Politik Luhur atau Politik Mentah

Kiasan

Kita mulakan dengan kisah penglipur lara Sufi pada zaman dahulu. Pada suatu hari, Mulla Nasruddin seorang ahli tasauf terkenal kelihatan berada di halaman luar rumahnya mencari-cari sesuatu. Muridnya yang ternampak Mulla Nasruddin turut bertinggung bertujuan untuk membantunya. Si murid bertanya, "Apa yang Mulla cari?". Mulla menjawab, "Aku mencari kunci." Murid bertanya lagi, "Di mana Mulla hilang kunci ini?" Mulla berkata, "Di dalam rumah." Murid berasa hairan, "Kenapa tidak mencarinya di dalam rumah?". Mulla dengan selamba berkata, "Di luar ini lebih cerah."

Mengambil kiasan ini, jika kita menjuruskan terus kepada kenyataan bahawa tujuan disebarkan video aib dan ulasan-ulasan sokongan penyebarannya bukanlah bertujuan baik  ataupun jauh sekali mulia tetapi untuk mengisytiharkan bahawa Anwar Ibrahim tidak layak menjadi pemimpin sekaligus menjadikan ini isu politik partisan. Tuduhan ini dan segala fitnah seibaratnya tidak akan diangkat selagi matlamat realpolitik – politik mentah-  ini tidak tercapai walauapapun hujah agama, moral, legal, universal  atau peri kemanusiaan digunakan untuk menentang dan membantahnya.

Oleh itu, kenapalah ada profesor, tokoh anugerah agama, tokoh akademik ahli tasauf atau bekas pengikut kanan tarikat, bekas pemimpin tersohor pergerakan pelajar  dan belia Islam masih ingin meranduk dan berlumpur di kubang jenayah dan dosa besar yang selayaknya menjadi kumbahan geng trio Datuk T, Papagomo,  sang penibai, sang penghilai dan karakter seumpamanya? Bukankah amsal daripada Sunnah  telah lama diingatkan supaya menjauhi tukang besi tetapi menghampir penjual minyak wangi?  Kenapa mengambil saksi fasik sambil mendabik dada, mempromosikan orang tidak bermoral, berpakat dengan orang jahat dan menghalalkan matlamat yang jelek? Kenapa relakan rasuah, mendokong yang korup dan menjadi alat perasuah?  Matlamat realpolitik begini adalah semata-mata singkat, temporal, sementara dan di dunia saja. Kesannya dan balasannya adalah abada – selama-lamanya.

Jenayah - Peringatan Kesekian Kalinya

Adapun jenayah zina melibatkan kesalahan kehormatan, maruah dan peribadi individu. Oleh itu, sebelum pertuduhan boleh dibuat, empat saksi perlu dihadirkan supaya tiada pencabulan diri, penyelewengan undang-undang atau kezaliman berlaku kepada hak, kehormatan, maruah dan peribadi Muslim dan Musiimah. Tidak ada kompromi. Ini pegangan ahli fiqh salaf dan khalaf, mereka tidak menerima keterangan-keterangan lain kerana mereka masih mementingkan pemeliharaan  kemuliaan individu dan kesejahteraan masyarakat. Tidak boleh tuduhan melulu atau percubaan sebarang keraguan. Bukan boleh bermain dengan sumpah atau menggunakan circumstantial evidence. Inilah yang diterangkan dalam surah-surah  al hujurat dan al nur. Kita diingatkan supaya jangan menerima pemberitaan orang-orang fasik. Kita diingatkan supaya jangan tuduh menuduh, kata-mengata, umpat mengumpat dan tidak intip-mengintip. Kita diingatkan supaya meminta kehadiran empat orang saksi jika ada tuduhan zina dan jika tidak dapat dihadirkan, maka kita diperintah mengatakan bahawa ini tuduhan pembohongan yang besar dan nyata. Kemudian sesiapa yang menuduh dengan tiada saksi-saksi ini dikenakan hukuman qazaf. Hukumannya adalah sebatan bagi menunjukkan betapa besar dosa ini. Keterangan dan kesaksian mereka ditolak selama-lamanya menurut ulama kecuali bertaubat. Ini adalah ajaran Islam.

