Testimoni Saiful faktor utama penentu nasib Anwar...

Selasa ini, Ketua Pembangkang Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim akan berada di dalam kandang Mahkamah Persekutuan menantikan keputusan rayuan liwatnya yang berlarutan sejak 10 tahun lalu.

Pada September 2004, keputusan majoriti 2-1 mahkamah membebaskan beliau dan adik angkatnya Sukma Darmawan Sasmitaat Madja daripada tuduhan melakukan hubungan seks luar tabii bersama Azizan Abu Bakar yang merupakan pemandu Datuk Seri Dr Wan Azizah Wan Ismail, isteri kepada Anwar.

Dalam kes liwat keduanya, Mahkamah Rayuan tahun lalu menjatuhkan hukuman terhadap ahli Parlimen Permatang Pauh itu kerana melakukan salah laku seksual terhadap bekas pembantunya, Mohd Saiful Bukhari Azlan, di sebuah unit kondominium di Desa Damansara, di Bukit Damansara, Kuala Lumpur pada 26 Jun 2008.

Pada 2012, hakim perbicaraan, Datuk Mohamad Zabidin Mohd Diah membebaskan Anwar atas alasan integriti sampel diragui.

Bagaimanapun, Zabidin menerima Saiful sebagai saksi berkredibiliti. Keputusan Mahkamah Persekutuan pada 10 Februari ini akan menentukan sama ada testimoni Saiful mampu membalas ruang-ruang kosong dalam hujah pasukan pembelaan Anwar.

Peguam Amer Hamzah Arshad berkata, bukti baharu tidak akan diambil kira mahkamah jika hakim mendapati hujah dalam testimoni Saiful tidak boleh dipercayai.

Permaidani

Mahkamah ketika pendengaran rayuan Anwar pada 28 Oktober lalu, peguam Datuk Seri Gopal Sri Ram memberitahu hakim panel hakim yang diketuai Ketua Hakim Negara Tun Arifin Zakaria, Saiful saksi tidak boleh dipercayai atau tidak mungkin menjadi mangsa liwat.

Terdapat ruang-ruang kosong dalam testimoni Saiful, seperti dakwaannya perlakuan berkenaan berlaku di atas karpet, tetapi bukti berkenaan tidak pernah dipersembahkan ke mahkamah.

Cubaan pihak pendakwaan merujuk kepada permaidani lain, namun ia hanyalah yang digunakan unit kondominium berkenaan dan bukannya lokasi dikatakan kejadian berkenaan berlaku.

Sri Ram juga berkata tidak terdapat bukti membuktikan permaidani itu dipindahkan dari lokasi kejadian berkenaan.

"Jika permaidani itu tidak pernah dipindahkan, jadi perlakuan liwat itu tidak pernah berlaku. Jadi, bukti Saiful tidak boleh dipercayai," kata Sri Ram tahun lepas.

Pelincir sebagai bukti

Salah satu bukti dalam testimoni Saiful adalah tiub pelincir yang didakwa digunakan dalam kejadian berkenaan, yang mana didakwa diserahkan kepada pegawai penyiasat kes, Supritendan Jude Pereira pada 28 Jun 2008. Pereira bagaimanapun memberitahu Saiful supaya menantikannya mengambil pelincir berkenaan keesokan harinya.

Sri Ram berkata, pelincir berkenaan digunakan untuk membantu hubungan seksual antara Anwar dan Saiful, hanya diambil daripada pengadu keesokannya dan ini menimbulkan persoalan mengapa pegawai penyiasat menolak bukti daripada pengadu.

Pelincir berkenaan juga tidak pernah diserahkan sebagai bukti, atau dimaklumkan Saiful dalam laporan polisnya. Bekas pembantu Anwar itu hanya membangkitkannya pertama kali ketika testimoni.

Sri Ram juga berkata, jika jeli pelincir itu digunakan dalam aktiviti liwat tersebut, Saiful sudah pasti tidak akan berasa sakit seperti dikatakannya.

Objek plastik

Pasukan pembelaan turut berkata, dakwaan Saiful seperti dimaklumkan kepada Dr Mohd Osman Abdul Hamid, doktor pertama yang memeriksanya selepas dakwaan liwat dan diserang menggunakan objek plastik oleh VIP di lubang duburnya.

Dr Osman bagaimanapun mendapati, selepas pemeriksaan tidak terdapat bukti penembusan.

Bagaimanapun, pendakwaan tidak pernah memanggil Dr Osman untuk memberikan keterangan – satu lagi kegagalan mendapatkan bukti kes daripada saksi utama, kata pihak pembelaan.

