Salam kemerdekaan ke-54 : Bersatulah bangsa Melayu !

Di saat ini, perbalahan sesama bangsa Melayu berada di tahap kritikal. Punca utama adalah perbezaan fahaman politik. Budaya berpuak-puak semakin berleluasa sama ada di bandar mahupun di kampung. Pergolakan ini dilihat oleh orang lain dan mereka gembira melihat kita bersengketa sesama sendiri.

Perpecahan ini amat bahaya yang akan membinasakan bangsa kita sendiri. Pepatah mengatakan 'Bersatu kita teguh, bercerai kita roboh'. Bangsa kita sekarang sedang ditertawakan orang lain kerana kita lemah sebab tidak bersatu. Kita seolah-olah sudah hilang kekuatan kerana ikatan kita amat longgar dan akan roboh bila-bila masa sahaja. Raja-Raja Melayu diperlekehkan oleh bangsa kita sendiri. Orang lain tersenyum gembira melihat kebodohan yang dijelmakan oleh bangsa kita sendiri.

Masa telah sampai. Semboyan telah berbunyi. Gendang telah dipalu. Orang Melayu perlu bertindak untuk menyatukan semula bangsa kita yang kita cintai dan agama Islam yang kita anuti. Kesemua peringkat usia, sama ada golongan terpelajar, golongan ahli agama, pemimpin-pemimpin politik, pelajar, pendidik, golongan petani dan apa-apa sahaja golongan dari kelompok Melayu perlu mulakan gerakan ke akar umbi menyatukan semula puak-puak yang bertelagah ini demi agama dan bangsa.

Janganlah hanya mempunyai sikap membisu dan melihat sahaja tanpa melakukan tindakan demi penyatuan bangsa. Kita kena bertindak. Bukan masanya untuk kita menuding jari menyalahkan puak lain.

Tempat berkumpul bagi menyusun program penyatuan hendaklah kita mulakan di masjid atau pun surau. Kita tinggalkan fahaman politik masing-masing apabila berada di masjid atau surau. Kita hidupkan jemaah dan kita bina semula kekuatan. Peranan masjid atau surau kita kembalikan seperti di zaman Rasulullah s.a.w.

Sejarah para pahlawan Melayu dahulu perlu diceritakan kepada generasi muda. Usaha ini mesti berterusan dan tiada penghujung. Pastinya perjuangan kita akan disanjung oleh generasi akan datang. Kitalah yang bertanggungjawab memastikan agama Allah terpelihara dan bangsa kita bersatu, kuat dan tidak boleh diperlekehkan orang lain. Kita kembalikan kedudukan raja kita yang kita sayangi di tempat yang sepatutnya.

Satu semangat juang yang tinggi perlu ada pada setiap orang Melayu. Kita kumpulkan rakan-rakan berlainan fahaman politik untuk membentuk satu jemaah demi agama dan bangsa Melayu. Ibu bapa juga memainkan peranan sebagai penasihat terbaik kepada anak-anak. Ceritakanlah kepada mereka sejarah zaman dahulu dan pupukkan semangat cintakan agama dan bangsa.

Kepada para pemimpin politik, berdamailah. Semua orang Melayu melihat anda. Adakah cukup sekadar ungkapan atau slogan tanpa diterjemahkan dalam bentuk kenyataan? Ingatlah sejarah di zaman Rasulullah s.a.w. yang mana dua puak bersengketa bersatu, iaitu kaum Ansar dan Muhajirin. Setiap orang Islam adalah saudara kita. Fikirkanlah. Jangan terlalu taksub dengan fahaman politik masing-masing. Berfikir dan bertindaklah secara waras.

Kepada golongan ahli agama, berilah teladan yang baik kepada kami. Bimbinglah, nasihatilah. Kepada YB atau wakil rakyat, tidak kira apa parti anda, dampingilah orang Melayu, bantulah mereka jika mereka perlukan bantuan tanpa mengira parti. Parti hanyalah sebagai wadah perjuangan.

Sempena menyambut hari kemerdekaan ke-54 ini, penulis menyeru kepada semua umat Melayu yang beragama Islam yang amat penulis sayangi, kita buka lembaran baru yang pastinya akan menjadi satu sejarah yang paling indah. Jadikan isu "bagaimana untuk menyatukan semula orang-orang Melayu" sebagai topik perbualan kita walau di mana kita berada.

Allah SWT tidak akan mengubah nasib sesuatu kaum itu melainkan kaum itu sendiri mengubah nasibnya. Itu janji Allah. Kita tunaikan tanggungjawab kita. Kita jadikan bangsa kita bangsa yang bermaruah, kuat pegangan agamanya, kuat dari segi fizikal juga mental, bersatu serta mempunyai semangat juang yang tinggi.

Salam Kemerdekaan ke-54
Suara Politik
Taminsari

Salam Kemerdekaan : Kemerdekaan menuntut keinsafan anak bangsa !

Dalam suasana kemerdekaan yang disambut hari ini, orang Melayu yang berpecah belah, masih belum dapat ditautkan semula. Ini adalah suasana yang amat malang bagi bangsa Melayu kerana kedudukan mereka sebagai tulang belakang bangsa Malaysia. Bolehkan kita mengatakan bahawa orang Melayu sebagai masyarakat berwawasan sedangkan mereka sendiri terus berpecah belah.

Orang Melayu mempunyai sikap prejudis sesama sendiri. Daripada kata-kata, mereka dilihat tidak jujur sesama sendiri hanya disebabkan fahaman politik yang berbeza walaupun seagama. Di depan cakap lain, di belakang cakap lain. Hari ini puji, esok dikeji. Bila mereka bercakap di khalayak ramai orang mula melemparkan kata-kata mereka bercakap lain di mulut, lain pula di hati. Jika orang yang dihormati bercakap berbelit-belit, bagaimana ia boleh menjadi teladan kepada bangsa dan seagama. Inilah dilema orang Melayu hari ini.

Usaha mengisi kemerdekaan, tidak ada hadnya. Ia perlu diteruskan hingga kepada generasi akan datang walaupun ketika itu sejarah negara zaman silam sudah ditinggalkan jauh. Jika sejarah hari ini yang dijadikan sandaran, bermakna bangsa Malaysia hanya melihat kepada pergolakan bangsa Malaysia yang berlaku di depan mata kita hari ini.

Itulah sebabnya dalam apa keadaan sekali pun, apabila tiba bulan kemerdekaan nama-nama pemimpin negara bermula daripada Allahyarham Tunku Abdul Rahman Putra, Allahyarham Tun Abdul Razak Hussein, Allahyarham Tun Hussein Onn, Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad dan Tun Abdullah Ahmad Badawi akan disebut kerana setiap mereka mempunyai peranan membina bangsa dan negara.

Begitu juga dengan pemimpin hari ini dan mereka yang akan mewarisi pimpinan negara pada masa akan datang, tetap disanjung. Setakat ini, semua pemimpin yang menerajui negara mempunyai jasa kepada negara berasaskan kepada waktu dan ketika pentadbiran mereka. Semua mereka menyambung tugas menyedarkan rakyat supaya memahami erti kemerdekaan.

Bagaimana keadaan negara pada 50 tahun akan datang. Dari segi fizikalnya, kita yakin Malaysia akan lengkap serba serbi. Isunya ialah bagaimana pemikiran rakyat Malaysia pada 2057 nanti, apabila negara menyambut ulang tahun kemerdekaan ke-100 tahun nanti.

Setakat ini, sejarah menyaksikan betapa kepemimpinan Umno masih berjaya menerajui perjuangan mencapai kemerdekaan dan mengurus cabaran kemerdekaan. Untuk 50 tahun akan datang, pastinya ia bermula hari ini.

" 1 Malaysia Menjana Tranformasi "

Selamat Menyambut Hari Kemerdekaan Yang ke-54 dan Salam kemerdekaan kepada seluruh rakyat Malaysia.

Suara Politik
Taminsari

Selamat Menyambut Hari Raya Aidil Fitri.

Semangat fitrah makin kurang dihayati ketika rai Aidilfitri

Ramadan dan Syawal datang silih berganti. Kehadiran dua bulan berkat ini sememangnya dinantikan umat Islam. Ramadan adalah bulan ujian dan Syawal membawa bersamanya perayaan Aidilfitri meraikan kejayaan umat Islam berjaya melalui ujian Ramadan.

Sesuai dengan namanya, Aidilfitri adalah perayaan bagi meraikan tuntutan fitrah anugerah Allah kepada seluruh umat manusia. Fitrah makan dan minum, berkasih-sayang, menghubungkan silaturahim, mencintai keharmonian melalui tradisi bermaaf-maafan, berhias-hiasan, dan kasih-mengasihi sesama manusia tanpa mengenal darjat, taraf dan bangsa.

Islam sesungguhnya adalah agama yang memelihara tuntutan fitrah manusia sehingga diwujudkan suatu hari istimewa untuk meraikannya. Menariknya, meraikan fitrah tidak akan menjejaskan kredibiliti iman seseorang, sebaliknya, meninggalkan fitrah dianggap suatu pengkhianatan besar terhadap agama.

Namun, berapa ramaikah daripada kita yang menyedari hakikat ini sedangkan inilah dia semangat fitrah yang seharusnya diketahui, dirai dan dihayati umat Islam semua lebih-lebih lagi di Aidilfitri yang mulia.

