Untuk memastikan Najib dan Zahid tidak ke lokap...
UMNO had little choice but to name
Ismail as PM candidate for GE15
The much-heralded debate between former premier Najib Abdul Razak and opposition leader Anwar Ibrahim has been set for May 12.
At a joint press conference today, PKR information chief Fahmi Fadzil and Najib’s representative Isham Jalil confirmed that the debate will take place at the Universiti Malaya's Dewan Tunku Chancellor at 9pm.
They announced that the debate would feature three main segments - a debate on the financially-troubled Sapura Energy Berhad, other current affairs involving Malaysia, and a question and answer session.
"In the second segment, we will let the two leaders air their views on other related matters, while in the third segment we can take questions, including from netizens online," Isham explained.
Each segment to run for 30mins
Each segment, which will be aired live across several platforms, is estimated to run for 30 minutes with an additional 30 minutes allocated as buffer time.
There will also be a live audience to be invited from among Anwar and Najib's supporters, as well as the ordinary public.
Isham also said all media outlets will be allowed to attend and cover the debate, while an announcement will be made soon on the official media partners.
Asked whether the debate is an indication of the two leaders' plans in facing the upcoming 15th general election, Isham said: "This is not a new alignment. Even for us to agree on the three debate segments, that itself can be another debate on its own.
"Our cooperation is only to organise this debate. Not a political cooperation."
At the same time, both Isham and Fahmi noted how the debate is a sign of political maturity that should be embraced by Malaysians.
"The debate should inspire confidence in Malaysians, that for us to live in harmony, sometimes we must set aside our differences.
"We can forgive but maybe not forget, and we must move forward. How? We must see who has the better idea, more rational, and better at presenting their visions," said Fahmi.
Najib had first challenged Anwar to a debate on Sapura Energy, in response to a similar challenge from PKR's Rafizi Ramli. The Pekan MP had offered to take on either both of them or with Rafizi acting as Anwar's adviser.
Anwar accepted the challenge, and the joint press conference today came after a series of back-and-forth jibes between the leaders and their teams. - Alyaa Alhadjri.mk
Here's the real reason why the High
Court reversed the basikal lajak decision...
Unless you’ve been living under a tempurung, chances are you will have seen the uproar over the High Court’s reversal of the decision to release Sam Ke Ting from her charge of reckless driving resulting in the deaths of eight cyclists. They pronounced her guilty and sentenced her to 6 years in prison, as well as a RM6,000 fine.
Since then, both the media and the public have been in a frenzy, and tensions are high on all sides. Many members of the public have fiercely jumped to the defence of 27 year-old Sam, with an online petition to free her garnering over a million signatures.
It was clear from the start that the case was never really as clear cut as it seems. But how exactly did the esteemed High Court Judge YA Dato’ Abu Bakar bin Katar arrive at that decision? To find out, we managed to get hold of the brief grounds version of the High Court records on the decision, detailing exactly that.
To further shed some light on the situation, we reached out to practicing Criminal and Civil lawyer Edwin Tomas, who was gracious enough to lend us his time to help us understand the case better.
According to the brief grounds, there were actually two main reasons given by the High Court for the decision, with the first being:
Sam ‘surprised’ the court with new details that were not there before...
During her defense, Sam claimed that another vehicle had hit the kids earlier, and had sped off. Strangely, this point was never raised by Sam during the prosecution stage, and was hence seen as ‘adding a new/different detail that was not there before’, or as the court calls it, an afterthought defense.
What’s more is that this was done in an unsworn statement. You know the courtroom scenes in Hollywood movies where people swear on the Bible? That’s a sworn statement. So yeah, an unsworn statement is the same thing, but without the oath-taking. Hence, it carries less weight in the eyes of the court than a sworn statement, as it is not liable to be tested and interrogated in court (cross-examined).
According to Edwin, because this version of events was not revealed earlier, the statement may have hurt her credibility in the eyes of the judge, causing the judge to absolutely disregard her unsworn statement. Elaborating on this, he wondered why:
1. this alleged version was not brought out during the prosecution stage, and
2. why the lawyer didn’t cross-examine the prosecution witnesses who were at the scene of the accident to corroborate the story.
