Dimana Nurul tahu tentang perjanjian rahsia itu, tentulah ia diberitahu oleh bapanya mungkin sewaktu makan atau wakrtu sarapan pagi kerana mereka adalah dalam satu keluarga. Lagi pula itu adalah rahsia diantara bapa dengan seorang anaknya dan bukannya dengan pemimpin atau ahli-ahli partinya. Tentulah bapa akan memberikan anaknya segala apa yang beliau lakukan samada secara terangan atau secara gelapnya.
Tetapi di antara Najib dengan Khairy atau pemimpin UMNO tertinggi yang lain, ia tidak seperti perhubungan di antara Anwar dan Nurul. Khairy bukan ahli keluarganya dan tentulah banyak yang Najib lakukan tidak akan diberitahu kepada pemimpin UMNO terutamanya Ahli-Ahli Jemaah Kabinetnya.
Saya tidak terkejut apa yang di sebut oleh Nurul Izzah itu benar kerana yang berunding ini ialah Anwar. Memanglah Anwar berkemampuan untuk melakukan perkara seperti ini kerana beliau pandai bercakap lain dengan pemimpin-pemimpin partinya dengan apa yang beliau lakukan. Depan lain, dibelakang lain.
Begitu jugalah Najib. Najib tidak akan memberitahu apa yang beliau rundingkan secara senyap dengan pemimpin-pemimpin UMNO dan perbuatannya itu pernah di buka rahsianya oleh Naib Presiden Indonesia, Yusuf Kalla.
Bagaimana seseorang itu menafikan berlakunya perjanjian rahsia yang mereka tidak pun tahu ia berlaku? Kita tidak terkejut kerana Najib sedang menghadapi masalah krisis keyakinan dan beliau tidak mendapat sokongan kuat dari Ahli-Ahli Kabinetnya secara kuat serta mempunyai tekanan dari dalam partinya sendiri.
Najib mahu melakukan apa sahaja asalkan beliau mendapat sambungan kepada tali hayat politiknya walaupun dari mereka yang bertentangan politik dengan beliau. Disebaliknya Anwar pun dalam keadaan desperado untuk menjadi PM negara ini. Kerjasama beliau dengan PAS mahu pun DAP merupakan kerjasama sementara beliau mendapat apa yang beliau hajati, dan beliau pun diperguna oleh parti-parti dalam PKR bagi mereka mendapat sokongan tambahan untuk terus menguasai sokongan dari rakyat yang tidak berkeyakinan dengan BN lagi.
Saya yakin dengan apa yang diperkatakan oleh Nurul Izzah itu dan perjanjian rahsia tidak boleh dinafikan oleh mereka yang tidak ada dalam perundingan itu. Ini politik Malaysia. Lagi pun sememangnya kita mempunyai slogan ‘the endless possibilities’ dan semuanya ini adalah ‘possible’ untuk berlaku.
Hanya yang terlajak kesana kemari ialah penyokong masing-masing. Penyokong Anwar begitu tegar membenci Najib dan Anwar mengarak mereka kehulu kehilir untuk berdemonstrasi tanpa mereka mengetahui yang Anwar dalam senyap-senyap telah bertemu dan berbincang dengan Najib.
Anwar sememangnya dari dulu seorang yang ‘politically flirtatious’ yang tiada batasnya. Tetapi ini tidak difahami oleh mereka yang baru hendak bercakap tentang politik atau mendekati politik negara. Bagi yang lama-lama memahaminya dengan baik. Bak kata orang jauh perjalanan banyak pengalaman.
Oleh kerana perjumpaan rahsia itu terbongkar maka ia tidak dapat terlaksana kerana masing-masing terlalu takut dengan penyokong masing-masing kerana ia belum sempat hendak di muktamadkan.
Jika ia sempat dimuktamadkan bagaimakah kedudukan mereka dalam UMNO dan Pakatan Rakyat itu? Kata orang lulus jarum lulus kelendan. Jika Anwar berjaya memenuhi dan melaksanakan apa-apa yang beliau janjikan kepada Najib, bagaimana dengan pimpinan dalam DAP dan PAS? Atau reaksi pemimpin-pemimpin PKR yang telah berpeluh dan berkeringat menentang Najib?
Oleh kerana keadaan sudah berubah elok tidak disebut lagi apa-apa perjanjian sulit di antara kedua-dua Najib dan Anwar itu, kerana tidak semestinya sentiasa mendapat apa yang kita hajati.
Anwar kini sedang menjalankan hukuman di penjara setelah diputuskan oleh Mahkamah Persekutuan bersalah dalam isu sodomi2. Najib pula sedang berhadapan dengan masalah peribadi dan kepimpinannya yang sangat serius.
Najib sedang menghampiri persimpangan. Nak terus memimpin pun bermasalah, hendak bersara pun mempunyai masalah. Seperti juga Anwar, Najib menghadapi banyak masalah kerana sikap dan kesalahan mereka sendiri.