Pasukan pendakwaan bagaimanapun menganggap Dr Osman sebagai saksi yang tidak boleh dipercayai dan menuduhnya mengubah kandungan laporan perubatan Saiful.

Rantaian bukti

Peguam Anwar juga turut menyatakan terdapat lompangan dalam rantaian bukti forensik ketika tempoh sampel daripada Saiful di Hospital Kuala Lumpur pada 28 Jun, 2008 sehingga diserahkan kepada pakar kimia Dr Seah Lay Hong 2 hari kemudian.

Pakar kimia itu mendapati sampel itu "asli" namun bukti dokumentari dan testimoni pakar pembelaan menunjukkan bukti berkenaan kurang mutunya kerana tidak disimpan dalam peti ais.

Sebaliknya, pegawai penyiasat menyimpan sampel berkenaan dalam kabinet besi di pejabatnya yang berhawa dingin.

Pasukan pembelaan turut mencadangkan sampel berkenaan dicemari Pereira ketika beliau memotong plastik beg yang mengandungi sampel untuk memindahkannya ke dalam sampul surat.

Dakwaan konspirasi politik

Peguam N Surendran berhujah dakwaan dibuat ke atas Anwar konspirasi politik kerana Saiful mengakui bertemu Perdana Menteri Datuk Seri Najib Razak dan menghubungi Ketua Polis Negara ketika itu, Tan Sri Musa Hassan. Kesemua pertemuan itu berlaku sebelum tarikh dakwaan liwat.

Saiful juga bertemu pegawai kanan polis, Senior Assistant Commissioner Mohd Rodwan Mohd Yusof yang terlibat dalam kes liwat pertama Anwar.

Anwar menyerahkan kenyataan tidak bersumpah 32 muka surat ketika perbicaraan untuk menafikan beliau melakukan jenayah berkenaan dan menjelaskan dakwaan liwat keduanya itu bermotifkan politik.

Pihak pendakwaan, bagaimanapun berkata, bukti berkenaan tidak memadai kerana kenyataan tidak bersumpah tidak boleh diserahkan dan tidak boleh diberikan kenyataan balas.

Mahkamah Tinggi dan Mahkamah Rayuan menolak kenyataan Anwar, dan menganggapnya "penafian" daripada pendakwaan.

Beban pembuktian

Pihak pendakwaan ketika membuat penyerahan dalam rayuan Anwar tahun lalu, cuba memindahkan beban pembuktian kepada tertuduh.

Diketuai Peguam Umno Tan Sri Muhammad Shafee Abdullah, pihak pendakwaan mempertahankan keputusan Mahkamah Rayuan yang mengetepikan keputusan pembebasan oleh mahkamah perbicaraan.

Shafee bertindak sebagai timbalan pendakwa raya mengejut bagi pihak kerajaan dalam kes ini.

Beliau berkata, mahkamah harus mempercayai testimoni pakar kimia kerajaan yang menjalankan ujian DNA terhadap sampel untuk mengaitkan Anwar dengan dakwaan liwat.

"Jika dakwaan Anwar, sampel air mani bukan miliknya, beliau harus menjalankan ujian DNA untuk membuktikan sebaliknya," kata Shafee.

Pasukan pendakwaan juga berkata, dakwaan sampel air mani disimpan pegawai penyiasat dicemari tidak masuk akal kerana sukar mendapatkan air mani segar.

Shafee berkata, Anwar harus menjelaskan bagaimana spermanya boleh berada dalam kawasan sulit Saiful.

Beliau turut mempersoalkan kenapa pasukan pembelaan tidak membekalkan saksi alibi ketika Anwar memberikan alibi mempertahankan diri. 

Kredibiliti Saiful

Peguam diminta untuk memberikan hujah berkenaan bukti dengan berkata jika pasukan pembelaan mampu membuktikan kepada hakim Saiful tidak boleh dipercayai, bukti-bukti lain juga tidak lagi relevan.

Amer berkata, pasukan pendakwaan tidak mampu menyoal balas tempoh pertama jika terdapat kekurangan dalam bukti utama daripada pengadu.

Amer berkata, beban guaman untuk membuktikan kes selalunya kekal dengan pendakwaan dan pembelaan perlu menimbulkan keraguan yang munasabah.

Peguam lain, Ramesh Sivakumar berkata, kenyataan Anwar dan alibi pembelaan hanya relevan jika pendakwaan membuktikan kes prima facie terhadap tertuduh, kerana beliau disabit tanpa memanggilnya untuk membela diri.

Sivakumar berkata, pembelaan menjalankan kes itu di Mahkamah Persekutuan untuk menunjukkan Saiful saksi yang tidak boleh dipercayai dan hakim perbicaraan boleh membebaskan Anwar kerana pendakwaan gagal mewujudkan kes prima facie.