However, says Edwin, whether or not this is her fault is dependent on what her lawyer had advised her, and whether or not she had chosen to heed her lawyer’s advice. And although some netizens may be labeling her lawyer as incompetent, it has to be remembered that this same lawyer managed to get her acquitted twice, so hey, credit to him for that, at least.
The second reason given by the High Court is:
Sam’s defense failed to convince the High Court Judge that she was not driving dangerously
… and for this, the High Court claimed a few things:
1. Sam failed to convince the Judge of her awareness of the bumpy and bendy nature of the road
2. Sam’s ignorance of basikal lajak activities in the area should not have been accepted as an ‘excuse’ to drive dangerously
3. Sam should have driven more carefully and been more aware of the poor lighting conditions
4. Sam should have been aware of the risks of going above the speed limit of 50km/h
When we asked Edwin on whether or not this ruling was justified, he said that he would need to see the full grounds of judgment to be sure. But with that being said, says Edwin, the burden of proving a strong, initial (‘prima facie’/‘believable but subject to rebuttal’) case at the start of the trial lies on the prosecution. In other words, no initial prima facie case = nothing for the accused to defend against.
And this Edwin claims, is the element that was lacking, and also why he feels Sam’s defense should not have even been called in the first place:
“In my personal opinion, the prosecution has failed to prove that the Accused has driven recklessly. No concrete evidence that the Accused drove past the speed limit, or drove dangerously. Respectfully, I feel that the High Court Judge may have been too ready to accept the prosecution’s case, when all benefit of the doubt should be afforded to the accused as she is innocent until proven to be guilty.” – Edwin Tomas
The reason this case is so talked about, is because it could really have happened to anyone
Guilt and innocence aside, the fact remains that Sam Ke Ting was just a regular person and sales promoter up until the tragedy. And that’s exactly what it is: a tragedy. Because there are no winners here; parents lost their children, children lost their lives, and Sam lost her freedom.
And the public uproar here, unlike in most cases involving big-name politicians, appears to be more caused by empathy rather than disdain. The reason, perhaps, is best summed up by Edwin:
“She was unfortunately at the wrong place, at the wrong time. What happened to her, could have happened to the best of us. And that’s the scary part.”- Edwin Tomas
Our condolences lie with the parents whose children’s lives were lost, but whatever justice in this case may be, it is hoped that it will be served at the Court of Appeal, which will be the final stage of appeals for Sam. - cilisos.my
Racism in Sam Ke Ting’s conviction – Get ready for more racist policies and rulings from UMNO/BN...
Many years ago during Najib administration, I overheard an interesting story during my coffee break. A young Chinese couple was driving in Johor when their car was suddenly knocked from behind at a traffic light. As the culprit had refused to “settle”, the only option left was to make a police report – a standard operating procedure before an insurance claim can be made.
Here’s the best part – when they tried to make the police report, the first question asked by a police officer was whether the culprit is a Malay. Yes, the Johor policeman did not beat around the bush, but asked a direct question – “Is the driver a Malay?” When the Chinese couple said it was, to their shock, the police officer told them in the face that their accident report cannot be accepted.
The point is this – both corruption and racism are deeply entrenched in the country that it did not escape Johor, supposedly one of the most liberal states. Even Johor Sultan Ibrahim has to combat racism himself occasionally. But the Royal Malaysia Police isn’t the only institution plagued with racism. Another more critical institution infiltrated with racism is the Judicial system.
The stunning reversal of Sam Ke Ting’s acquittal by a High Court in Johor Baru on Wednesday (April 13) over a reckless driving charge has triggered a wave of disbelief and disgust. A petition in “Change.org” to free her has reached close to 900,000 signatures in just 4 days since it was launched. But the injustice is not the first, and will not be the last in the “Bolehland”.
