Aug 28, 2011
Rakyat Terengganu Berpuasa...Berhari Raya Dengan Air Mata...!!
Oleh Dr Syed Azman Syed Ahmad
SEPANJANG Ramadan dan menjelang hari raya di Terengganu disambut dengan tekanan kenaikan harga barang keperluan harian seperti ikan, ayam, beras, gas, gula, tepung serta pelbagai keperluan harian lagi yang terlalu membebankan golongan bawahan.
Malahan ramai kalangan rakyat Terengganu mengeluh bahawa kos barang keperluan harian di negeri ’penyu bertelur’ ini adalah jauh lebih ma hal dari kota-kota besar se perti Kuala Lumpur atau Georgetown ataupun Johor Bharu.
Kesan kenaikan harga barangan keperluan dan kos hidup ini lebih-lebih lagi dirasai oleh golongan miskin yang begitu ramai di negeri ini yang hidup ’kais pa gi makan pagi, kais petang ma kan petang’ dengan hanya meng harap upah yang tidak seberapa.
Hari bekerja mereka akan mendapat gaji dan hari mereka tidak bekerja bermakna tiada sebarang pendapatan yang mampu di bawa pulang.
Golongan ’miskin’ inilah yang merupakan golongan pertama menjadi mangsa kesan kenaikan harga barang serta kos kehidupan harian yang sedang berlaku sekarang. Risiko yang ditanggung mereka ini bertambah dengan peningkatan harga barangan keperluan harian, sedangkan jum lah pendapatan harian masih berada di tahap lama.
Ya, cuba bayangkan bagaimana dengan nasib Pak Mat di bandar Kuala Terengganu yang mengayuh beca saban hari dengan tulang empat keratnya bagi mencari re zeki halal buat mengisi perut la pan anaknya yang semuanya masih bersekolah?
Bagaimanakah pula dengan na sib Pak Dollah di pantai Chendering yang menjadi nelayan dan saban hari turun ke laut bagi mencari ’serial sehamas’ (sedikit pendapatan) bagi menyuap nasi anak-anak di rumah usang di te pi pantai?
Dan bagaimana pula de ngan Mek Minah, seorang ba lu beranak lima dari Kampung Kuala Ibai Pantai yang kerjanya me nyiang ikan bagi membuat ke ropok lekor yang hidup dengan mengharapkan ihsan jiran-jiran yang simpati kepada mereka.
Seperti yang telah dijangkakan, kini kesan dari ’bahang’ pe ngu rangan subsidi terhadap minyak dan beberapa barang keperluan utama yang dilaksanakan oleh kerajaan Umno-BN sedang men cengkam kehidupan rakyat awam terutamanya golongan berpendapatan rendah.
Kesan negatif ini jelas menunjukkan kaitan an tara pengurangan subsidi yang telah dilaksanakan oleh kerajaan Umno-BN de ngan kenaikan kos hidup yang terpaksa ditanggung oleh rakyat terutamanya golongan miskin.
Kenaikan tersebut turut memberi kesan kepada harga ma kanan dan minuman yang di sediakan di kedai-kedai makan dan warungwarung.
Kerajaan Terengganu di bawah pentadbiran Menteri Besar Dato’ Seri Ahmad Said terus mencatatkan bajet tertinggi di seluruh Se menanjung Malaysia dengan me luluskan belanjawan berjumlah lebih dari RM1.887 bilion ba gi tahun 2011. Siapa boleh men jangkakan bahawa ‘negeri ka ya rakyat miskin’ ini boleh meluluskan bajet tahunan kerajaan negeri dengan jumlah yang amat besar dan menakjubkan.
Bajet negeri Terengganu terus mengatasi mengatasi negeri-negeri yang jauh lebih maju seperti Selangor, Pulau Pinang, Kedah dan Johor.
Persoalan yang selalu bermain di detik hati saya adalah, apa rele vannya perbelanjaan tahunan men cecah hampir RM2 bilion se tiap tahun kepada rakyat Terengganu sedangkan rakyat marhaen di Terengganu kini sedang menanggung bebanan kenaikan harga ba rangan keperluan harian dan dan kos hidup yang amat tinggi?
Di negeri ’Darul Iman’ ini se bagai contohnya, penduduk mis kin sentiasa digula-gulakan ban tuan ‘subsidi’ melalui dana khas dan wang ihsan.
Malahan men jelang hari raya ini dianggar kan lebih 30,000 rakyat yang dikatakan ’golongan termiskin’ akan disubsidikan dengan program ’bantuan hari raya’ antara RM200-RM300 setiap seorang.
Namun, persoalan besarnya adalah sampai bila rakyat termiskin di negeri ini akan terus ter ikat dengan ‘mentaliti subsidi’ ini?
Bagi saya kemiskinan serta penderitaan rakyat Terengganu ma sih jauh dari dapat diatasi.
Rak yat bawahan kini mengeluh tentang bebanan besar kenaikan harga barang yang terpaksa ditanggung oleh mereka. Kadar inflasi akan terus meningkat dan kuasa membeli di kalangan golongan marhaen ini terus berkurangan.Namun, ketirisan dalam bajet perbelanjaan tahunan, penye lewengan serta menipulasi ‘budaya subsidi’ kepada rakyat termiskin adalah punca kepada bebanan berat rakyat ini.
Golongan miskin di ugut untuk menyokong kerajaan Umno-BN sekiranya mereka mahu mendapat ’subsidi’ wang ihsan da ri pihak kerajaan.
Sesetengah pimpinan politik kerajaan negeri pula terus melaksanakan ’sepak te rajang’ politik secara tidak bertanggungjawab dengan mengagih ’bantuan untuk rakyat miskin’ ke pada kroni yang kaya raya serta tidak layak untuk menerima bantuan.
Inilah nasib malang nasib rak yat Gganukite ini. Yang miskin akan terus menjadi ’pengemis subsidi’ dan ’wang ihsan’ sedangkan masa depan mereka terus gelap dan tidak dapat keluar dari cengkaman kemiskinan ini.
Ya, apakah sifat rakyat Terengganu yang terkenal bertimbang rasa dan bertolak ansur ini akan ’memberontak’ dan ’menukar se lera’ akibat dari kesan bebanan kenaikan kos hidup dalam Pilihan Raya Umum ke-13 akan datang?
Ketua Umno Padang Serai Ada Skandal Liwat..?
SEKITAR dua bulan lalu (6 Jun 2011), heboh di laman sosial facebook tentang kisah atau boleh dikatakan sebagai khabar angin yang bertiup kencang bahawa Ketua Umno dari utara terlibat dengan skandal liwat.
Berita kisah liwat Ketua Umno dari utara ini tersebar bagaikan api marak di laman sosial facebook.
Malah mereka mendakwa satu laporan Polis telah dibuat terhadap Ketua Umno ini kerana meliwat pemandu peribadinya [Facebook].
SK pada mulanya menganggap ini sekadar khabar angin yang tidak patut dilayan kerana tiada asas yang boleh dijadikan rujukan. Namun hari ini seorang Ketua Umno dari Utara (Padang Serai), Abdul Rahman Mahamud melepaskan jawatan Ketua Umno tanpa dinyatakan sebabnya [Bernama]
SK tidak mahu memfitnah, tetapi khabar angin ini sudah tersebar luas di laman sosial Facebook. Sekiranya ia sekadar berita fitnah, maka pihak yang terlibat harus menjelaskan sebab musabab mengapa Ketua Umno dari Utara ini meletakkan jawatan?
Adakah beliau baru meletakkan jawatan, atau sudah lama mengosongkan jawatan itu? Jika pihak terlibat terus berdiam diri, ia boleh mendatangkan fitnah besar, kerana pelbagai spekulasi akan timbul.
SK "Maklumat dari salah seorang wartawan Sinar Harian mendakwa laporan Polis ini memang wujud..."
Berita kisah liwat Ketua Umno dari utara ini tersebar bagaikan api marak di laman sosial facebook.
Malah mereka mendakwa satu laporan Polis telah dibuat terhadap Ketua Umno ini kerana meliwat pemandu peribadinya [Facebook].
SK pada mulanya menganggap ini sekadar khabar angin yang tidak patut dilayan kerana tiada asas yang boleh dijadikan rujukan. Namun hari ini seorang Ketua Umno dari Utara (Padang Serai), Abdul Rahman Mahamud melepaskan jawatan Ketua Umno tanpa dinyatakan sebabnya [Bernama]
SK tidak mahu memfitnah, tetapi khabar angin ini sudah tersebar luas di laman sosial Facebook. Sekiranya ia sekadar berita fitnah, maka pihak yang terlibat harus menjelaskan sebab musabab mengapa Ketua Umno dari Utara ini meletakkan jawatan?
Adakah beliau baru meletakkan jawatan, atau sudah lama mengosongkan jawatan itu? Jika pihak terlibat terus berdiam diri, ia boleh mendatangkan fitnah besar, kerana pelbagai spekulasi akan timbul.
SK "Maklumat dari salah seorang wartawan Sinar Harian mendakwa laporan Polis ini memang wujud..."
Hati-Hati Di Jalanraya...!!
Team Sepang Kederang berharapkan kepada
semua pembaca SK
agar
dalam perjalanan balik kampong
berhati hati dan berjaga jaga
awas dan waspada
jika memandu
pandu berhati hati
jika bermotor
jaga tangan dan kaki
jika memboceng
pegang rapat rapat
paling selamat naik pengangkutan awam
amat jarang keretapi berlanggar dengan kapal laut
jarang sekali bas berlanggar dengan kereta api
Siapa Yang Rembat Tanah TUDM..??
KAMPUNG MELAYU TERGADAI – BH
Sebuah perkampungan Melayu tradisional, Kampung Bukit Kechil Sungai Nibong, di sini yang berusia 150 tahun bakal berkubur berikutan sebahagian tanah sudah berpindah tangan kepada pemaju untuk dibangunkan dengan projek perumahan mewah.
Setakat ini, dua lot tanah seluas 1.54 hektar menempatkan kira-kira 30 rumah sudah dijual kepada pihak pemaju. Kampung berkeluasan enam hektar itu secara keseluruhan menempatkan 200 rumah.
Difahamkan, pemaju menjanjikan bayaran RM70,000 bagi setiap rumah di tapak seluas 1.54 hektar yang sudah dijual itu, tetapi masih ada pemilik belum menerima bayaran walaupun sudah mengosongkan rumah sejak awal tahun lalu sebelum kerja merobohkan semua kediaman berkenaan dilakukan, disusuli kerja meratakan kawasan bermula awal tahun ini.
Berikutan kerja di dua tapak di kampung itu sudah bermula, penduduk mula merasa kesan dari aspek keselamatan, kerosakan jalan akibat kenderaan berat keluar masuk ke tapak projek itu selain mendakwa penggunaan jentera berat mengakibatkan paip air pecah dan proses pembaikan menimbulkan kerumitan.