Isu sebenar

Isu sebenar adalah isu keadilan. Jika Anwar Ibrahim secara jujur dirasakan tidak sesuai atau layak diangkat sebagai pemmpin negara, maka gunakanlah hujah politik luhur dan strategi politik yang tinggi, adil dan saksama. Berdebatlah secara terbuka, beretika dan sihat dengannya tentang isu-isu kenegaraan, wawasan dan perancangan masa depan. Cubalah secara waras  dengan fakta bahaskan dasar-dasar, program-program dan pandangan-pandangannya tentang Islam, Melayu, pembangunan, ekonomi, pendidikan, keadilan, kemiskinan, nasib rakyat, integriti, penyatuan, perpaduan, masa depan negara dan lain-lain seluasnya. Kempen selebar mungkin, analisa setiap ucapannya, libatserta dan cabar - engage and challenge,  dan cubalah yakinkan penyokong-penyokongnya. Tetapi jika politik dan kuasa digunakan dengan cara yang tidak adil maka inilah angkaranya sehingga fitnah yang jahat dan nyata pun ingin dipertahankan lalu panduan agama serta pendirian moral yang jelas juga dipertikaikan secara partisan yang serong dan sempit. Bayangkan masa depan negara dan nasib generasi era ini serta maruah warga pada masa depan jika politik mentah terus berkuasa.

Kita perlu sedar bahawa surah al nur juga mengingatkan berulang kali bahawa jika bukan kerana rahmat Allah swt ke atas kita semua nescaya telah lama diazab kerana fitnah besar sebegini.

Jaman Edan, Zaman Fitnah

Pada September 1998, tatkala anak perempuan sulong saya berumur  12 tahun, dia telah menolong menterjemahkan fatwa Professor Yusuf Qaradawi tentang isu fitnah qazaf yang menimpa Anwar Ibrahim. Penterjemahan yang dilakukan adalah daripada terjemahan bahasa Melayu kepada bahasa Inggeris. Apabila kami menyingkap ayat-ayat al Qur'an pada Surah al Hujurat, anak saya membacakan terjemahan berkaitan orang orang yang mengumpat diibaratkan memakan daging saudaranya sendiri, anak saya menyuarakan "yurrgh". Kami cukup terharu dan tersentuh dengan pandangan yang diutarakan oleh Profesor Qaradawi yang jelas menyatakan penolakan dan penentangan Islam terhadap fitnah, tuduhan palsu dan qazaf. Islam tegas menjaga maruah, menegakkan kebenaran dan keadilan, mengeratkan ukhuwwah dan memelihara kemuliaan insan.

" Wahai orang yang beriman! Jauhilah kebanyakan daripada sangkaan (supaya kamu tidak menyangka sangkaan yang dilarang) kerana sesungguhnya sebahagian daripada sangkaan itu adalah dosa. Dan janganlah kamu mengintip atau mencari-cari kesalahan dan keaiban orang dan janganlah sesetengah kamu mengumpat sesetengahnya yang lain. Adakah seseorang daripada kamu suka memakan daging saudaranya yang telah mati? (Jika demikian keadaan mengumpat) maka sudah tentu kamu jijik dengannya. (Oleh sebab itu,patuhilah larangan-larangan tersebut) dan bertaqwalah kamu kepada Allah. Sesungguhnya Allah Maha penerima taubat, lagi Maha mengasihani"

 (Surah al Hujurat :12)

Terjemahan fatwa ini telah dihantar kepada abimlink dan senarai e-mail - mailing lists lain, medium saluran sosial zaman itu. Kemudian, ia didapati telah disiarkan oleh akhbar PAS yang sangat masyhur dan laris waktu itu, Harakah, yang menerbitkannya secara penuh pada ruang English section walaupun tanpa memaklumkan atau meminta keizinan. Kami berdua terkejut tetapi merasa puas hati. Kami merasakan telah berusaha dan menyumbang menurut kemampuan waktu itu. Adakalanya anak saya berseloroh supaya menuntut royalti harta intelek apabila mengenangkan episod ini.