Allah menegaskan bahawa 'fitrah' adalah 'ketetapan Allah yang telah ditentukan kepada umat manusia sejak awal penciptaannya. Imam al-Ghazali, Ismail Raji al-Faruqi dan Sayed Naquib al-Attas adalah kalangan sarjana Islam yang membincangkan secara terperinci berkaitan fitrah dalam karya ilmiah mereka.

Secara umumnya, mereka menyimpulkan bahawa fitrah sebagai suatu potensi dalam diri manusia yang cenderung kepada nilai positif sejagat meliputi kecenderungan kepada kehidupan beragama dan nilai dipegang agama.

Perbincangan mengenai Aidilfitri, sewajarnya umat Islam merenung kembali sejauh manakah Aidilfitri diraikan dalam suasana menghayati fitrah. Pada hari ini, umat Islam bersuka-ria, bergembira, menikmati juadah enak, memakai pakaian baru, menghias kediaman, ziarah-menziarahi, bermohon maaf antara sanak saudara dan taulan, mengeluarkan zakat fitrah untuk disedekahkan kepada yang memerlukan.

Kesimpulannya, Aidilfitri adalah hari di mana nilai positif sejagat diraikan sebagai satu tuntutan agama. Adalah malang sekali andainya Aidilfitri semata-mata menjadi hari di mana kita membalas dendam terhadap nafsu makan dan minum yang dikekang di Ramadan yang lalu.

Berpakaian baru dan menghias kediaman sekadar menunjuk-nunjuk. Ziarah-menziarahi dan bermohon maaf sekadar suatu tradisi. Zakat fitrah, sedekah raya semata-mata kerana memenuhi tanggung-jawab peribadi dan sosial.

Mampukah semangat fitrah ini dihayati seandainya lebih ramai daripada kita memilih untuk duduk saja di rumah menonton rancangan menarik yang disajikan. Daripada sudut ekstrem, ada antara kita memilih memulakan puasa sunat seawal dua Aidilfitri sehingga menghalang budaya ziarah-menziarahi yang digalakkan di Aidilfitri.

Sesungguhnya, Aidilfitri adalah bukti rahmat Allah kepada umat Islam. Dari sudut sejarah, Allah menggantikan dua perayaan jahiliah kepada dua perayaan mulia iaitu Aidilfitri dan Aidiladha.

Jadi sempena di hari yang mulia ini, saya mengambil kesempatan disini untuk mengucapkan Selamat Hari Raya Aidil Fitri kepada semua rakan-rakan bloggers yang jauh mahupun yang dekat dan juga pengikut-pengikut setia belantan.blogspot.com. serta pembaca dan pengulas yang budiman. Jika ada tersalah kata atau terkasar bahasa semasa saya berkarya di blog ini harap dapat kalian semua maafkan. Maaf Zahir Dan Batin.

Ikhlas dari
Suara Politik
Taminsari

Kemerdekaan menuntut keinsafan anak bangsa!

Mulai 1 Ogos lalu, negara memasuki bulan kemerdekaan yang disambut pada 31 Ogos setiap tahun. Ini adalah kali ke-54 negara menyambut ulang tahun kemerdekaan untuk memperingati tarikh keramat negara bebas daripada belenggu penjajah.

Walaupun bulan kemerdekaan sudah memasuki minggu terakhir, suasana kemerdekaan tidak pun dirasai, berbeza dengan suasana Ramadan, apatah lagi Aidilfitri. Ini mungkin kerana sudah terlalu banyak pesta di negara ini. Walaupun pelbagai saranan telah diberikan oleh pihak kementerian yang terbabit dalam menyambut hari kemerdekaan, namun jika dilihat hingga keminggu terakhir ini sambutannya masih hambar!

Malah diminggu terakhir ini juga, baru-baru ini kita dikejutkan dengan kenyataan kurang ajar Naib Presiden PAS, Mohamad Sabu disatu ceramah di Pulau Pinang yang menganggap pihak komunis yang menyerang pasukan keselamatan dalam tragedi Bukit Kepong pada 1950 adalah merupakan hero sebenar. Bagi penulis kenyataan Mohamad Sabu atau Mat Sabu ini adalah satu penghinaan dan pengkhianatan terhadap perjuangan bangsa Melayu menuntut kemerdekaan tanah air.

Memang hebat Mat Sabu bercakap tetapi semuanya itu satu penghinaan terhadap wira-wira negara yang terkorban berjuang menentang komunis. Mat Sabu bukan layak lagi digelar buta sejarah tetapi sebenanya adalah pengkhianat kerana mengangkat pengganas komunis sebagai pejuang sebenar untuk parti pembangkang. Adakah Mohamad Sabu mewakili suara DAP dalam Pakatan Pembangkang atau adakah Mat Sabu sendiri pendokong komunis? Tak hairanlah mengapa sebelum ini pihak polis telah menemui bukti usaha mahu menghidupkan semula ideologi komunis selepas penahanan beberapa ahli PSM sebelum himpunan Bersih 2.0 lalu!

Sehari demi sehari berlalu tanpa sedikit pun rakyat merasai kemeriahan suasana bulan kemerdekaan. Pada malam 31 Ogos nanti, walaupun tiada sambutan yang akan diadakan di adakan ( akan disambut sekali bersama Sabah dan Sarawak pada 16 September nanti - Hari Pembentukan Malaysia ),namun belum pasti roh kemerdekaan dapat menyerap ke dalam jiwa bangsa Malaysia.

Meskipun tetap melaungkan seruan “Merdeka, Merdeka, Merdeka” apabila jam tepat menunjukkan pukul 12 malam pada 31 Ogos nanti, ia hanyalah laungan bergemuruh yang tidak ada bezanya dengan laungan pada sambutan tahun baru setiap tahun di hotel-hotel dan pusat-pusat hiburan.

Bagi kumpulan bersemangat kebangsaan yang tebal, keadaan ini sangat membimbangkan mereka kerana menganggap terhakisnya semangat nasionalisme bangsa. Kumpulan ini menganggap masyarakat hari ini gagal mengagumi, apatah lagi menghayati sejarah. Sekiranya mereka dipilih sebagai pemimpin akan datang, ia akan mempercepatkan proses negara tergadai dan berlaku penjajahan baru oleh kuasa-kuasa besar.

Sikap kumpulan nasionalis ini berbeza dengan golongan berfikiran liberal. Mereka tidak bimbang kepada sikap generasi hari ini kerana menganggap ia adalah perkara biasa dalam tamadun manusia. Bagi golongan ini, apa yang mereka tahu ialah kebebasan bermakna rakyat sewajar diberi hak mutlak dalam segala bidang. Kumpulan ini memandang ke depan dan mahu rakyat menguasai ilmu tanpa perlu menoleh ke belakang. Bagi mereka, jika masyarakat tidak menguasai ilmu, mereka akan ketinggalan.

Pengertian kemerdekaan mempunyai semangat dan rohnya tersendiri. Penghayatannya juga berbeza daripada seseorang kepada seseorang yang lain. Bagi seseorang yang berusia 70-an ke atas hari ini, mereka adalah kumpulan yang pernah hidup pada zaman Perang Dunia Kedua yang merasai pahit getirnya kehidupan pada zaman penjajahan British.

Sebelum itu, mereka juga melalui pengalaman ketika pemerintahan Jepun, makan ubi kayu bakar dan bersembunyi di bawah tanah apabila diburu pengganas Komunis. Pengalaman mereka bersekolah, jauh beza daripada anak-anak zaman moden hari ini. Berkaki ayam hingga kaki keras berkematu, adalah perkara biasa.

Bagi golongan ini, sewaktu Perdana Menteri pertama, Allahyarham Tunku Abdul Rahman melaungkan “Merdeka, Merdeka, Merdeka”, ia adalah seruan paling beremosi dan ramai yang mengalirkan air mata kerana mereka faham erti kebebasan.

Bagi mereka yang berusia 40 dan 50-an hari ini, kisah kehidupan zaman perang, pemerintahan Jepun dan penyeksaan hidup pada zaman Komunis, sudah mula menjadi cerita penglipur lara bila ayah atau datuk nenek menceritakan kisah lampau mereka sebelum ini.

Kumpulan ini tidak dapat menggambarkan keadaan kehidupan zaman sebelum mereka, apatah lagi menyelami pengalaman yang dilalui datuk nenek mereka. Ketika ayah bercerita kisahnya menelaah buku di bawah lampu minyak tanah atau membeli nasi lemak dengan harga lima sen sebungkus, mereka hanya mendengarnya tanpa emosi dan simpati. Sukar bagi mereka mendalami keadaan itu yang menyebabkan perbualan ibarat percakapan antara itik dengan ayam.

Ketika tiba 31 Ogos setiap tahun, anak-anak muda hari ini juga tidak ketinggalan melaungkan ungkapan “Merdeka, Merdeka, Merdeka”, tetapi tidak siapa yang dapat membaca emosi mereka. Apakah mereka benar-benar faham erti kebebasan atau sekadar terikut-ikut dengan laungan untuk menggemakan suasana.

