Qazaf: Jawapan kepada Anwar dan penyokongnya

Dalam episod Anwar lawan Saiful Bukhari, hukum Qazaf sering cuba digunakan untuk membenteng Anwar daripada mempertahankan diri dan menjawab dakwaan Saiful. Sedangkan, adalah sangat jelas bahawa fakta kes menunjukkan bahawa ini bukanlah kes tuduhan zina atau liwat biasa tetapi lebih menyerupai kes rogol atau yang lebih tepat sumbang mahram atau gangguan seksual antara majikan dan pekerja. Perbezaan utama antara kedua-dua kategori ini adalah wujudnya unsur paksaan sama ada secara fizikal atau secara tidak langsung di sebalik perlakuan yang terbabit. Saiful membuat aduan kerana mendakwa tidak rela dan tidak mahu lagi diperlakukan sebegitu.

oleh Zulkifli Noordin di Agenda Daily

---

Sudah lebih satu dekad, iaitu sejak tahun 1998, Anwar Ibrahim, dengan pelbagai episod kontroversial yang melibatkan dirinya, telah menjadi tokoh yang paling mempengaruhi situasi politik tanah air.

Oleh kerana pada ketika bermulanya Saga Anwar, dengan pemecatannya pada September 1998, beliau merupakan seorang tokoh besar dalam negara maka pelbagai episod yang melibatkan beliau begitu menarik minat dan menangkap imaginasi masyarakat.

Boleh dikatakan beliau adalah tokoh yang paling disanjungi oleh sebahagian daripada kita dan paling dibenci pula oleh sebahagian yang lain. Malah, sanjungan atau kebencian terhadap pelbagai tokoh, pertubuhan dan institusi yang lain dalam negara ini turut banyak dipengaruhi oleh persepsi kita terhadap peranan mereka dalam saga Anwar ini.

Akhirnya saga yang cukup panjang dan dramatik ini nampaknya makin menghampiri babak penutupnya. Terutamanya dengan kemunculan dua episod terakhir yang sangat besar kesannya iaitu, episod kes tuduhan liwat Mohd. Saiful Bukhari Azlan serta episod video seks yang didedahkan Datuk Shazryl Eskay Abdullah.

Jikalau terbukti Anwar benar-benar bersalah dalam kedua-dua episod ini atau salah satu daripadanya maka sudah pasti Anwar sudah tiada kredibiliti lagi untuk memimpin, hatta keluarganya sendiri sekalipun.

Kita katakan ini kerana, jika Anwar terbukti bersalah dalam dua episod terbaru ini, maka berkemungkinan besar bahawa semua atau sekurang-kurangnya sebahagian besar dakwaan-dakwaan terhadap Anwar selama ini, sama ada isu moral mahupun bukan moral, juga adalah benar.

Jika dihimbau kembali segala dakwaan dan ‘dalil’ yang timbul sebelum-sebelum ini, hakikatnya ia menampilkan Anwar sebagai individu yang cukup bermasalah dan berpenyakit. Tidak patut lagi mana-mana pihak mempunyai prinsip menyokong Anwar kecuali mereka yang terdesak dan atau mempunyai agenda sampingan lalu mahu mempergunakan beliau untuk mencapai matlamat lain.

Sebaliknya, jika terbukti bahawa Anwar bersih dan tidak bersalah, maka memang wajarlah beliau mendapat simpati kita semua dan memang sangat zalimlah mereka yang mereka-reka tuduhan palsu terhadap beliau. Kredibiliti moral mereka ini juga akan runtuh daripada melayakkan untuk diangkat atau kekal sebagai pemimpin.

Jadi hakikat sebenar dalam dua episod terakhir Anwar Ibrahim ini sangat kritikal dan besar implikasinya. Soalnya, siapakah dan neraca manakah yang paling tepat untuk membuktikan dan menentukan apa yang sebenarnya berlaku.

Sebagai seorang Muslim yang beriman dengan kemampuan Islam untuk merungkaikan segala persoalan dan sebagai seorang yang punya sedikit latar belakang agama, saya yakin ajaran Islamlah satu-satunya formula penentu yang paling adil kepada kemelut ini.

Cuma dalam saga Anwar, soal formula Islam dan neraca syariat sering turut menjadi kelabu dan keliru. Ini adalah kerana kes ini melibatkan Anwar. Tokoh yang menampilkan imej agama dan mempunyai latar belakang gerakan Islam.

Faktor ini menjadi punca kegagalan sebahagian masyarakat Islam termasuklah sebahagian ahli-ahli agama untuk bersikap objektif dan neutral apabila menanggapi kes. Apatah lagi bila faktor-faktor lain seperti kepentingan politik atau kebencian melampau terhadap UMNO/BN turut kuat mewarnai sikap mereka.

Akhirnya hujah agama, terutamanya hukum Qazaf, sering dijadikan asas untuk cuba mengelakkan Anwar daripada dibicarakan dan diadili dalam kedua-dua kes ini.

Dalam episod Anwar lawan Saiful Bukhari, hukum Qazaf sering cuba digunakan untuk membenteng Anwar daripada mempertahankan diri dan menjawab dakwaan Saiful. Sedangkan, adalah sangat jelas bahawa fakta kes menunjukkan bahawa ini bukanlah kes tuduhan zina atau liwat biasa tetapi lebih menyerupai kes rogol atau yang lebih tepat sumbang mahram atau gangguan seksual antara majikan dan pekerja.

Perbezaan utama antara kedua-dua kategori ini adalah wujudnya unsur paksaan sama ada secara fizikal atau secara tidak langsung di sebalik perlakuan yang terbabit. Saiful membuat aduan kerana mendakwa tidak rela dan tidak mahu lagi diperlakukan sebegitu.

Beliau juga mendakwa kejadian yang telah berlaku sebelumnya bukanlah dengan sepenuh kerelaan beliau walaupun akhirnya pendakwa memilih untuk mendakwa Anwar di bawah seksyen yang tidak melibatkan paksaan, mungkin untuk memudahkan pendakwaan dan pensabitan kesalahan.

Dalam situasi sebegini, hukum syarak menuntut agar kes Saiful didengari dan diadili dan bukannya ditolak mentah-mentah kerana kegagalan beliau mendatangkan empat orang saksi yang melihat sendiri kejadian tersebut. Memang dalam kes rogol, sumbang mahram ataupun gangguan seks tempat kerja, hampir mustahil untuk si mangsa mendatangkan empat saksi lelaki yang adil.

Oleh itu, syarak menetapkan bahawa beban bukti dalam kes rogol atau sumbang mahram adalah berbeza. Segala bentuk bukti yang boleh diterima oleh syarak selain daripada saksi mata boleh diterima pakai dalam kes ini termasuklah DNA, rakaman CCTV dan seumpamanya.

Hakikatnya kesalahan yang hendak dibuktikan dalam kes Saiful lawan Anwar adalah bukannya hudud zina atau liwat tetapi liwat yang berbentuk rogol, sumbang mahram ataupun gangguan seksual tempat kerja.

Saya yakin mana-mana tokoh ulama sekalipun, termasuklah Syeikh Yusuf al-Qaradhawi atau Syeikh Wahbah al-Zuhaili, akan memberi pandangan yang sama jika fakta kes yang sebenar dijelaskan dengan tepat kepada mereka.

Selain daripada unsur paksaan, Qazaf juga melibatkan tuduhan daripada pihak ketiga. Kes Saiful adalah melibatkan pihak yang mendakwa menjadi mangsa dan bukannya pihak ketiga. Jelas sekali perbezaan fakta kes berbanding dengan kes Qazaf iaitu tuduhan zina daripada pihak ketiga tanpa asas dan bukti seperti dalam kes asalnya melibatkan Sayyidatina ‘Aishah ra. Maka tidak salahlah jika dikatakan bahawa sikap berkeras membenteng Anwar atas nama Qazaf adalah suatu kedegilan dalam kekeliruan terhadap hukum syarak.

Dalam episod terbaru melibatkan video seks yang dikatakan melibatkan Anwar, adalah tidak benar jika pihak yang mendedahkan perkara tersebut hendak dipersalahkan dari segi hukum syarak. Kalau nak dikatakan sebagai salah kerana mendedahkan aib sesama Islam, kita semua maklum bahawa larangan membuka aib dalam Islam ada beberapa pengecualiannya.

Kita dibolehkan mendedahkan aib demi memberi amaran tentang kejahatan yang boleh menimpa orang lain dan dalam kes menilai kesesuaian peribadi seseorang untuk diangkat sebagai pemimpin.

Jika hendak dikatakan Qazaf pula, adakah Eskay Shazril seorang penuduh yang datang dengan tangan kosong? Jelasnya beliau datang sebagai pihak yang mendakwa sebagai pihak yang turut terlibat, malah turut ada dalam rakaman video tersebut. Beliau juga datang dengan membawa rakaman video tersebut serta bukti-bukti sokongan yang lain seperti jam Omega yang kuat diperkatakan itu.

Bolehkah kita terus menghukumnya sebagai pelaku Qazaf? Bukankah Qazaf juga sebahagian dari kesalahan Hudud? Kita maklum bahawa Nabi Muhammad SAW dalam satu hadis mengarahkan kita untuk mengelakkan pensabitan Hudud jika terdapat apa-apa syubhah atau kesamaran?

Tidak cukupkah apa yang dibawa oleh Eskay untuk menimbulkan syubhah atas dakwaan bahawa beliau membuat tuduhan zina yang palsu atau tanpa asas terhadap Anwar? Kita juga sangat faham bahawa bukti video tidak mencukupi untuk mensabit kesalahan Hudud Zina, tetapi ia tetap boleh diterima oleh syarak untuk membuktikan kesalahan takzir atau membuktikan kesahihan sesuatu fakta.

Dalam kes Anwar, kita bukannya hendak menghukum beliau dengan Hudud Zina tetapi yang terpenting adalah hendak memastikan adakah beliau orang yang terakam dalam video tersebut, yang akan menentukan tahap keperibadian beliau.