Sivakumar berkata, pembelaan menjelaskan mereka tidak menggunakan alibi pertahanan Anwar kerana saksi berkata mereka dikasari polis.

"Kenyataan Anwar tidak boleh ditolak keseluruhannya kerana ia menimbulkan penafian pembelaan (aktiviti seksual itu tidak pernah berlaku) dan konspirasi politik," tambahnya.

Mahkamah Rayuan menjatuhkan hukuman penjara 5 tahun terhadap Anwar namun tidak menahannya sementara menanti rayuan.

Pihak pendakwaan memfailkan rayuan balas untuk hukuman penjara lebih tinggi terhadap Anwar yang mana sehingga 20 tahun.

Sekiranya mahkamah membebaskannya, ia akan lebih mudah untuk Anwar, namun jika mahkamah memutuskan bersalah, Shafee dijangka akan memfailkan mengapa ketua pembangkang itu perlu diberikan penambahan hukuman. Pihak pembelaan akan diberikan peluang berhujah mengenainya.

Karier politik Anwar akan tiba di penghujungnya jika dijatuhkan hukuman denda RM2,000 dan dipenjarakan lebih daripada setahun dan jika tidak menerima pengampunan. – tmi

Anwar’s fate hinges on Saiful’s credibility...

On Tuesday, opposition leader Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim will be in the dock as the Federal Court delivers the much-awaited verdict on the PKR de facto leader's sodomy appeal, reminiscent of the scenario about 10 years ago.

In September 2004, the apex court, in a majority 2-1 ruling, acquitted him and his adopted brother Sukma Darmawan Sasmitaat Madja of having carnal intercourse with Azizan Abu Bakar, who was the driver of Datuk Seri Dr Wan Azizah Wan Ibrahim, Anwar’s wife.

In this second sodomy case, the Court of Appeal last year convicted the Permatang Pauh MP of sexual misconduct on his former aide, Mohd Saiful Bukhari Azlan, at a unit of the Desa Damansara condominium in Bukit Damansara, Kuala Lumpur, on June 26, 2008.

In 2012, trial judge Datuk Mohamad Zabidin Mohd Diah freed Anwar at the close of the defence's case on grounds that the integrity of the samples could have been compromised.

However, Zabidin accepted Saiful as a credible witness. The Federal Court's verdict on February 10 will thus hinge on whether the judges find Saiful's testimony able to stand up to the holes and gaps that Anwar's defence team has highlighted.

Lawyer Amer Hamzah Arshad said any other corroborative evidence would not matter to the court if the judges were convinced that Saiful's testimony was unreliable.

The carpet

In the apex court's hearing of Anwar's appeal last October 28, lead counsel Datuk Seri Gopal Sri Ram told the five-man bench led by Chief Justice Tun Arifin Zakaria that Saiful was not a worthy witness nor could he have been a sodomy victim.

There were gaps in Saiful's testimony, such as his claim that the alleged act took place on a carpet but this exhibit was never produced in court.

The prosecution attempted to refer to another carpet, but it was one found in an adjacent condominium unit and not the one where the crime was said to have happened.

Sri Ram said there was also no evidence produced to show that the carpet was moved from the alleged crime scene.

"If the carpet was never moved to the adjacent unit, then the act of sodomy never took place. So, Saiful's evidence can't be believed," Sri Ram said during submission last year.

K-Y Jelly as material evidence

Another contested piece of evidence in Saiful's testimony was a tube of lubricant allegedly used in the crime, which the former aide had offered to the case investigating officer, Superintendent Jude Pereira on June 28, 2008. But Pereira told Saiful to wait and that he would collect it the following day.

Sri Ram said the lubricant, purportedly used to aid in the sexual act between Anwar and Saiful, was only seized from the complainant the next day and this had raised the question as to why an investigation officer would decline a material exhibit from the accuser.

The tube of K-Y Jelly was never tendered as evidence, nor had it been mentioned by Saiful in his police report. The former aide only raised it for the first time during his testimony.

Sri Ram had also said if the lubricant had been used in the sodomy attack, Saiful would not have complained of pain, which he did.

The plastic object 

The defence also noted Saiful's claim that he had told Dr Mohd Osman Abdlu Hamid, the first doctor to examine him after the alleged sodomy, that he had been assaulted by a VIP with a plastic object inserted into his anus.

Dr Osman's findings after examining Saiful were also that there was no evidence of penile penetration.

However, the prosecution never called Dr Osman to testify – yet another failure to produce material evidence by a key witness, the defence had said.

The prosecution, however, had considered Dr Osman an unreliable witness and accused him of modifying Saiful's medical report.