Penduduk mendakwa, wakil pemaju kini giat memujuk baki pemilik tanah di kampung itu supaya menjual tanah masing-masing. Berikutan itu, Badan Bertindak Selamatkan Tanah Milik Melayu (BSTM) dan Teras Pengupayaan Melayu (TERAS) menggesa kerajaan Pusat campur tangan memastikan tanah milik Melayu tidak terlepas
-------------------------------------------------------
woit...TAK PAYAH LAH BUAT TEATER....
kah kah kah...NAK LAPOR HAL KAMPONG MELAYU TERGADAI...
kah kah kah...BERAPA HEKTAR?... j
kah kah kah...BERAPA UMUR KAMPONG INI ?....
woit... KAMPONG BARU DI KUALA LUMPUR INI LAGI TUA....
kah kah kah..KG BARU LUASNYA PULUHAN HEKTAR....
kah kah kah..KG BANDA DALAM DEKAT GOMBAK LAGI TUA....
kah kah kaH...200 TAHUN.. TUJUH BUAH KAMPONG...3000 KELUARGA....
kah kah kah...SEMUA BN NAK GADAIKAN....
woit...NAPA TAK ADA LOPORAN DALAM MEDIA...
woit...APAKAH KERANA INI DI BAWAH KERAJAAN PAKATAN...
kah kah kah...TAK SAMPAI DUA HEKTAR PUN HEBOH....
kah kah kah...YANG LIM GOH TONG REMBAT SATU GUNUNG ... KENAPA TAK HEBOH....
kah kah kah...YTL... REMBAT TANAH SENTUL NAPA TAK HEBOH...
woit... AIMAN TAK KISAH...INI SEMUA BUKAN BERJUANG KERANA HAK TANAH...INI KERANA KERAJAAN PAKATAN...
Aug 27, 2011
Pesanan Khas Dari BERSIH 2.0 Sempena Hari Raya & Hari Merdeka
BERSIH 2.0 ingin mengambil kesempatan ini untuk mengucapkan Selamat Hari Raya dan Selamat Hari Merdeka kepada semua warga Malaysia. Kami ingin menyampaikan satu pesanan khas kepada semua warga Malaysia sempena musim perayaan ini.
Akhir-akhir ini, BERSIH 2.0 telah menerima beberapa kes di mana individu-individu yang belum mendaftar mendapati mereka dimasukkan dalam daftar pemilih. Terdapat juga kes di mana kawasan mengundi telah ditukar tanpa diberi notis.
Oleh itu, BERSIH 2.0 menyeru semua rakyat Malaysia untuk mengambil langkah-langkah ringkas berikut untuk memastikan setiap warga Malaysia memastikan hak anda kepada pilihan raya yang bersih, bebas dan adil tidak dicabuli:
Semak nama anda dalam daftar pemilih untuk memastikan maklumat anda dalam dafter pemilih adalah tepat. Semakan daftar pemilih boleh dilakukan di laman web ini: http://daftarj.spr.gov.my/NEWDAFTARJ/
Kami berharap semua warga Malaysia tidak kira di dalam atau di luar negera untuk menyemak nama dalam daftar pemilih. Individu yang belum mendaftar untuk mengundi juga digalakkan untuk menyemak nama.
2. Sekiranya anda mendapat tahu kawasan mengundi anda telah ditukar tanpa pengetahuan atau nama anda dilampirkan dalam dafter pemilih walaupun belum mendaftar, sila berikan maklumat terperinci kepada kami di info@bersih.org atau faks kepada 03-77844978.
3. Sekiranya anda masih belum mendaftar untuk mengundi, sila mendaftar di pejabat-pejabat pos yang terdekat selepas Hari Raya.
4. Jangan mengabaikan hak mengundi anda! Pastikan anda mengundi ketika pilihan raya nanti.
BERSIH 2.0 menyeru kepada semua warga Malaysia yang balik ke kampung sempena musim perayaan ini untuk membawa pesanan ini kepada rakan-rakan dan ahli-ahli keluarga di kampung. Kami berharap individu-individu yang lebih fasih dalam penggunaan Internet membantu rakan-rakan dan ahli-ahli keluarga untuk menyemak nama mereka dalam daftar pemilih.
* Kenyataan media oleh Jawatankuasa Pepandu Gabungan Pilihanraya Bersih dan Adil (BERSIH 2.0)
Jawatankuasa Pepandu BERSIH 2.0 terdiri daripada:
Dato’ Ambiga Sreenevasan (Pengerusi), Andrew Khoo, Arul Prakkash, Arumugam K., Dr Farouk Musa, Liau Kok Fah, Maria Chin Abdullah, Richard Y W Yeoh, Dr Subramaniam Pillay, Dato’ Dr Toh Kin Woon, Dr Wong Chin Huat, Dato’ Yeo Yang Poh and Zaid Kamaruddin.
Alhamdulillah...!! Ketua Wanita KEADILAN Bukit Gelugor Peluk Islam!
SESUNGGUHNYA hidayah itu datangnya mutlak dari Allah SWT. Berita gembira buat kita semua dalam bulan Ramadhan yang penuh barakah ini apabila Ketua Wanita KEADILAN Bukit Gelugor, Cheryl Chew memeluk Islam petang semalam.
Beliau melafazkan kalimah Syahadah pada pukul 3.00 petang semalam di pejabat JIM Bukit Malawati. Dimaklumkan bahawa beliau kini menggunakan nama Huda Chew.
Antara rakan-rakan Cheryl yang menitiskan air mata kegembiraan dengan keislaman beliau. Dimaklumkan juga bahawa beliau menerima banyak hadiah berupa tafsir Al-Quran dan buku-buku agama dari rakan-rakan terdekat.
Difahamkan, sebelum ini Cheryl telah mula berpuasa dan mendalami Islam secara berperingkat sebelum mengambil keputusan untuk memeluk Islam di dalam hari yang bersejarah semalam.
Tinjauan di facebook menyaksikan Cheryl sudah menukar namanya kepada Huda Chew Hong Wah [Facebook Cheryl]
Kepada Cheryl, selamat menikmati keindahan Islam.
Kini Muncul Pula Klon Hassan Ali....!!
LYNAS:PAS PUSAT AKAN PANGGIL DR CHE ROSLI – HD
PAS Pusat akan memanggil Ahli Parlimen Hulu Langat, Dr Che Rosli Che Mat berhubung kenyataannya mengenai isu Lynas yang disiarkan di TV3, malam tadi dalam Buletin Utama.
Selain itu, PAS Pusat akan turut mendapatkan keterangan berhubung kenyataan beliau yang mengatakan Lajnah Penerangan PAS Pusat melarang beliau mengeluarkan kenyataan tentang nuklear terutama mengenai Lynas.
Ketua Penerangan PAS Pusat, Tuan Ibrahim Tuan Man berkata, tindakan itu perlu dilakukan bagi menyelesaikan kekusutan yang timbul ekoran kenyataan Dr Che Rosli mengenai perkara itu.
Menurut beliau, sehingga kini beliau selaku Ketua Penerangan PAS Pusat tidak pernah mengeluarkan sebarang larangan kepada Dr Che Rosli untuk mengeluarkan sebarang kenyataannya tentang nuklear termasuk berhubung dengan isu Lynas.
Katanya, jadi kenyataan Che Rosli itu ternyata tidak berasas dan sehubungan itu pihaknya perlu memanggil Che Rosli bagi mendapatkan penjelasan daripada beliau sendiri mengenai perkara itu.
"Saya selaku Ketua Penerangan PAS Pusat tidak pernah mengeluarkan halangan kepada Dr Che Rosli untuk mengeluarkan kenyataan berhubung dengan nuklear. Jadi kita akan panggil Dr Che Rosli untuk mendapatkan penjelasannya," katanya pada majlis tazkirah di ibu pejabat Harakah, di sini, hari ini.
Dr Che Rosli dalam laporan Buletin Utama TV3 semalam mengatakan beliau sudah lama bersabar dalam perkara itu sebab Penerangan PAS Pusat melarang beliau membuat kenyataan berhubung nuklear termasuk mengenai isu Lynas.
NOTA:
awas siapa yab ini?
apa yang wajib dilakukan oleh para pengundi
1 – pastikan yb ini tidak akan lagi dicalonkan
2 – jika yb ini dicalonkan juga – pastikan dia dikalahkan
kenapa?
kerana telah jelas yb sepeti ini tidak membawa apa2 manafaat
kepada kepenting orang ramai
malah memilih yn seperti ini lebih bahaya dari memilih yb BN
yb BN kita namapk jelas sebagai musuh
yb seperti ini adalah musuh dalam seluar
belajar dari sejarah:
semasa orang putih menjajah
kita senang melawan kuasa mat saleh ini
jelas dan nampak untuk dilawan
bila BN naik tahta ramai yang terkabur mata
Samalah apa yang terjadi seperti yb ini
Memang Susah Jadi Melayu....!!
JAIM SERBU MARKAS FAHAMAN SYIAH -UM
MELAKA 25 Ogos - Jabatan Agama Islam Melaka (JAIM) hari ini menyerbu sebuah rumah di Taman Paya Dalam dekat sini yang dipercayai menjadi markas sebuah kumpulan penganut fahaman Syiah.
Dalam serbuan itu, sejumlah 35,000 buku dan risalah mengenai fahaman Syiah yang telah diharamkan oleh Kementerian Dalam Negeri ditemui di rumah tersebut.
Ketua Pegawai Penguat Kuasa JAIM, Rahimin Bani berkata, buku dan risalah yang ditemui itu telah siap dibungkus dan akan diedarkan melalui pos ke seluruh masjid dan jabatan-jabatan kerajaan.
Lebih mengejutkan, katanya, satu memorandum mengenai penubuhan Persatuan Syiah Malaysia yang akan dihantar kepada Yang di-Pertuan Agong, Tuanku Mizan Zainal Abidin turut ditemui di situ.
"Siasatan awal mendapati, buku-buku yang akan dihantar itu datang daripada Majlis Syiah Malaysia beralamat di Ulu Tiram, Johor Bahru dan sejumlah 6,000 naskhah telah dihantar ke seluruh negara," katanya kepada pemberita selepas mengetuai serbuan itu di sini, hari ini.
Antara ajaran kumpulan itu adalah menghalalkan para pengikutnya bernikah secara kontrak dan membenarkan sembahyang jamak dilakukan pada bila-bila masa walaupun bukan dalam keadaan darurat.
Pengikut ajaran tersebut juga menyanjung Ahlul Bait iaitu ahli keluarga Nabi Muhammad SAW secara keterlaluan dengan menganggap golongan itu maksum atau bebas daripada dosa serta anti para sahabat kecuali Saidina Ali.
Nota:
Berapa ramai agaknya pengikut syiah yang akan ditangkap?
dipakistan hampir setengah penduduk ialah syiah
di iraq majhoriti syiah
di syria libanon mesir memang ramai penganut syiah
dan di iran lagi ramai
kah kah kah
Turun Kejalan Raya Adalah Pilihan Yang Tepat...!!
ORANG ASLI SEDIA BERDEMO LAGI JIKA TANAH DIRAMPAS - MK
Masyarakat Orang Asli sekali lagi akan berarak ke Putrajaya jika kerajaan berkeras membahagikan tanah-tanah adat mereka.
Penyelaras Jaringan Kampung Orang Asli Malaysia (JKOAM) Tijah Yok Chopil berkata walaupun Orang Asli dikenali sebagai masyarakat yang aman, namun mereka tidak mempunyai pilihan jika kerajaan masih berkeras.
"Secara jujur, walaupun tindakan itu membawa risiko yang tinggi, kami akan turun ke Putrajaya, Parlimen atau Jabatan Kemajuan Orang Asli (JAKOA). Ini bukan satu ancaman, tetapi hidup kami kini ditekan dan kami tidak ada pilihan lain.
“Jika ini membabitkan masyarakat lain, mereka sudah lama akan bertindak, tetapi kami adalah masyarakat yang cintakan keamanan dan oleh itu kami kesempatan diambil ke atas kami. Untuk masa depan generasi, kita tiada pilihan lain, walaupun jika perlu masuk penjara, " kata Tijah.
Penduduk pribumi berkenaan berang dengan pengumuman Jabatan Kemajuan Orang Asli (JAKOA) baru-baru ini bahawa mereka telah memuktamadkan perbincangan dengan kerajaan negeri berhubung cadangan pembaharuan di tanah-tanah Orang Asli.