Jika diteliti perspektif di atas dengan insaf, maka jelaslah bahawa Anwar tidak boleh terus-terusan mempergunakan Islam dan hukum Qazaf untuk mengelakkan daripada menghadapi proses kehakiman dalam kedua-dua episod ini.

Beliau dan penyokongnya perlu akur kepada prinsip hukum Islam bahawa beliau perlu membersihkan dirinya daripada dakwaan bahawa beliau telah meliwat Saiful Bukhari serta dakwaan bahawa beliau adalah pelaku dalam video seks terbabit.

Sementara proses ini berlangsung dan belum selesai, kaedah yang terbaik dan amalan yang lebih terhormat ialah dengan meminta Anwar bercuti daripada semua tugas rasminya sehinggalah namanya dibersihkan (jika beliau benar-benar bersih). Bukannya dengan beliau ataupun para penyokongnya yang taksub terus-menerus cuba berselindung di sebalik hukum Qazaf atau atas nama agama.

Is it possible for a 60-year old to sodomise a 20-year old? - Angeline Tay

A person of authority using his position or influence to gain sexual gratification from a person answerable or beholden to him is not a phenomenon either unknown or rare. It is in fact very common. Think of those sexual abuse cases involving Catholic priests and altar or choir boys which till now are plaguing the Catholic Church, those cases in the US military where superior officers sexually harass and exploit junior female personnel, instances in academia where instructors use their position to gain sexual advantage over students.

by Angeline Tay via e-mail

---

Many a time in the course of the Anwar Ibrahim sodomy II trial, the question was raised as to how a strong and reluctant twenty-something-year old man could be sodomised by a sixty-plus-year old person. This question presupposes that an element of physical force was involved to bring the victim to submission. That supposition may be entirely erroneous.

A person of authority using his position or influence to gain sexual gratification from a person answerable or beholden to him is not a phenomenon either unknown or rare. It is in fact very common. Think of those sexual abuse cases involving Catholic priests and altar or choir boys which till now are plaguing the Catholic Church, those cases in the US military where superior officers sexually harass and exploit junior female personnel, instances in academia where instructors use their position to gain sexual advantage over students.

In many cases, because of their shame, confusion and emotional trauma, the victims took a great deal of time, sometimes years, to speak out on the victimisation committed against them. Very often, there was no physical violence threatened or inflicted and the victims appear to have physically consented to the sexual relations. In actual fact, their mental confusion and reluctance to question or resist the 'requests' or 'suggestions' by a person they look up to made them vulnerable to sexual exploitation. Or the exploiter is someone the victim is dependent on for job security or career advancement. The Anwar/Saiful sodomy case can easily fit into this pattern.

Some people consider it inconceivable or impossible for Anwar to have forced Saiful to submit to be sodomised. This is a very blinkered view, almost willfully ignorant of what had happened in other parts of the world. The answer to the question posed many times by observers as to how it was possible that a 60-year old man can sexually exploit a physically strong 20-something year-old man is that the former by using his charisma, position and influence can persuade or coerce the latter to do things against the latter's better judgement with no physical violence or threats necessary. So the act can appear to be physically consensual but in the mind of the victim during or after the act, it is something done against his or her will and is forced on him or her.

Far from it for me to say at this point that was what actually transpired in the Anwar/Saiful sodomy case. That's for the trial to decide. What I'm saying is that it's time people stop playing stupid and start to accept that it is not an impossibility for sexual exploitation to have taken place with no actual physical resistance on the part of the victim. Things get very complicated once the victim 'submits' to the exploitation as the element of consent arguably becomes apparent. It is for this reason that sexual harassment laws have been formulated to deter persons holding positions of authority and power in organisations from even attempting to take sexual advantage of their underlings.



ANGELINE TAY MEI LIN
Cheras, Kuala Lumpur

Dominique Strauss-Kahn, Anwar Ibrahim, and Paul Wolfowitz: The Woman Troubles of Men Who Oversee Money

Like three peas in a pod, Strauss Kahn, Anwar Ibrahim and Paul Wolfowitz, all seem to have issues that can cost them their political future, and all their problems relate to women (or in the case of Anwar, allegations of adultery with women and also men). Indeed, in a further parallel to Strauss-Kahn’s current predicament, it is worth noting that Anwar is not so much on trial for sodomy, as for sexual assault of an aide. The only difference is that Wolfowitz’s scandal was not of alleged sexual assault, but merely of a girlfriend-triggered conflict of interest.

by Christopher Badeaux at New Ledger

---

There’s something about being an “over-60″ money guy with little oversight.

The news this weekend is that International Monetary Fund head Dominique Strauss-Kahn had apparently been caught with his pants down:

Prosecutors have charged International Monetary Fund chief Dominique Strauss-Kahn with a criminal sexual act, attempted rape and unlawful imprisonment in the alleged sexual assault of a hotel maid in New York City, police said.

Strauss-Kahn, a key player in the world’s response to the 2007-09 financial meltdown and in Europe’s ongoing debt crisis, was removed from an Air France plane 10 minutes before it was to take off for Paris from John F Kennedy International Airport, New York police spokesman Paul Browne said.

A lawyer representing Strauss-Kahn, Benjamin Brafman, told Reuters in an email that the IMF chief “will plead not guilty.” Mr Brafman made no further comment.

A 32-year-old maid filed a sexual assault complaint after fleeing the hotel suite at the Sofitel in Times Square where the alleged incident occurred, Mr Browne said.

The Greek tragedy that is now befalling Strauss-Kahn is the latest in a series of similar cases of sex-related scandal that over the past few years have also involved former World Bank boss Paul Wolfowitz and former Malaysian finance minister (and close friend of Wolfowitz) Anwar Ibrahim.

Like three peas in a pod, Strauss Kahn, Anwar Ibrahim and Paul Wolfowitz, all seem to have issues that can cost them their political future, and all their problems relate to women (or in the case of Anwar, allegations of adultery with women and also men). Indeed, in a further parallel to Strauss-Kahn’s current predicament, it is worth noting that Anwar is not so much on trial for sodomy, as for sexual assault of an aide. The only difference is that Wolfowitz’s scandal was not of alleged sexual assault, but merely of a girlfriend-triggered conflict of interest.

Take a look at these three and their recent histories:

Strauss-Kahn, 62, is the former French Finance Minister who widely believed to be within inches of announcing his candidacy as opposition candidate to challenge President Nicholas Sarkozy of France in the upcoming national elections. But his past indiscretion with a fellow IMF staffer in 2008 nearly cost him his job, and as of Monday he was facing sexual assault charges that very likely will end his career.

Anwar Ibrahim & Paul Wolfowitz

Anwar, 64, is the former Malaysian Finance Minister who was hoping to challenge Prime Minister Najib Razak of Malaysia in elections that are expected some time later this year or in 2012. But his alleged past indiscretion with a male staffer in 2008 may cost him his job as Opposition leader, a widely publicized video allegedly showing him with a woman not his wife is causing controversy at home, and as of Monday a court in Kuala Lumpur ruled that his own sex-related trial will proceed (has just been ordered to put on a defense to what seems like an increasingly likely sodomy conviction), and this could end his career.

Wolfowitz, 68, is the former Deputy Secretary of Defense and a close friend of Anwar whose career in public service essentially ended in 2007 when he was forced to resign as President of the World Bank over the lavish pay rise he arranged for his girlfriend, that in turn triggered the worst crisis in the institution’s history.

A 2010 report purports, based on documents released pursuant to FOIA requests, to document how Wolfowitz’s girlfriend Shaha Riza was paid a salary higher than that of Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice by a foundation set up with $20 million of U.S. taxpayers’ money. Riza’s activities in this role were in apparent violation of conflict of interest regulations at the World Bank, and raised questions about tax, visa, and national security law violations as well.

But even more egregiously, according to the whistle blower report, Riza had helped get Anwar Ibrahim, a close friend of Wolfowitz, named as chairman of the same obscure State Department-funded Foundation for the Future. Wolfowitz meanwhile has continued to defend Anwar Ibrahim against his current sexual assault and sodomy charges in Malaysia.

So call it a coincidence, or call it a pattern. But when people of public stature, entrusted with political leadership or the stewardship of an institution such as the IMF or World Bank get into sex-related trouble, it can diminish the office, the person and the institution.

In Wolfowitz’s case, he has resigned. In Anwar’s case, he is on trial. In Strauss-Kahn’s case, he will likely go on trial.

Going forward, with Wolfowitz gone, and Strauss-Kahn a symbol of the respectable international Left now facing charges of criminal sexual assault, one wonders who in the international community will continue a defense of Anwar by inertia. After nearly sixty days of proceedings, Anwar has been ordered to present his defense by a court of law. The old defenses — stunted appeals to Anwar’s first sodomy trial, made by Wolfowitz no less — will ring increasingly hollow when the very men who once cried out that Anwar’s exceedingly-process-driven trial is a sham are themselves not so credible. The comparison has already become obvious in the French, German, and Spanish press.

For Anwar and Strauss-Kahn, both innocent until proven guilty but both accused of sexual peccadilloes for the second time, the ride through the criminal process is only beginning. For an international community too lazy to pay attention to the merits of Anwar’s alleged crimes, Strauss-Kahn’s troubles must serve as a wake-up call, and a reminder that even favored sons can stray.

Sex, lies and the reckless choices of the powerful

One pattern psychologists detect in top politicians is a readiness to engage in an extreme amount of risk-taking, said Frank Farley, a psychologist at Temple University in Philadelphia. In the Strauss-Kahn case, if true, Farley said a crime would be "exceptionally risky."

"Risk-taking is one of the essential ingredients in highly successful or leading public figures and politicians," said Farley. "Strauss-Kahn (case) fits that bill."

by Caren Bohan and Tabassum Zakaria at Reuters via Yahoo! News

---

Sex and power are no strangers. History is littered with tales of the powerful and privileged felled by sex scandals.