Chain of evidence

Anwar's lawyers had also asserted that there was break in the chain of forensic evidence during  the time the samples were taken from Saiful at Kuala Lumpur Hospital on June 28, 2008 until they was handed to chemist Dr Seah Lay Hong two days later.

The chemist found the samples to be "pristine" but documentary evidence and testimonies by defence experts showed that the exhibits would have degraded as they were not refrigerated. 

Instead, Pereira, the investigating officer, had kept the samples in a steel cabinet in his air-conditioned office.

The defence also suggested that the samples had been tampered with by Pereira when he cut open the plastic bag containing the swab samples in order to transfer them to individual envelopes.

Claim of political conspiracy

Co-counsel N. Surendran had argued that the charge against Anwar was a political conspiracy as Saiful had admitted meeting Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak, and had called the then inspector-general of police Tan Sri Musa Hassan. All these meetings were before the date of the alleged sodomy.

Saiful had also met senior police officer Senior Assistant Commissioner Mohd Rodwan Mohd Yusof who was involved in Anwar's first sodomy case.

Anwar had given a 32-page unsworn statement from the dock during trial stage to deny committing the crime and to explain why the second sodomy charge against him was political in nature.

The prosecution, however, said that this evidence was worthless as unsworn statements from the dock were not admissible and could not be cross-examined.

The High Court and Court of Appeal had dismissed Anwar's unsworn statement, considering it a "bare denial" of the charge.

Burden of proof

The prosecution, when making submissions at Anwar's appeal last year, tried to shift the burden of proof to the accused.

Led by Umno lawyer Tan Sri Muhammad Shafee Abdullah, the prosecution defended the Court of Appeal's ruling, which had reversed the acquittal decision of the trial court.

Shafee was acting as an ad hoc deputy public prosecutor engaged by the government for the case.

He said the court should believe the testimony of the government chemists who conducted DNA profiling of samples to connect Anwar to the sodomy charge.

"If Anwar claims the semen sample was not his, then he should do his own DNA test to prove otherwise," Shafee had said.

The prosecutor also said claims that the semen samples kept by the investigating officer had been tampered with were "unreasonable" as it would have been difficult to find fresh semen.

Shafee also said Anwar should explain how his sperm had ended up in "intimate areas" of Saiful.

And he also questioned why the defence did not call any alibi witnesses when Anwar had put up an alibi defence. The court was obliged to draw an adverse inference, Shafee had said.

Saiful's credibility

Lawyers asked to comment on the evidence said that if the defence could convince the judges that Saiful should not be believed, any other corroborative evidence would then become irrelevant.

Amer said the prosecution would not be able to cross the first hurdle if there were deficiencies in the primary evidence of the complainant.

"Corroborative evidence cannot be relied upon if the main evidence is deficient or inadmissible," he said.

Amer said that the legal burden to prove a case always remained with the prosecution and the defence need only to create a reasonable doubt.    

Another lawyer, Ramesh Sivakumar, said Anwar's statement from the dock and alibi defence was only relevant if the prosecution had proved a prima facie case against the accused, as he should have been acquitted without calling for his defence.

Sivakumar said the defence conducted its case in the Federal Court to show that Saiful was an unreliable witness and that the trial judge should have acquitted Anwar because the prosecution failed to establish a prima facie case.

Sivakumar said the defence had explained that it did not use Anwar's alibi defence because the witnesses had said they were harassed by the police.

"Anwar's statement from the dock also cannot be dismissed altogether because it raises the defence of denial (that the sexual act never happened) and political conspiracy," he added.

The Court of Appeal had sentenced Anwar to five years' jail but granted him a stay on the sentence pending the outcome of his appeal.

The prosecution has filed a cross-appeal for a higher jail sentence against Anwar, which could stretch up to 20 years.

It will be a straightforward matter for Anwar if the Federal Court frees him, but if the court upholds the conviction, Shafee is expected to give submissions as to why the opposition leader deserves an enhanced sentence. The defence will then be given the opportunity to argue against this.

Anwar's political career could come to an end if he is fined more than RM2,000 or jailed more than a year and does not received a free pardon. – tmi

Survival Najib, Anwar dan Dr Mahathir...

Keputusan penghakiman perbicaraan akhir Liwat II terhadap Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim pada 10 Februari ini akan memberikan titik peralihan baharu terhadap politik Malaysia. Bagi Anwar beliau bertawakal dan berserah kepada Allah dalam apa-apa jua keadaan. Namun persekitaran politik Malaysia cukup dinamik dan ruang dinamik ini memberikan sebarang kemungkinan yang akan berlaku dalam politik Malaysia. 