Masing-masing pandai-pandailah mencari dan penyelesaian masalah masing-masing. Sesungguhnya mencari masalah itu mudah tetapi mencari penyelesaiannya memerlukan usaha yang tidak ada tolok banding susahnya.- Aspan Alias
Izzah more credible than Khairy...
Blogger Aspan Alias says he believes Najib did offer Anwar the post of Deputy Prime Minister.
In speculating over whether or not Prime Minister Najib Abdul Razak did offer Anwar Ibrahim the job of being his deputy, it is more sensible to believe Nurul Izzah Anwar’s claim than to accept Khairy Jamaluddin’s dismissal of it, according to a blogger’s analysis.
Aspan Alias says one may reasonably assume that Anwar would confide in his daughter, but it would be rather far-fetched to think that Najib would confide in Khairy.
Furthermore, he adds, making backroom dealings would be typical of Anwar. “He is good at saying one thing to leaders of his party and doing another without their knowledge.”
He alleges that Anwar has “always been politically flirtatious” and then takes a swipe at Khairy with this remark: “Those who are new to national politics would not be able to understand this.”
Aspan says Najib too is known for keeping secrets from Umno leaders, “and this was once revealed by Indonesian Vice-President Jusuf Kalla”.
He says it was strange that Khairy would deny something he probably knew nothing about.
After all, he adds, it should surprise no one that Najib was capable of making the offer to Anwar.
“Najib has been facing a crisis of confidence. He does not enjoy strong support from members of the Cabinet and he is facing pressure from his own party.
“He would do anything to lengthen his political life, even if the reprieve comes from his political adversary.”
He says he is “certain” that Izzah was speaking the truth. “This is politics. Furthermore, we live by the slogan of ‘endless possibilities’ and anything is therefore possible.”- Aspan Alias,fmt
Adakah Anwar Tahu Lebih Awal Dia Akan Dihukum...
Bekas Menteri di Jabatan Perdana Menteri Datuk Mohd Zaid Ibrahim menganggap ucapan Ketua Pembangkang Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim dari kandang tertuduh pada 10 Februari lepas selepas dikekalkan hukuman adalah seperti sudah dikarang terlebih dahulu.
Mohd Zaid yang juga seorang peguam berkata ramai orang tidak perasan bahawa susunan kata-kata Anwar yang ditujukan kepada panel lima hakim Mahkamah Persekutuan itu ayatnya ‘berbunga-bunga’ seperti sudah disediakan terlebih dahulu.
“Adakah dia tahu lebih awal bahawa dia akan dijatuhkan hukuman? Adakah kata-kata itu tercetus akibat dibakar keperitan dan ketakutan dikenakan hukuman penjara lebih panjang? Atau adakah ucapan itu disediakan oleh seorang penulis ucapan hebat yang mahu ia diingati generasi akan datang?
“Dia telah menyerang para hakim dengan kata-kata yang sangat tersusun dan terpilih. Dia menyifatkan para hakim sebagai pengecut kerana mengikut telunjuk tuan politik,” kata Zaid dalam tulisan di blognya www.zaid.my.
Dalam ucapan Anwar itu, Zaid berkata Ketua Umum PKR itu telah mempertikai bahawa hakim telah memilih ‘kegelapan’ dan menghancurkan moral mereka dalam kepalsuan.
Menurut beliau, Anwar turut mempersoal kenapa mereka tidak mengambil peluang untuk menebus imej kehakiman dan turut membidas para hakim kerana mensia-siakan peluang untuk mengukir nama sebagai pejuang keadilan.
Dalam tulisannya, Zaid berkata ucapan dari dalam kandang itu walaupun pendek namun telah dikarang dengan baik supaya ia kelihatan sebagai satu ucapan bersejarah oleh tokoh politik dunia seperti Nelson Mandela, Mahatma Ghandi atau Socrates.
Anwar dikatakan cuba meletakkan dirinya setaraf dengan ikon-ikon berkenaan yang juga menjadi mangsa penindasan dan juga mereka adalah pejuang yang hebat.
Kemudian, Anwar menggunakan pula kata-kata yang pernah diucapkan oleh Winston Churchill, “Saya tidak akan menyerah kalah,” sewaktu membuat ucapan itu.
“Saya berpendapat, di sini, Anwar telah melampaui batas.
“Adalah suatu yang biasa untuk tidak bersetuju dengan keputusan para hakim, atau untuk mengkritik pertimbangan mereka, namun untuk menuduh mereka itu bersubahat dan terlibat dalam perancangan politik untuk memenjarakan dirinya (Anwar) adalah tuduhan tanpa asas dan layak dikecam,” kata Zaid.
Zaid memberitahu, jika Anwar dan pasukan pembelaannya mempunyai bukti kukuh bahawa hakim-hakim tersebut ‘bersubahat’ dengan pemimpin politik tertentu untuk memenjarakan beliau, mereka sepatutnya sudah memohon untuk menukar barisan hakim lebih awal.
“Hakim-hakim ini tidak mungkin menjadi pembelot kepada sistem keadilan semudah itu, hanya kerana keputusan mereka dalam kes Anwar,” kata Zaid.