Anak-anak hari ini mempunyai cita-cita yang jauh berbeza daripada cita-cita dan pemikiran masyarakat pra dan pasca kemerdekaan. Keadaan ini berlaku kerana mereka terdedah kepada pelbagai pengaruh luar melalui pelbagai saluran dan media.

Dengan kemajuan teknologi komunikasi dan telekomunikasi, anak-anak yang berusia belasan tahun, seterusnya mereka dalam lingkungan 30-an dan 40-an, mewarisi pemikiran moden. Mereka mungkin faham bahawa sambutan Hari Kemerdekaan adalah detik memperingati kejayaan negara yang berjaya membebaskan diri daripada belenggu penjajahan.

Disebabkan tidak pernah mengenal erti penjajahan, sama ada secara fizikal dan pemikiran, mereka tidak pernah menganggap mereka pernah dijajah. Pengalaman tidak pernah mengajar mereka penyeksaan hidup dijajah.

Anak-anak hari ini tidak pernah merasa tidur dalam kerlipan pelita minyak tanah kerana setiap masa mereka membesar di dalam bilik berhawa dingin. Bagaimana mereka boleh memahami erti mandi di perigi, sedangkan mereka tidak pernah melihat perigi. Mereka hidup dalam zaman moden yang lama kelamaan menghakis semangat nasionalisme bangsa.

Realitinya, golongan muda hari ini mula tidak memahami erti sejarah kerana mereka belajar sejarah semata-mata untuk tujuan peperiksaan. Bagi semua bangsa Malaysia, mereka hanya akan memahami erti kemerdekaan sekiranya mereka menghayati erti keperitan hidup. Tidak salah meniupkan pemikiran serta jiwa merdeka kepada anak-anak bangsa kerana merekalah yang akan menyelamatkan negara daripada sebarang ancaman pada masa akan datang. Kemerdekaan negara akan hancur sekiranya rakyat berpecah belah.

Dalam suasana kemerdekaan yang akan disambut tidak lama lagi, orang Melayu yang berpecah belah, masih belum dapat ditautkan semula. Ini adalah suasana yang amat malang bagi bangsa Melayu kerana kedudukan mereka sebagai tulang belakang bangsa Malaysia. Bolehkan kita mengatakan bahawa orang Melayu sebagai masyarakat berwawasan sedangkan mereka sendiri terus berpecah belah.

Orang Melayu mempunyai sikap prejudis sesama sendiri. Daripada kata-kata, mereka dilihat tidak jujur sesama sendiri hanya disebabkan fahaman politik yang berbeza walaupun seagama. Di depan cakap lain, di belakang cakap lain. Hari ini puji, esok dikeji. Bila mereka bercakap di khalayak ramai orang mula melemparkan kata-kata mereka bercakap lain di mulut, lain pula di hati. Jika orang yang dihormati bercakap berbelit-belit, bagaimana ia boleh menjadi teladan kepada bangsa dan seagama. Inilah dilema orang Melayu hari ini.

Usaha mengisi kemerdekaan, tidak ada hadnya. Ia perlu diteruskan hingga kepada generasi akan datang walaupun ketika itu sejarah negara zaman silam sudah ditinggalkan jauh. Jika sejarah hari ini yang dijadikan sandaran, bermakna bangsa Malaysia hanya melihat kepada pergolakan bangsa Malaysia yang berlaku di depan mata kita hari ini.

Itulah sebabnya dalam apa keadaan sekali pun, apabila tiba bulan kemerdekaan nama-nama pemimpin negara bermula daripada Allahyarham Tunku Abdul Rahman Putra, Allahyarham Tun Abdul Razak Hussein, Allahyarham Tun Hussein Onn, Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad dan Tun Abdullah Ahmad Badawi akan disebut kerana setiap mereka mempunyai peranan membina bangsa dan negara.

Begitu juga dengan pemimpin hari ini dan mereka yang akan mewarisi pimpinan negara pada masa akan datang, tetap disanjung. Setakat ini, semua pemimpin yang menerajui negara mempunyai jasa kepada negara berasaskan kepada waktu dan ketika pentadbiran mereka. Semua mereka menyambung tugas menyedarkan rakyat supaya memahami erti kemerdekaan.

Bagaimana keadaan negara pada 50 tahun akan datang. Dari segi fizikalnya, kita yakin Malaysia akan lengkap serba serbi. Isunya ialah bagaimana pemikiran rakyat Malaysia pada 2057 nanti, apabila negara menyambut ulang tahun kemerdekaan ke-100 tahun nanti.

Setakat ini, sejarah menyaksikan betapa kepemimpinan UMNO masih berjaya menerajui perjuangan mencapai kemerdekaan dan mengurus cabaran kemerdekaan. Untuk 50 tahun akan datang, pastinya ia bermula hari ini. Wallahuallam.

Suara Politik
Taminsari

Kita selak sedikit sejarah Kes Liwat I Anwar Ibrahim!

Anwar Ibrahim ketika memberikan 'tazkirah' pembelaan tidak bersumpah dari kandang bersalah( tak ada kredibiliti, keterangan tak ada pemberat, tak disoal balas DPP ) dalam kes Liwat II selama 1 jam 45 minit, masih sempat membangkitkan insiden beliau dipecat oleh bekas Perdana Menteri, Tun Dr. Mahathir Mohamad sebelum didakwa dan dipenjara selama 15 tahun atas tuduhan liwat pada 1998.

Pada penghujung kenyataan sebanyak 32 mukasurat dari kandang tertuduh, Anwar mendakwa perbicaraan kesnya sebagai satu konspirasi Perdana Menteri, Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak dalam usaha memasukkannya ke dalam penjara semula.

Anwar Ibrahim sepatutnya bersyukur dan mengambil iktibar dari kes Liwat 1 ketika menang dalam rayuan supaya tidak mengulangi 'perbuatan terkutuk' itu lagi. Amat malang nafsu mengatasi segala-galanya bagi Anwar untuk berhadapan dengan kes Liwat II pula. Walaupun beliau cuba untuk menangguhkan perbicaraan sebanyak lebih 50 kali, namun nasib tidak menyebelahi kali ini kerana dipanggil membela diri.

Jika kita selak sedikit kisah kes Liwat I sebelum ini, Anwar sebenarnya bernasib baik kerana dibebaskan selepas menang dalam rayuan atas sebab kesilapan teknikal. Namun liwat tepat meliwat! Persoalannya adalah mengapa Anwar Ibrahim tidak serik-serik melakukan perbuatan terkutuk itu!

Pengakuan Bersumpah Azizan

Dengan nama Allah Yang Maha Pemurah Lagi Maha Pengasih, saya AZIZAN BIN ABU BAKAR, IC 5980324 dengan ini membuat pengakuan bersumpah bahawa saya telah menjadi mangsa hubungan sejenis yakni ( homoseksual ) dengan Anwar Bin Ibrahim yang kini memangku jawatan Timbalan Perdana Menteri.

Perbuatan terkutuk ini telah dilakukan untuk beberapa kali sekitar tahun 1992 tanpa kerelaan saya. Ianya kerap berlaku di hotel-hotel mewah seperti PJ Hilton, Hyatt Saujana dan Holiday Villa tanpa pengetahuan umum dan isterinya.

Buat makluman, saya merupakan bekas pemandu peribadi kepada isterinya iaitu Datin Seri Wan Azizah.

Sepanjang bekerja di bawah naungan beliau, Anwar, saya sering dipanggil untuk melakukan perkara terkutuk itu walaupun untuk beberapa kali saya cuba menolaknya. Sifat rakusnya membayangkan beliau seorang yang boleh dikategorikan sebagai ‘kronik’ sehingga membuatkan jiwa dan mental saya begitu tertekan.

Perasaan bersalah akhirnya menguasai diri saya apabila setiap kali terpandang wajah Datin Seri Wan Azizah yang begitu tinggi akhlaknya. Akhirnya saya telah membuat keputusan untuk berhenti dari terus menjadi hamba homoseksual kepada manusia yang saya kategorikan bersifat binatang iaitu Anwar Bin Ibrahim.

Sekali lagi dengan nama Allah Yang Maha Mengetahui akan segala-galanya, saya bersumpah membuat pengakuan ini tanpa mempunyai niat atau motif tertentu samada secara peribadi mahupun politik untuk menjatuhkannya.

Pengakuan ini dibuat berdasarkan kesedaran dan keinginan menegakkan kebenaran demi menyelamatkan insan-insan yang teraniaya seperti saya. Saya tidak keberatan untuk dipanggil bagi menjelaskan kedudukan dengan lebih terpeinci.

Akhir sekali saya berharap pihak yang bertanggungjawab dapat mengambil kira pandangan ini secara serius supaya pemimpin ini diberikan hukuman yang setimpal demi kebaikan dan pengajaran kepada pemimpin lain.

Dengan nama Allah, sekali lagi saya Azizan Bin Abu Bakar bersumpah bahawa segala lapuran di atas dibuat dengan kerelaan hati saya tanpa desakan, tuntutan dan tekanan dari pihak-pihak tertentu. Segala-galanya adalah benar demi menyelamatkan bangsa dan negara. AMIN.

Pengakuan bersumpah:-

Oleh: t.t.
I/C: 5980324
Alamat: 54, Jalan Bersatu 1
Taman Bersatu, 48000 Rawang
Tarikh: 5hb. Aug, 1997 "

Pengakuan Sukma Darmawan Sasmitaat Madja mengenai hubungan homoseksnya dengan Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim yang dibuat pada 17 September 1998 di hadapan majistret Abdul Karim Abdul Jalil.