But make no mistake. If IMF chief Dominique Strauss-Kahn is found guilty as charged of attempting to rape a hotel maid in New York City, he would be in a league virtually of his own.

Few have been accused of a violent crime like Strauss-Kahn. The world financier and French presidential hopeful was charged on Sunday with criminal sexual act, unlawful imprisonment and attempted rape in New York City after a hotel maid said she was assaulted.

"Politics and power and sexual harassment certainly have a long history," said Michele Swers, associate professor of government at Georgetown University. "This being an attempted criminal rape is, I think, of an order of a different magnitude."

There is no shortage of powerful leaders who fell from grace for affairs, prostitutes and groping. Sexual indiscretions have weakened governments and buried political careers on both sides of the Atlantic, today and in ages past.

Among the most famous is the Profumo scandal in 1963 in which a British war secretary was forced to resign because he had an affair with a prostitute linked to a Russian spy.

The Strauss-Kahn case raises some of the same questions that surface in any scandal where politics and sex intersect. Did the accused abuse power to engage in high-risk behavior, and did power make him feel invincible, above the law?

Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi, former U.S. President Bill Clinton, ex-New York Governor Eliot Spitzer and 2012 presidential hopeful Newt Gingrich are just a few of the powerful who have faced that kind of scrutiny, although none had to answer to charges of violent crime.

"Power is an aphrodisiac, as is well known, and we know as well that power in one sense is often presumed to be power in another sense," said James Walston, professor of Italian politics at the American University of Rome.

"So a person who is head of the IMF might think he can get away with anything. Certainly Berlusconi appears to think that way."

Berlusconi, 74, a towering figure of Italy's center right, is facing four concurrent trials for corruption, tax fraud and, most sensationally, sex with an underage prostitute and then using his office to cover it up. The sex charge followed years of rumors of his sexual misbehavior.

Strauss-Kahn is no stranger to these questions. In 2008, he was investigated by the IMF over possible abuse of power over a brief affair with an economist at the Fund who was his subordinate. The affair was consensual and he was cleared, but he apologized publicly for "a serious error of judgment.

France, like Italy, traditionally is quite tolerant of extra-marital affairs, unlike the United States. The out-of-wedlock daughter of former President Francois Mitterand attended his funeral. This time though, French politicians and the public were shocked. The charges "struck like a thunderbolt," in the words of the leader of the Socialist Party to which Strauss-Kahn belonged.

Strauss-Kahn, 62, is due to appear in court later on Sunday and his wife, a successful French media personality, has said she has "no doubt his innocence will be re-established."

'EGOTISM, NARCISSISM'

It is rare for a politician to go to jail for a sex crime. Former Israeli President Moshe Katsav was sentenced in March to seven years in prison for rape when he was a Cabinet minister in the late 1990s. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said it showed "no person is above the law."

One pattern psychologists detect in top politicians is a readiness to engage in an extreme amount of risk-taking, said Frank Farley, a psychologist at Temple University in Philadelphia. In the Strauss-Kahn case, if true, Farley said a crime would be "exceptionally risky."

"Risk-taking is one of the essential ingredients in highly successful or leading public figures and politicians," said Farley. "Strauss-Kahn (case) fits that bill."

Clinton also fits the profile. He came from modest means, faced many ups and downs in his political path to the presidency, only to risk all when he had an affair with intern Monica Lewinsky in the White House.

Adulation awarded to high-fliers can also contribute.

"You have people who are committed supporters around you and they don't want to see anything bad happen to you in terms of career, so there will always be people who are willing to then cover it up," said Swers.

John Edwards, a U.S. Democratic presidential candidate in 2004 and 2008, squandered his promising career by having an affair with a woman on his campaign, while his wife battled cancer. Elizabeth Edwards has since died.

Edwards blamed his meteoric rise in presidential politics and the fawning that came with it.

All that "fed a self-focus, an egotism, a narcissism that leads you to believe that you can do whatever you want. You're invincible. And there will be no consequences," Edwards told ABC News in 2008. He later admitted he had fathered the woman's child.

While a sense of strength and fearlessness and a near disregard of consequences can make for great, powerful leaders, the problems come when they do not acknowledge they are human, said Robert Weiss, founder and director of the Sexual Recovery Institute, which specializes in sexual addiction.

"If their narcissism or egotism isn't matched by a healthy dose of humility of what it means to be human ... and they run on their intellect and don't attend to their emotions on any level ... then they are bound for trouble," said Weiss.

PKR, PR and the Sex Video - Zharrif Azrai

Yes, government leaders at times insult the people's intelligence in justifying their actions. PR politicians too, as it is becoming clearer now, are not immune from doing the same thing in their efforts to defend Anwar's reputation. They may just end up damaging the opposition more than any sex video could. After all, governing a country is much too important to be left to unquestioning and uncritical devotees of a personality cult.

by Zharrif Azrai via e-mail

---

Just like the current sodomy trial, this latest Anwar sex video episode shows how polarised and close-minded people are along political lines and beliefs.

It is both amazing and amusing how so many people are incredibly and unbelievably quick to condemn and vilify the video without so much as a glimpse of it. The most sorry of this lot are the PKR and other PR politicians. Surely good sense and prudence dictate that they withhold any comment about the video's authenticity until and unless they themselves had seen it.

But, no, sirrreee. They rushed in with denials which can only be explained by a belief on their part that their leader is a person blessed with infallibility and thus sheltered from the usual human frailties to commit any form of sin. On the planet that they dwell, Anwar Ibrahim is a chaste saint, truly a gift from God to the people from Malaysia. All their critical faculties go out through the window and there is no space within their sensibilities to ponder that maybe, just maybe, their leader may not be what he seems or claims to be. Because of this ingrained attitude, just as the sun can be predicted to rise from the east, they too can be predicted to meet any accusation of wrongdoing against Anwar with their own unsupported, unsubstantiated and increasingly wild conspiracy theories of how their saintly leader is being unfairly targeted. It's beginning to sound like the droning of a broken record – and getting tiresome.

The crucial point here is not the video itself, the veracity of which is unknown until it is seen by a wider audience. The point here is the manner in which the PR politicians are responding to this latest challenge. In being so blindly and stupidly devoted to the line that 'Anwar Ibrahim can do no wrong' and so blinkered by their hatred by Umno that they cannot think objectively any more, they risk disenchanting the voters, even the ones who are not necessarily pro-BN.

Yes, government leaders at times insult the people's intelligence in justifying their actions. PR politicians too, as it is becoming clearer now, are not immune from doing the same thing in their efforts to defend Anwar's reputation. They may just end up damaging the opposition more than any sex video could. After all, governing a country is much too important to be left to unquestioning and uncritical devotees of a personality cult.



ZHARRIF AZRAI

Anwar's Sodomy Trial: A response to Nik Nazmi - Zharrif Azrai

One undeniable fact is that PAS has been rather silent about it. And that silence, as Zaid had pointed out, is rather deafening. Such was Nik Nazmi's defensiveness over this that he came quite close to claiming to be a spokesperson for PAS with regard to the party's stand over recent revelations in the sodomy trial. Sorry, sir, we would rather wait for a PAS person to speak up about this.

by Zharrif Azrai via e-mail

---

Nik Nazmi's response on 16 March to Zaid Ibrahim's advice to Anwar Ibrahim about giving up his DNA sample appears to be an overreaction and surprisingly defensive.

He claims that Zaid while in PKR had enthusiastically advocated that the case against Anwar was made up. Very conveniently and self-servingly, Nik Nazmi had neglected to provide the instances as to exactly when and where Zaid had done so. Suffice it seems that Zaid was a party member and all PKR party members have to close their minds and subscribe to the dogma that Anwar is being framed. Any sense of objectivity or objective opinion in viewing the Anwar sodomy trial apparently is considered an act of heresy. What a fine progressive political organisation PKR is turning out to be.

What Zaid has advised of Anwar is shared by many other people. Zaid is right when he said should Anwar be unwilling to volunteer facts that can clear his name, it will be difficult for the majority of the rakyat to swallow. It's no use for Nik Nazmi to paint people who hold such a reasonable opinion to be of the same level as Perkasa or GAP or what not. He should learn to distinguish the message from the messenger.

One undeniable fact is that PAS has been rather silent about it. And that silence, as Zaid had pointed out, is rather deafening. Such was Nik Nazmi's defensiveness over this that he came quite close to claiming to be a spokesperson for PAS with regard to the party's stand over recent revelations in the sodomy trial. Sorry, sir, we would rather wait for a PAS person to speak up about this.

As for other matters related to the trial that Nik Nazmi took exception in his statement, they have all been dealt with during the trial. The full court transcripts show that proceedings have been quite unlike what Anwar's followers have tried to hold it out to be. Defence lawyers have had every chance to cross-examine witnesses and challenge their credibility and the evidence thus far adduced. Yes, on some occasions the court ruled against the defence but in others, the court did rule in its favour. It's this latter fact that people like Nik Nazmi and PKR have so studiously ignored or glossed over in their efforts to equate sodomy I with sodomy II in the public perception.

They seem to forget that such efforts appear quite dishonest and futile when unlike sodomy I where the defendant actually was deprived of every possible avenue for clearing his name, in sodomy II, as Zaid Ibrahim pointed out, he has a very good opportunity to do so.



ZHARRIF AZRAI

Is Santa Claus Involved in the Conspiracy Against Anwar? - Pieter D'Cruz

PKR has sunk to UMNO's level. When UMNO set-up Umi Hafilda's ceramah across the road from where Anwar was speaking during the recent by-election in Kerdau, I was amused. When PKR announced the DNA roadshow, I was rolling on the ground laughing. It is so UMNO. What happened to the promise "we will not only be doing things better, we will be doing things differently"?. It sounds so hollow now.

by Pieter D'Cruz via e-mail

---

PKR's decision to launch the nationwide roadshow labeled "Datuk Najib Altantuya (DNA)" is ridiculous, almost farcical. Tit-for-Tat as reported by the news portal, Malaysian Insider. It is so infantile.