Pada waktu itu, rakyat telah bangkit beramai-ramai berdemonstrasi dan berprotes. Namun suara rasmi pihak agama yang berautoriti senyap dan sunyi. Tiada fatwa tempatan ataupun teguran terhadap tuduhan-tuduhan jahat, hina dan memalukan yang setiap hari terpapar secara jelek pada dada-dada akhbar oleh jentera media yang sudah hilang kewarasan dan jelas berniat buruk. Serangan media dan publisiti yang terang-terangan menyerang dan mencabar pendirian jelas prinsip-prinsip Islam dan shariah tentang pemberitaan, kesaksian, keterangan, hadd, akhlak, maruah dan fitnah. Memang ada suara dan seruan ulama tempatan tetapi tokoh-tokoh autoritatif masih menyepi. Jika ada pun diceritakan hanyalah bisikan di sebalik tabir yang tidak cukup untuk mengembalikan kehormatan dan meletakkan keadilan dan kebenaran teratas  sebagai prinsip dan nilai untuk tegakkan serta mengabaikan tanggungjawab memberi panduan dan bimbingan kepada umat. Keadaan ini menunjukkan dan meletakkan orang Melayu dan Islam dalam kacamata yang sangat rendah - losing the moral high ground.

Begitulah sehingga apabila Qazaf kedua mucul semula, diikuti pula dengan ketiga dan seterusnya berleluasa dengan bersahaja, tidak nampak ke mana hujung pangkalnya dan umat menjadi semakin tercela. Lagi sekali, kesepian pada pihak autoriti agama. Sebaliknya, pembesar agama berbahas tentang sumpah seranah padahal isunya adalah keluhuran maruah Islam dan shariah. Perjuangan dan penegasan sepatutnya supaya tuduhan Qazaf itu didengari dan dibicarakan di mahkamah shariah. Tindakan ini akan menghentikan fitnah pada pangkalnya. Namun, pihak yang berautoriti enggan. Kini telah menular serta melebar kejahatan angkara fasad dan ma'siat tuduhan palsu serta seluruh jentera yang menjunjungnya bermaharajalela.

Seruan Profesor Qaradawi dalam fatwa terkininya supaya tuduhan terhadap Anwar dibicarakan di mahkamah shariah telah tidak diendahkan.

Apabila judi bola cuba diperkenalkan setelah diswastakan, satu lagi rancangan yang amat mengaibkan negara, ramai orang menjadi resah dan membantah menyebabkannya menjadi di antara dasar yang paling tidak popular waktu itu. Pihak agama yang berautoriti pun resah dan gelisah tetapi mungkin telah memilih untuk berdiam diri demi menjaga air muka pembuat dasar yang semakin tercalar. Penentangan kerajaan-kerajaan negeri di bawah pentadbiran Pakatan telah menjadi penghalang besar dan menggagalkan judi bola.  Kemarahan rakyat dan ketewasan politik telah berjaya mencegah satu lagi perusahaan judi daripada menjadi sah - legal. Kebangkitan rakyat dan kuasa politik alternatif yang dipadukan berjaya menghalang maksiat dan salah sati dosa besar al kaba’ir.

Kita menghormati autoriti dan yang berpengetahuan agama. Kita mengharapkan panduan dan pelaksanaan posisi berautoriti untuk menegakkan agama, mempertahankan kebenaran dan keadilan. Kita berdoakan supaya kita semua bertindak dengan penuh integriti tanpa gentar atau pilih kasih.Pada September 1998, tatkala anak perempuan sulong saya berumur  12 tahun, dia telah menolong menterjemahkan fatwa Professor Yusuf Qaradawi tentang isu fitnah qazaf yang menimpa Anwar Ibrahim. Penterjemahan yang dilakukan adalah daripada terjemahan bahasa Melayu kepada bahasa Inggeris. Apabila kami menyingkap ayat-ayat al Qur'an pada Surah al Hujurat, anak saya membacakan terjemahan berkaitan orang orang yang mengumpat diibaratkan memakan daging saudaranya sendiri, anak saya menyuarakan "yurrgh". Kami cukup terharu dan tersentuh dengan pandangan yang diutarakan oleh Profesor Qaradawi yang jelas menyatakan penolakan dan penentangan Islam terhadap fitnah, tuduhan palsu dan qazaf. Islam tegas menjaga maruah, menegakkan kebenaran dan keadilan, mengeratkan ukhuwwah dan memelihara kemuliaan insan.

