

Nazri is probably the best known Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department in the history of the office, who is not helping his own public perception by completely dismissing the views of Opposition parties in the PSC as only the minority view, which therefore means that they are in the wrong. Hardly a fair and equitable statement from the de facto Law Minister.

The continuing trial on Anwar Ibrahim once again places the opposition leader in the spotlight, and obviously BN are taking every opportunity to discredit him as a potential future Prime Minister. However, by now they should realise that the further they try to prolong this charade and mockery of both the justice system as well as intelligence, Anwar’s popularity is now on the rise as once again he has become the victim of the system, rather than his own merits.

With BN machinery in overdrive across the country, the signs are actually ominous for Umno/BN. They know that they are likely going to lose Terengganu, Perak and Negri Sembilan to Pakatan Raykat. They know that their chances of winning back Penang, Kedah, Selangor and Kelantan are slim to impossible. They know that there is now a considerable body of opinion which would swing several seats in Sabah and Sarawak.

There has also been no let up in the grassroots work from Pakatan Rakyat component parties.

This is no reason at all for Pakatan Rakyat to celebrate though. In fact, PR component parties must work harder for the greater good of the Rakyat, so that they are able to genuinely earn their votes, rather than throw goodies at them. The “Lu Tolong Gua, Gua Tolong Lu” campaigns no longer works as proven in Sibu.

308 was a significant milestone in the history of our nation. The major difference going into GE-13 is that the youth have woken up, we have the highest number of registered voters in history, there is more information available than ever, and our daily conversations are awash with politics. The fact that people are now actually being outspoken about political issues is a big step forward from the days when we just kept quiet.

Despite fears of foreigners allegedly being given citizenships and swearing to vote for BN, gerrymandering, phantom voters, if the Rakyat indeed rises up in the polls to oust Umno/BN from office, this would herald a time of change and healing when our nation finally throws off the shackles, and the power to decide our own fate is indeed returned to the people.

                This entry was posted on Wednesday, 24 August 2011, 8:16 pm and is filed under
Elections
,
Najib Razak
,
Pakatan Rakyat
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.