NOTA:
Tindakan yang bijak dan sungguh tepat
hanya tunjuk perasaan yang menghasilkan jawapan
kalau tak berdemo tak ada siapa ambil pot
lihat apabila bersih turun ke jalan raya
seluruh dunia melihat dan membaca isu bersih
orang asli wajib cari terbaik untuk turun sekali
lagi ke jalan raya !
Bila Nak Tukar Nama United Malay National Organization...??
PUDURAYA DIKENALI SEBAGI PUDU SENTRAL - UM
KUALA LUMPUR 27 Ogos - Terminal Bas Puduraya di sini yang mula beroperasi pada 1976 dan baru sahaja dinaik taraf, kini dikenali sebagai Pudu Sentral, Najib Razak mengumumkan hari ini.
Najib berkata, penukaran nama terminal bas itu selaras dengan wajahnya yang moden dan baru, setaraf dengan sebuah lapangan terbang.
Beliau berkata, keputusan itu dibuat berikutan cadangan seorang pengikut twitternya, selepas beliau tweet setelah bersahur awal pagi tadi bahawa beliau akan melawat Hentian Puduraya.
---------------------------------------------------------
kah kah kah...CAKAP NAK KETUANAN MELAYU...
kah kah kah...CAKAP NAK GUNA BAHASA MELAYU ....
woit...NAMA DAH ELOK PUDU RAYA DAH ELOK... NAPA TUKAR...
woit...MANA DIA PARA PEJUANG BAHASA.
kah kah kah...AIMAN TAK KISAH....MANA DIA DEWAN BAHASA DAN PETAKA....
Nota:
ingatan buat semua....
apabila pakatan ambil alih kerajaan
kita ubah kembali nama nama ini
ingat tuuuu...kah...kah...kah.....!!
Menyesal Kemudian Tidak Berguna....!!
Ini gambar kanak kanak chernobyll...satu masa nanti kanak kanak yangnsama akan lahir di gebeng...!!
PEMUDA UMNO BUAT LAPORAN POLIS BERHUBUNG TOHMAHAN AHLI PARLIMEN KUANTAN –Mstar
KUANTAN: Pergerakan Pemuda Umno Bahagian Indera Mahkota membuat laporan polis berhubung tindakan Anggota Parlimen Kuantan Fuziah Salleh membuat tohmahan berterusan berhubung pembinaan kilang pemprosesan nadir bumi oleh Syarikat Lynas Corporation Ltd di Gebeng.
Laporan dibuat Ketua Pemuda Umno Bahagian Indera Mahkota Suhaimi Sulong di Ibu Pejabat Polis Daerah di sini pada kira-kira 4 petang, Jumaat.
Suhaimi berkata Fuziah dilihat masih membuat tohmahan berhubung pembinaan kilang itu dalam beberapa siri ceramahnya di sekitar bandar ini.
"Tindakan beliau perlu dihentikan kerana ia boleh mencetuskan suasana tidak tenteram kepada penduduk Kuantan. Tindakan Anggota Parlimen dari Parti Keadilan Rakyat itu telah menimbulkan kerisauan di kalangan penduduk di daerah ini mengenai tahap keselamatan mereka berdasarkan fakta yang tidak benar," katanya ketika ditemui pemberita di sini.
Isu kilang itu mencetuskan kontroversi apabila beberapa pihak membantah pembinaannya kerana didakwa bakal menghasilkan radiasi yang boleh memudaratkan kesihatan orang ramai.
NOTA:
tak perlu jadi saintis
tak perlu ada phd
tak perlu ada ilmu sains
tak perlu buat laporan polis
hanya satu sahaja:
cuba terangkan kepada umum
kenapa syarikat ini asalnya mahu membuka
kilang di australia tetapi seluruh rakyat australia menentang
pasal apa rakyat australia menentang?
walhal pasti akan memberi peluang pekerjaan
dan membawa potensi perniaggan yang lain
jawab pertanyss ini
tak perlu tipu tipu
sila jawab kenapa harga tanah dan rumah
turun mendadak di kuantan...??
sila jawab kenapa ada ura-ura club med
di cherating akan ditutup...??
kah kah kah
Projek BN Untuk Tipu Rakyat...!!
PERLUAS UNDI POS LUAR NEGARA, SPR MAIN WAYANG :FAUZIAH – Keadilan Daily
Naib Presiden KEADILAN, Fuziah Salleh membidas kenyataan Pengerusi Suruhanjaya Pilihan Raya (SPR), Abdul Aziz Yusof, yang mahu memperluaskan sistem undi pos untuk warga Malaysia di luar negara.
Ahli Parlimen Kuantan itu menyifatkan SPR sengaja main wayang dan tidak fokus kepada isu sebenar yang terlebih dahulu perlu diperbetulkan seperti pembersihan daftar pemilih, pengunaan dakwat kekal serta reformasi undi pos sedia ada.
“SPR ini benda yang lebih penting yang patut dibuat dia tak buat, yang tak patut buat dia nak buat. Penggunaan dakwat kekal contohnya, sudah tidak memerlukan pindaan dan hanya perlu laksanakan apa yang dituntut rakyat.
“SPR janganlah nak main wayang dan akhirnya apa yang dituntut tak dilaksanakan,” katanya yang juga Timbalan Pengarah Pilihan Raya KEADILAN Pusat.
Beliau mengulas laporan media dalam talian hari ini yang memetik kenyataan Aziz yang mahukan proses itu dilakukan pada pilihan raya umum akan datang.
Bercakap kepada pemberita di Kuala Lumpur , Aziz berkata, SPR kini dalam proses meminda peraturan pilihan raya untuk membolehkan mereka berbuat demikian.
Perubahan dalam peraturan pilihan raya itu katanya akan membolehkan undi pos diperluaskan untuk penjawat awam dan pelajar sepenuh masa dan pasangan mereka di luar negara.
Menurut Fuziah, beliau merujuk pendedahan empat bekas anggota tentera baru-baru ini yang mengaku telah menyelewengkan undi pos bagi pihak ribuan anggota tentera dan isteri mereka.
“Undi pos yang dilihat punyai risiko manipulasi yang tinggi, boleh disalahgunakan malah telah dibuktikan dengan pengakuan oleh empat bekas anggota tentera yang mengaku memangkah ribuan undi pos,” kata Fuziah.
NOTA:
memang tepat
spr sebagai barua sedang cuba melakukan sesuatu
untuk terus menipu
lain yang dituntut
lain pula yang diberi
semua bertujuan menipu
tujuan untuk mengadakan undi pos diluar negara
adalah untuk menghalalkan undi pos dalam negara
dengan mencadangkan ada undi pos diluar negara maka
spr dilihat sedang melakukan sesuatu
untuk dilihat undim pos ini baik
pooorrrrah!
panddy kutty
waspada!
ini semua tipu helah barua gerombolan
ada yang dutuntut oleh rakyat ialah:
1 – hapuskan undi pos
2 – gunakan dakwat hitam
3 – panjangkan tempoh berkempen
4 – bersihkan senarai pengundi
empat tuntutyan ini tidak perlu akta atau undang-undang
empat tuntutan tidak perlu sidang parlimen
empat tuntutan ini untuk memastikan piliharaya bersih dan adil
Naib Presiden KEADILAN, Fuziah Salleh membidas kenyataan Pengerusi Suruhanjaya Pilihan Raya (SPR), Abdul Aziz Yusof, yang mahu memperluaskan sistem undi pos untuk warga Malaysia di luar negara.
Ahli Parlimen Kuantan itu menyifatkan SPR sengaja main wayang dan tidak fokus kepada isu sebenar yang terlebih dahulu perlu diperbetulkan seperti pembersihan daftar pemilih, pengunaan dakwat kekal serta reformasi undi pos sedia ada.
“SPR ini benda yang lebih penting yang patut dibuat dia tak buat, yang tak patut buat dia nak buat. Penggunaan dakwat kekal contohnya, sudah tidak memerlukan pindaan dan hanya perlu laksanakan apa yang dituntut rakyat.
“SPR janganlah nak main wayang dan akhirnya apa yang dituntut tak dilaksanakan,” katanya yang juga Timbalan Pengarah Pilihan Raya KEADILAN Pusat.
Beliau mengulas laporan media dalam talian hari ini yang memetik kenyataan Aziz yang mahukan proses itu dilakukan pada pilihan raya umum akan datang.
Bercakap kepada pemberita di Kuala Lumpur , Aziz berkata, SPR kini dalam proses meminda peraturan pilihan raya untuk membolehkan mereka berbuat demikian.
Perubahan dalam peraturan pilihan raya itu katanya akan membolehkan undi pos diperluaskan untuk penjawat awam dan pelajar sepenuh masa dan pasangan mereka di luar negara.
Menurut Fuziah, beliau merujuk pendedahan empat bekas anggota tentera baru-baru ini yang mengaku telah menyelewengkan undi pos bagi pihak ribuan anggota tentera dan isteri mereka.
“Undi pos yang dilihat punyai risiko manipulasi yang tinggi, boleh disalahgunakan malah telah dibuktikan dengan pengakuan oleh empat bekas anggota tentera yang mengaku memangkah ribuan undi pos,” kata Fuziah.
NOTA:
memang tepat
spr sebagai barua sedang cuba melakukan sesuatu
untuk terus menipu
lain yang dituntut
lain pula yang diberi
semua bertujuan menipu
tujuan untuk mengadakan undi pos diluar negara
adalah untuk menghalalkan undi pos dalam negara
dengan mencadangkan ada undi pos diluar negara maka
spr dilihat sedang melakukan sesuatu
untuk dilihat undim pos ini baik
pooorrrrah!
panddy kutty
waspada!
ini semua tipu helah barua gerombolan
ada yang dutuntut oleh rakyat ialah:
1 – hapuskan undi pos
2 – gunakan dakwat hitam
3 – panjangkan tempoh berkempen
4 – bersihkan senarai pengundi
empat tuntutyan ini tidak perlu akta atau undang-undang
empat tuntutan tidak perlu sidang parlimen
empat tuntutan ini untuk memastikan piliharaya bersih dan adil
Aug 25, 2011
1 Anwar Di Penjarakan...Beribu Anwar Masih Bebas...!!
Ya Razzaq: MULAI Isnin perbicaraan tuduhan liwat ke atas Anwar Ibrahim masuk peringkat separuh akhir, iaitu pembelaaan diri oleh Anwar dan team peguamnya. Semalam Anwar telah membela dirinya dengan membuat kenyataan setebal 32 muka surat mengambil masa selama dua jam di kandang orang salah
Selepas ini setelah semua saksi pembela dipanggil hakim membuat keputusan sama ada Anwar disabit atau pun bebas.
Anwar memilih untuk memberi keterangan tanpa disoal balas oleh pendakwa. Ramai yang terkejut dengan 'keberanian' Anwar itu. Ada juga yang berpendapat Anwar sengaja menghulurkan leher ke penjara kerana keputusan memilih membela diri begitu merbahaya.
Ada juga yang musykil keputusan Anwar itu seolah-olah beliau pengecut untuk menghadapi realitinya?
Alasan Anwar kenapa beliau memilih cara itu kerana sangsi dengan keadilan dan integriti hakim yang mengendalikan kesnya. Itu adalah alasan paling konkrit.
Mengenai tindakan Anwar itu, kata dan ulaslah apa-apa pun sebab, negara ini bebas dan merdeka. Sesiapa boleh bersuara mengutuk dan mengampu sesiapa yang dimahuinya. Apa lagi kalau bersuara untuk membela pemimpin dan parti pemerintah kebebasan itu akan diberi semutlaknya. Tindakan ke atas pengampu kerajaan dan pemfitnah akan dibiarkan semahunya. Ini realiti bukan bohong. Apa yang berlaku di sekeliling kita mengesahkan hakikat itu.