( INI ADALAH KENYATAAN ASAL ).

"Saya ingin menyatakan hubungan sejenis saya dengan Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim. Dia bermula dari tahun 1976 atau 1977, saya tidak berapa ingat. Tidak ingat berapa haribulan tapi pasti tahunnya.

Saya datang dari Indonesia bersama ibu dan ayah saya untuk menetap dan bersekolah di Kuala Lumpur. Ibu dan bapa saya menyerahkan saya kepada Datuk Ibrahim dan isterinya dalam jagaan mereka sewaktu pangajian saya di Malaysia.

Saya tinggal di No. 27, Jalan SS 1/43, Petaling Jaya. Dengan secara kebetulan saya mendapat bilik berkongsi dengan Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim. Suatu hari, tidak ingat berapa haribulan dan waktu yang tepat, saya merasa berahi dan ingin melakukan onani. Dalam satu bilik saya tidur sekatil dengan dia, secara kebetulan badan dia melekat pada badan saya termasuk kemaluan dia berada di telapak tangan saya. Dengan otomatik saya menguitkan kemaluan beliau dengan tangan saya dan dalam beberapa saat air mani dia keluar tetapi air mani saya tidak keluar. Itu detik-detik permulaan perhubungan saya dengan dia dan berterusan dalam seminggu sekali kurang lebih dalam setahun.

Selepas setahun, hubungan kami semakin intim dan bermulalah hubungan oral seks, saya melakukan terhadap dia. Selepas setahun kemudiannya dia ada melakukan liwat terhadap saya dengan menggunakan baby cream. Dia berlaku berselang-seli di antara onani, liwat dan oral.

Setelah Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim berkahwin, beliau berpindah ke rumah sewa di Seksyen 17. Saya sekali sekala datang ke rumah beliau. Di rumah ini dalam jangka tiga atau enam bulan saya tidak mempunyai hubungan apa-apa dengan dia. Tapi selepas itu kami ada menjalinkan hubungan berselang-seli di antara liwat, oral atau onani dan kurang lebih sebulan sekali atau dua.

Kemudian kami berpindah ke Subang Jaya. Di sini saya hanya tinggal bersama dia dua bulan pertama dan satu bulan terakhir dalam setahun. Kerana saya kembali ke Indonesia pada waktu itu selama sebelas bulan. Perjalinan ini berterusan tetapi berkurangan. Selepas setahun Datuk Seri Anwar tinggal di Subang Jaya kami berpindah ke Seksyen 14 Petaling Jaya. Di sini terjalin juga hubungan di antara saya dan dia dalam sebulan sekali atau dua.

Kami berpindah kemudian ke No. 8 Jalan Setiamurni 1, Bukit Damansara, iaitu kediaman rasmi peribadi beliau. Di dalam rumah ini saya mendapat bilik sendiri dan hubungan ini tetap berlaku dalam satu atau dua kali sebulan. Dalam kurang lebih, kami menetap di Bukit Damansara selama tiga setengah tahun, kalau tidak silap.

Kemudian kami berpindah ke rumah rasmi Kerajaan di 47, Jalan Damansara, Damansara, KL. Selama di sini hubungan sejenis saya dengan Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim agak renggang kerana saya berpindah ke rumah peribadi saya di 10/7/2 Tivoli Villas Bukit Bandaraya. Walau bagaimanapun jalinan ini tetap terjadi, walau sekali-sekala. Ini kurang lebih dalam tahun 1991/92.

Di rumah 47 Jalan Damansara, Damansara, saya pernah memperkenalkan secara tidak langsung kepada Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim kawan saya. Kami bertiga melakukan hubungan sejenis dengan cara oral dan onani tetapi saya berperanan hanya sebagai penonton. Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim cuba meliwat… tetapi ianya gagal kerana salah kedudukan. Ianya berlaku atau keadaan ini sebanyak tiga kali setiap minggu. Di kejadian ketiga saya tidak lagi melihat perhubungan beliau dengan… kerana saya menunggu di bilik air.

Semua kejadian ini berlaku di bilik tetamu (bilik tidur tamu) yang mana saya pun tidur di bilik ini apabila saya berkunjung di rumah ini. Dalam lebih kurang dua atau tiga tahun yang lalu, waktu dan tahun yang tepat saya tidak ingat, saya pernah membawa Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim ke rumah saya untuk bertemu Azizan (pemandu kereta Datin Seri) di rumah saya atas permintaan Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim untuk melakukan hubungan sejenis. Rumah saya ini di Tivoli Villas tadi.

Dianya terjadi seperti begini. Saya membuat janji kepada Azizan agar beliau datang ke Tivoli Villas pada 7.15 petang, kurang lebih, dan pada 7.30 petang, Azizan datang ke rumah saya dengan kenderaan beliau sendiri. Setelah kami bertiga bersama, Datuk Seri Anwar dan Azizan membuka baju masing-masing untuk mengadakan hubungan sejenis. Saya ada melihat hubungan mereka berdua sekejap-sekejap.

Di antara hubungan mereka ianya terjadi oral dan liwat iaitu Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim melakukan ke Azizan dengan menggunakan cream baby tanpa menggunakan kondom. Selepas air mani Datuk Seri Anwar keluar Azizan mengajak saya untuk melakukan liwat terhadapnya. Tapi saya tidak mencapai ke tahap maksimum. Semasa saya melakukan liwat ke atas Azizan Datuk Seri Anwar berada di bilik air. Kejadian ini berlaku tiga kali di rumah saya di Tivoli Villas tetapi kali yang ketiga saya tidak menonton atau melakukan hubungan sejenis bersama mereka. Mereka hanya melakukan berdua dan saya menunggu di luar kamar.

Selepas dari kejadian ini, Azizan pernah meminta pinjaman wang sebanyak RM7,000 daripada Datuk Seri Anwar. Datuk Seri Anwar memberikannya melalui saya. Saya memberikannya kepada Azizan sebanyak RM7,000. Sepanjang perhubungan saya dengan Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim saya hanya berperanan sebagai pasif dan Datuk Seri Anwar sebagai aktif. Posisi kedudukan seks saya dengan Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim, saya sentiasa melakukan secara mengiring atau menyerong dan meniarap. Selama hubungan saya dengan beliau, beliau tidak pernah menggunakan kondom.

Hubungan seks terakhir saya dengan beliau kurang lebih di antara bulan Mac atau April 1998 disebabkan kesibukan kerja beliau. Itu saja yang hendak saya katakan mengenai pengakuan saya terhadap hubungan seks saya dengan Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim."

Majistret: "Ada apa-apa lagi hendak kamu tambah?

Sukma: "Daripada hubungan seks saya dengan Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim kebanyakannya atas permintaan Datuk Seri. Saya hanya memberi atas permintaan. Saya tidak mahu membuat apa-apa pindaan.

Catatan Majistret: "Saya percaya yang akuan salah ini dibuat dengan sukarela. Ini diambil di hadapan dan pada pendengaran saya sendiri dan telah dibacakan balik kepadanya dan dia mengakui betul serta mengandungi isi-isi yang penuh dan benar mengenai apa-apa yang disebutnya."

Yang menariknya adalah ketika kes Liwat I, Karpal Singh lah yang mula-mula mencanang cerita sehingga ke Dewan Parlimen dengan menuduh Anwar terlibat dengan seks luar tabie, membuatkan Mat Sabu yang pada ketika itu adalah musuh ketat Anwar menggelarnya Al-Juburi!

Namun untuk kes Liwat II, Karpal Singh tidak lagi menyanggah Anwar dan beria-ria pula mahu membela Anwar manakala Mat Sabu pula sudah boleh berpeluk-pelukan dengan Anwar sekarang! Malah ada suatu ketika oleh kerana Karpal Singh 'terlalu sayang'kan Anwar sehingga pernah menyuruh Anwar berTAUBAT!

Suara Politik
Taminsari

Dr. David Wells Terdiam, Pendakwa Tanya Bagaimana Air Mani Dimasukkan Ke Rektum!

‘‘Untuk meletakkan air mani seseorang pada sesuatu sampel atau rektum, orang yang hendak meletakkannya perlu ada air mani orang tersebut bukan?’’

Pertanyaan Peguam Cara Negara II, Datuk Mohd. Yusof Zainal Abiden itu menyebabkan saksi pembela ketiga dalam kes liwat membabitkan Anwar Ibrahim, Dr. David Wells terdiam seketika dan pada mulanya enggan memberikan sebarang jawapan kerana baginya soalan itu lebih sesuai ditujukan kepada pakar asid deoksiribonukleik (DNA).

Selepas Mohd. Yusof menjelaskan bahawa soalannya tidak langsung menjurus mengenai kehadiran DNA dan hanya melibatkan air mani sahaja, Wells kemudiannya bersetuju dengan cadangan tersebut.

Soalan yang pada mulanya mengundang gelak tawa daripada mereka yang berada di galeri awam termasuk penyokong Anwar Ibrahim akhirnya menyebabkan dewan mahkamah menjadi sunyi seketika selepas jawapan tersebut diberikan.