Keputusan rayuan terakhir Anwar yang dijangka diumumkan pada 9 pagi, Selasa depan akan membawa kepada beberapa implikasi dan senario politik negara. Apa pun keputusan panel panel hakim yang diketuai Ketua hakim Negara Tun Arifin Zakaria perlu dihormati semua.

Sekiranya,  keputusan tidak berpihak kepada Anwar maka, sudah pasti akan membangkitkan kemarahan penyokong Anwar dan akan menyebabkan kewujudan undi protes kalangan pada PRU akan datang. Pasti cabaran besar kepada Barisan Nasional (BN) untuk terus bertahan. Pakatan Rakyat (PR) akan kehilangan Anwar yang dianggap simbol utama penyatu kepada PAS, DAP dan PKR.

Di sebalik kemungkinan ini, ia memberikan ruang baharu kepada kepimpinan PKR sedia ada seperti Azmin Ali, Rafizi Ramli, Nurul Izzah dan Saifuddin Nasution menggilap kepimpinan dalam PKR. Sepatutnya BN lebih bimbang kemunculan tokoh-tokoh muda dan pintar ini berbanding Anwar. 

Keupayaan Azmin dan Rafizi misalnya merupakan bakat besar dalam politik negara yang perlu diketengahkan dan diberikan lebih ruang untuk menonjolkan kepimpinan yang dinamik sesuai dengan era baru. Ketiadaan Anwar ketika beliau dipenjarakan juga membuktikan PR boleh bergerak dengan jaya tanpa Anwar.

Terdapat juga kemungkinan Anwar akan dibebaskan. Sudah pasti bagi penyokong BN ini merupakan mimpi ngeri mereka. Anwar akan mudah mengukuhkan PR yang kini dipulihkan khususnya di antara PAS dan DAP. Tanpa peranan Anwar agak sukar menyatukan dua ideologi parti yang perlukan moderasi Anwar.

Pancingan Politik

Adakah Anwar akan dipancing untuk kembali menyertai Umno bagi meretakkan PR dan mengukuhkan konflik dalaman Umno? Sudikah Anwar sekiranya ditawarkan jawatan kerajaan yang lebih strategik seperti jawatan menteri dalam negeri?  

Mungkinkah Ezam Mohd Nor yang sudah menjadi sebagai pengarah komunikasi di Kementerian Kewangan sejak pertengahan Mac 2014, berminat untuk menjadi tali penghubung Anwar dengan Umno? Hal ini kerana Ezam perlu mengukuhkan politiknya dalam Umno dan mendapatkan kepercayaan lebih besar daripada ketua baru, Datuk Seri Najib Razak. Pada zaman di bawah Anwar, Ezam mempunyai akses hingga ke pejabat The Washington Post yang cukup berpengaruh. 

Namun Ezam tahu lama sukar untuknya bersaing dengan Azmin sekiranya beliau terus bersama PKR. Keterampilan Azmin dalam politik kini terserlah apabila beliau akhirnya menjadi timbalan presiden PKR dan bukan calang-calang ahli politik yang dapat mendaki ke peringkat tinggi tersebut.  Kini Azmin dilantik sebagai menteri besar Selangor. Jalan lain bagi Ezam ialah Umno. Rantaian isu Anwar dapat dikaitkan dilema Najib dan Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad.

Dilema Najib dan Dr Mahathir

Najib kini  menghadapi  tiga cabaran terbesar dalam hayat politik beliau. Yang pertama keputusan PRU13 yang menjadikan pembangkang menguasai 52% undi popular dan BN menang tipis.  Kedudukan Najib lebih berbahaya dalam politik kerana beliau hanya mendapat 133 kerusi berbanding era Pak lah  yang mendapat 140 kerusi dalam pilihan raya 2008. 

Sungguhpun era Najib dianggap lebih liberal dan terbuka dalam menambat undi Cina, namun kemerosotan undi Cina terus berlaku. Inilah terpancar dalam peribahasa, "kayu yang hendak tumbang, kura-kura pun hendak memanjatnya'.

Suara Sabah dan Sarawak yang sering menyuarakan hak seperti royalti minyak dan dasar kabotaj yang menyebabkan harga barang lebih mahal di Sabah dan Sarawak dan kian bergema. Apakah perlu hanya meletakkan orang di tempat strategik di Sarawak atau Sabah, atau perlukah Umno di Sarawak untuk mengukuhkan Umno di Semenanjung Malaysia? Yang pasti rakyat Sarawak tidak mahukan Umno sekurang-kurang untuk tempoh terdekat ini.

Yang jelas, isu seperti IMDB yang mempunyai aset RM51.4 bilion dan hutang RM49.97 bilion memberikan keraguan akar umbi sehinggakan Naib Ketua Umno Bahagian Batu Kawan, Datuk Khairuddin Abu Hassan membuat laporan polis. Mantan perdana menteri Dr Mahathir juga berterus-teras kepada media beliau tidak menyokong Najib. 