Macam-macam juga cemuhan dilemparkan kepada Anwar. Bila Anwar membuat protes kepada mahkamah, minta tangguh dan sebagainya, dikatakan Anwar sengaja menangguhkan perbicaraan. Melambat-lambatkan yang memberi konotasi Anwar takut berhadapan dengan hukuman. Itu tuduhan mereka yang otak kemetot dan tidak mengetahui proses perundangan yang diguna pakai di negeri ini. Mereka yang lulus dalam bidang pengajian undang-undang akan tersenyum mendengar segala desakan dan protes itu.
Kalau ada masa belajarlah sedikit mengenai undang-undang dan bacalah peraturan (prosuder) mahkamah agar tidak nampak diri kita lebih bodoh dari kaldai tua yang nak mampos. (Maaflah kasar sikit).
Anwar boleh membuat rayuan, atau meminta perbicaraan ditangguhkan bukan sekali, tetapi seribu kali pun boleh. Ia bukan satu kesalahan kerana memang ada ruang untuk beliau berbuat begitu. Jadi kalau hendak salah, jangan salahkan Anwar tetapi salahkan kepada prosuder mahkamah yang membenarkannya. Kenapa kita harus salahkan ketiping berjalan mereng kerana adatnya memang begitu? Kitalah bodoh kerana tidak tahu bahasa dan adat.
Dalam keadaan hari ini yang Anwar anggap tuduhan ke atasnya itu adalah kelangsungan konspirasi adalah 'bundak' baginya kalau tidak berbuat begitu.
Sebagai orang akan menghadapi risiko dan akan menanggung kesan pertuduhan itu Anwar berhak melakukan apa saja. Anwar yang menanggung segala-gala bahana atas tuduh itu. Kalau disabitkan kesalahan, yang akan ke penjara bukan orang lain, tetapi Anwar secara bersendirian. Iya, perjuangan yang dilakukan adalah demi untuk rakyat dan orang ramai tetapi kalau berlaku apa-apa yang akan memikul bebannya diri Anwar seorang sahaja. Tahun 1998 dulu beliau telah melalui sejarah itu dan telah ada pengalaman azab mengenainya. Apakah Anwar suka-suka untuk mengambil risiko itu? Tanya dan jawablah sendiri dengan adil dan saksama.
Itulah tanggungjawab dan amanah. Anwar tidak pun meminta untuk orang menjadi galang gantinya. Tangan yang mencincang, bahu juga yang sanggup memikulnya. Itulah Anwar. Dan beliau sudah tahu dan arif benar mengenainya. Jadi membela hingga rapat ke dinding dan melakukan apa saja usaha dan ikhtiar itu adalah hak Anwar yang tidak akan dipersendakan oleh mereka yang waras fikirannya.
Jadi perangai-perangai yang tidak bermoral dan berotak kemetot yang berbambukan aji no moto itu biarlah dimiliki oleh orang yang suka menjadi lanun upahan. Biarlah mereka hendak bertempik dan melaung tetapi jangan sampai orang di luar Umno terikut sama dengan gelagat itu. Kata orang bukan Umno kalau tidak jahat?
Berbalik kepada tanggapan buruk terhadap perbicaraan dan implikasi yang akan dihadapi Anwar kelak ia tidak akan ke mana. Hatta kalau pun Anwar di penjara sekalipun niat atau tujuan orang yang berbuat begitu tidak akan kesampaian. Kalau pendakwaan itu seperti mana kata Anwar untuk menghancurkan kerjaya politiknya, ia tidak akan menjadi kenyataan. Azam dari segala perancangan jahat itu hanya sia-sia saja. Perbuatan syaitan selalunya hancur sebelum hari menjelang siang.
Memang ada orang berharap kisah atau peristiwa tahun 1999 akan berulang sekali lagi ke atas kembara politik dan kehidupan Anwar. Keadaan waktu itu di mana pilihan raya umum ke-11 diadakan ketika Anwar berada dalam penjara. Mereka itu tidak mahu Anwar berpeluang mengambil bahagian dalam pilihan raya. Kali ini juga begitu, ada niat untuk melihat Anwar diringkukkan dalam penjara kemudian pilihan raya akan diadakan.
Mereka mengira hanya dengan penjarakan saja Anwar ia boleh menghalang Anwar daripada mengapai cita-cita politiknya untuk jadi Perdana Menteri. Dalam pada itu ia membolehkan orang yang berkuasa terus berkuasa. Apabila Anwar dipenjara bermakna beliau tidak akan dapat bertanding dalam pilihan raya selama dua penggal. Cukuplah kalau Anwar dipenjaga beliau tidak boleh menyertai pilihan raya ke -13 dan ke 14. Umur Anwar ketika itu sudah pun hampir 80 tahun sudah terlalu tua.
Dalam hitungan orang politik kalau Anwar dipenjara ia memberi peluang kepada UBN untuk menang. Najib bersama isterinya Rosmah Mansor akan merasa selesa kalau Anwar dihumban ke penjara. Mereka mengira Pakatan Rakyat tidak mampu mengugat BN kalau tanpa Anwar. Mereka tahu yang menjadi engen kepada Pakatan Rakyat hanya Anwar.
Anggapan sebegini menafikan dakwaan mengatakan Anwar kini sudah tidak berpengaruh. Kekuatan Anwar sudah pun mengecil, penyokongnya juga sudah berkurangan. Inilah kesilapan perhitungan para strategis UBN dalam membuat perhitungan mengenai ini. Mereka jadi lupa kepada apa yang mereka katakan sebelum ini. Inilah yang dikatakan kelalaian orang yang selalu membuat silap dan bertindak secara salah. Kenapa tupai jatuh ke tanah kerana terlalu percaya kepada kebijaksanaan diri sendiri.
Betulkah andaian itu, bahawa UBN akan menang dalam pilihan raya dan Pakatan Rakyat akan kalah tanpa Anwar berada di luar? Itu sebenarnya telahan dan anggapan saja. Orang yang ingin memperkecilkan aura Anwar akan berkata begitu. Sebenarnya apa yang akan berlaku bukan begitu. Diri Anwar bukan faktor kepada kemenangan Pakatan Rakyat, tetapi perjuangan Anwar yang menjadi penyebabnya.
Perkembangan politik Malaysia di masa depan bukan saja terletak di tangan mana-mana individu atau tokoh seperti Anwar. Hari ini generasi muda sudah sedar dan insaf. Mereka bukan buta dan berada di bawah serkup lagi. Benih keberanian bersuara dan bertindak yang dipupuk Anwar kini sudah menular dan subuh tumbuh dalam hati anak-anak muda. Perkembangan ini tidak boleh dibendung lagi dengan apa-apa kuasa syaitan.
Makanya kalau UBN mengira dengan memenjarakan Anwar kebangkitan itu berhenti dan UBN akan kembali selesa adalah satu kesilapan besar. Anggapan begitu umpama membubuh bom jangka dalam poket baju.
Mungkin generasi muda tidak begitu menaruh harapan lagi kepada Anwar untuk menajdi PM. Tetapi mereka tetap sedar bahawa kebangkitan politik hari ini untuk membela diri mereka sendiri. Jadi sesiapa pun yang akan memimpin nanti mereka tidak akan peduli. Yang berada di hadapan mereka satu saja tumbangkan UBN. Semangat dan jiwa Anwar adalah pendorong kepada usaha dan perjuangan itu.
Kesedaran hak membela diri dan semangat keberanian yang dicurahkan Anwar kini sudah menyelinap dan menyerap ke segenap pembuluh darah generasi muda. Semangat dan keberanian itu membara dan marak dalam jiwa mereka. Justeru walaupun langkah Anwar dikunci dan jasadnya dibekukan tetapi spritual yang dialunkan Anwar terus bergelombang. Makanya saya mengira usaha memenjarakan Anwar menerusi konspirasi jahat itu tidak akan berhasil, malahan ia akan menyebabkan UBN semakin tenat dan parah.
Anwar boleh dimatikan oleh musuhnya tetapi semangat dan jiwanya akan tetap melekat dihati setiap manusia yang mengenal diri dan tahu menjaga maruah dirinya sebagai manusia bertamadun. Lirik lagu jihad Anwar, Lawan Tetap Lawan akan menjadi lagu kebangsaan bangsa ini sebagai mengapai kemerdekaan mutlak mereka.
Panas..!! Budak Sekolah Diupah RM10 Hadiri Mesyuarat UMNO...!!
CERITA mengenai pelajar sekolah yang diupah untuk menyertai mesyuarat-mesyuarat dan persidangan-persidangan Umno bukanlah satu cerita pelik. Ini cerita biasa, kerana perkara ini biasa berlaku.
Pernahkah anada melihat dengan mata kepala anda sendiri bagaimana pelajar-pelajar sekolah yang tak faham apa-apa pasal politik diupah dan diperalatkan untuk menyertai mesyuarat Umno.
Malangnya kalau cakap tanpa bukti, nanti korang kata tipu pulak. Di atas ini disertakan contoh bagaimana pelajar sekolah menengah diperalatkan oleh pemimpin United Malays No Otak, UMNO dengan upah RM10.
Ini baru pelajar sekolah menengah, pelajar universiti lagilah banyak yang diperalatkan oleh United Malays No Otak. Apa ada pada AUKU? Ya memang benar, AUKU melarang pelajar berpolitik, itu mereka kata.
Pelajar universiti tidak boleh berpolitik kalau menyokong Pakatan Rakyat. Tapi kalau sokong Kesatuan Melayu Tiada Otak (United Malays No Otak) tak mengapa memang digalakkan! AUKU bapak lu!
Kenyataan Media...!!
Pengharaman Tazkirah Ramadhan
Dewan Pemuda PAS Pahang amat kesal dengan pengharaman tazkirah Ramadhan disemua surau dan masjid seluruh negeri Pahang oleh MUIP. LARANGAN dan PENGHARAMAN tazkirah di masjid dan surau adalah suatu kejutan baru di Malaysia selepas ia diisytiharkan sebagai sebuah NEGARA ISLAM.
Merujuk kepada Buletin TV3 jam 1.30 (22/8/2011 ), Majlis Ugama Islam Pahang (MUIP) telah mengharamkan semua majlis tazkirah di masjid dan surau di negeri Pahang. Timbalan Pengarah MUIP telah mengatakan majlis tazkirah telah menggangu majlis ilmu.
Adakah pengharaman tazkirah ini hanya berdasarkan aduan seorang individu atau exco kerajaan negeri maka menyebabkan MUIP takut dan terus ikut telunjuk mereka? Lalu tanpa sebarang siasatan terus mengharamkan apa yang dihalalkan oleh Allah. Janganlah kita menjadi penghalang kepada perkembangan agama Allah. Ingatlah peringatanNya di dalam surah al-Baqarah ayat 114: "Dan siapakah yang lebih zalim daripada orang-orang yang menyekat dan menghalang dari menggunakan masjid-masjid Allah utk sembahyang dan menyebut nama Allah (tazkirah)..."
Sepatutnya MUIP sebagai sebuah institusi agama yang besar bertindak lebih matang dan berakhlak dengan memanggil penyampai tazkirah utk menyiasat adakah benar beliau menyampaikan tazkirah yang bertentangan dengan al-Quran dan as-Sunnah, BUKAN mengharamkan tazkirah dan menyekat majlis ilmu!
Tazkirah menjadi dimensi untuk mendidik umat Islam secara tidak langsung. Institusi pendidikan bukan sekadar di sekolah, kolej atau universiti semata-mata. Malah masjid, surau dan madrasah menjadi platform menyuburkan Islam sejak zaman berzaman.
Kemungkinan pula hala tuju larangan itu menjurus kepada tazkirah menjadi ceramah politik. Takkan lah seorang pentazkirah apabila menghuraikan ayat-ayat al-Quran yang mengharamkan riba, rasuah, judi, haramnya bersalam antara lelaki dan perempuan, wajib pakai tudung dan sebagainya sudah dikira mengganggu ibadah orang ramai?