Soalan tersebut dikemukakan ekoran dakwaan pihak pembelaan sebelum ini yang menyatakan bahan bukti telah tercemar dan air mani Anwar telah diletakkan pada calitan-calitan putik kapas.

Mohd. Yusof yang mengetuai pasukan pendakwaan menimbulkan perkara tersebut hari ini semasa menyoal balas pakar patologi forensik dari Australia itu yang dilantik sebagai saksi pakar pihak pembelaan pada perbicaraan kes tersebut di Mahkamah Tinggi di sini.

Mohd. Yusof dalam hujah di akhir kes pendakwaan sebelum ini menyatakan, ‘tiada bukti bahawa Ahli Parlimen Permatang Pauh itu ada menyimpan air maninya di bank sperma kecuali sekiranya pihak pembelaan mencadangkan air mani Anwar bertaburan di tempat kejadian.’

Terdahulu, Ketua Jabatan Perubatan Forensik dari Victoria Institute of Medicine, Australia itu bersetuju bahawa bukanlah satu perkara yang asing bagi seseorang lelaki dewasa yang diliwat tidak menunjukkan sebarang kecederaan pada duburnya.

Persetujuan itu diberikan selepas Mohd. Yusof merujuk saksi tersebut kepada dua buah jurnal perubatan Clinical Forensic Medicine oleh W. D. S. McLay dan Expert Evidence oleh Freckelton & Selby.

Menurut kedua-dua jurnal tersebut, ketiadaan kecederaan pada mangsa tidak boleh menyebabkan sesuatu tuduhan serangan seksual diketepikan. Malah, majoriti pengadu kes serangan seksual tidak menunjukkan sebarang tanda cedera yang nyata pada anggota sulit tidak kira lelaki atau wanita.

Selain itu, faktor-faktor lain yang boleh menyebabkan kejadian itu berlaku antaranya ‘kesanggupan’ mangsa untuk melakukan hubungan seks ekoran diperdayakan secara emosi, ketakutan akan berlakunya keganasan atau kematian dan tenaga yang digunakan untuk melawan serangan tersebut tidak mencukupi untuk menyebabkan sebarang kecederaan.

Kelewatan dalam membuat laporan juga boleh menyebabkan luka kecil hilang atau pulih di samping penggunaan pelincir ketika serangan seksual dilakukan.

Berhubung isu penemuan sperma di dalam rektum pengadu, Mohd. Saiful Bukhari Azlan, Wells sekali lagi bersetuju dengan laporan jurnal perubatan yang sama iaitu ‘kajian telah menunjukkan bahawa spermatozoa boleh ditemui di lokasi itu atau dubur sehingga tiga hari selepas hubungan seks luar tabii dibuat walaupun mangsa telah membuang air besar atau mandi.’

Beliau bagaimanapun turut menyatakan ‘tidak selesa’ untuk mengambil sesuatu sampel DNA selepas tiga hari.

Dalam kes yang dihadapi oleh Anwar, sampel DNA Mohd. Saiful Bukhari diambil di Hospital Kuala Lumpur(HKL) pada 28 Jun 2008, iaitu dua hari selepas kejadian dan diserahkan kepada ahli kimia, Dr Seah Lay Hong kira-kira 56 jam kemudian.

Pada prosiding hari ini, saksi itu turut bersetuju dengan tindakan doktor-doktor HKL yang tidak membuat sebarang tafsiran terhadap penemuan air mani pada beberapa sampel dalam laporan perubatan mereka dan hanya membuat tafsiran itu di mahkamah iaitu selepas laporan kimia ditunjukkan,

Selain itu, Wells menyatakan, beliau akan membuat pemeriksaan menyeluruh terhadap mana-mana mangsa tetapi hanya akan melaporkan maklumat yang relevan dalam laporannya.

Sementara itu, Pengurus Pentadbiran Hospital Pusrawi, Yusni Ali memberitahu, ketika beliau mengambil alih tugas tersebut pada 17 Ogos 2008, fail pesakit bernama Mohd. Saiful Bukhari Azlan hanya mengandungi sehelai kertas iaitu ‘Rekod Perubatan Jabatan Kecemasan Pusrawi’.

Dokumen itu juga hanyalah salinan dan bukannya dokumen asal, kata saksi pembelaan keempat. Menjawab pertanyaan Mohd. Yusof semasa sesi pemeriksaan balas, Yusni berkata, tiada sebarang laporan perubatan pesakit tersebut atau akuan bersumpah ditemui di dalam fail itu.

Semalam, bekas doktor di Jabatan Kecemasan hospital terbabit, Dr. Mohamad Osman Abd. Hamid memaklumkan, beliau ada menyediakan laporan perubatan Mohd. Saiful Bukhari dan menyerahkannya kepada seseorang yang didakwanya pegawai Hospital Pusrawi bernama Azlan.

Beliau yang kini bertugas di Institut Jantung Negara (IJN) juga memberitahu ada menandatangani satu akuan bersumpah selepas seorang peguam bernama Yusri dan pesuruhjaya sumpah bernama Anuar menemuinya dan menyakinkan beliau bahawa dokumen itu adalah untuk simpanan fail sulit.

Anwar. 64, dibicarakan atas tuduhan meliwat Mohd. Saiful Bukhari, 26, di Unit 11-5-1, Kondominium Desa Damansara, No.99 Jalan Setiakasih, Bukit Damansara di sini antara pukul 3.01 petang dan 4.30 petang, 26 Jun 2008.-UM.

Suara Politik
Taminsari

Lagak Anwar semasa pembelaan - Didakwa hina mahkamah, jatuhkan reputasi institusi kehakiman!

Tidak tahu apa yang difikirkan oleh Anwar ketika membaca kenyataan pembelaan dimahkamah semalam! Adakah Anwar pergi ke mahkamah untuk membela diri ataupun hendak memberi 'tazkirah' kepada Tuan Hakim dan juga umum yang datang untuk mendengar.

Dilihat Anwar Ibrahim terus mendendangkan lagu lama apabila mendakwa kes liwat yang sedang dihadapinya kini adalah konspirasi politik pucuk pimpinan negara, dakwaan yang dibuatnya pada 1998. Beliau sebenarnya mahu mencari kebenaran berhubung kes liwatnya tetapi menggunakan proses mahkamah sebagai medan kempen politik.

Anwar Ibrahim juga disifatkan telah menghina mahkamah dalam kenyataan pembelaan kes liwatnya semalam apabila 'menyerang' Hakim Datuk Mohamad Zabidin Mohd. Diah secara terang-terangan.

Peguam terkemuka, Datuk Seri Dr. Muhammad Shafee Abdullah berkata, selain memburukkan imej Mohamad Zabidin, Anwar juga dilihat cuba menjatuhkan reputasi institusi mahkamah di negara ini apabila mendakwa beliau ditindas daripada mendapat perbicaraan yang adil.

Dalam kenyataan pembelaan Anwar setebal 32 muka surat semalam, beliau secara terang-terangan telah memburukkan institusi mahkamah serta para pegawai seperti hakim di hadapan para pemerhati dan orang awam.

"Kenyataan (pembelaan) Anwar semalam bukan bersifat membela diri tetapi lebih daripada kenyataan politik yang memburukkan mahkamah serta mengutarakan perkara-perkara tidak relevan," katanya ketika ditemui di sini, hari ini.

Semalam, Anwar dalam keterangan selama kira-kira satu jam 45 minit menegaskan bahawa Mohamad Zabidin menindas hak beliau untuk mendapat perbicaraan adil sungguhpun hakim berkenaan telah berpuluh kali membenarkan penangguhan demi menghormati Ahli Permatang Pauh itu sebagai tertuduh.

Anwar yang memilih untuk memberi pernyataan tidak bersumpah dari kandang tertuduh dilihat cuba 'menyelamatkan' dirinya daripada disoal balas oleh pasukan pendakwaan yang diketuai oleh Peguam Cara Negara II, Datuk Mohd. Yusof Zainal Abidin.

Mengulas perkara itu, kata Muhammad Shafee, setiap tertuduh mempunyai hak untuk berbuat demikian tetapi ia agak jarang digunakan kecuali atas sebab-sebab tertentu seperti tertuduh itu mempunyai tahap keupayaan minda yang rendah berbanding manusia normal lain.

Ia biasanya digunakan dalam kes-kes tertuduh yang amat naif, antara waras atau tidak, ataupun tertuduh itu mempunyai sesuatu yang ingin disorokkan dan tidak berupaya menghadapi pemeriksaan balas pendakwa raya.

"Kenyataan tanpa bersumpah sebenarnya tidak memerlukan seseorang tertuduh itu untuk bercakap benar di mahkamah kerana pihak pendakwa tidak boleh ataupun tidak perlu menyoal balas tertuduh," katanya.

Anwar pasti akan terus mencari helah untuk melengah-lengahkan perbicaraan kes liwatnya supaya kempen politiknya berterusan.

Suara Politik
Taminsari

Seperti yang dijangka, Anwar tolak beri keterangan bersumpah!

Perbicaraan kes liwat peringkat bela diri di Mahkamah Tinggi di sini, hari ini, bermula dengan Anwar Ibrahim selaku saksi pertama pembelaan memilih untuk memberi keterangan dari kandang tertuduh.