PKR has sunk to UMNO's level. When UMNO set-up Umi Hafilda's ceramah across the road from where Anwar was speaking during the recent by-election in Kerdau, I was amused. When PKR announced the DNA roadshow, I was rolling on the ground laughing. It is so UMNO.

What happened to the promise "we will not only be doing things better, we will be doing things differently"?. It sounds so hollow now.

The stark truth is that Anwar is under pressure to submit his DNA to prove his innocence. To divert attention from Anwar's quandary, PKR decides to resurrect the Altantuya murder case to hit back at Najib Razak. It is like flogging a dead horse.

Why the submission of the DNA is a contentious issue is beyond me. If I were charged with a sex crime and there was DNA evidence to prove my innocence, I would be kicking and screaming to give my DNA for testing.

Even if his DNA matches the DNA of male Y found on Saiful, Anwar still has room to manoeuvre. He could claim that his semen was carried by a white stork, smeared on Saiful by the tooth-fairy, egged by Santa Claus. I bet the defence would call the tooth-fairy and Santa Claus as witnesses.

To implicate Najib with the Altantuya murder case is absurd. His only link is that one of the suspects was a personal friend. That suspect was later acquitted by the court. The connection is so remote. It is akin to saying that since I am renting a house owned by Effendi Norwawi, I am also partying with Maya Karin.

In Anwar's sodomy case, the scenario and circumstances are wholly different. He was named by the complainant and he was proven to be at the place where the crime was committed during material time. The DNA, of course, is the smoking gun.

Notwithstanding all I have said above, I would still love to attend the DNA roadshow. It has been a long time since the last circus came to town.

PIETER D'CRUZ

Maruah reformasi tercabar - Aktivis Jalan TAR

Anwar Ibrahim sebagai seorang pemimpin Anugerah Tuhan pasti prihatin yang serangan-serangan ini bukannya setakat peribadi beliau sahaja malah ditujukan kepada seluruh gerakan Reformasi. Bukan maruah Anwar Ibrahim sahaja yang tercabar tetapi kredibiliti semua Reformis juga tergugat. Anwar Ibrahim harus mengambil langkah berani dan bijak demi keutuhan gerakan Reformasi.

oleh Aktivis Jalan TAR melalui e-mel

---

Saya amat kesal dengan tindakan musuh-musuh Anwar Ibrahim yang mempolitikkan kes mahkamah yang sedang berlangsung. Beberapa demonstrasi telah dianjurkan di Petaling Jaya, Pulau Pinang dan Ipoh seolah-olah Anwar telah didapati bersalah oleh mahkamah. Walhal, mahkamah hanya menolak bahan-bahan bukti yang diperolehi secara tidak sah.

Sebagai seorang pendokong Reformasi tegar, saya yakin penuh Anwar ialah mangsa konspirasi politik. Pemimpin-pemimpin UMNO gentar dengan Anwar Ibrahim lalu terpaksa memfitnahkan beliau. Mereka berharap dengan menghumban Anwar ke penjara, gerakan Reformasi akan hilang taring.

Justeru itu, saya menyeru kepada Anwar untuk mengambil tindakan tegas supaya serangan-serangan musuh politik ini dapat ditangani. Anwar wajib menyerah sampel DNA untuk membuktikan beliau tidak bersalah. Saya percaya langkah tegas Anwar ini akan membuat musuh-musuh politik beliau mati akal.

Saya berkongsi kebimbangan Anwar yang bahan DNA tersebut mungkin akan dimanipulasikan. Untuk mengelakkan kemungkinan tersebut, saya mencadangkan ujian dan profiling sampel DNA itu dibuat secara profesional dan telus. Jika perlu, Majlis Peguam, Persatuan Perubatan Malaysia dan pakar-pakar genetik antarabangsa yang dilantik oleh Anwar akan menyelia proses tersebut.

Objektif memberi DNA hanya untuk mengenalpasti sama ada DNA lelaki Y yang dijumpai pada tubuh Saiful Bukhari Azlan padan dengan DNA Anwar Ibrahim. Walaupun jika ditakdirkan DNA-DNA itu padan, Anwar masih mempunyai ruang untuk mempertikai bagaimana air mani beliau diletakkan pada tubuh Saiful.

Anwar Ibrahim sebagai seorang pemimpin Anugerah Tuhan pasti prihatin yang serangan-serangan ini bukannya setakat peribadi beliau sahaja malah ditujukan kepada seluruh gerakan Reformasi. Bukan maruah Anwar Ibrahim sahaja yang tercabar tetapi kredibiliti semua Reformis juga tergugat. Anwar Ibrahim harus mengambil langkah berani dan bijak demi keutuhan gerakan Reformasi.

LAWAN TETAP LAWAN!!!



AKTIVIS JALAN TAR

Gerakan Anti-lelaki Y (GAY) - Abas Azizan

Saya bercadang untuk menubuhkan sebuah NGO, Gerakan Anti-lelaki Y atau lebih dikenali dengan nama singkat GAY, sebagai sebuah gerakan rakyat untuk melaksanakan proses eliminasi ini. Atas dasar BERANI KERANA BENAR, TAKUT KERANA SALAH, setiap lelaki Melayu diseluruh negara akan memberi sampel DNA mereka untuk disahkan sebagai bukan lelaki Y. GAY akan menyelia usaha ini.

oleh Abas Azizan melalui e-mel

---

Perbicaraan kes Sodomi 2 kini telah sampai ke titik yang amat getir. Bahan-bahan bukti yang dapat mengaitkan tertuduh, Anwar Ibrahim, dengan DNA yang terdapat pada tubuh pengadu, Saiful Bukhari Azlan, telah ditolak oleh mahkamah atas alasan teknikal.

Anwar bagaimanapun enggan memberi sampel DNA secara sukarela untuk penentuan. Anwar mendakwa bahawa bahan-bahan DNA tersebut akan digunakan kelak untuk menganiayai beliau. Saya amat faham sebab-sebab Anwar enggan memberi sampel DNA.

DNA lelaki Y telah disahkan sebagai DNA seorang lelaki Melayu. Keengganan Anwar untuk memberi sampel DNA telah menimbulkan satu keadaan dimana setiap lelaki Melayu yang telah baligh layak disyaki sebagai lelaki Y. Setiap lelaki Melayu adalah suspek dalam kes tersebut. Sebagai seorang lelaki Melayu tunggal ditempat kerja, saya terpaksa mengharungi jelingan serong dari pekerja-pekerja lain.

Oleh kerana Anwar enggan memberi sampel DNA, hanya proses eliminasi yang akan dapat mengatasi dilema ini. Semua lelaki Melayu perlu memberi sampel DNA mereka secara sukarela untuk ujian supaya dapat digugurkan daripada senarai suspek.

Saya bercadang untuk menubuhkan sebuah NGO, Gerakan Anti-lelaki Y atau lebih dikenali dengan nama singkat GAY, sebagai sebuah gerakan rakyat untuk melaksanakan proses eliminasi ini. Atas dasar BERANI KERANA BENAR, TAKUT KERANA SALAH, setiap lelaki Melayu diseluruh negara akan memberi sampel DNA mereka untuk disahkan sebagai bukan lelaki Y. GAY akan menyelia usaha ini.

Setelah disahkan sebagai bukan lelaki Y, GAY akan melaporkan kepada Jabatan Pendaftaran Negara untuk MyKad individu tersebut dikemaskini. Butir-butir peribadi seperti jantina dan bangsa di MyKad akan ditambah dengan perkataan "bukan Y".

GAY akan melaksanakan usaha ini sehingga tinggal hanya seorang lelaki Melayu terakhir yang tidak dapat mengkemaskini MyKad beliau. 

Semoga keadilan dapat ditegakkan dengan cara ini.



ABAS AZIZAN

Finally, it’s all about perception - Raja Petra Kamaruddin

Let me say it again: Anwar is losing the perception war. Many who used to curse Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad in Sodomy 1 and swear that Anwar was being framed are not cursing Najib Tun Razak in Sodomy 2 and feel that maybe the allegation could be true.

by Raja Petra Kamarudin at Malaysia Today

---

This was the problem we faced in the past. We could never get Anwar Ibrahim’s legal and political advisors to agree on a common strategy.

And Anwar had more than one advisor. And each advisor had his/her own idea of what the best strategy was. This was why we considered the Sodomy 1 legal/political defence badly handled.

Some of these advisors lamented about the frustration they faced in getting Anwar to agree to a strategy and to stick to the agreed strategy. Sometimes the legal team embarked on a political campaign rather than a legal campaign. And sometimes the political team appeared to be launching a legal campaign rather than a political campaign.

This was probably the best example of too many cooks spoiling the broth. And an added frustration was: after getting Anwar to agree to a certain strategy, someone else would go meet Anwar and he would agree to another course of action. It appeared like ‘the last one in’ had the final say and the earlier agreed course of action would be abandoned in favour of the latest idea.

Any general would tell you that you do not change course in midstream. Once the direction has been decided you stick to it and see it to the end. Once the forces have advanced and you change course, this would mean utter chaos with everyone not only going in opposite directions but also at times bumping into each other.

This is a sure way of losing the battle and finding your forces trapped in the open. As they say, there are no bad soldiers, only bad commanders. And a bad commander is one who sends his/her forces all over the place with no clear direction from the top.

I used to be one of those who faced this frustration. Just as I thought everything had been agreed and a concrete battle plan had been formulated, I receive word that someone has managed to convince Anwar to agree to a new strategy and what had been earlier agreed was now no longer on.

There was many an occasion when I just gave up. When I inquired into whom this new ‘mastermind’ was, I was appalled to hear that the change of direction was mooted by the very person who was the architect of an earlier most disastrous campaign.

The fact that many of these people have since left Anwar and are now working for the other side just reinforced my suspicion. Were these people just incompetent and stupid or were they moles or Trojans horses whose job was to offer wrong advice so that Anwar’s campaign fails.