Kini rakyat bertambah malu untuk menobatkan Malaysia 'Negara Islam' apabila ajaran Islam cuba dihalang oleh orang Islam sendiri, apatah lagi yang menghalang itu sebuah institusi yang bertanggungjawab menjaga agama!. Tazkirah yang diadakan sekadar mengulas ayat al Quran dibaca ketika solat. Sekiranya menyentuh pelbagai isu mengenai kehidupan manusia, itu realitinya sebuah kitab suci. Al Quran diturunkan dari Allah Taala yang mengatur segala kehidupan manusia.
Apabila proses memberi kefahaman, ayat-ayat Allah berlaku, orang ramai akan faham maksud isi kandung al Quran. Ketika sembahyang mereka akan mengingati maksud-maksud ayat yang dibaca imam. Sembahyangnya tentu menjadi lebih khusyuk.
Oleh itu, DPPNP membantah keras larangan ini dan mendesak supaya pihak MUIP menarik balik larangan tazkirah kerana ia akan menyebabkan orang jahil bertambah jahil dan orang alim membisu, maka ia akan memberi kesan kepada kehancuran sebuah negara.
SHAHRIL AZMAN ABDUL HALIM
KETUA PEMUDA PAS PAHANG
24 OGOS 2011
Dewan Pemuda PAS Pahang amat kesal dengan pengharaman tazkirah Ramadhan disemua surau dan masjid seluruh negeri Pahang oleh MUIP. LARANGAN dan PENGHARAMAN tazkirah di masjid dan surau adalah suatu kejutan baru di Malaysia selepas ia diisytiharkan sebagai sebuah NEGARA ISLAM.
Merujuk kepada Buletin TV3 jam 1.30 (22/8/2011 ), Majlis Ugama Islam Pahang (MUIP) telah mengharamkan semua majlis tazkirah di masjid dan surau di negeri Pahang. Timbalan Pengarah MUIP telah mengatakan majlis tazkirah telah menggangu majlis ilmu.
Adakah pengharaman tazkirah ini hanya berdasarkan aduan seorang individu atau exco kerajaan negeri maka menyebabkan MUIP takut dan terus ikut telunjuk mereka? Lalu tanpa sebarang siasatan terus mengharamkan apa yang dihalalkan oleh Allah. Janganlah kita menjadi penghalang kepada perkembangan agama Allah. Ingatlah peringatanNya di dalam surah al-Baqarah ayat 114: "Dan siapakah yang lebih zalim daripada orang-orang yang menyekat dan menghalang dari menggunakan masjid-masjid Allah utk sembahyang dan menyebut nama Allah (tazkirah)..."
Sepatutnya MUIP sebagai sebuah institusi agama yang besar bertindak lebih matang dan berakhlak dengan memanggil penyampai tazkirah utk menyiasat adakah benar beliau menyampaikan tazkirah yang bertentangan dengan al-Quran dan as-Sunnah, BUKAN mengharamkan tazkirah dan menyekat majlis ilmu!
Tazkirah menjadi dimensi untuk mendidik umat Islam secara tidak langsung. Institusi pendidikan bukan sekadar di sekolah, kolej atau universiti semata-mata. Malah masjid, surau dan madrasah menjadi platform menyuburkan Islam sejak zaman berzaman.
Kemungkinan pula hala tuju larangan itu menjurus kepada tazkirah menjadi ceramah politik. Takkan lah seorang pentazkirah apabila menghuraikan ayat-ayat al-Quran yang mengharamkan riba, rasuah, judi, haramnya bersalam antara lelaki dan perempuan, wajib pakai tudung dan sebagainya sudah dikira mengganggu ibadah orang ramai?
Kini rakyat bertambah malu untuk menobatkan Malaysia 'Negara Islam' apabila ajaran Islam cuba dihalang oleh orang Islam sendiri, apatah lagi yang menghalang itu sebuah institusi yang bertanggungjawab menjaga agama!. Tazkirah yang diadakan sekadar mengulas ayat al Quran dibaca ketika solat. Sekiranya menyentuh pelbagai isu mengenai kehidupan manusia, itu realitinya sebuah kitab suci. Al Quran diturunkan dari Allah Taala yang mengatur segala kehidupan manusia.
Apabila proses memberi kefahaman, ayat-ayat Allah berlaku, orang ramai akan faham maksud isi kandung al Quran. Ketika sembahyang mereka akan mengingati maksud-maksud ayat yang dibaca imam. Sembahyangnya tentu menjadi lebih khusyuk.
Oleh itu, DPPNP membantah keras larangan ini dan mendesak supaya pihak MUIP menarik balik larangan tazkirah kerana ia akan menyebabkan orang jahil bertambah jahil dan orang alim membisu, maka ia akan memberi kesan kepada kehancuran sebuah negara.
SHAHRIL AZMAN ABDUL HALIM
KETUA PEMUDA PAS PAHANG
24 OGOS 2011
Dah Lama Mahkamah Di Malaysia Jadi Hina....!!
ANWAR DIDAKWA HINA MAHKAMAH, JATUHKAN REPUTASI KEHAKIMAN - UM
KUALA LUMPUR 23 Ogos - Ketua Pembangkang, Anwar Ibrahim disifatkan telah menghina mahkamah dalam kenyataan pembelaan kes liwatnya semalam apabila 'menyerang' Hakim Mohamad Zabidin Mohd. Diah secara terang-terangan.
Peguam terkemuka, Muhammad Shafee Abdullah berkata, selain memburukkan imej Mohamad Zabidin, Anwar juga dilihat cuba menjatuhkan reputasi institusi mahkamah di negara ini apabila mendakwa beliau ditindas daripada mendapat perbicaraan yang adil.
"Dalam kenyataan pembelaan Anwar setebal 32 muka surat semalam, beliau secara terang-terangan telah memburukkan institusi mahkamah serta para pegawai seperti hakim di hadapan para pemerhati dan orang awam.
"Kenyataan (pembelaan) Anwar semalam bukan bersifat membela diri tetapi lebih daripada kenyataan politik yang memburukkan mahkamah serta mengutarakan perkara-perkara tidak relevan," katanya ketika ditemui di sini, hari ini.
------------------------------------------------------
woit... HEBAT SUNGGUH SI ANWAR NI.... kah kah kah...
kah kah kah...MACAM MANA ANWAR DAPAT HINA MAHKAMAH...?kah kah kah..
kah kah akh...MACAM MANA ANWAR DAPAT JATUHKAN REPUTASI KEHAKIMAN...??
woit... MAHKAMAH MEMANG DAH HINA SEMENJAK MADEY BUANG SALEH ABAS....
kah kah kah...AIMAN TAK KISAH....MAHKAMAH MEMANG TAK ADA REPUTASI SEMENJAK MADEY BUANG KETUA HAKIM NEGARA....
Bukan Semua Blogger Adalah Penfitnah...!!
DISPLINKAN PENULIS BLOG -UM
Suruhanjaya Komunikasi dan Multimedia Malaysia (SKMM) diminta ‘mendisiplinkan’ penulis blog yang ghairah menyebarkan pelbagai bentuk fitnah terhadap kerajaan.
Ketua Penerangan UMNO, Ahmad Maslan berkata, SKMM perlu bertindak segera kerana fitnah dan tohmahan liar kini berleluasa di alam maya dan mengundang pelbagai masalah jika dibiarkan berlanjutan.
“Jika pihak bertanggungjawab itu membiarkan fitnah dan tohmahan berleluasa di alam maya tanpa sebarang tindakan, ia akan memberi gambaran kepada rakyat bahawa apa yang didakwa itu adalah benar.
“Pihak yang difitnah juga diseru mengambil tindakan dengan memfailkan saman terhadap mereka yang melakukan tohmahan bagi membolehkan tindakan undang-undang diambil terhadap mereka,” katanya.
-----------------------------------------------------
woit...INI SUDAH LEBIH....
kah kah kah....INI SUDAH BERAT....
kah kah kah... TAK KAN UTUSAN..RTM... BERITA HAIRAN SAJA BOLEH BUAT FITNAH.....
kah kah kah...AIMAN TAK KISAH....KALAU BENDA YANG BETUL PUN NAK DI KIRA FITNAH....
Nota:
Tolong tanya menteri ini
ujung minggu lalu dia tidoo kat felda mana?
dia pernah janji bahawa tiap hunjung minggu dia akan tido di perkampongan felda
Adakah ini satu fitnah...??
kah kah kah
Plastik Dalam Jubur Atau Jubur Dalam Plastik..??
SAIFUL BERITAHU PLASTIK DIMASUKKAN KE DUBURNYA - MK
Saksi pembelaan kedua, bekas doktor di Hospital Pusrawi Dr Mohamad Osman Abdul Hamid dalam keterangannya berkata Mohd Saiful Bukhari Azlan, pegandu dalam kes liwat yang membabitkan Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim memberitahunya bahawa objek plastik dimasukkan ke dalam duburnya seperti dinyatakan dalam laporan perubatannya.
Nota :
KAH KAH KAH...KAH KAH KAH....KAH KAH KAH
Kecil Tapak Tangan..Nyiru Kami Tadahkan....!!
KHIR TOYO: TIGA MENTERI MAHU SAYA DIPENJARAKAN - MK
Mohd Khir Toyo mendakwa tiga menteri persekutuan dalam jemaah menteri sekarang sedang berkonspirasi bagi beliau dikenakan hukuman penjara atas tuduhan rasuah.
Dalam blognya hari ini, Khir yang menulis mengenai 'memohon ampun dan maaf' sempena semangat Ramadan, berkata beliau tidak akan mendedahkan nama menteri-menteri berkenaan kerana tidak mendapat bukti yang sahih.
Namun katanya, beberapa sumbernya sangat boleh dipercayai.
“Dalam bulan yang mulia ini juga saya ingin mengingatkan tiga orang sahabat yang menjadi menteri dalam kabinet sekarang agar jangan keterlaluan untuk mengenakan saya,” tulisnya.
Katanya, konspirasi itu tersebar apabila seorang daripada menteri itu dilaporkan berkata kepada dua rakannya bahawa BN mampu merampas semula Selangor daripada Pakatan Rakyat jika dirinya didakwa.
“Seorang menteri dilaporkan berkata kepada dua orang menteri lain bahawa jika mahu mendapat kembali Selangor maka Khir Toyo perlu didakwa. Sekarang menteri yang sama berkata jika mahu menang Selangor Khir Toyo perlu dipenjarakan.
“Apakah mereka ini begitu besar boleh menguasai hakim perbicaraan? Saya tidak mahu percaya mereka berupaya mengarahkan hakim atau hakim akan mendengar arahan kumpulan ini,” tulis Dr Khir sambil menambah beliau masih percaya dengan kebebasan dan integeriti institusi kehakiman.
NOTA:
strateji memenjarakan toyo ini memang tepat
kalau toyo di penjarakan ini bermakna najib serious tentang rasush
kalau toyo dipenjarakan rakyat selangor akan yakin dengan gerombolam
kalau toyo dipenjarakan selangor akan kemabali kepada barisan
kalau toyo dipenjara dan dirotan rakyat selangor amat gumbira
kalau toyo di penjara, dirotan dan diharta dirampas lagi rakyat suka
kalau toyo di penjarakan dan kunci penjara dibuang
jamin 100% barisan akan memerintah selangor sehingga hari kiamat
kah kah kah
siapa tahu 3 malaon
yang mahu toyo dipenjara?
paling suka toyo di penjara ialah ezam mat nor
di selangor yang paling layak jadi mb
yang paling popular untuk jadi mb
hanyalah ezam mat norkah kah kah
Selamat Tinggal 1 Malaysia...!!