Tidak tahulah apa yang ditakutkan sangat oleh Anwar sehingga beliau mengambil keputusan untuk menolak beri keterangan bersumpah dihadapan hakim. Sebelum itu beliau diberikan tiga pilihan untuk membela diri iaitu :

1) Memberi keterangan bersumpah dari kandang saksi(ada kredibiliti, disoal balas DPP)

2) Memberi keterangan tidak bersumpah dari kandang bersalah( tak ada kredibiliti, keterangan tak ada pemberat, tak disoal balas DPP )

3) Berdiam diri ( terus jatuh hukuman )

Anwar Ibrahim telah diberi peluang untuk membuat pilihan, namun mungkin disebabkan beliau fobia dengan nama " sumpah " maka beliau memilih pilihan no.2 yang mana keterangan yang tidak kukuh, dan pihak Pendakwaraya tidak boleh menyoal balas beliau.

Yang menghairankan, untuk memberi keterangan bersumpah didalam mahkamah bukannya memerlukan Anwar memegang Al-Quran sepertimana yang dilakukan oleh Saiful Bukhari ketika bersumpah didalam masjid, tetapi mengapa Anwar takut? Seribu persoalan timbul disini dan hanya Anwar sahaja yang mengetahuinya. Kita cuma dapat membuat andaian sahaja!

Anwar Ibrahim ketika membacakan keterangannya kembali membangkitkan insiden beliau dipecat oleh bekas Perdana Menteri, Tun Dr. Mahathir Mohamad sebelum didakwa dan dipenjara selama 15 tahun atas tuduhan liwat pada 1998.

Beliau yang memberi keterangan dari kandang salah turut membangkitkan isu konspirasi dan menyalahkan Hakim Mahkamah Tinggi yang mendengar perbicaraannya, Datuk Mohamad Zabidin Mohd. Diah yang didakwanya tidak menjalankan tugasnya dengan adil.

Anwar turut membandingkan tindakan Hakim Mohamad Zabidin yang tidak mengenakan sebarang tindakan kepada pihak-pihak yang dikatakan memprejudiskan pembelaannya dengan Hakim Akhtar Tahir yang sedang mendengar kes pembunuhan Datuk Sosilawati Lawiya dan tiga lagi.

Anwar juga menafikan beliau melakukan seks dengan bekas pembantu peribadinya, Mohd. Saiful Bukhari Azlan.

"Saya secara mutlak menafikan dakwaan terhadap saya. Saya ingin menyatakan bahawa dengan sejelas-jelasnya bahawa saya tidak pernah mempunyai hubungan seksual dengan pengadu Mohd Saiful. Dakwaannya penipuan secara terang-terangan dan kejam dan akan dibuktikan sedemikian,” kata Anwar.

Anwar, 64, yang membacakan kenyataan 32 muka dari kandang tertuduh, berkata tiada keterangan mengenai sebarang percubaannya untuk menyelak pintu unit kondomominium itu dari dalam.

Beliau berkata, berdasarkan testimoni Mohd Saiful, pengadu mempunyai kesempatan meninggalkan bilik itu tetapi beliau tidak berbuat demikian.

"Pengadu mempunyai peluang terbuka luas untuk lari tetapi beliau tidak berbuat demikian. Alasannya bahawa beliau terpaku ketakutan,” kata Anwar.

Anwar, yang membaca kenyataan itu hampir dua jam berkata, Mohd. Saiful sendiri telah mengaku bahawa beliau telah membawa bersama pelincir dan telah bersedia secara sukarela.

Selepas aksi yang didakwa, tertuduh menjelaskan mengenai testimoni pengadu bahawa Mohd Saiful telah minum dan berbual mesra dengannya. Anwar berkata, tiada percubaan dibuat untuk mendapatkan rawatan dengan segera.

Bagaimanapun, Mohd. Saiful telah menghadiri satu majlis Parti Keadilan Rakyat (PKR) dan menghadiri perjumpaan Kelab Anwar Ibrahim di rumahnya keesokannya tanpa menunjukkan sebarang tanda ketidakselesaan sama ada dari segi emosi dan fizikal.

Pada penghujung kenyataan sebanyak 32 mukasurat dari kandang tertuduh, Anwar Ibrahim masih menyalahkan tindakan-tindakan Hakim Mahkamah Tinggi, Datuk Mohamad Zabidin Mohd. Diah sebagai 'menindas haknya dalam mendapatkan perbicaraan yang adil' dan mendakwa perbicaraan kesnya sebagai satu konspirasi Perdana Menteri, Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak dalam usaha memasukkannya ke dalam penjara semula.

Sila baca kenyataan rasmi ( press statement ) daripada Anwar Ibrahim yang dikeluarkan ketika perbicaraan Kes Liwat Anwar Ibrahim - Saiful Bukhari yang berlangsung pagi tadi daripada Mahkamah Tinggi Jalan Duta, Kuala Lumpur.

MEDIA RELEASE - 22 AUGUST 2011

DALAM MAHKAMAH TINGGI DI KUALA LUMPUR
DALAM WILAYAH PERSEKUTUAN
PERBICARAAN JENAYAH NO: 45-9-2009
PENDAKWA RAYA
LAWAN
DATO’ SERI ANWAR BIN IBRAHIM
STATEMENT FROM THE DOCK

My name is Anwar bin Ibrahim. I am the leader of the Opposition in Parliament. In the 1990s, I was the Finance Minister and Deputy Prime Minister until September 1998 when then Prime Minister Dato’ Seri Dr Mahathir bin Mohamad sacked me after I had refused to resign. He had told me to resign or face dire consequences including criminal prosecution for alleged sexual and corruption offences.

I refused and all hell broke loose. My unceremonious and grossly unjust dismissal simultaneously orchestrated with a trial by media under Mahathir’s complete control triggered mass and widespread demonstrations throughout the country and launched the movement for change and reform known in our history as the Reformasi era.

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

THE CHARGE AGAINST ME

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

This is a vile and despicable attempt at character assassination. In this regard, let me reiterate that they can do all they want to assassinate my character and sully my reputation and threaten me with another 20 years of imprisonment but mark my words, they won’t be able to cow me into submission.

On the contrary, it only serves to fortify my conviction that the truth will eventually prevail. Come what come may, I shall never surrender. With apologies to Jean Racine in Phaedra:

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

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

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

Back in 1998, blindfolded and handcuffed, I was beaten senseless by the Inspector General of Police and left to die in the lock up at the Federal Police headquarters. However, it was by the grace of God that a few of the rank and file of the police took pity on me and nursed me to recover from the near lethal blows.

There was then a cover up by Gani Patail (now the Attorney-General) and Musa Hassan (the IGP at the time that I was charged in this new episode) with the full knowledge and connivance of Dato’ Yusuf, the current chief prosecutor in this trial. All these personalities were linked in one way or the other with the 1998 show trial and more insidiously with the suppression of evidence in respect of the black eye scandal and attempts to pervert the course of justice.

These are the same personalities who are now actively involved in the current prosecution against me. Res ipsa loquitur, as they say, but in this regard I’m not talking about negligence but rather proof of criminality in this heinous plot betraying indeed “the deep damnation” of the conspiracy.

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

That are so fortified against our story…”
Which has set me from the outset of the trial to have been deprived of a level playing field and subjected to inequality of arms vis-a-vis the prosecution.

The Prosecution’s Failure to Discharge its Duties Professionally

1) Even though these matters are done as a matter of routine in criminal proceedings, the Prosecution has consistently refused to disclose material critical to my defence, including:
(a) prosecution witness list;
(b) primary hospital examination notes written by the medical examiners of the complainant at HBKL;
(c) witness statements (including that of complainant); and
(d) forensic samples and exhibits for independent examination and verification.

All this has caused considerable prejudice to my defence and occasioned grave injustice. The only conclusion that one can reasonably draw from the prosecution’s persistence in this act of perversity is that unseen hands are at work and it is certainly not the hand of God.

2) Your failure to respond during the course of the trial to several attempts by persons hostile to me to discredit me by commenting on aspects of the trial. These included whether I should provide samples of his DNA; blaming the defence for the delay of the proceedings; and reporting on matters that were the subject of a suppression order. These public comments were made either in defiance of your orders that they not be made.

They were made by UMNO officials and politicians, including Dato’ Seri Najib orchestrated through the controlled electronic and print media, such as Utusan Malaysia, Berita Harian, the New Straits Times and TV3. The constant comments by the Prime Minister and UMNO officials in the media and adverse comments on the progress of the trial were clearly calculated to influence you and illustrates the political motive behind the charge.

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

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

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

The solemn duty of a judge is not to sit mute when the law provides for a court of its own motion to issue show-cause notices against those who interfere in the administration of justice. I am reminded of the maximJudex Habere Debet Duos Sales, Salem Sapicutiae, Ne Sit Insipidus, Et Salem Conscientiea, Ne Sit Diabolous, the English translation of which is, ‘A judge should have two salts, the salt of wisdom, lest he be insipid; and the salt of conscience, lest he be devilish’.