Sometimes I wonder. And when I interact with them I am far from impressed with their capabilities. I felt, as Malaysians would say, they are ‘talking cock’. How can such clever people with such high education and credentials be so dumb? Don’t they realise that what they are doing is sending Anwar closer to the gallows, so to speak?

This orgy of incompetence appears to be spreading to the Sodomy 2 campaign as well. Is Sodomy 2 a legal battle or a political battle? It has to be one or the other. It can’t be both at the same time.

Maybe since I am not involved in Sodomy 2 as I was in Sodomy 1 is the reason I am a bit confused. But then even when I was involved in Sodomy 1 I was equally confused. So surely it can’t be just me. And I know many other people out there are also very confused.

The ‘good’ thing about Sodomy 1, if we can really call it good, is that most, even those in Umno, were convinced that Anwar is innocent and a victim of a frame up. This is not so for Sodomy 2. In Sodomy 2, many, even those who support Anwar, are asking whether Anwar is really innocent or is there a possibility that he may actually be guilty.

This is what is bad about Sodomy 2. I don’t know what the court is finally going to rule but what the court rules is not significant because many do not trust the courts anyway. Even if the court rules that Anwar is guilty this does not mean that people would believe it since the courts can’t be trusted.

But the court has not yet entered a verdict in Sodomy 2. And in Sodomy 1, even when the court said that Anwar is guilty, everyone said that this is a lie and that Anwar is innocent. But for Sodomy 2, even though the court has not made a ruling yet, many are wondering whether Anwar may have actually done what he has been accused of.

This reflects a failure on the part of Anwar’s team. Why have they failed so miserably when in Sodomy 1 they managed the perception war so well? What has gone wrong? And what are the issues being raised by these people who were so convinced of Anwar’s innocence in Sodomy 1 but are beginning to have doubts in Sodomy 2?

Anwar has to decide whether Sodomy 2 is a legal battle or a political battle. In Sodomy 1 it was a political battle. Anwar may have lost the legal battle but he won the political battle most impressively. Therefore, whatever the court may have said, Anwar is innocent in the minds of most people.

If Sodomy 2 is a legal battle and not a political battle, then Anwar has to focus on the legal issues. But if Sodomy 2, just like Sodomy 1, is a political battle, then Anwar has to manage the perception war a bit better than he is currently doing. If not, even if the court rules that Anwar is innocent and drops the charge against him, many would still say he is guilty -- just that the court failed to prove his guilt (the opposite of what happened in Sodomy 1).

I know Anwar is going to be most unpleased about what I am saying here. But then, does Anwar want to hear what people are saying or does he want to hear only nice things (which means I would have to lie)?

The way the case is dragging on with postponement after postponement is setting tongues wagging. They are asking: why doesn’t Anwar get the trial over and done with? Would it not be better that we get to the bottom of this whole thing and once and for all resolved the matter?

The DNA issue is another matter that is confusing most people who are now asking what is Anwar trying to hide. They are asking: why not do a DNA match and prove once and for all that he is innocent? Maybe there is a legal strategy here that we are not being told about. But it certainly leaves a lot of questions unanswered.

Let me say it again: Anwar is losing the perception war. Many who used to curse Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad in Sodomy 1 and swear that Anwar was being framed are not cursing Najib Tun Razak in Sodomy 2 and feel that maybe the allegation could be true.

This, to me, is the crux of the whole thing. Never mind what the court says. It is what the people are saying which will be the final test.

And, in ruling in Anwar’s favour on the DNA samples obtained illegally when they detained him overnight in the police lockup, the impression given is that Anwar is getting a fair trial after all. That victory may actually work against Anwar. Later, if the court finds Anwar guilty, it will be very difficult to say that the trial has been rigged. Did the court not rule in Anwar’s favour on the DNA issue?

I fear that Anwar may have won the battle but may lose the war. And finally it is not what the court says but what the people think that will matter. This will decide whether Anwar is seen as a credible opposition leader and whether Pakatan Rakyat with Anwar at the helm is seen as a credible alternative government.

Politics is about perception. In Sodomy 1 the perception was in Anwar’s favour. In Sodomy 2, the perception is not very good. How are Anwar and his team of very contradicting advisors going to tackle this problem? I wonder.

Anwar goes on the defence - Joceline Tan

Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim is at his lowest ebb since March 2008 and he is turning to the ceramah circuit to defend himself against multi-pronged attacks.

by Joceline Tan at The Star

---

One of Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim’s oldest and most loyal friends ended his days as a widower on Thursday night.

Tumpat MP Datuk Kamaruddin Jaffar, better known as Datuk KJ, remarried a year after his first wife died of cancer and the guests of honour were Anwar and Selangor Mentri Besar Tan Sri Khalid Ibrahim.

But the honour of making the speech was given to PAS politician Dr Syed Azman Syed Ahmad of Terengganu. Dr Syed Azman was the matchmaker for Kamaruddin and his Malacca-born wife and he almost brought the house down when he teased the newly-weds: “Last week, we failed to capture the Merlimau seat but, never mind, Datuk Kamaruddin has successfully conquered Malacca.”

It was a relaxing affair for many of the Pakatan Rakyat politicians that evening, and particularly for Anwar who has been increasingly under siege.

The PKR de facto leader is at his lowest point since his post-2008 political comeback. For a couple of years after the March 8 “tsunami”, it seemed like Anwar could walk on water. But very little has gone right for him in recent months, be it his party affairs or the sodomy trial.

PKR people still insist he is Pakatan’s Prime Minister-in-waiting. But most PAS and DAP leaders have stopped talking about the road to Putrajaya. They are more concerned about whether they can hold on to their seats now it is clear they are unable to hold on to the Malay vote.

Anwar has just climbed back from the precipice in the sodomy trial. The trial had been inching towards revealing the identity of Lelaki Y (Male Y), the term investigators used for the mystery man whose DNA was allegedly found in Saiful.

On Tuesday, the courts ruled that several items with the DNA of Lelaki Y could not be tendered as evidence. It was a big win for Anwar’s legal team because the evidence would have tied him to Lelaki Y.

He must have felt great relief because his detractors had begun taunting him as Lelaki Y when he campaigned in Kerdau. He was greeted with banners that said, “Mr Y, selamat datang ke Kerdau” - and that was one of the more polite banners.

On top of that, he had to endure a “joint ceramah” with his female nemesis Ummi Hafilda Ali who was speaking just a stone’s throw away from him. People on his side of the ceramah could hear quite clearly what she was saying about him, and it was not pleasant stuff.

PKR secretary-general and Machang MP Saifuddin Nasution denied that Ummi rattled his boss that night.

“Anwar has been through a lot. It takes more than that to upset him,” said Saifuddin.

But PKR politicians are rather wary of her given the crowds she pulled in Kerdau and Merlimau. Besides, who else apart from Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad has spoken so explicitly and daringly about Anwar?

Anwar’s detractors would like to think that his downward slide began after he failed to deliver on his Sept 16 claim.

But the real slide started after PKR’s trouble-ridden elections last year and the defections from his party. It gave the impression that he could not control PKR and that his priorities were too wrapped up in his court case.

Some think that Anwar is in the midst of one of those perfect storms.

Apart from the trial, the publication of Dr Mahathir’s memoirs has sort of switched things up. It could not have been worse timing for Anwar. Dr Mahathir has repeated his accusations about Anwar’s sexual exploits, this time in print.

At the book launch, a mischievous Dr Mahathir said he was “trembling” at the thought of being sued. Of course, he was telling Anwar to “bring it on, man, bring it on”.

The people around Anwar are furious about the book.

“I’m not buying the book. It’s a story we have heard before,” said Muaz Omar, an aide of Azmin’s.

At the PKR political bureau meeting two nights after the book launch, several party leaders felt that Anwar should not let Dr Mahathir get away with what he has written.

“Anwar’s stand is that he had long ago decided to move on where Dr Mahathir was concerned. He said he’s not interested in challenging an old script and he doesn’t want to be stuck in another court case,” said Saifuddin.

Anwar prefers the court of public opinion rather than the court of law. He has been on a ceramah blitz ostensibly to promote the Pakatan manifesto, the Buku Jingga, but also to counter the renewed attacks against him.

Dr Mahathir has become a central target of his attacks the last few days. He does not rebut what Dr Mahathir is saying about his sexuality but he has hit out at the former premier’s cronies and his children’s businesses and wealth. He seems to be steering clear of Ummi, though.

Anwar also suffered a setback when a hoped-for meeting with US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton did not materialise. Shortly before Clinton’s visit, a news portal reported that a meeting was being lined up. It was a rather strange report because the meeting was apparently never on the cards.

There has been a cooling on the part of the US administration towards Anwar’s cause and Clinton’s stance during her recent visit was in sharp contrast to that of Vice-President Al Gore at the height of Sodomy 1.

Moreover, Clinton’s visit follows improved ties between the United States and Malaysia. The Obama administration sees Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak as a Muslim leader with whom they can sit down and have a dialogue.

In that sense, Anwar’s crusade against Apco may have more to do with Apco’s role in presenting Anwar’s sodomy case to US lawmakers than Apco’s so-called Jewish connections.

The lobby group has explained the trial in a way that Americans can relate to, that it is an alleged sexual harassment involving an employer and a subordinate and the trial is a result of a report lodged by a complainant, unlike the first trial where the Government was the main initiator.

But the most damaging strike has been the Wikileaks report quoting Singapore Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew as saying that Anwar knowingly walked into a trap. Singapore has played down the report but has not denied its contents.

The success of Najib’s visit to Turkey was another blow to Anwar who counts Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan as a friend and supporter.

Erdogan had welcomed Najib in Ankara, saying, “this is my brother Najib and I am happy to have him here.”

Their scheduled 10-minute four-eyed meeting over-ran into 45 minutes and Erdogan insisted on a joint press conference. The Turkish Premier also eschewed protocol and insisted that Najib ride in the same car as him. It was a political coup of sorts for Najib.

All these events add up to a challenging time ahead for Anwar and his party.