NAJIB TUNDUK PADA MUHYIDDIN - NIK NAZMI - keadilan daily
Pengarah Komunikasi KEADILAN, Nik Nazmi Nik Ahmad menegur Najib Razak kerana tunduk kepada bakal penggantinya Muhyiddin Yassin dalam isu pembentukan Jawatankuasa khas Parlimen (PSC) untuk penambahbaikan pilihan raya.
Pada 15 Ogos lalu, Najib Razak mengumumkan pembentukan jawatankuasa tersebut yang dianggotai wakil kerajaan BN dan parti pembangkang untuk membincangkan reformasi pilihan raya pada Pilihan Raya Umum Ke-13 (PRU-13).
Bagaimanapun sehari selepas itu, Muhyiddin mengeluarkan kenyataan bahawa reformasi pilihan raya bukan bermakna sistem pilihan raya yang sudah diguna pakai selama ini tidak baik tetapi sebaliknya, untuk memperkukuhkannya.
“Penyakit ‘flip-flop’ ini terus menular dalam Jawatankuasa Pilihan Khas Pembaharuan Pilihan Raya apabila PM tunduk kepada Muhyiddin Yassin dan menegaskan pilihan raya boleh diadakan bila-bila masa dan tidak tertakluk kepada Jawatankuasa Pilihan Khas tersebut,” kata Nik Nazmi dalam satu kenyataan media hari ini.
Nota:
telah dibuktikan bahawa muhyiddin
lebih hebat dan lebih berkebolehan
dalam kepimpinan
rakyat malaysia akan merasa selamat
apabila muhyiddin mejadi perdana menteri
bila muhyiddin jadi pm
maka musuh muhyiddin pasti tidak akan
dapat menggulingkan beliau lagi
muhyiddin amat susah untuk disembelih
kerana tak ada leher
kah kah kah
Contoh Macamana Melayu Tipu Melayu...!!
GALAK PETANI USAHA LADANG KONTRAK :NOH OMAR -UM
TANJONG KARANG 24 Ogos - Para petani digalakkan menyertai program ladang kontrak kendalian Lembaga Pemasaran Pertanian Persekutuan (FAMA) yang turut menyediakan pasaran bagi produk tanaman mereka.
Menteri Pertanian dan Industri Asas Tani, Noh Omar berkata, melalui program itu, mereka juga boleh mendapatkan pembiayaan mikro kredit dengan dana sebanyak RM4 juta yang sebelum ini disalurkan melalui Agrobank.
"Melalui dana tersebut para petani boleh mendapatkan pinjaman maksimum RM50,000 bagi mengusahakan ladang kontrak di kawasan masing-masing dan proses kutipan pembayaran balik akan dikendalikan oleh FAMA.
''Konsep ladang kontrak ini mempunyai prospek yang baik dari segi pemasarannya," katanya.
Noh berkata, bagi memastikan projek ladang kontrak tidak mengalami kerugian, FAMA akan membantu dari segi pemasaran produk selain menggalakkan para petani mengusahakan ladang secara berkelompok.
Terdahulu, pada majlis tersebut, Noh yang juga Ahli Parlimen Tanjong Karang menyampaikan wang pendahuluan sebanyak RM1,500 setiap seorang bagi pinjaman Perbadanan Tabung Pendidikan Tinggi Nasional (PTPTN) kepada 96 pelajar dari seluruh kawasan Tanjong Karang.
NOTA:
fahami berita ini
lihat bagaimana BN ingin membebankan
kaum tani dengan hutang
felda hutang
ptptn hutang
sekarang nak berkebun juga hutang
kenapa kaum tani ini tidak diberikan tanah
kenapa mereka perlu diikat dengan hutang
hutang ini akan mengkayakan bank
hutang ini akan mengikat kaum tani ini
hutang ini kan memastikan kaum tani ini tunduk pada gerombolan
dalam sistem ini yang kaya raya ialah birokrat fama
ini sama konsepnya dengan birokrat felda
lihat berapa kali peneroka menang dimahkamah
selama ini felda rendahkan grade minyak mereka
sengaja beli sawit dengan harga murah
para birokrat felda dan fama
tak sehari pun turun bertani
tapi bergaji lumayan
yang gaji kuli batak kaum tani
yang berpanas berhujan kaum tani
ini lah contoh ketuanan melayu
inilah contoh melayu tipu melayu!
tanah untuk petani yang tidak bertanah
tanah untuk yang menggarap
siapa mengharap dialah makan
jangan makan atas titik peloh orang lain
siapa bekerja dia yang makan
siapa menanam dia menuai
Zaman Sihir Menyihir Dah Lepas...!!
HISHAMUDDIN TERIMA UGUTAN , PELURU HIDUP -UM
Hishammuddin Hussein mengesahkan beliau menerima dua butir peluru hidup dalam sepucuk surat yang diposkan ke pejabatnya di Putrajaya kira-kira pukul 2 petang hari ini.
Beliau berkata, surat yang turut mengandungi nota ugutan tulisan tangan itu dialamatkan kepadanya dan diterima oleh kerani kepada Pegawai Khasnya, Wan Najmuddin Mohd.
"Dalam surat yang di pos ke pejabat saya itu, di dalamnya terdapat sebuah buku yang di tengahnya ditebuk dan diletakkan dua butir peluru hidup beserta nota ugutan.
"Peluru hidup itu akan saya hantar ke Jabatan Forensik untuk disiasat dan mengenai surat ugutan dan kandungannya, saya serahkan kepada pihak polis untuk menyiasat," katanya pada sidang akhbar sebelum majlis berbuka puasa anjuran Parlimen Lembah Pantai di sini hari ini.
Mengulas lanjut, Hishammuddin berkata, tindakan tersebut merupakan perbuatan orang tertekan dan terdesak.
"Bagi saya, ia perkara biasa dan saya sedikit pun tidak akan gentar dan akan terus bersemangat untuk menjalankan tugas yang diamanahkan kepada saya," katanya.
Nota :
Dari Wikipedia bahasa Indonesia, ensiklopedia bebas
Sandiwara disebut juga drama, adalah sebuah pertunjukan pentasan sebuah cerita atau disebut pula lakon dalam bahasa Jawa. Sebuah sandiwara bisa berdasarkan skenario atau tidak. Apabila tidak, maka semuanya dipentaskan secara spontan dengan banyak improvisasi.
Secara umum istilah "sandiwara" dalam bahasa Indonesia diartikan sama dengan drama. Akan tetapi secara khusus istilah sandiwara mengacu kepada kesenian pertunjukan teater drama tradisional rakyat Indonesia, khususnya di daerah Jawa Barat. Kelompok Sandiwara Sunda atau Sandiwara Indramayu dapat ditemukan di Jawa Barat (terutama sekitar Cirebon danIndramayu) dan Jakarta, salah satunya yang terkenal adalah kelompok Sandiwara Sunda Miss Tjitjih di daerah di Cempaka Baru Timur, Jakarta Pusat. Kisah sandiwara ini dapat bersifat percintaan, komedi, horor, tragedi, atau kisah roman sejarah.
Kalau Tidak...Apa Yang Akan Berlaku....??
PAS: DAFTAR PEMILIH KOTOR UNTUK TUMBANGKAN SELANGOR - MK
Dewan Pemuda PAS Pusat mendakwa pihaknya mempunyai "daftar pemilih kotor" yang didakwa boleh menumbangkan kerajaan negeri Selangor pada pilihan raya umum akan datang.
Timbalan Pengerusi Lajnah Pemulihan Demokrasi dan Mobilisasi Mohd Adram Musa berkata pihaknya mempunyai data seramai "puluhan ribu" yang didakwa "pengundi klon".
"Apa yang kami ada, daftar pemilih kotor yang sudah cukup untuk menjatuhkan kerajaan negeri Selangor.
"Adakah ini kerja-kerja seperti mana yang disebut oleh perdana menteri yang berkata melakukan apa sahaja untuk mengambil balik Selangor?
"Apa yang kami ada, sudah cukup (untuk) menjatuhkan kerajaan Selangor," katanya.
Menurutnya lagi, berdasarkan analisis pihaknya jumlah pengundi klon itu, membolehkan BN merampas sekurang-kurang sepuluh kerusi DUN di negeri itu.
Sehubungan itu, beliau mendesak Suruhanjaya Pilihan Raya dan Jabatan Pendaftaran Negera menjelaskan jumlah pengundi dari daftar pemilih yang telah digugurkan dan yang akan digugurkan.
Pihaknya memberi masa 14 hari kepada kedua-dua pihak tersebut untuk membuat penjelasan.
NOTA:
semua sudah jelas
semua telah dibuktikan
undi pos undi tipu
mat indon..mat bangla dijadikan pengundi
beri 14 hari?
lepas 14 hari berlalu apa jadi..??
orang ramai sudah bosan
dulu ada amaran:
ada 7 hari
ada 9 hari
ada 3 hari
tapi hari berlalu tak ada apa apa
satu habuk pun taraak
tolong jangan tipu rakyat
tolong jangan jadi nato
nato: no action talk only
kita sabar dan tunngu
hari ini dah 24 ogos
kalau 14 hari lagi...
maka hari itu ialah 7 september
apa yang akan berlaku
pada 7 september nanti?
sama sama kita tunggu
kah kah kah
Aug 23, 2011
Harga Yang Anwar Terpaksa Bayar Untuk Sistem Perundangan Di Malaysia...
PKR samakan tindakan Anwar dengan Mandela-MK
PKR hari ini mempertahankan kenyataan tidak bersumpah ketua umumnya, Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim yang disifatkan sebagai "alat yang berkuasa terhadap undang-undang dan pihak berkuasa yang zalim". Parti itu mengibaratkan tindakan berkenaan sama seperti yang diambil pejuang anti-apartheid Nelson Mandela.
Dalam kenyataan mediannya, naib presiden PKR, N Surendran menjelaskan keputusan Anwar yang memilih untuk memberi keterangan dari kandang tertuduh di dalam perbicaraan membela diri kes liwat keduanya, semalam, yang dikritik hebat oleh pengkritik kerana dianggap menggunakan peluang itu bagi membidas badan kehakiman dan parti pemerintah.
"Keputusan tidak memberi keterangan dari kandang saksi sekaligus menujukkan protes terhadap sistem perundangan dan politik yang tidak adil.
"Apa yang mereka pentingkan adalah politik mereka sahaja. Mereka juga mengabaikan perkara-perkara yang memberi manfaat kepada orang ramai dan negara," katanya.
Menurut Surendran, dengan berbuat demikian Anwar telah mengakui bahawa hasil perbicaraan kes liwat yang dihadapinya akan berakhir dengan kegagalan.
“Sekarang dia telah mengubah pendakwaan itu dan menjadikannya sebagai senjata untuk memperbaiki negara.”
Mengetahui bahawa wajaran yang kurang akan diberikan kepada kenyataan yang tidak boleh disoal-balas itu, Surendran berkata, Anwar bertegas membuat pilihan itu sebagai protes terhadap sistem perundangan dan politik yang tidak adil.
"Dengan enggan untuk memberi keterangan dan mencabar mereka untuk melakukan yang paling teruk, Anwar sebenarnya telah meletakkan undang-undang dan politik itu sendiri yang dibicarakan."
Beliau berkata menerusi tindakan itu, Anwar telah membuktikan bagaimana sistem keadilan negara berjaya dijadikan alat oleh mereka yang berkuasa sekarang.
Surendran kemudian menarik persamaan antara Anwar dan bekas presiden Afrika Selatan, Mandela, yang pernah juga memilih untuk memberi kenyataan dari kandang tertuduh semasa perbicaraan politik yang dihadapinya.