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

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

“…and let not hatred of others Swerve you into error And depart from justice.
Be just, that is nearer to piety Fear Allah, For Allah is well acquainted with all that you do” Surah al-maidah: 8

In the middle of the Second World War in 1942, Lord Atkin, inLiversidge v Anderson, had occasion to say in the House of Lords,
‘It has long been one of the pillars of freedom…that the judges are no respecters of persons and stand between the subject and any attempted encroachment on his liberty by the executive, alert to see that any coercive action is justified by law’

In my case, Y.A., presiding in an adversarial trial, had the residual power and the jurisdiction to have invoked Y.A.’s powers relating to contempt of court. Y.A. chose not to do so for reasons best known to Y.A.. What has happened is not in the best traditions of the Judiciary.

In the ongoing Banting murder trial, the learned trial judge in that case, Y.A. Datuk Akhtar Tahir, took it upon himself to summon a local television producer over a clip it aired during its prime news slot relating to the defence in the murder trial of Datuk Sosilawati Lawiya and three others.

A newspaper clipping of that report is annexed herewith. Y.A. Datuk Akhtar Tahir has courageously demonstrated judicial activism in the name of human rights and the essential requirement of a fair trial.

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

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

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

Yet, in the face of this, Y.A., at the close of the prosecution case, made a finding that PW1 was a truthful witness from this passage in the judgment as follows,
‘Nothing came out from the lengthy cross-examination of PW1 or from the evidence of other prosecution’s witnesses that could suggest what PW1 had told in his evidence was something which was not probable.

I find PW1’s evidence remains intact. He had truthfully and without embellishment or exaggeration in his evidence narrated in minute detail how he was sodomised by the accused on the date and at the place stated in the charge. I find him to be truthful witness and his evidence is reliable and if accepted would establish all the facts required to prove the charge against the accused.’

My lawyers had clearly made the submission that Y.A. had made a prejudgment when Y.A. ought to have only made findings as to who was telling the truth at the conclusion of the defence, in which event, I would have given evidence under oath. My lawyers did not, at any time, advert to the passage above in isolation. They zeroed in on the obvious, namely, whether a witness was truthful or not had to be decided at the close of the defence case.

The provisions of section 182A(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code provided the judge with that guidance but to no avail. That section bears repeating. It states:
‘At the conclusion of the trial, the court shall consider all the evidence adduced before it and shall decide whether the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt.’

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

The Court of Appeal going out of line

My appeal to the Court of Appeal over the recusal of Y.A. on account of prejudgment, following which would have resulted in biasness was heard on 6th July, 2011. A copy of the order is annexed herewith. No written judgment was handed down by the Court of Appeal on 6th July.

The appeal was dismissed summarily on the preliminary objection taken by the prosecution that the order appealed against was not a final order. Those were the reasons given in open court. Nothing more, nothing less. The Court of Appeal took no more than five minutes to dispose of the appeal.

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

Why did the Court of Appeal not read out the 91 paragraphed grounds of judgment dated 6th July on 6th July itself? Obviously, this judgment was at hand on 6th July but had surreptitiously been concealed from my knowledge and the knowledge of the public. The letter dated 11th August, 2011 supplying a copy of this judgment to my lawyers is annexed herewith.

As is usual, Y.A. must have had the benefit of reading this judgment which will further exacerbate your bias against me. The judgment is an open and flagrant attack on me to which I will advert in due course. Suffice to say at this juncture that here is a judgment of the Court of Appeal written after 6th July, 2011 which contains harsh criticism against me without my being given the opportunity to reply.

But that begs the question: the appeal had been dismissed in limine on the ground that the order appealed against was not a final order. That should have been the end of the matter because it followed that the court had no jurisdiction to entertain the appeal. [Y.A. Datuk Haji Abdul Malik Bin Haji Ishak sat mute during the course of submissions on the preliminary objection].

The matter did not go beyond into the merits. That is what the Court of Appeal announced on 6th July without going an inch further. The preliminary objection is adverted to, not as the main part of the judgment. The major part of the judgment goes beyond. It is a frolic of his own used for the purpose of hitting out at me.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(a) Majlis Perbandaran Pulau Pinang v Syarikat Bekerjasama-sama Serbaguna Sungai Gelugor dengan Tanggungan [1999] 3 MLJ 1, FC; and
(b) Mohamed Ezam bin Mohd Nor & Ors v Ketua Polis Negara [2002] 1 MLJ 321, FC

[73] Consequently, Rowstead’s suggestion that the request for recusal to be heard
by another judge is quite radical. We categorically say that the recusal request, like the present matter, was rightly heard at the first instance by the learned trial judge and followed by this court.

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

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

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

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

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

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

This is scandalous.

Then again, why wasn’t the judgment which, even if written after midnight on 5th July, 2011 read out in open court so that I could counter and demolish all the allegations made against me by Y.A. Datuk Haji Abdul Malik Bin Haji Ishak?
It is elementary no one should be condemned, unheard. This is axiomatic.

As far back as 12th August, 1999 the Federal Court, the highest court in the land, in Insas Bhd and Anor v Ayer Molek Rubber Company Bhd and others had occasion, after adverting to the authorities on the position to rule,

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

It also should not display emotion and intemperance, as displayed in the judgment of the Court of Appeal.’

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

‘If there is one principle of cardinal importance in the administration of justice, it is this: the proper freedom and independence of judges and magistrates must be maintained and they must be allowed to perform their functions freely and fearlessly and without undue interference by anybody, even by this court. At the same time it is equally necessary that in expressing their opinions, judges and magistrates must be guided by considerations of justice, fair play and restraint.

It is not infrequent that sweeping generalizations defeat the very purpose for which they are made. It has been judicially recognized that in the matter of making disparaging remarks against persons or authorities whose conduct comes into consideration before courts of law in cases to be decided by them, it is relevant to consider:

(a) whether the party whose conduct is in question is before the court or has an opportunity of explaining or defending himself;

(b) whether there is evidence on record bearing on that conduct justifying the remarks; and

(c) whether it is necessary for the decision of the case, as an integral part thereof, to animadvert on conduct. It has also been recognized that judicial pronouncements must be judicial in nature, and should not normally depart from sobriety, moderation and reserve.’

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

‘Judicial restraint and discipline are as necessary to the orderly administration of justice as they are to the effectiveness of the army. The duty of restraint, this humility of function should be a constant theme of our judges. This quality in decision-making is as much necessary for judges to command respect as to protect the independence of the judiciary.

Judicial restraint in this regard might be better called judicial respect, that is, respect by the judiciary. Respect to those who come before the court as well as to other co-ordinate branches of the State, the executive and the legislature. There must be mutual respect. When these qualities fail or when litigants and public believe that the judge has failed in these qualities, it will be neither good for the judge nor for the judicial process.

The Judge’s Bench is a seat of power. Not only do judges have power to make binding decisions, their decisions legitimate the use of power by other officials. The judges have the absolute and unchallengeable control of the court domain. But they cannot misuse their authority by intemperate comments, undignified banter of scathing criticism of counsel, parties or witnesses.

We concede that the court had the inherent power to act freely upon its own conviction on any matter coming before it for adjudication, but it is a general principle of the highest importance to the proper administration of justice that derogatory remarks ought not to be made against persons or authorities whose conduct comes into consideration unless it is absolutely necessary for the decision of the case to animadvert on their conduct.’

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

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

Here, in the present case, the observations made and strictures passed by BM Lal J were totally unjustified and unwarranted and they ought not to have been made.’
How could I under these circumstances give evidence under oath?

Y.A., when making the order for the witnesses offered to the defence for interview in court, gave a lifeline to the witnesses in stating in open court that they could refuse to be interviewed. Y.A. did not in doing so evenly handle the scales of justice.

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

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

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

My alibi witnesses made known to the prosecution were in fact included in the prosecution list of witnesses which was not supplied to my lawyers. They were defence alibi witnesses. I am informed this is the first time this has been done.
In fact, the owner of the unit 11-5-2, Haji Hasanuddin bin Abd Hamid, had been harassed by the police for a total of thirty hours in the recording of his statements which were all video recorded. This was obvious when he was interviewed by the defence lawyers in my presence. The police investigation has scuttled my defence.

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

THE COMPLAINANT’S ALLEGATIONS ARE PURE FABRICATION

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

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

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

He had further alleged that he was ordered into the bedroom and that he did enter out of fear. Even at this stage, the complainant had the opportunity to leave the living room. He did not do so. The rest of the evidence in this regard clearly showed that the complainant had every opportunity on every occasion to flee but he did not do so. His reason was that he was petrified by fear. But such a reason flies against the facts.

Here is a man in his early twenties, a six-footer, physically fit and robust and with powerful connections in the top police brass as well as the political elite with access to the very inner sanctum of power. Additionally, he has also been a key UMNO student operative, having undergone the rigorous training conducted by the Biro Tats Negara of the Prime Minister’s Department.

And here I was a 60-year-old man with a history of back injury who had undergone a major back surgery holding no position of power. If indeed I could have exercised any kind of undue influence or mental pressure on him, this could have been easily neutralized by a quick phone call to his connections. As regards the fear of physical harm, it would take a great stretch of the imagination to suggest that I could pose any physical harm to him.

Under cross-examination, the following significant evidence was elicited from the complainant. He admitted that he had brought along lubricant and had himself voluntarily and without hesitation applied it. He claimed that carnal intercourse took place and that it was painful and coarse. However, this was clearly not borne out in the medical evidence in the prosecution case suggesting fissures or tears. After the alleged act, he testified that he had a drink and engaged in a friendly conversation with me.