Interestingly, in a 2019 judgement to acquit the 27-year-old clerk, a Magistrate Court in Johor Baru said Sam was not under the influence of alcohol, was not using her phone and has her seatbelt on while driving. What was beyond her control was that it was a dark, hilly and winding road where she would be overwhelmed by an incredible “bicycle gang” at three in the morning.
Sam crashed into the gang of teenagers riding “basikal lajak (modified bicycles)” at 3:20am in 2017, killing eight of them. Despite the fact that she was a responsible driver, as pointed out by the magistrate herself, the High Court reversed the earlier verdict and sent Sam to six years in jail and RM6,000 fine, including 3-year driving ban. The horror part – her bail rejected.
Exactly why the disgraced former prime minister Najib Razak can be bailed – repeatedly – during his lengthy 4-year corruption trial and even after having been convicted by both the High Court and the Court of Appeal for stealing billions of dollars in the infamous 1MDB scandal, but not Sam Ke Ting? That is the first question millions of Malaysians have been asking.
Sam Ke Ting - Basikal Lajak Accident
Not only did the Magistrate Court acquit Sam in October 2019, the same court acquitted her again two years later (October 2021) as it found the prosecution had failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. So, the second question is why Sam is suddenly being punished when no actions are taken against the irresponsible parents who allowed their children to roam in the street with modified bicycles?
The questions of why a victim who drove responsibly and had followed traffic laws has suddenly become a culprit and sentenced to jail, whereas the culprits who broke every single traffic law by riding illegally on modified bicycles at 3am have suddenly become victims are very simple – racism. Would the High Court make the same decision if it was a Malay driver who had killed eight Chinese teenage cyclists?
Suspiciously, the High Court’s verdict came at a time when the unelected Barisan Nasional government is preparing to call for a snap nationwide general election, most likely after the Hari Raya festival. Najib, comically, said it was wrong to view the case from a racial lens and has accused opposition Pakatan Harapan of politicising the tragedy and promote hateful politics.
Clearly, Najib tries to hide the double standard, where he is granted bail while Sam was denied. Actually, the uproar has nothing to do with the opposition. The ethnic Chinese can see how the unfair ruling is tainted with racism. Najib also lied that the court’s decision had nothing to do with the current government, which is being led by his own party, the United Malays National Organization (UMNO).
Has Najib forgotten about the death of firefighter Muhammad Adib Mohd Kassim? After UMNO-led Barisan Nasional coalition lost in the May 2018 General Election, Adib was being paraded by Najib and UMNO leaders as a Malay victim who suffered from critical injuries caused by ethnic Indian in pre-dawn riots at Seafield Seafield Sri Maha Mariamman Temple in Subang Jaya in November 2018.
In truth, the riots were started when more than 50 Malay gangsters, armed with axes and machetes, were paid to attack everyone in the temple. For obvious reason, UMNO and its partner – radical and extremist Islamist party PAS – refused to blame the Malay gangsters, let alone point fingers at the slow response of inefficient Subang Jaya police force.
The racist and extremist UMNO-PAS also refused to accept the findings that Adib had not been assaulted by Hindu protesters, but could be hit accidentally when an EMRS (Emergency Medical Rescue Services) van suddenly reversed. But after the return of UMNO as the government, all the hypocrites who had screamed for justice on behalf of Adib are as quiet as a church mouse.
Subang Jaya Sri Maha Marianmman Temple Riot
Last month, the unelected government of Barisan Nasional finally admitted the family of firefighter Adib has been paid RM1.5 million ex-gratia compensation. Adib’s family no longer cried for justice. Likewise, all the Malay politicians are not as anxious in seeking justice for the Malay fireman. Will there be any compensation at all if the fireman was an Indian and it was a mosque that had been terrorized?
In the case of Adib, no one can be charged because the culprits who started the riots were Malays and the death was caused by a fellow Malay driver, who panicked and accidentally reversed the EMRS van. In the case of Sam, the irresponsible parents cannot be charged because they are Malays. However, the death can be easily blamed on Sam, despite her innocence because she is a Chinese.