“I can’t blame Anwar if he feels he is all alone. He has been consumed by successive crises and there are now less people whom he can count on to defend him and do the attacking. To him, the trial is to stop his political ambitions and his goal of power, and it is taking a lot out of him,” said Merdeka Centre director Ibrahim Suffian.

Reporters covering his trial said he seems to be holding up well and is still able to see the lighter side of things. For instance, when a witness was asked to identify him, Anwar, who was sitting in the dock, playfully dodged as though trying to hide.

He is reportedly upset that PKR members have not been turning up in court to show him their support.

Recently, party members received the following SMS from PKR Tanjung Karang chief Yahaya Sahri: “Salam, sokongan DSAI di mahkamah amat merosot hampir tiada. Saya ingin mencadangkan agar kita atur kawan-kawan kita drp cabang turun beri sokongan moral, klu kita bergilir pun ok, satu cabang klu hantar 20 org pun dah ok. Jadual mahkamah akan saya sms.”

Yahaya was urging PKR divisions to send members whether in rotation or groups of 20 to show moral support for Anwar because the number of supporters in court had dwindled to almost nil.

Anwar is the ultimate political animal. A lesser person would have cracked under the pressure. He told Saifuddin that when he goes on the ground and sees a big crowd, he feels motivated.

The crowds at his ceramah have indeed been growing and a lot of it has to do with his trial approaching a critical stage and the sensational evidence coming out.

Anwar, said academic Prof James Chin, is in “distraction mode”.

“He cannot devote his full time to Pakatan or PKR. The trial is taking away his attention and focus. But everything hinges on the next general election. If Najib does not get his two-thirds majority, he is in trouble. If Pakatan does badly then they are in trouble,” said Chin of Monash University Sunway Campus.

The attacks by Dr Mahathir, said Chin, has impact among rural Malays but less so among the urban crowd.

Anwar’s supporters also bristle at the suggestion that he has become a liability for Pakatan. But privately, PAS and DAP leaders are frustrated that Anwar has overwhelmed their political agenda.

Anwar, said blogger Syed Azizi Syed Aziz who is better known as Kickdafella, has image problems in the rural Malays areas and that becomes a problem for PAS. Outwardly, DAP and PAS still stand by him but, privately, they are riddled with doubts about the trial and his ability to hold things together.

Moreover, Generation Y, the youth cohort born between the mid 1970s and 2000, is not rallying around Anwar the way Generation X took to the streets to support him during his first trial. Generation Y is neither loyal to Anwar’s politics nor affiliated with the ruling coalition. They are as critical of Pakatan politicians as they are of those in Barisan.

As such, Pakatan’s claim that young voters are with them is not exactly true. The young voters are still out there and their vote will go to the party that can offer them a better future - and that means education, jobs, homes and a lifestyle of their choice.

Anwar is in a difficult political situation and he will be fighting many fronts in the months ahead.

Perbicaraan Liwat: Dahulu dan Sekarang - Kulop Miko

Ini satu hal lagi. Dahulu, Mahathir dibenci ramai sebab dia dikata bapak konspirasi. Sekarang ni siapa bapak konspirasinya? Kes bermula semasa Abdullah Badawi masih PM. Diakah kepalanya? Sekarang dia bukan PM lagi, Najib yang PM. Bolehkah konspirasi dipass-pass seperti bolasepak daripada satu PM ke satu PM? Mungkinkah apa yang berlaku sekarang bukan konspirasi? Heeeeesh... tak tahulah teman.

oleh Kulop Miko melalui e-mel

---

Perbicaraan mahkamah kes liwat Dato' Seri Anwar Ibrahim (DSAI) sedang lancar berlangsung sekarang. Setiap hari teman baca di internet lapurannya. Suratkhabar tak main dah. Teman tak sentuh pun suratkhabar sebab tak boleh harap langsung. Berat sebelah bebenor, bak kata orang
Perak.

Masa kes liwat DSAI yang pertama dulu, rajin juga teman pergi ke mahkamah. Memang susah nak dapat masuk ke bilik mahkamah. Kalau tak datang awal, jawabnya tak dapat masuklah sebab barisan orang yang menunggu nak masuk dah panjang dan ruang terhad. Ada kawan-kawan teman sanggup tidur di perkarangan mahkamah untuk masuk keesokan harinya. Jadi teman lebih kerap habiskan masa berlegar-legar di kawasan Masjid Jamek, tunggu DSAI masuk dan keluar bilik mahkamah sebab nak lambai dan jerit 'Reformasi' kat dia. Itulah sokongan moral namanya. Memang ramai orang masa itu. Boleh dikatakan setiap hari macam itu. Tujuannya tak lain dari nak beri sokongan moral kepada seorang insan yang pada pandangan kami sedang dizalimi.

Jadi teman hairan jugak baca semasa perbicaraan kes liwat 2 DSAI, tidak ramai orang yang hadir. Nampak gayanya tidak lagi seperti dulu. Lapuran portal berita pun sering menyatakan galeri awam tidak dipenuhi penuntun. Kenapa boleh jadi begitu? Orang tak mahu beri sokongan moral lagikah? Teman pun termenung: apa yang berbeza, apa yang sama antara liwat 1 dan liwat 2?

Dahulu DSAI di dalam penjara, tidak dibenarkan ikat jamin bagi satu pertuduhan yang lazimnya diberi ikat jamin. Sebab itu, ketara sungguh kezaliman yang dilakukan ke atas DSAI. Dan siapakah kepala konspirasi zalim itu? Rata-rata dikatakan Mahathirlah dalangnya. Jadi teman pun selain dari nak beri sokongan moral kepada DSAI, ada insentif tambahan untuk berkumpul di luar mahkamah: untuk memberi isyarat biadap dan kurang sopan kepada Mahathir sebab ada khabar yang mengatakan lagi ramai orang berkumpul luar mahkamah, lagi Mahathir sakit hati. Haaa... biar dia sakit hati banyak-banyak!

Sekarang DSAI tidak dalam penjara. Dia Ketua Pembangkang di Parlimen, bebas bergerak di mana-mana. Mungkin sebab itu ramai orang rasa tak perlu hadir atau berkumpul di mahkamah untuk beri sokongan moral. Lagipun, kalau orang ramai atau sedikit di mahkamah, jadi halkah kepada Najib? Rasa-rasanya dia tak ambil kisah pun orang berkumpul atau tidak untuk memberi sokongan moral kepada Anwar.

Ini satu hal lagi. Dahulu, Mahathir dibenci ramai sebab dia dikata bapak konspirasi. Sekarang ni siapa bapak konspirasinya? Kes bermula semasa Abdullah Badawi masih PM. Diakah kepalanya? Sekarang dia bukan PM lagi, Najib yang PM. Bolehkah konspirasi dipass-pass seperti bolasepak daripada satu PM ke satu PM? Mungkinkah apa yang berlaku sekarang bukan konspirasi? Heeeeesh... tak tahulah teman. Yang nyata perasaan meluat orang ramai kepada Mahathir tidak ada pula kepada perdana menteri yang ada sekarang. Mungkin juga itu salah satu sebab tak ramai orang di mahkamah.

Satu perkara lagi yang teman bingung dan hairan pasal kes liwat 2 ni: kenapalah Anwar biarkan jantan-jantan muda tinggi handsome ni berkeliaran di sekitarnya? Kalau dulu dah jadi mangsa fitnah hubungan intim dengan orang-orang sedemikian, bukankah lebih baik berwaspada dan elakkan dari orang macam itu menjadi pembantu pejabat lah, personal assistant lah, pembancuh kopi lah. Ini tidak. Dilantik orang macam si Saiful tu pula jadi staf pejabat. Bukan tu saja – dibawa pula ke hulu hilir luar negeri. Tak serik-serik kah Anwar ni? Haaa... tengok. Sekarang apa dah jadi?

Satu lagi pasal perbicaraan sekarang ni yang buat teman tercengang: ada pula sesi soaljawab dengan saksi yang tertutup. 'In camera' bak kata orang putih. Maksudnya, tidak boleh dilapurkan oleh media atau dituntuni oleh orang awam. Haaa... sahlah ini satu konspirasi, teman pikirkan. Banyak perkara yang pihak pendakwa tak mahu orang ramai tahu dan mahu disorokkan.

Alangkah terkejut beruknya teman bila dapat tahu yang minta sesi 'in camera' adalah ketua pihak pembelaan, Karpal Singh, the Tiger of Jelutong himself! Sungguh aneh dan mengecewakan. Apa pula yang hendak ditutup atau disorok oleh pihak pembelaan? Apatah lagi sesi yang tidak dibenarkan dilapur adalah soaljawab saksi utama pihak pendakwa iaitu Saiful sendiri. Kenapa Karpal bertindak sedemikian? Cukup lama teman dan ramai lagi tertunggu-tunggu untuk dia menyoal Saiful di hadapan mata dunia melalui soalan-soalannya untuk memburaikan rahsia busuk Saiful bahawa tuduhan dia terhadap Anwar adalah rekaan semata-mata. Itu semua tinggal fantasi.... sungguh malang.

Dan juga menghampakan. Oleh sebab sesi 'in camera' itu, banyak fakta-fakta kes yang dibongkar berkenaan apa yang telah berlaku tidak diketahui umum. Teman baca keterangan dari doktor-doktor, pakar DNA dan kimia dan sebagainya dan tak tahu hujung pangkal jawapan yang mereka beri. OK lah, banyak benda teknikal yang mereka sentuh. Tapi tergaru-garu kepala jugak teman bila terbaca sampel DNA diambil dari dada Saiful. Haaa...kalau dah liwat macam mana boleh sampai DNA ke dada kawan tu pulak? Hairan... cukup hairan.

Pernah teman bertanyakan seorang doktor kenalan teman: macam mana pula kes ini boleh dibawa ke peringkat pendakwaan sekiranya lapuran doktor dah mengatakan "tidak ada tanda konklusif penetrasi telah berlaku"? Bukankah itu bermakna liwat telah tidak berlaku?