Startlingly, no attempt was made by the complainant to seek immediate medical attention. Instead, he attended a PKR function the following day. In the evening, he joined a meeting of the Anwar Ibrahim Club at my house without showing any sign of either emotional or physical discomfort let alone trauma. On the contrary, he was going about matters in a calm and confident manner.

His conduct therefore is totally inconsistent with having been violated. In any event, he neither made a police report nor sought medical attention, notwithstanding that two days prior to the alleged act, he had met with Najib and Rosmah as well having talked on the phone with Musa Hassan and met with Rodhwan at a hotel.

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

Then again, the expert evidence with regard to DNA led in the course of prosecution case through PW4, Dr. Seah Lay Hong and PW5, Nor Aidora bt Saedon was highly questionable in that crucial information pertaining to the DNA analysis of both the said witnesses which they were obliged to furnish to the court was suspiciously withheld despite them confirming the existence of such information.

The real possibility that the samples analyzed were contaminated and even planted were completely disregarded despite such possibilities coming clearly within guidelines set by the international forensic community which were completely ignored, if not, blatantly disregarded by PW4 and PW5 to fit the prosecution’s case.

It is obvious had the said possibilities been explored, the conclusions reached would have been very different in that the complainant’s own semen was found in his own anus, there was ample evidence of contributors other than Male Y around the complainant’s perianal, lower and higher rectal region and there was clear evidence of the samples having been tampered with before they were sent for analysis. In such circumstances, the integrity of the said samples was surely compromised.

Furthermore, the impartiality of PW4 was highly questionable having regard to the way in which she completely dismissed the very high possibility that the samples sent to her would have degraded to a certain degree by the time they reached her which such degradation was completely absent from all samples in this case. This clearly points to the obvious reality that the samples sent for analysis could not have been what were extracted from the complainant’s person.

Trial within a Trial

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

So the position comes to this, Supt. Jude Periera, in his evidence on oath in the main trial, supports the defence case that unfair methods and unfair means had been used by the police to obtain DNA profiling from the items set out hereinbefore.
From the ruling made by the court to exclude the items, it is clear it was based on unfair means and unfair methods employed by the police meaning it was by trick and deception that the police attempted to introduce the DNA evidence.

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

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

FORENSIC EVIDENCE

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

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

Supt. Pereira, despite being instructed to keep the HKL samples (marked B1 to B10) in a freezer, deliberately defied the instruction of Dr Siew Sheue Fong (HKL Forensic Doctor) and also admitted that he was in serious breach of the IGSO, (he even stated he took full and personal responsibility for breaking of the IGSO), when he deliberately kept the HKL samples in his office cabinet for about 43 hrs before delivering them to the Chemist.

One must not forget that the alleged act was supposed to have occurred two days prior to the said samples having been extracted. Coupled with this 43-hour delay in delivery to the Chemist, it would mean that the samples were already at least 90 hours old by the time they were examined by the Chemist. Undoubtedly, the samples would have totally degraded. Yet evidence by the prosecution claimed that no degradation of any consequence had occurred.

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

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

Dr Siew Sheue Fong , as evident in court, was most reluctant to refer to his medical notes during cross examination despite being unable to remember details. During the break he was caught surreptitiously taking a sneak peek of his notes. This dishonest act of a professional doctor who ought to have conducted himself in a fair and independent manner was blatantly ignored. Many a time Dr. Siew and Dr Mohd Razali Ibrahim deliberately chose not to answer pertinent questions put to them by my counsel.

Instead Dr Siew and Dr Razali’s evidence was accepted without reservation.
Dr Seah Lay Hong (the Chemist) gave evidence that when she received the 12 HKL samples there were 2 samples that were marked as taken on very different dates, she testified she did nothing to seek clarification from Dr Siew . She further testified that she “gave the benefit of doubt” to Dr Siew.

My lawyers submitted strenuously that such acts and/or omissions amount to a serious breach of the cardinal rules of international lab protocols and those of the Jabatan Kimia Malaysia. Despite such blatant exposures and abject failures of non observance of strict rules, Dr Seah’s evidence was well received and in totality when it ought to have been jettisoned in totality for reasons of incompetence and gross negligence.

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

SUMMATION

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

CONCLUSION

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

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

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

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

It was therefore no coincidence that this new conspiracy surfaced three months after the March 2008 victories and the formal charge against me was made just one month prior to my contesting the Permatang Pauh parliamentary seat. The sequence of events that unfolded prior to the formal charge appeared to be lifted from the plot of 1998 minus, in this latest episode, the black eye affair and the purported victims being led into court as partners in crime.

In this second episode, the conspirators have tweaked the plot to make the complainant take on the role of a helpless victim, having realized that the 1998 method of employing Stalin-like confessions and the portrayal of the alleged victims as remorseful and repentant sexual deviants were just too much for the public to believe.

Hence, during the entire examination of the complainant, the prosecution left no stone unturned in their attempt at painting the picture of a helpless, naive and innocent young man who is a witness of truth and whose testimony should be believed regardless of any evidence to the contrary.

The fact is that in the entire scheme of things, the complainant, who was just a university drop out working part time helping out my chief of staff, is essentially a pawn being employed by the shady plotters to achieve their devious ends in the conspiracy. And yet it was the decision of the court after the close of the prosecution case that he indeed is a truthful witness.

The preparation entailed in this conspiracy was most elaborate and went all the way to the Prime Minister himself and his wife Rosmah Mansor both of whom by the complainant’s own admission had met him in their residence where he purportedly complained of being sexually assaulted. The initial statement by Najib that he had met with the complainant merely to discuss about a scholarship was a blatant lie only to be retracted later after various exposes were made via the social media and the internet blogs.

It was obvious that neither Najib nor Rosmah would not want to be seen to be part of the conspiracy being themselves embroiled in a series of other scandals the details of which have been raised in Parliament which to date have never been categorically refuted. But the stakes in this conspiracy are so high that nothing can be left to pure chance for indeed the prospect of the UMNO led Barisan Nasional losing power to Pakatan Rakyat is becoming more real by the day.

The main thrust of the conspiracy was to fabricate this sodomy charge in order to inflict maximum damage to my character in the run-up campaign to the by-elections. Towards this end, an intense and virulent media blitz was launched concurrently with the staging of rallies and ceramahs where the focus of the debate was not on any social, economic or even political issues but purely on my person and my morality.

The plotters for reasons known only to themselves became privy to information which would be used subsequently by the prosecution and went to town in an orgy of character assassination calculated no doubt to ensure a humiliating defeat for me in the polls. But Allah is Great and instead of losing, I won the Permatang Pauh seat with a thumping majority of 15,000 votes.

But the zeal to consign me to political oblivion continues unabated. Najib seems to think that by destroying my political future, it would also destroy the prospects of Pakatan Rakyat ever coming to power. Hence, nothing is spared to ensure that I will be convicted in order that the UMNO led Barisan government continues to rule.

Having regard to all the above, I now wish to state that this trial is for all intents and purposes a show trial. I say this not to mock your Lordship nor with animosity towards anyone personally but I sit before you in the dock only to speak what I know and what I believe with conviction to be the truth.

And this conviction is borne by having been in public service for more than forty years a quarter of which was spent within the walls of incarceration in Kamunting and in Sungai Buloh. The fact remains that I was condemned to imprisonment not because of any crime that I had committed but for my political beliefs and convictions and more significantly because back in 1998 I had posed a clear and present threat to the more than two decades of autocratic rule of Mahathir.

I say it because as I’ve stated earlier, the court’s integrity has been completely compromised and bears all the classic symptoms of a show trial where the script has been effectively written and the outcome a foregone conclusion. I say it because as a presiding judge you have demonstrated beyond the shadow of a doubt your complete lack of impartiality. I say it because you have consistently refused to recuse yourself even in the face of mounting evidence of your bias against me.

I say it too because you have persistently turned a blind eye to the gross violations of protocol and procedure committed by the prosecution while at the same remaining impervious to my protestations about these blatant irregularities that would have without more alerted any impartial judge as to the malice and bad faith of the prosecution.

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

“And when you judge between mankind Then you judge justly” Surah An-Nisaa:58

ANWAR IBRAHIM

Perlu diingat, ini adalah skrip lakonan semata-mata. Hakim tidak boleh menerima langsung apa yang beliau perkatakan. Seperti biasa, inilah wayang yang dimainkan oleh Anwar dalam membela diri beliau. Jika dilihat, mahkamahpun hendak beliau perkudakan. Beliau tidak bersungguh untuk membela dirinya. Adakah peguam-peguam beliau tahu beliau bersalah dan cuba untuk menjatuhkannya melalui kaedah ini?

Anwar, 63, mengaku tidak bersalah di Mahkamah Sesyen pada 7 Ogos 2008 terhadap tuduhan melakukan hubungan bertentangan hukum alam di Kondominium Desa Damansara, Bukit Damansara antara 3.10 petang dan 4.30 petang pada 26 Jun tahun yang sama.

Pada 16 Mei, Hakim Mohamad Zabidin memerintahkan Anwar untuk membela diri selepas memutuskan bahawa Mohd. Saiful, ialah seorang saksi yang boleh dipercayai dan berwibawa.

Suara Politik
Taminsari