Selain isu IMDB, Dr Mahathir tidak berpuas  isu seperti TPPA dengan Amerika, ISA dan dasar gaji minimum. Bagi Dr Mahathir, pemilik The Edge Datuk Tong Kooi Ong diserang kerana media miliknya kerana mengkritik IMDB. Dr Mahathir  baru-baru ini menegaskan beliau tetap menyebelahi negara, bangsa dan parti. Bukannya menyokong pembangkang. Kata Dr Mahathir, apabila beliau menyebelahi parti Umno, tidak bermakna beliau menyebelahi pemimpin parti. Hal ini tentulah merumitkan politik dalaman Umno. 

Dalam sejarah Umno, Dr Mahathir pernah mengkritik dasar Tunku Abdul Rahman dan Pak Lah hingga menyebabkan mereka berundur. Pada 1987 Tun Musa Hitam pernah membentuk regu politik Tan Sri Tengku Razaleigh Hamzah untuk menentang Dr Mahathir kerana tahu agak sukar untuk melawan regu Dr Mahathir. 

Bagaimanapun, kedua-dua tewas melawan regu Dr Mahathir. Percubaan Anwar bangkit menentang Dr Mahathir dan masih gagal dan ini sudah pasti menyebabkan Najib lebih teliti untuk berhadapan dengan kritikan Dr Mahathir.

Daim yang terkejut (bukan lagi yang diam)

Sebelum ini, Tun Daim Zainuddin dikatakan memberikan nasihat dan pandangan kepada kerajaan atas kapasiti sebagai bekas menteri kewangan. Namun nasihat ini disalah tafsir sebagai kritikan terhadap kepimpinan Najib. 

Adakah memberikan tempat kepada pihak pembangkang untuk menyerang bekas menteri kewangan itu  oleh TV3   dalam waktu  perdana  sebagai wacana tandingan untuk mengimbangkan kritikan Daim? Malah Daim juga dikaitkan seolah-olah bergabung dengan Dr Mahathir dan ini menyebabkan Daim yang selama ini jarang berhubung dengan Dr Mahathir terkejut dan membuat sidang akhbar untuk penafian.

Adakah tindakan tersebut di luar radar pengetahuan perdana menteri? Adakah agak terlambat untuk membetulkan segala persepsi politik? PRU14 dijangka berakhir pada Mei 2018.  Tempoh sekitar 2 tahun 4 bulan ini agak kritikal. Mungkinkah Najib akan duduk semeja dengan Dr Mahathir atau Anwar untuk berdepan PRU14? Atau kedua-dua mereka sekali?  Atau pun, sangguhkah Najib berjiwa besar dengan berundur secara terhormat bagi menyelamatkan parti Umno khususnya dan BN?

Dikatakan terdapat kebimbangan dalam kalangan propembangkang, sekiranya Najib berundur lebih awal akan menyebabkan kelewatan PR menawan Putrajaya. Namun sejauh manakah persepsi ini benar? Namun dalam politik,  persepsi kelihatan lebih hidup daripada realiti. Pendapat umum terhadap kepimpinan parti dalam dan luar parti menentukan kelangsungan politik semasa. Kuasa media sosial kadangkala lebih difahami daripada penerangan ketua cawangan ranting mana-mana parti politik.

Akhbar talian seperti The Malaysian Insider dan Malaysiakini, dianggap sebagai alternatif zaman keterbukaan media Pak Lah kini merupakan media arus perdana secara maya. Penggunaan aplikasi whatsapp memudahkan pembentukan kumpulan pendapat dan wacana harian tercetus pula berupaya menentukan hala tuju politik negara. Perhatikan sahaja sebaran whasapp Pengarah Pusat Operasi PAS yang memberikan senario kemungkinan keluar dari PR menjadi viral tidak lama dulu.

Negara kita melalui banjir besar negara yang memusnahkan infrastruktur yang mencecah 2.9 bilion ringgit. Bencana ini sepatutnya memberikan kesedaran, keinsafan, membina perpaduan yang lebih kukuh di antara parti politik tanpa mengira ideologi dan agama. Namun, situasi politik di Malaysia masih terus di tampuk lama. Adakah menjelang atau selepas PRU14 nanti akan menyebabkan landskap politik akan benar-benar berubah? Semua ini akan ditentukan kebijaksanaan pengundi nanti. – Dr Awang Azman Awang Pawi,tmi

Anwar,what Najib and UMNO fail to understand...

Feb 10 is V-day - Verdict Day. That's when we will learn whether Opposition Leader Anwar Ibrahim will be found guilty in a trial that governments and human rights organisations around the world unanimously have called politically motivated.