It’s hilarious to say a High Court judge is always correct and wiser than a Magistrate, let alone to assume that a judge is never racist or corrupt. The country has a living proof that even a (former) Chief Justice can be racist to the core. Has Mr.Najib forgotten Abdul Hamid Mohamad, his hardcore supporter who had, two days before the 2018 election, condemned Mahathir for trying to topple Najib’s Malay government?
Abdul Hamid is the same former Chief Justice who infamously wrote his extremely racist and bias judgement in the Court of Appeal in 1996 in a case where a bank had sued two business partners – a Malay and an Indian – which saw him accepted a claim by the Malay defendant (but no the Indian) because Mr Abdul agreed that “a Malay Muslim would not tell lies“.
Conveniently, Najib has ordered his hotshot lawyer, Shafee Abdullah, to defend Sam free of charge after the case sparked anger among the Chinese community. Make no mistake. Shafee was despatched because Najib and UMNO fear the case could explode into a racial or religious issue at a critical time when the Chinese voters appear to be returning to Barisan Nasional.
More importantly, the High Court’s decision was so ridiculous and unfair that even some right-thinking Malays have expressed their displeasure over the court’s ruling. In his judgement, Abu Bakar Katar appeared to have ignored the fact that Sam’s car had turned turtle, which means she could have been killed because some stray kids thought it was cool to perform some daredevil stunts on the highway at 3am.
Generally, the Malays and the Chinese have a very different way of raising children. Majority of the Malay parents tend to leave their kids do whatever they like. They depend on the government to provide everything, from cradle to grave, including handouts and education. In the same breath, they also rely on the God to keep their kids safe. When things go south, it’s easier to say it’s God’s destiny.
Basikal Lajak - Illegal Riders On The Road
So, had High Court Judge Abu Bakar considered that it was the God’s decision that the eight Malay teenagers were killed, and was not Sam’s fault whatsoever? As a Muslim, does not Abu Bakar believe in Allah (God)? Or does he think the God’s destiny only kicks in when both the driver and the cyclists are Malays, otherwise it’s automatically the non-Muslims’ fault?
Here are the indisputable facts – Sam is the legitimate user of the highway, not the kids. Sam paid road tax and car insurance, the kids did not. The road was built for vehicles, certainly not for heavily modified bicycles that resemble missiles without a guidance system. The speed limit was designed for cars, bus and trucks, not for bicycles. Obviously, the teenagers were the intruders, not Sam.
If Sam lives in the U.S., she would have sued the parents of the eight teenagers, the road operator, the architect of the road, the electricity utility, the state government, the transport ministry and the federal government for endangering motorists. True, it was a tragedy or merely an accident – till the High Court focused on the deaths of eight Malay teenagers, rather than from the perspective of how the accident can be avoided in the first place.
If it was not Sam, it would have been other drivers who killed those teen daredevils. The government and the judges should be grateful that it was not an express bus or a 10-tonnes lorry that had travelled on that road during the incident. The casualties would have been more devastated. The court has to prove that other drivers can avoid ramming into the bicycle gang.
To blame Sam instead of the “junior Mat Rempit” or their parents is like blaming Malaysia Airlines MH17 for flying over conflict-hit Ukraine on July 17, 2014 and hit by Russian-made BUK missile. To blame Sam instead of the bicycle gang is like blaming a house owner for beating the crap out of a gang of strangers who had intruded into the home at 3am.
Coincidentally, but unsurprisingly, both Adib and Sam cases occurred at a time when UMNO was at a crossroad for power. In the Adib’s episode, UMNO had lost power and desperately needed to rally Malays for power. Sam’s episode, on the other hand, saw unelected UMNO returned to power through the backdoor, and desperately needed to rally Malays for power in the coming election.
The minorities Chinese and Indian can expect more similar racist incidents or policies if Barisan Nasional Malay-supremacy thugs win the next election. There were tonnes of past examples – the movement of “Red Shirt” supremacists, the body snatching, the unilateral conversion of kids to Muslim, the waving of “Keris (Malay dagger)”, the endless demand for stakes in Chinese companies and the list goes on. - FT
cheers.
No comments:
Post a Comment