| Did Malaysia's Anwar Say too Much? |
| Written by John Berthelsen | |
| TUESDAY, 23 AUGUST 2011 |
He says accuser acknowledged readying himself for sex
Deep into Opposition Leader Anwar Ibrahim’s hour-long attack Monday on the Malaysian court that is trying him for sodomy, a sentence appeared that seems extremely awkward for both prosecution and defense.
Anwar said in his prepared statement that after Saiful went to Anwar’s condo in an exclusive area of Kuala Lumpur, he admitted that “he had brought along lubricant and had himself voluntarily and without hesitation applied it” to get ready to go ahead with the sexual act.
A US diplomatic cable on the WikiLeaks website that was published in Asia Sentinel on Jan. 20, 2011, related that “Singapore's intelligence services and Lee Kuan Yew have told the Australian Office of National Assessments (ONA) that opposition leader Anwar ‘did indeed commit the acts for which he is currently indicted,’ citing unshared technical intelligence. ONA assessed, and their Singapore counterparts concurred, ‘it was a set up job -- and he probably knew that, but walked into it anyway.’"
It is hard not to come to the same conclusion. -
Asia Sentinel's FULL REPORT.
Al-Jub saying - I did it my way. This whole liwat-gate has been turned into a political charade by this desperate man who will not stop at anything. Its a do or die situation and dont be shocked if he does a teoh beng hock. latest case development shows his desperation. the case against him is almost watertight and he know that too well.
ReplyDeleteI think this is Karpal's strategy. Discredit the Judge and apply for a mis-trial. They'll go all the way up the appeals ladder to the Federal Court to either get the whole thing quashed or to start all over again. It's a gamble worth taking. It'll allow more time for Anwar to do his thing, mindful that PRU 13 is due by 2013. So brace yourself for some more drama until PRU 13.
ReplyDeleteBar Council is a bs council for not demanding that section 377b be abolished and the case thrown out. They never make a stand. Heres something for Apanama to consider refining for publishing :
ReplyDeleteFriday, 02 September 2011 18:27
Malaysia's human trafficking policy is politically driven, says Bar Council
Written by Lim Chee Wee
Malaysia's human trafficking policy is politically driven, says Bar Council
The Malaysian Government has responded to the decision of the High Court of Australia to declare invalid the so-called “refugee swap deal”
by insisting that the arrangement was, “the best way to tackle the menace of people traffickers in a way that protects the interests of
Australia, Malaysia and, above all, the immigrants involved”.
If protecting the interests of the immigrants involved is indeed the goal, the Malaysian Bar then questions the decision of the Malaysian
Government to deport 11 Chinese nationals of Uighur ethnicity back to China on 18 August 2011. According to Minister of Home Affairs Dato’
Seri Hishammuddin Tun Hussein, these 11 Uighurs were involved in human trafficking and were wanted by the Chinese Government.
This action is questionable, given that we have an Anti-Trafficking in Persons and Anti-Smuggling of Migrants Act 2007 that is capable of
dealing with foreign nationals allegedly involved in people trafficking or migrant smuggling. There was no pressing need for the Malaysian
Government to deport the 11 Uighurs back to China if it genuinely wanted to address the issue of people trafficking or migrant smuggling.
They should have been prosecuted here instead, and their victims of human trafficking safeguarded in Malaysia. However, they have been
deported to China, and nothing has been heard about protecting their human trafficking victims. There is also no information about the
whereabouts of the 11 Uighurs, what has happened to them, or indeed whether or not they are still alive. One of the 11 is married to a
Malaysian.
In the Australian situation, the Malaysian Government wanted to have an arrangement with the Australian Government even though Malaysia did
not have the requisite legal regime. In the Chinese situation, even though the necessary legislation is in place, the Malaysian Government
chose instead to relinquish legal jurisdiction over the 11 Uighurs and hand them back to China. The inconsistent actions raise questions
about the purpose and motive of the act of deportation.