Jawab doktor itu: jangan terlalu gopoh membuat kesimpulan sedemikian. "Tidak ada tanda konklusif penetrasi telah berlaku" tidak bermakna "Ada tanda konklusif penetrasi tidak berlaku". Terus beliau, "Sekiranya sebutir gelas tidak ada tanda jari, pakar yang memeriksa paling lebih akan lapurkan tidak ada tanda konklusif gelas telah disentuh. Adakah itu bermakna sah bahawa gelas tidak disentuh? Sudah tentu tidak sebab ia boleh disentuh dengan cara yang tidak meninggalkan tanda jari seperti memakai sarung tangan atau menggunakan pengepit dan lain-lain alat. Itu hanya boleh dimaklumkan oleh pakar sekiranya disoal dengan lebih lanjut dalam mahkamah, misalannya. Setakat lapuran awal, etika professional membenarkan dia menulis sesuatu yang tidak akan mempengaruhi siasatan, iaitu sesuatu yang neutral seperti "tidak ada tanda konklusif gelas telah disentuh".

Oh begitu, jawab teman. Tawar hati teman nak pergi ke mahkamah sekarang.



KULOP MIKO

Who will lead Pakatan Rakyat? - Hussein Abdul Hamid

All of us want to lead!!!

Lady Macbeth: 
Out, damn'd spot! out, I say!—One; two: why, then
'tis time to do't.—Hell is murky.—Fie, my lord, fie, a soldier, and
afeard? What need we fear who knows it, when none can call our
pow'r to accompt?—Yet who would have thought the old man to
have had so much blood in him?

Macbeth Act 5, scene 1, 26–40

Has there has ever been any doubt that DSAI will lead PR into battle with BN? And if PR wins would it not be DSAI who will be Prime Minister? Any doubt in whose mind?

For me DSAI is where he is now by default. There is no one else. Let me rephrase that. There is no other Malay within PR that could seriously give DSAI a run for his money. Malaysia being what it is, it is politically incorrect not to have a Malay as Prime Minister! Sickening but true! Zaid had delusions of grandeur but his approach was flawed from day one. He simply could not play politics at street level. Azmin saw him as a threat and went about the business of neutralizing him with the practised ease of season politicians. Much like what Mahathir did to DSAI a while back.

Is DSAI the Leader PR must have? We now know that PKR is not the alternative to UMNO. What happened in PKR recent party elections is also what happens in UMNO elections but without its refinements and with some parts borrowed from MIC –overt intimidation and harassment of candidates and their supporters. One member one vote is a no brainer when only a very small number of members turn up to cast their votes – a damming indictment of what the members thought of their party elections. Semua telah di atur! Imagine this being allowed to happen on a national scale!

What about PKR in Selangor? Even with Khalid (a man scrupulously honest) Selangor has been beset with in-fighting from within PKR and attacks from UMNO and civil servants within the State government machinery that have managed to stifle many of Khalid’s initiatives to effect change in the state. Here my emphasis is more on UMNO being successful then on Khalid being able to counter these sabotage attempts.

It is PKR that must take responsibility for helping UMNO do their dirty work by not supporting Khalid endeavours to bring good governance to Selangor. Instead the party faithfuls are clamouring for Khalid’s removal from office because he refused to pander to their demands for contracts and business opportunity from the state government.

What we want to see from DSAI are solutions. Appointing Azmin head of Selangor PKR is not a solution to Khalids problem–it is another problem created! Having DSAI as Selangor’s Economic Advisor makes things more difficult for Khalid. Both these appointments weakens Khalid politically. DSAI as PKR defacto leader is failing Khalid. We are privy to all this shennagins. What do you think we make of it all? What will happen if DSAI is Prime Minister? If a Ketua Bahagian is at loggerheads with his MB, are they to go to DSAI over the head of the MB for sympathy and support? Imagine the chaos this will cause. You will be so busy sweating the small stuff that you will not have time to attend to national issue.

One reason why the Malays are unable to compete on a level playing field with others in higher education is because they are not proficient in English. As Minister of Education DSAI introduced Bahasa Melayu as the lingua franca. He did so for political reasons - to play to the gallery of those Penjuang Bahasa Melayu. We can now see what havoc it has wreck upon the ability of the Malays to cope when they go overseas to further their education.

Khalid is going ahead with the proposed constitutional amendment in Selangor because he said that UMNO committed treason in 1993 when they took away the Sultan powers on a number of matter – including the appointment of the SS. I suggest Khalid revisits 1993 and find out whom Mahathir sent to fight his battle with the Sultans for him – it was DSAI. And DSAI did the work of making the Sultan understand that UMNO will do what they want. DSAI then is guilty of treason. And who wants to give these Sultan back anything?

And now the elephant in the room that PR ignores. Sodomy allegations against DSAI. It is inconceivable to many of us that DSAI had committed sodomy–not when he has been through hell with Sodomy One. But what if he himself does not understand or know what he does? There have been too many smoking guns – Saiful and others included – to ignore this aspect of DSAI. I think it bears further investigations. There might be a medical explanation of this – a split personality syndrome perhaps – that there is a dark side of DSAI that even he himself does not know of – what else us!

I am speaking of these issues now because these are matters that must be spoken and discussed by all good men who have the interest of our country at heart. It is enough that we now have a Prime Minister who many of us feel is involved in the murder of Altantuya. We have an Ambassador in Washington that has questionable morality issue. And now a Minister in cabinet who has yet to clear himself satisfactorily of rape allegations. They all need to understand that these allegations will not go away without due legal process to clear themselves – the people demand this and it is the right thing to do.

So in as far as DSAI is concern we need to have answers before it goes any further or else we will have another Najib or JJ entrenched in high public office without the people having recourse to know if they are guilty or innocence – because their high office shields them from any judicial inquiry. We do not want that with Najib – nor do we want it with DSAI.

But what PR needs to understand is this. You can only win the 13th general election if you have the support of the people. In simple terms let me tell you this – you do not have it now in the numbers that you need to win!

Everyday BN is gaining ground. Everyday PR shoots itself in the foot with blunders and self inflicted rhetoric that reinforced the people’s conviction that politicians are too full of themselves to be able to look at the bigger picture of the people’s and national interest. They cannot see the forest for the trees.

Insanity is defined as doing the same thing over and over again, expecting different results. So please some wisdom and clarity of purpose from the leaders of PR that will tell us that you will put into a place in our country a transparent and genuine democracy with social justice and human development for all.

The Decline of a False Martyr - Roy Thinnes

WikiLeaks has shown us many interesting things, though perhaps nothing as epochal as the silver-maned Julian Assange would have us think. The conduct of American foreign policy in private turns out to be remarkably like its conduct in public: the State Department is motivated by concepts of naked self-interest just like any national bureaucracy, but revelations of American hypocrisy are remarkably absent.

Revelations of foreign-power hypocrisy, by contrast, are rampant in the WikiLeaks cables, and none more stark than that of Malaysia’s own Anwar Ibrahim.

The perennial opposition leader and putative Islamic democrat is in an awkward position, as WikiLeaks has revealed a remarkably chatty Singaporean intelligence source opining on the nature of his present trial for sodomy. The trial, alert readers will recall, is Anwar’s second in about a decade. The first was widely seen as a nakedly political move by the authoritarian regime of Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad; and the second is frequently condemned as such despite the present Prime Minister Najib Razak’s considerably more liberal record. All this may have to reassessed if what WikiLeaks’s Singaporean asserts is true.

The basics of the contention are these: the sodomy charge was indeed a “setup,” in the Singaporean’s words, but Anwar is also guilty. Worse, Anwar knew it was likely a “setup,” and walked into it anyway. This raises some interesting questions, if true:

• Is Anwar Ibrahim simply a prisoner of his passions, to the extent that they override his sense of self-preservation?
• Or, more intriguingly, did Anwar Ibrahim calculate that a second trial would redound to his long-term political benefit, as the first one assuredly did?

Anwar’s reaction to all this has been interesting to watch. Initially, he derided the revelations on his Twitter account as merely the products of Malaysian Special Branch speculation — hardly an unbiased source, especially in Anwar’s mental universe, wherein they are penetrated by Israeli agents. But then the opposition leader appeared to think better of this, and began threatening legal actions against Malaysian press that reported on the allegations. This last action is, of course, inconsistent with the liberal, democratizing image he wishes to present to the West — and it is also suggestive of a bit of desperation, as if a well-laid plan has gone terribly awry.

This concluding drama of 2010 closes Anwar Ibrahim’s own annus horribilis, which he began in a position of considerable political strength, and which ends now in mounting questions about his political viability and personal integrity.

At the turn of the previous New Year, Anwar had come off some disappointing elections that did not, as he had predicted, result in his assumption of the Prime Ministerial office. He was therefore busy demagoguing, with some success, the Prime Minister’s engagement of a public-relations firm with past business in Israel. This led directly into his first major misstep, as he slid into outright anti-Semitic rhetoric in the early spring. As this attracted notice in an incredulous Western press — long used to the narrative of Anwar as a benevolent figure of tolerance — he compounded it by publicly blaming the United States for the Gaza-flotilla incident, and leading a crowd of thousands shouting anti-American slogans at the American Embassy in Kuala Lumpur. As a consequence, by mid-June there was substantive US press noting, with some shock, that Anwar Ibrahim appeared to be less of an appealing Islamic democrat, and more of an anti-American Jew-baiter.

The direct result of this? A public letter from B’nai B’rith to the US Secretary of State and Congressional leaders, urging American policymakers to wholly shun Anwar — a stunning turnabout for an erstwhile darling of the US foreign-policy establishment.

Stung by these admittedly rather justified charges, Anwar was forced to spend much of the summer touring Europe and North America, apologizing to his liberal (and Jewish) friends in both, and exhorting audiences to remember that he was himself a victim of persecution. This worked to some extent, but it’s fair to say that he returned to Malaysia with a battered image in the one constituency he counted on most: Western liberal sentiment.