No legal basis for Anwar's guilt

Judged solely on legal grounds, there is no doubt that the prosecution has failed to prove its case. In the Federal Court hearings which spread over two weeks, Anwar's defence team, led brilliantly by a former judge, Gopal Sri Ram, made mincemeat of the government's prosecutor, Muhammad Shafee Abdullah (right), who is better known as Umno's lawyer.

Anyone who looks at the facts of the case would conclude this: If Anwar is found guilty, it will be for political, not legal, reasons.

Malaysia has changed forever

But if Anwar is found guilty, he can go to prison with his head held high. He can look back and think about all that he has been accomplished since he was first arrested by then premier Dr Mahathir Mohamad in 1998, and how Malaysia's political situation has changed over the past 16 years.

Even as the Umno government pursued and persecuted him, Anwar never gave up. Neither did his supporters. And now the movement he began, and the challenge to Malaysia's political order that he and his wife Dr Wan Azizah Wan Ismail started in 1998, have become much larger than Anwar himself.

There is no going back. Malaysia has changed forever.

Anwar put country above self

Anwar had many opportunities over the past decade to travel overseas. But he always went back to Malaysia, despite the risk. If Anwar were selfish - if it were just about him - he could have stayed overseas and gone into exile.

Mahathir actually gave him that choice in 1998, yet Anwar turned him down and ended up spending six years in prison.

That is one reason why I respect him so much. Anwar always chose to go back. He chose his country Malaysia over any risk to himself.

I wonder how many other people would do that.

Umno a minority government

Anwar can think about the fact that in the last general elections, the opposition defeated - yes, defeated - Umno and its coalition partners in the popular vote.

Umno was saved only because of the inequitable distribution of electoral seats by the Electoral Commission, which as everyone knows is controlled by the Umno government.

Even with one hand tied behind its back, Anwar and the opposition won 53 percent of the vote in peninsular Malaysia. It defeated BN at the polls.

As for Umno's own candidates, they took only 33 percent of the national vote.

Malaysia now has ‘two-party’ system

Anwar can think about the fact that in the past 16 years, a genuine opposition and ‘two-party’ system have emerged. The difference between Umno-BN and Pakatan Rakyat is now very clear.

One side, BN is dominated by Umno, which increasingly tries to survive by appealing to the basest and most racist instincts of its members. It survives by the use of Sedition Act, control of the media, and threatening to arrest anyone who dares to speak out.

Umno has castrated the other parties in the coalition, MCA and MIC, to the point where they are politically meaningless. There really is no BN anymore.

Umno - even though it was the recipient of only 33 percent of the national vote - now calls 100 percent of the shots. MCA and MIC have lost their supporters and are struggling for their own survival.

Chinese Malaysians have shifted

During the struggle in 1998, the Chinese Malaysian community stood on the sidelines. They considered it an internal Umno struggle among the Malays. They thought of Anwar as an "ultra Malay".

But not today. The Chinese-Malaysian community has shifted their support to the opposition, to the point where Najib complained of a Chinese tsunami after the last elections.

No longer just about Anwar

Over the past 15 years, the movement that began with Anwar's sacking, arrest, and imprisonment has grown into Pakatan. It is now a permanent fixture in Malaysia's political landscape and a genuine alternative to BN.

Fifteen years ago, Keadilan basically was about Anwar and the injustice that had been done to him. But no longer. Today it is about democracy, freedom, human rights, and Malaysia's future. It is about an end to corruption and cronyism. It is about Malaysia's future.

So whether he goes to prison or not, Anwar already has won. - John Mallot,mk
  

The 'Only Ngeh in Perak DAP' to sue Ismail Sabri over anti-Islam slur...

DAP lawmaker Ngeh Koo Ham, who was singled out by Umno minister Datuk Seri Ismail Sabri Yaacob in his recent racial rant on Chinese businesses, said he will sue the minister for labelling him and his family anti-Islam.

The MP for Beruas also repeated his call for Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak to sack the agriculture and agro-based industries minister for lying just to avoid owning up to what he said.

Both Ismail and Ngeh have been in the spotlight after Ismail advised Malays to boycott Chinese businesses.

He had alleged that Ngeh owned shares in the OldTown White Coffee chain which was singled out as a Chinese business that Malays should boycott.

"Malays are still refusing to boycott (OldTown White Coffee), what more when its owner is said to be the DAP Ngeh family of Perak who are known to be anti-Islam.

"As long as the Malays don't change, the Chinese will take the opportunity to oppress the Malays," Ismail had said in a Facebook post.

Ngeh then denied he had ever owned any shares in OldTown Bhd, and demanded that the minister retract his anti-Islam allegation and issue him a public apology.