"Mandela menggunakan pendekatan yang sama seperti Anwar (kandang tertuduh) dalam perbicaraan Rivonia Sham untuk mendedahkan kejahatan regim Apartheid kepada dunia," katanya lagi.
Tawaran PAS : Malaysia Negara Berkebajikkan Untuk Semua...!!
Parti Islam Se-Malaysia melalui Lajnah Penerangan dan Dakwah akan menganjurkan Konvensyen Negara Berkebajikan pada 10hb September 2011 depan di Dewan Ustaz Fadhil Noor KUIZM, Taman Melewar. Konvensyen tersebut diadakan bertujuan menghurai dan memberi kefahaman kepada seluruh kepimpinan parti mengenai Konsep Asas Negara Berkebajikan sebagaimana Ucapan Dasar Presiden tahun ini Menuju Negara Berkebajikan.
Konvensyen juga akan merumuskan sebuah rangka gerak kerja bagi melaksanakan ucapan Dasar Presiden. Presiden PAS, Dato' Seri Tuan Guru Hj Abd Hadi Awang akan membentangkan Konsep Asas Negara Berkebajikan dalam ucaputamanya, beberapa tokoh politik dan NGO akan turut memberi ulasan ucaputama Presiden, antaranya Dr. Mohd Noor Manuty (Ketua Penerangan PKR), YB Dr. Tan Seng Giaw (Naib Pengerusi DAP Pusat) dan Tuan Hj Azmi Abdul Hamid (Presiden TERAS).
Huraian lanjut mengenai Konsep Negera Berkebajikan juga akan dibentangkan sebagai Dokumen Negara Berkebajikan oleh Naib Presiden PAS YB Salahuddin Ayob. Dokumen tersebut merupakan penjelasan berupa tawaran-tawaran PAS kepada rakyat, dan ia tidak lari dari Buku Jingga bahkan melengkapkan lagi tawaran-tawaran PR apabila diberi mandat memerintah negara.
YAB Datuk Mursyidul Am juga akan hadir bagi menyampaikankan ucapan penutup dalam konvensyen tersebut.
Peserta terlibat dalam konvensyen tersebut semua kepimpinan tertinggi parti peringkat pusat, negeri dan kawasan-kawasan. Dijangka hampir 1000 orang akan menghadiri konvenseyen ini.Para peserta akan berpeluang berdialog dengan pimpinan tertinggi parti dalam memahami Konsep Negara Berkebajikan yang menjadi tema utama PAS dalam Ucapan Dasar Presiden baru-baru ini. Ia sekali gus bagi menangkis tohmahan Umno BN yang kononnya PAS lari dari hala tuju perjuangan apabila memperkenalkan Negara Berkebajikan.
Semua negeri dan kawasan diminta mengosongkan tarikh tersebut bagi memberi tumpuan menghadiri program tersebut.
Ustaz Dato' Tuan Ibrahim Tuan Man
Ketua Penerangan PAS Pusat.Pengumuman
UMNO Mengkhianati Kepercayaan Rakyat...!!
KUALA TERENGGANU - Kerajaan negeri diminta penjelasan berkaitan tanah rakyat yang terlibat dengan projek pembinaan Istana baru di Chendering, Kuala Terengganu.
Ini kerana, kes pengambilan tanah rakyat itu dibuat tanpa pengetahuan rakyat hingga terpaksa dibawa ke mahkamah.
Ahli Dewan Undangan Negeri (Adun) Wakaf Mempelam, Mohd Abdul Wahid Endut mendakwa sejak mutakhir ini isu tanah yang melibatkan rakyat dan kerajaan menjadi semakin ‘menjadi-jadi’.
Menurutnya, pada persidangan Dewan Undangan Negeri (Dun) yang lalu telah dibangkitkan mengenai isu tanah rakyat yang berhampiran dengan projek Istana baru di Chendering.
“Saya hendak sebut kes yang pernah disebut pada persidangan Dun ini yang lalu iaitu tanah rakyat yang berhampiran dengan projek Istana (baru) itu di Chendering.
“Sejauh manakah penyelesaian dibuat kerana melibatkan tanah rakyat. Dan tanah itu berpindah milik tanpa pengetahuan rakyat, tanpa dipanggil untuk dibicara untuk tujuan pengambilan balik tanah dan sehingga kes itu dibawa ke mahkamah.
“Akhir-akhir ini isu tanah ini menjadi semakin ‘menjadi-jadi’(berulang),” ujarnya ketika berucap membahaskan Anggaran Perbelanjaan Pembangunan Tambahan Pertama 2011 Perbelanjaan 2011, pada Persidangan Dewan Undangan Negeri (Dun) Kedua Penggal Keempat, di Wisma Darul Iman, 22 Ogos lalu.
Ini kerana, katanya persoalan isu tanah sering kali dibawa ke dewan bagi menuntut penjelasan dan pembelaan kepada rakyat.
Menurut beliau, beberapa isu tanah melibatkan rakyat pernah diketengahkan dalam persidangan Dun Terengganu yang lalu.
“Saya pernah sebut sebelum daripada ini isu pembinaan sekolah, isu pembinaan loji di Kampung Gaung dan isu pembinaan jalan di Kampung Banggol Donas yang melibatkan rakyat.
“Tetapi yang terakhir ini ada juga tanah yang telah dibuat laporan polis iaitu berkaitan tanah pindah milik kepada North East Plantation (NEP) oleh Pejabat Tanah dan Galian (PTG).
“Tanah NEP ini pertama, ada ‘kaveat’ dan yang keduanya, dalam proses pengambilan balik oleh kerajaan melalui Warta Kerajaan nombor 635 bertarikh 27 Mei 2010 tetapi ‘sedar-sedarnya’ pada 9 Jun 2011 berlaku pindah milik,” ujarnya.
Persoalannya, kata Abdul Wahid bolehkah pindah milik dilakukan dalam keadaan pengambilan balik tanah telah diwartakan serta belum selesai kes ‘kaveat’.
Persidangan Dun Terengganu berlangsung selama dua hari bermula 22 hingga 23 Ogos 2011 yang bertujuan menuntut penambahan bajet sebanyak RM155,543,600.00 diluluskan kali ini.
Lintas Langsung Dari Jalan Duta....!!
Doktor Pusrawi, Dr Mohamad Osman mendedahkan di mahkamah sebentar tadi bahawa Saiful memasukkan pelastik ke dalam j**ur dia supaya nampak macam kena liwat
Nota:
sila cadangkan..botol yang mana
yang terbaik untuk dimasukkan ke dlam jubur saifool
agar mahkamah yakin yang saifool
bukan anak dara lagi
kah kah kah
Kenyataan Rasmi....!!
JAWATANKUASA PILIHAN KHAS PEMBAHARUAN PILIHAN RAYA TAK GAMBARKAN KEIKHLASAN PM DAN UMNO-BN
Saya merujuk kenyataan terbaru Saifuddin Abdullah, Timbalan Menteri Pengajian Tinggi dan Ahli Parlimen Temerloh yang meminta Pakatan Rakyat menyertai Jawatankuasa Pilihan Khas Pembaharuan Pilihan Raya dan tidak mempersoalkan keikhlasan Najib Razak dan UMNO-BN dalam menubuhkannya.
Saya pertama sekali ingin memuji Saifuddin sebagai antara minoriti kecil Menteri/Timbalan Menteri BN yang punya keberanian menyatakan prinsip dan pandangannya walaupun diserang bertubi-tubi oleh UMNO sendiri.
Pun begitu dalam hal ini saya berbeza pandangan dengannya.
Amalan perlantikan Jawatankuasa Pilihan Khas ini adalah amalan Parlimen Westminster. Secara tradisinya, Jawatankuasa Kira-Kira Awam (Public Accounts Committee atau PAC) yang dilihat memainkan peranan penting dalam memastikan kebertanggungjawaban dan ketelusan Kerajaan yang memerintah dipengerusikan Ahli Parlimen pembangkang. Ini bukan sahaja amalan di negara maju. India, misalnya, mempunyai Pengerusi PAC yang dipilih daripada pembangkang sejak tahun 1967.
Negeri pertama di Malaysia yang mengusulkan agar Pengerusi PAC diberikan kepada pihak pembangkang ialah Selangor di bawah Pakatan Rakyat pada tahun 2010. Cadangan itu dipersetujui oleh YB Khir Toyo dalam pertemuan dengan Speaker DUN Selangor Teng Chang Khim sebelum Sidang DUN pada Julai 2010 tetapi kemudian usul perlantikan Pengerusi PAC daripada pembangkang (BN) ditolak ketika Sidang DUN berlangsung.
Saya tidak tahu mengapa BN tukar fikiran di Selangor, tetapi kita berharap PM dapat menunjukkan kepimpinannya dan keikhlasannya dalam transformasi demokrasi negara dengan meletakkan syarat ini. Saya yakin Pakatan Rakyat tiada masalah menerimanya.
Malah, bukan ini sahaja. Pada 15 Ogos PM menegaskan penubuhan Jawatankuasa Pilihan Khas Pembaharuan Pilihan Raya dibuat bagi memastikan pilihan raya akan datang akan dijalankan secara bersih dan adil tanpa boleh dipertikaikan mana-mana pihak.
Ini nampaknya ekoran nasihat penasihat-penasihat dan konsultan-konsultan mewah yang dilantik BN yang melihat kesan negatif cara PM menguruskan BERSIH 2.0.
Tetapi penyakit ‘flip-flop’ ini terus menular dalam Jawatankuasa Pilihan Khas Pembaharuan Pilihan Raya apabila PM tunduk kepada Tan Sri Muhyiddin Yassin dan menegaskan pilihan raya boleh diadakan bila-bila masa dan tidak tertakluk kepada Jawatankuasa Pilihan Khas tersebut.
Setiap pelajar undang-undang dan Perlembagaan Malaysia tahu kuasa membubarkan Parlimen adalah tertakluk kepada nasihat PM kepada Seri Paduka Baginda Yang Di Pertuan Agong. Mengapa PM harus mengalah kepada TPM dalam hal ini?
Wujud sedikit harapan bahawa PM akan akhirnya menunjukkan kepimpinannya dan menjadikan Jawatankuasa Pilihan Khas ini sebagai warisannya kepada demokrasi Malaysia tetapi nampaknya harapan tersebut berkecai lagi.
Beza Pakatan dan BN ialah jelas – Pakatan cakap serupa bikin dan BN pula cakap tak serupa bikin.
NIK NAZMI NIK AHMAD
Pengarah Komunikasi
Parti Keadilan Rakyat
Saya merujuk kenyataan terbaru Saifuddin Abdullah, Timbalan Menteri Pengajian Tinggi dan Ahli Parlimen Temerloh yang meminta Pakatan Rakyat menyertai Jawatankuasa Pilihan Khas Pembaharuan Pilihan Raya dan tidak mempersoalkan keikhlasan Najib Razak dan UMNO-BN dalam menubuhkannya.
Saya pertama sekali ingin memuji Saifuddin sebagai antara minoriti kecil Menteri/Timbalan Menteri BN yang punya keberanian menyatakan prinsip dan pandangannya walaupun diserang bertubi-tubi oleh UMNO sendiri.
Pun begitu dalam hal ini saya berbeza pandangan dengannya.
Amalan perlantikan Jawatankuasa Pilihan Khas ini adalah amalan Parlimen Westminster. Secara tradisinya, Jawatankuasa Kira-Kira Awam (Public Accounts Committee atau PAC) yang dilihat memainkan peranan penting dalam memastikan kebertanggungjawaban dan ketelusan Kerajaan yang memerintah dipengerusikan Ahli Parlimen pembangkang. Ini bukan sahaja amalan di negara maju. India, misalnya, mempunyai Pengerusi PAC yang dipilih daripada pembangkang sejak tahun 1967.