The Uighurs, who are predominantly Muslim, rebelled against Chinese Government rule in their native Xinjiang Province in July 2009. From
that perspective, the deportation of the 11 Uighurs back to China raises grave concerns whether the Malaysian Government refouled potential
refugees or asylum seekers in violation of international law. We are given to understand that the Office of the United Nations High
Commissioner for Refugees in Kuala Lumpur was denied access to these 11 Uighurs and was therefore unable to ascertain whether they were in a
position to make an asylum claim.
This follows the decision by the Malaysian Government to release eight immigration officials who were said to have been involved in a human
ReplyDeletetrafficking ring. These officers were arrested under the Internal Security Act 1960 in October 2010 and then subsequently released in August
2011 without charge. Again, nothing has been mentioned about protecting their human trafficking victims. By its very failure to take further
legal action, the Malaysian Government is placing in jeopardy its integrity in respect of human trafficking.
The public is left with little choice than to view the Malaysian Government’s dithering action in respect of human trafficking as being
dictated more by foreign and domestic political considerations rather than a sincere desire to do what is right.
- Lim Chee Wee is the president of the Malaysian Bar
[[[ ***
A guilty conscience cannot be cleared with a vague complaint that is not even a lawsuit. Bar Councils do not handle things like this refugee
issue. A single activist could handle and highlight this. What REAL Bar Councils handle are :
1) Freedom from Apartheid/Fascism
2) Freedom from Religious-Persecution/Religious-Supremacy.
3) Equality for all ethnicities and faiths in all aspects of policy, Law and Constitution.
Or are you afraid that you will become targeted like some of us out to ensure . A case of choosing enemies carefully and not addressing the
real issues. Bar Council fall far short of it's expected role in society.
Not a sound on Toll Concessionaires who have obviously profited 1000s of times over and still refuse top be shut down? Not a peep on
Vehicular AP? Not a word on Forced Military Conscriptions? No address on shipping bailouts in shipping empires of former PMs, loss of Oil
Blocs via uncostitutional deals of former PMs?
If Bar Council is a REAL Bar Council, it will sue the Transport Ministry and Transport Minister, sue forced NS Department and sue the
penners of forced NS, sue the Supreme Court perhaps via international methods for mishandling the Anwar sodomy case, sue the Prime Ministers
department with the State government of Sarawak to have the Oil block give aways overturned . . . ) Bar Council is unethical and lazy, or
should that also include STUPID, corrupted or frightened?
Disappointing and not too atypical for ethics deficient Malaysia Chronicle to make them seem like a great white hope when this is something
for local migrant community heads NOT the full force (if there is any sense of justice in Bar Council at all) of a Bar Council (all studied
at English Inns of Law? affiliated to Free Masonry?) to handle.
Prove this comment wrong - SLAM Bumiputra Apartheid, Religious Supremacy abuses where occured, take out those lawsuits on the people
destroying the country. Or just close down the Bar Council and hand over the keys to any REAL Bar Council ready to tackle democratic
failures and other high tech abuses.
Where is the 'Lion of Jelutong', hiding in the mousehole? Not a word on the above issus, no official roar of condemnation as a lawyer and MP
who cars for the Rakyat, via open letter on a public website? What cheating has occured by Karpal (a supposedly senior lawyer) that he dares
not speak up?
What is the Bar Council? An mere activist group from the migrant community of the refugees? Act or a Citizens lawsuit against Bar Council
for dereliction of duty to the citizens is filed. Does Bar Council have privileges, get Federal stipends? If Bar Council does, Bar Council
does not deserve anything at all. The malaysiaan Bar Council is an insult to the legal profession worldwide.
Which grouping of MPs supports this action for the citizens against a subverted/lapdog Bar Council? Which professional body of citizens
wishes to challenge the failures detailed here? An article on this, based on these issues Apanama?