Anwar pada 10 Februari berkenaan dikekalkan hukuman penjara lima tahun yang dijatuhkan oleh Mahkamah Rayuan selepas rayuan pasukan pembelaan untuk mengetepikan hukuman itu ditolak Mahkamah Persekutuan.
Kini, Anwar sedang menjalani hukumannya di Penjara Sungai Buloh. - zaid ibrahim
That speech from the dock...
What many people did not comment on is the flowery and well-rehearsed statement from Anwar about the judges who convicted him. Did he know in advance that he was going to be convicted? Was his tirade against the judges on the spur of the moment, fueled by pain and fear of many more years of confinement, or was it prepared in advance by a good speechwriter who was preparing for posterity?
He attacked the judges in a flurry of well-chosen words. He described the judges as cowards bowing to the dictates of political masters.
He questioned why they had to take the “dark side” and drown their morals and scruples in a sea of subterfuge and falsehood. He asked why they did not take the opportunity to redeem the judiciary, to right the wrongs of the past and put the judiciary on a clean slate. He lamented the lost opportunity by the Chief Justice and his brother judges to carve their names in posterity as defenders of justice.
The speech, although short, was crafted to sound like those historic speeches by Nelson Mandela, Mahatma Gandhi or Socrates. Anwar sees himself on the same level as those historic figures, a victim of continuous oppression but also a fighter extraordinaire. He needed to assure the public that he would not give in, hence borrowing Winston Churchill’s immortal words, “I will not surrender”, in the dock.
Here, I think, Anwar has gone too far. It’s one thing to disagree with the findings of the judges, or to criticise their sloppy reasoning, but to accuse them of being complicit and active players in the political scheme to imprison him is without basis and deserves condemnation.
If Anwar and the defence team had ample proof that these judges were planning in cahoots with the political leaders to oust and imprison him, then they should have applied to remove the Judges earlier. These judges could not possibly become traitors to the cause of justice in an instant, because of their decision against Anwar alone.
Our judges are decent and honest characters; and our Chief Justice Tun Arifin Zakaria is a man of the highest integrity and honour. I believe all the five judges decided to convict because they honestly believed the evidence warranted such a decision.
We can find fault with their finding, but that does not mean they were colluding with the powers-that-be. The public needs to remember these judges were not responsible for deciding to frame charges against a 67-year-old man for consensual sex with another man. They had no say in determining if it was in the public interest to do so. They just had to decide based on what was presented to them.
Was there some kind of soft pressure put to bear on them to decide in a certain way? Perhaps so, and I would not rule out the possibility that such pressure existed, but I believe the judges were not influenced in any way by those political pressure if any.
I even heard suggestions that large sums of money were paid to persuade them to decide in a certain way. If the accusers have some evidence to support such allegations, then at least I can understand Anwar’s attack on the judges, but in their absence the attack was simply because the decision was not to his liking.
It’s true that our judiciary has suffered to some extent from judges lacking in expertise in some areas of the law. Their grasp of the law, especially in complex financial and business transactions, is sometimes wanting.
It’s also true that as humans they have their preferences and prejudices, stemming from their education and the environment they come from (as we all do). Many of them were from the civil service and naturally there is this tendency to view the thinking of the Government more favourably.
They tend to allow greater latitude for Government discretion and to be more sympathetic towards Government decisions and actions. That, however, does not mean that they disobey the law or concoct false principles to justify their actions.
That’s why, when framing the Judicial Appointments Commission law in 2008, I wanted more judges to be appointed from the private practice, as in other Commonwealth countries, but I was not successful.
Those from private practice tend to experience law in its raw form and are therefore able to apply the principles to the cases more correctly. They tend to be more in tune with the practicalities of the law. They will make better judges from these experiences. However, there are good people from the civil service as well and all we need is the right mix to improve the judiciary.
The danger of making incessant and unjustified attacks on the judiciary, as well as on other institutions of Government, is the backlash the opposition will get from the civil servants. The more outlandish the accusations against them, the more severe the repercussions.
They might be ultimately willing to become agents and servants of the politicians. If now, say only 10% of them are “agents and complicit partners furthering the agendas of the politicians”, reckless attacks on them will just bring more and more to the side of the ruling Government.
Even those who are proud to be professional servants of the country and distance themselves from the politicians will not be encouraged to remain neutral after this. The Opposition must learn to respect the civil servants, even if they continue to expose the wrongdoings of some of them.
In any event, there have been many times when unpopular causes and cases involving the opposition have been decided by the Courts in their favour. In fact, the record of success by the Attorney-General’s Chambers or the Government has not been impressive at all.
It’s unfortunate if we decide to paint the judiciary in one broad brush, just because the decision on Anwar does not meet with our expectation. Anwar won on several occasions himself, and if the judges were all “tools of the government”, then there would not have been an acquittal at all.
Let’s work towards a better government and a better judiciary by making constructive and justifiable criticisms for the public good. The country will not be able to achieve good governance if we alienate good civil servants and destroy the trust of the people on public institutions simply because we ourselves are politically motivated.- zaid ibrahim
cheers.
No comments:
Post a Comment