Negeri pertama di Malaysia yang mengusulkan agar Pengerusi PAC diberikan kepada pihak pembangkang ialah Selangor di bawah Pakatan Rakyat pada tahun 2010. Cadangan itu dipersetujui oleh YB Khir Toyo dalam pertemuan dengan Speaker DUN Selangor Teng Chang Khim sebelum Sidang DUN pada Julai 2010 tetapi kemudian usul perlantikan Pengerusi PAC daripada pembangkang (BN) ditolak ketika Sidang DUN berlangsung.
Saya tidak tahu mengapa BN tukar fikiran di Selangor, tetapi kita berharap PM dapat menunjukkan kepimpinannya dan keikhlasannya dalam transformasi demokrasi negara dengan meletakkan syarat ini. Saya yakin Pakatan Rakyat tiada masalah menerimanya.
Malah, bukan ini sahaja. Pada 15 Ogos PM menegaskan penubuhan Jawatankuasa Pilihan Khas Pembaharuan Pilihan Raya dibuat bagi memastikan pilihan raya akan datang akan dijalankan secara bersih dan adil tanpa boleh dipertikaikan mana-mana pihak.
Ini nampaknya ekoran nasihat penasihat-penasihat dan konsultan-konsultan mewah yang dilantik BN yang melihat kesan negatif cara PM menguruskan BERSIH 2.0.
Tetapi penyakit ‘flip-flop’ ini terus menular dalam Jawatankuasa Pilihan Khas Pembaharuan Pilihan Raya apabila PM tunduk kepada Tan Sri Muhyiddin Yassin dan menegaskan pilihan raya boleh diadakan bila-bila masa dan tidak tertakluk kepada Jawatankuasa Pilihan Khas tersebut.
Setiap pelajar undang-undang dan Perlembagaan Malaysia tahu kuasa membubarkan Parlimen adalah tertakluk kepada nasihat PM kepada Seri Paduka Baginda Yang Di Pertuan Agong. Mengapa PM harus mengalah kepada TPM dalam hal ini?
Wujud sedikit harapan bahawa PM akan akhirnya menunjukkan kepimpinannya dan menjadikan Jawatankuasa Pilihan Khas ini sebagai warisannya kepada demokrasi Malaysia tetapi nampaknya harapan tersebut berkecai lagi.
Beza Pakatan dan BN ialah jelas – Pakatan cakap serupa bikin dan BN pula cakap tak serupa bikin.
NIK NAZMI NIK AHMAD
Pengarah Komunikasi
Parti Keadilan Rakyat
Betul Ke Akhbar Kompass Mintak Maaf..??
KOMPAS DIPAKSA MOHON MAAF
Menurut sumber Malaysiakini, permohonan maaf yang dituntut oleh Pejabat Perdana Menteri (PMO) pada mulanya ditolak oleh editor Kompas yang bertegas mempertahankan artikel mereka, khususnya berhubung dakwaan kegiatan kongsi gelap Maira, yang juga boleh dilayari secara meluas di Internet.
Dua penasihat itu kemudiannya mengancam mengugut Kompas dengan tindakan undang-undang, tetapi ini juga gagal untuk menundukkan akhbar Indonesia yang berpengaruh itu.
Kompas, bagaimanapun bersetuju membuka ruang kepada Najib untuk menjawap dan menangkis segala tuduhan dengan menghantar editor antarabangsa, Jimmy Harianto bagi menemubual Najib di Putrajaya pada Khamis lalu.
Bagiamanapun pada Ahad lalu, agensi berita nasional Bernama mengesahkan bahawa Kompas telah meminta maaf kepada Najib.
Aug 22, 2011
Tersungkurnya Sebuah Lagi Rejim Diktator....!!
Rejim Gaddafi akhirnya tumbang-MK
Selepas lebih enam bulan berlaku pemberontakan di Libya, rejim Muammar Gaddafi akhirnya tumbang setelah kumpulan pemberontak berjaya menawan hampir seluruh bandar Tripoli.
Bagaimanapun nasib pemimpin Libya itu masih menjadi tanda tanya.
Menurut AFP, anak lelaki bongsu Gaddafi, Seif al-Islam ditangkap oleh pemberontak, manakala anak lelaki sulungnya, Mohammed Al-Gaddafi yang diwawancara oleh televisyen Al-Jazeera di kediamannya dilaporkan menyerah diri, tetapi nasib anak-anaknya yang lain masih tidak diketahui.
Awal pagi ini, Sky News melaporkan pemberontak Libya tiba di Dataran Hijau di tengah Tripoli.
Ramai pemuda mengibarkan bendera merah, hitam dan hijau milik pasukan anti-kerajaan dan bersorak dan menari sambil bertakbir dan melepaskan tembakan ke udara.
Ramai yang menunjuk isyarat jari keamanan sambil menjerit "beritahu Muammar dan anak lelakinya bahawa Libya mempunyai anak jantan".
Sementara itu, Reuters yang memetik televisyen al-Jazeera melaporkan anak lelaki sulung pemimpin Libya, Muammar Gaddafi, Mohammad, memberitahu awal hari ini bahawa beliau ditahan pemberontak dan dikenakan tahanan di rumah di Tripoli.
“Anggota bersenjata mengepung rumah saya dan saya masih berada di dalam dan mereka di luar. Mereka berkata akan menjamin keselamatan saya. Mereka mengepung rumah saya," katanya menerusi panggilan telefon dari Tripoli.
Bunyi tembakan boleh didengar semasa perbualan itu.
"Ya, tembakan itu dalam rumah saya," katanya sebelum talian tiba-tiba terputus.
Munajat Perdana PRU 13 Serentak Di Seluruh Negara...!!
Lajnah Tarbiah Dan Perkaderan Pas Pusat Dengan Kerjasama Lajnah Tarbiah Negeri/Wilayah akan menganjurkan program Munajat Perdana Pilihanraya Umum ke-13 (PU-13) yang akan diadakan pada 26 Ramadhan bersamaan 26 Ogos 2011.
Program tersebut akan bermula pada jam 9.45 malam hari Jumaat Malam Hingga jam 5.50 pagi hari Sabtu 27 Ogos.
Matlamat 'Munajat' adalah bagi mengumpulkan kekuatan rohani dikalangan para petugas PAS dengan bermunajat kepada Allah dan memohon diberi hidayah kepada rakyat Malaysia menerima perjuangan Islam.
Program yang dibuka kepada umum ini diadakan secara serentak di 14 lokasi seluruh negara seperti berikut;
1. Johor
Markaz PAS Kawasan Simpang Renggam
Kg Shaari, 86200 Simpang Renggam
Johor Darul Takzim
2. Kelantan
Dewan Zulkifli, Pejabat Perhubungan PAS Kelantan
Jalan Dato’ Pati, Kota Bharu
Kelantan
Munajat di Stadium Sultan Mohamad IV kita Bharu, Kelantan
3. Perak
Dewan Tuan Guru Samad Noh Air Kuning
Taiping, Perak
4. Kedah
Kompleks PAS Kedah
KM 13, Jalan Alor Setar-Sungai Petani
Simpang 4, 06650 Alor Setar
Kedah
5. Melaka
Madrasah Ar-Rahimah
Tolok Gaung, Air Molek
(Bukit Katil) Melaka
6. Wilayah Persekutuan
Dewan Dato’ Fadzil Noor
Kolej Universiti Islam Zulkifli Muhammad (KUIZM)
Lorong Haji Hassan, Off Jalan Batu Geliga
Taman Melewar, Batu Caves, Selangor
7. Terengganu
Kg Masjid Rusila
Marang, Terengganu
8. Negeri Sembilan
Muassasah Darul Shariff
Serting, Jempol
Negeri Sembilan
9. Pulau Pinang
Markaz Tarbiyah PAS Negeri, Pongsu Seribu
13200 Kepala Batas
Seberang Perai, Pulau Pinang
10. Perlis
Kompleks PAS Perlis
Jalan Stadium Utama
01000 Kangar, Perlis
11. Sabah
Pejabat Pemuda PAS Sabah
King Fisher, Kota Kinabalu
Sabah
12. Sarawak
Pejabat Perhubungan PAS Sarawak
No. 6793, Lorong 4
Taman Matang Jaya
97050 Kuching
Sarawak
13. Selangor
Dataran Markaz Pas Sabak Bernam
14. Pahang
Dataran Kompleks Pas Pahang Kerdau
Tentatif Program Munajat Perdana adalah seperti beriku, tertakluk kepada sebarang perubahan:
09.00-09.45 PM Solat Tarawih
09.45-09.50 PM Ucapan Pesuruhjaya Negeri-Negeril/WP (Tidak Live)
10.00-10.10 PM Ucapan Pengarah Program Untuk Mempengerusikan Majlis
(Live daripada Taman Melewar)
10.10-10.40 PM Ucapan YB Dato Haji Harun Taib (Live daripada Masjid Rusila)
10.40-11.20 PM Ucapan YB Datuk Seri Tuan Guru Haji Abdul Hadi Awang (Live daripada Rusila)
11.20-12.00 PM Ucapan YAB Dato Tuan Guru Haji Nik Aziz Nik Mat (Live daripada Kota Bahru).
03.00 -05.50 AM MUNAJAT DI NEGERI MASING-MASING
Selepas subuh bersurai.
Tunggu Laaa Sampai Kiamat....!!
FITNAH 11 : NAJIB ,ROSMAH AKAN DISEPINA – Keadilan dauily
Najib Razak dan suaminya Rosmah Mansor akan dikeluarkan sepina oleh pasukan pembela, supaya tampil sebagai saksi dalam kes fitnah II membabitkan Anwar Ibrahim.
Turut akan disepina adalah bekas Ketua Polis Negara, Musa Hassan dan bekas Ketua Polis Melaka, Mohd Rodhwan Mohd Yusof.
Kesemua mereka sebelum ini enggan ditemubual dan enggan menjadi saksi peguam bela.
Najib pernah bertemu Saiful dua hari sebelum insiden liwat didakwa berlaku iaitu pada 28 Jun 2008.
Malah Saiful juga pernah bertemu Najib sebelum itu atas alasan memohon biasiswa, meskipun beliau gagal menamatkan pengajian di kolej .
Selain itu Saiful turut bertemu dengan beberapa tokoh lain termasuk Mumtaz Jaafar, pembantu khas kepada Rosmah.
Pada perbicaraan Mac lalu, mahkamah diberitahu oleh pegawai penyiasat polis DSP Jude Pereira bahawa beliau telah mengambil keterangan Najib dan Rosmah mengenai perkara itu, sekaligus mewajarkan kedua-duanya menjadi saksi dalam kes tersebut.
---------------------------------------------------------
woit...AIMAN TAK KISAH...TAPI JANGAN HARAP LAA...SAMPAI KIAMAT PUN TAK KAN DATANG....
Malaysia Adalah Negara Ciplak...!!
Kalau tidak percaya sila lihat bendera amerika 
Kalau tidak percaya sila dengar lalu terang bulan
Kalau tidak percaya sila dengar lagu memula moon
kau tak sedar juga hantukkan kepala ke pintu jamban
kah kah kah
Kalau tidak percaya sila dengar lalu terang bulan
Kalau tidak percaya sila dengar lagu memula moon
kau tak sedar juga hantukkan kepala ke pintu jamban
kah kah kah
Selamat Menyambut Hari Malapetaka...!!
NOTA:
31 ogos ini bukan hari merdeka
31 ogos ialah hari malapetaka
pada 15 mei ialah NAKBA untuk rakyat palestine
pada 15 mei 1948 israel diwujudkan
pada 31 ogos ialah MALAPETAKA untuk tanah melayu
pada 31 ogos 1957 BN naik tahtha
Kenyataan Anwar Dari Kandang Tertuduh
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
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
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