The minister shrugged off a 48-hour deadline to apologise to Ngeh, saying that his remarks posted on Facebook did not specifically mention "Ngeh Koo Ham".

In a statement today, Ngeh said the time given for the Umno minister to retract and apologise for his remarks had lapsed, adding that he had instructed his lawyers to proceed with legal action.

He added that Ismail had lied about two things in his Facebook post, that he owned shares in Old Town and that he was anti-Islam.

Ada dak nama Ngeh Koo Ham... Ismail pakai hentam saja...

Ngeh pointed out that when the posting caused a public outcry and Ismail was confronted, he tried to avoid responsibility by telling two more lies – that his remark referred to only 'stubborn' Chinese and that he had not targeted any specific race in his post, according to a statement from the PM's Department.

"Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak cannot be keeping a man proven to be quick to lie in his cabinet as he will pose a great danger to the nation.

"The fact that he has withdrawn his posting and avoided identifying me and my family as his targets are clear admissions of guilt on his part," Ngeh said.

Ngeh also urged the Islamic authorities to reprimand the minister to show that Islam did not condone such conduct.

He said this was a chance for the guardians of the religion to explain that Islam was against defaming others and lying.

"This is also an opportunity for the Islamic authorities in our country to refute the accusation by some that they only act against those who are of lesser station in our society.

"The Islamic authorities can also take this opportunity to emphasise the importance of the substantive values taught by Islam, apart from the teaching on the appropriate attire to wear and whether a certain food is halal or otherwise," Ngeh said.

In his Facebook post, Ismail had written: "Forgive me for sharing my views, but besides the Ministry of Domestic Trade, Cooperatives and Consumerism, which uses the Price Control Act and the Anti-Profiteering Act to act against traders who raise their prices indiscriminately, the greatest power lies with consumers.

"The majority of consumers are Malay, Chinese are a minority. If the Malays boycott their businesses, they will surely have no choice but to reduce their prices." - TMI

Ngeh akan saman Ismail Sabri

On Ismail Sabri...

Jawapan Hadi terhadap kehadiran mesyuarat Majlis Pimpinan Pakatan Rakyat...

Presiden PAS tidak terikat atau bergantung kepada mana-mana pihak untuk hadir ke mesyuarat Majlis Pimpinan Pakatan Rakyat yang dijadualkan pada 8 Februari ini.

Datuk Seri Tuan Guru Abdul Hadi Awang berkata terpulang kepadanya sama ada hadir atau sebaliknya pada mesyuarat yang akan diadakan di Pejabat Agung PAS itu.

Ini kerana, kata beliau, tidak ada mana-mana pihak yang berhak bagi menentukan kehadirannya.

“Dia (Guan Eng) tidak berhak menentukan saya hadir atau tidak hadir. Terpulang kepada saya nak hadir ke tak hadir. Saya bukan anak murid sekolah, kita tengok dululah.

“Tengok hari mesyuarat inilah saya hadir ke tidak hadir. Saya tak bergantung dengan sesiapa saya nak hadir,” ujarnya berseloroh kepada media selepas menyampaikan kuliah mingguan Jumaat di kediamannya Kampung Rusila, hari ini. Hadir sama ialah Naib Presiden PAS, Datuk Tuan Ibrahim Tuan Man.

Beliau berkata demikian sebagai reaksi balas desakan Setiausaha Agung DAP, Lim Guan Eng yang mahukan Presiden PAS itu hadir ke mesyuarat Majlis Pimpinan Pakatan Rakyat, Ahad ini.

Sehubungan itu, Ustaz Abdul Hadi turut menafikan dakwaan beliau banyak kali tidak hadir ke mesyuarat berkenaan berbanding dengan pemimpin PR yang lain.

Bahkan, kata beliau pihak terbabit boleh melihat rekod kehadiran ahli-ahli mesyuarat majlis berkenaan bagi menentukan kebenaran dakwaan tersebut.

“Cuma saya rasa bangga, saya lebih banyak hadir mesyuarat dari Lim Guan Eng, kecuali (ketika) saya sakit dulu.

“Mesyuarat PR, masa saya jadi Menteri Besar pun saya hadir tiap-tiap kali mesyuarat. Saya tidak sibuk macam Ketua Menteri dan jika sibuk pun saya mesti hadir untuk mesyuarat Pakatan Rakyat.

“Kalau kata saya banyak tak hadir mesyuarat itu tak betul, kena ‘check’ kehadiranlah siapa paling banyak tidak hadir mesyuarat,” ujarnya yang juga Ahli Parlimen Marang. - harakahdaily

Story kat SINI dan SINI  

cheers.