Incredible as it may seem, things got worse when Anwar returned to the United States in September, apparently in the wake of Prime Minister Najib’s trip to the UN General Assembly. Incautious as ever with social media, he Twittered that while in America, he visited the International Institute for Islamic Thought, prompting some curious observers to make inquiries into the nature of the IIIT. The past ninety days have therefore seen a series of articles in American media outlets, revealing much of Anwar Ibrahim’s past to the US audience. Key points include:

• Anwar co-founded the IIIT nearly three decades ago as a Muslim-Brotherhood front organization in the United States.
• Anwar’s IIIT has been named in Muslim Brotherhood documents seized by the FBI as a key Islamic-radical front organization in the United States.
• Anwar’s IIIT is directly responsible for coining and promulgating the word “Islamophobia” as a tactic to discredit critics of radical Islam.
• Anwar apparently remains on the board of the IIIT.
• Anwar may have benefitted from Muslim-Brotherhood funding, possibly routed via Turkish sources. (This may, if confirmed, explain Anwar’s decision to flee to the Turkish Embassy in Kuala Lumpur when his most recent indictment was announced.)
• Anwar may have benefitted from funding sources within Saudi Arabia, by way of his Muslim Brotherhood connections.

Note that there are many questions awaiting confirmation in this list. What Anwar has done, with his eager demagoguery, his Jew-baiting, and his general incaution, is make these questions rational and plausible. We may rest assured that intrepid journalists are even now seeking their answers.

Meanwhile, in Malaysia itself, Anwar’s errors of 2010 haunt him on several fronts. His campaign against Jewish influence, which seemed so tactically promising at its inception, will now likely result in a punitive suspension from the Malaysian parliament at the hands of its Rules Committee. Within his own party, cracks are beginning to show: noted Malaysian liberal and reformer Zaid Ibrahim recently stormed out of Anwar’s Pakatan Rakyat party, charging corruption and a cult of personality about its leader. This is a loss of credibility the embattled leader can ill afford.

As this year drew to a close, nearly every advantage that Anwar Ibrahim held at its beginning has been frittered away — except, perhaps, his rectitude vis a vis his sodomy trial.

Now, with WikiLeaks, that may be gone too. If it is, all that will be left of the Anwar Ibrahim that once traveled the world as a champion of democracy, transparency, and liberalism will be a discredited husk of a decidely amoral political opportunist. And it all happened in just one year.

Perjumpaan PAS-UMNO: Apa yang telah dibincang? - Abas Azizan

Saya amat tertarik dengan berita perjumpaan antara pemimpin-pemimpin PAS, Nik Aziz dan Hadi Awang dengan pemimpin-pemimpin UMNO, Najib Razak dan Muhyiddin Yassin yang di pengerusikan oleh YDP Agung, Sultan Mizan Zainal Abidin pada 24 Disember, 2010.

Walaupun Nik Aziz enggan mendedahkan intipati perbincangan tersebut, ini tidak dapat menyekat rakyat jelata dari membuat sebarang spekulasi mengenainya.

Saya rasa tidak mustahil perjumpaan tersebut bertujuan untuk menyakinkan Nik Aziz tentang penglibatan Anwar Ibrahim dengan kegiatan homoseksual. Kebanyakan pemimpin-pemimpin PAS dan ABIM barangkali telah yakin dengan salah laku Anwar dan hanya Nik Aziz seorang sahaja dalam barisan pimpinan PAS yang masih belum dapat menerima hakikat ini.

Pada perjumpaan tersebut ada kemungkinan Nik Aziz telah ditunjukkan bukti-bukti teknikal seperti video, gambar-gambar, rakaman suara dan SMS serta e-mel yang telah dipintas. Ini, sekiranya wujud, akan mengesahkan penglibatan Anwar dalam kegiatan homoseksual. Adalah munasabah bukti-bukti tersebut tidak dapat disebarkan kepada orang ramai kerana ia akan mengaibkan orang Islam di negara ini.

Perjumpaan tersebut digunakan untuk menyediakan minda Nik Aziz dan penyokong-penyokong Anwar di dalam PAS supaya dapat menerima hakikat bahawa memang Anwar terlibat dengan kegiatan homoseksual dan tuduhan-tuduhan yang dihadapi beliau di mahkamah bukanlah fitnah.

Nik Aziz telah diminta untuk memujuk Anwar supaya mengundurkan diri dari arena politik tanah air dan menerima tawaran suaka daripada kerajaan Turki. Ini adalah penyelesaian yang terbaik kepada semua pihak kerana jika bukti-bukti teknikal ini disebarkan, orang Melayu beragama Islam yang akan hilang air muka.

Ini hanyalah spekulasi saya berdasarkan maklumat-maklumat yang saya terima daripada kawan-kawan yang berada di barisan pimpinan PAS dan UMNO. Sesungguhnya hanya Allah SWT sahaja yang lebih mengetahui.

Wallahuallam.


ABAS AZIZAN

The closet gay and the XDPMILF syndrome - Pieter D'Cruz

It didn’t surprise me one bit our neighbour’s intelligence services’ finding that Anwar Ibrahim “did indeed commit the acts for which he is currently indicted”. It concurs with the finding of the Federal Court, dated 2 September, 2004, that Anwar Ibrahim did indeed engage in homosexual activities.

It is hard for the general public to accept the fact that Anwar is a homosexual because of his image as a pious Muslim and the circumstances of the charges against him. Most people can’t visualize how a 63-year old man (with a bad case of backache) could force himself on a 23-year old man. It boggles the mind so much so that it’s a lot easier to accept that the charges are part of the political conspiracy to destroy Anwar Ibrahim.

Perhaps, a change in perspective of the said homosexual activities could enlighten the general public. The dominant person needs not use force to rape his victims. He seduces them. Initially, he was not the giving end, he was the receiving end. He was the “queen”. Only later in the relationship would the roles be interchangeable.

The victims were very vulnerable to the dominant person’s advances because of his stature. It is a case of rape by a person of authority. Most of his victims are young men of low social standing such as his driver, his coffee-boy, etc. They were overwhelmed by the XDPMILF syndrome i.e. “eX-Deputy Prime Minister I Like to F**k” syndrome.

As a liberal, I don’t give a damn about a person’s sexual orientation. I don’t care a bit if my mechanic is gay, as long as he could repair my car. I don’t give a s**t if my golf-caddy is a lesbian, as long as she could perform the duties I paid her for.

But in the case of Anwar Ibrahim, it’s totally a different kettle of fish. This guy wants to be the Prime Minister and he may well be a closet gay. As a Prime Minister, he would be a victim of blackmail by foreign governments and we would suffer for that. Furthermore, he started his political career as an activist of political Islam and even now holds himself out to be a champion of moderate Islam. The hypocrisy stinks to high-heaven.

All this while he has been denying to the public that he indulges in homosexual activities, claiming it to be a fabricated lie. Do we want another liar as a Prime Minister?

And if Anwar Ibrahim is a closet gay, what’s there to prevent him from being a closet despot?



PIETER D'CRUZ

Wikileaks and the PKR response - Wan Nasuha

The Wikileaks expose on what Singapore officialdom thinks of its Malaysian counterparts and politicians, both government and opposition, have been unflattering to the latter. To most Malaysians, that’s not surprising. We too have dim views of our politicians.

The Singaporeans are of the view, among others, that our country lack competent leadership, that Najib Razak continues to be haunted by a murder scandal and that nobody likes Khairy Jamaluddin because he got where he is through family ties. So what else is new? That sounds blasé but it does not mean we don’t expect those in government to address one or two of the above issues. We do and they should - Wikileaks or no Wikileaks.

Parti Keadilan Rakyat (PKR) however appears to be particularly stung by the revelation that Lee Kuan Yew and his intelligence services have told the Australian Office of National Assessments that Anwar Ibrahim, the party’s de facto leader, 'did indeed commit the acts for which he is currently indicted'. Apart from the ongoing sodomy trial, a leader who is ‘God’s gift’ to the people should never ever be pictured to be engaged in homosexual sex. Hence, the indignant responses that followed from the party.

The whole thing, however, is in the nature of ‘overheard conversations’ and this complicates matters quite a bit. Had the Singaporeans or Aussies or Americans trumpeted out loud that ‘Anwar did it’, it would have been a bit easier to deal with.

As it was, we weren’t supposed to know but we knew anyway, thanks to Wikileaks and the thing is, people tend to be more honest and frank in private conversations than in public. Consequently, the party’s responses, apart from being indignant, have also been silly.

As expected, there is the almost obligatory ‘we-are-the target-of-a-conspiracy’ response, such a conspiracy this time is between the Malaysian and Singaporean secret police.

And as usual, no evidence was provided to support this claim. Suffice it seems that it is well-known there had been police co-operation in the past between the two countries. The implication is also that the Singaporean side would just swallow everything that the Malaysian Special Branch fed them about Anwar. I leave that to the reader to decide on its plausibility.

Moreover, we only knew what the Singaporeans think of Anwar through Wikileaks. Does this then mean that Julian Assange is part of the conspiracy against PKR and Anwar? Well, that’s bound to give a few moments of mirth to Assange in the gloom of his British lock-up.

And what about the two Australian newspapers which published the revelations on Anwar? They too must be co-conspirators, going by PKR’s logic.

Asking that the precise nature of the ‘technical intelligence’ to be explained to the public may sound good but it is actually very silly. Those involved in gathering the said information are not paid to justify their findings to the public but only to their political masters which, in this case, is the Singapore government who will see even less reason to engage with the Malaysian public in a discussion over operational intelligence matters.

Finally, yes, much of what is exposed is in the realm of personal opinions. But there are personal opinions and there are personal opinions. A finding or conclusion reached on the straightforward question of ‘did he or didn’t he’ has to be based on facts and a conclusion conveyed in private and confidential communication carries with it the presumption of being frank and honest, unless otherwise proven.

And it’s these two characteristics of the disclosure I believe that is causing so much angst within PKR right now.



WAN NASUHA WAN HASSAN