" Wahai orang yang beriman! Jauhilah kebanyakan daripada sangkaan (supaya kamu tidak menyangka sangkaan yang dilarang) kerana sesungguhnya sebahagian daripada sangkaan itu adalah dosa. Dan janganlah kamu mengintip atau mencari-cari kesalahan dan keaiban orang dan janganlah sesetengah kamu mengumpat sesetengahnya yang lain. Adakah seseorang daripada kamu suka memakan daging saudaranya yang telah mati? (Jika demikian keadaan mengumpat) maka sudah tentu kamu jijik dengannya. (Oleh sebab itu,patuhilah larangan-larangan tersebut) dan bertaqwalah kamu kepada Allah. Sesungguhnya Allah Maha penerima taubat, lagi Maha mengasihani"

 (Surah al Hujurat :12)

Terjemahan fatwa ini telah dihantar kepada abimlink dan senarai e-mail - mailing lists lain, medium saluran sosial zaman itu. Kemudian, ia didapati telah disiarkan oleh akhbar PAS yang sangat masyhur dan laris waktu itu, Harakah, yang menerbitkannya secara penuh pada ruang English section walaupun tanpa memaklumkan atau meminta keizinan. Kami berdua terkejut tetapi merasa puas hati. Kami merasakan telah berusaha dan menyumbang menurut kemampuan waktu itu. Adakalanya anak saya berseloroh supaya menuntut royalti harta intelek apabila mengenangkan episod ini.

Pada waktu itu, rakyat telah bangkit beramai-ramai berdemonstrasi dan berprotes. Namun suara rasmi pihak agama yang berautoriti senyap dan sunyi. Tiada fatwa tempatan ataupun teguran terhadap tuduhan-tuduhan jahat, hina dan memalukan yang setiap hari terpapar secara jelek pada dada-dada akhbar oleh jentera media yang sudah hilang kewarasan dan jelas berniat buruk. Serangan media dan publisiti yang terang-terangan menyerang dan mencabar pendirian jelas prinsip-prinsip Islam dan shariah tentang pemberitaan, kesaksian, keterangan, hadd, akhlak, maruah dan fitnah. Memang ada suara dan seruan ulama tempatan tetapi tokoh-tokoh autoritatif masih menyepi. Jika ada pun diceritakan hanyalah bisikan di sebalik tabir yang tidak cukup untuk mengembalikan kehormatan dan meletakkan keadilan dan kebenaran teratas  sebagai prinsip dan nilai untuk tegakkan serta mengabaikan tanggungjawab memberi panduan dan bimbingan kepada umat. Keadaan ini menunjukkan dan meletakkan orang Melayu dan Islam dalam kacamata yang sangat rendah - losing the moral high ground.

Begitulah sehingga apabila Qazaf kedua mucul semula, diikuti pula dengan ketiga dan seterusnya berleluasa dengan bersahaja, tidak nampak ke mana hujung pangkalnya dan umat menjadi semakin tercela. Lagi sekali, kesepian pada pihak autoriti agama. Sebaliknya, pembesar agama berbahas tentang sumpah seranah padahal isunya adalah keluhuran maruah Islam dan shariah. Perjuangan dan penegasan sepatutnya supaya tuduhan Qazaf itu didengari dan dibicarakan di mahkamah shariah. Tindakan ini akan menghentikan fitnah pada pangkalnya. Namun, pihak yang berautoriti enggan. Kini telah menular serta melebar kejahatan angkara fasad dan ma'siat tuduhan palsu serta seluruh jentera yang menjunjungnya bermaharajalela.

Seruan Profesor Qaradawi dalam fatwa terkininya supaya tuduhan terhadap Anwar dibicarakan di mahkamah shariah telah tidak diendahkan.

Apabila judi bola cuba diperkenalkan setelah diswastakan, satu lagi rancangan yang amat mengaibkan negara, ramai orang menjadi resah dan membantah menyebabkannya menjadi di antara dasar yang paling tidak popular waktu itu. Pihak agama yang berautoriti pun resah dan gelisah tetapi mungkin telah memilih untuk berdiam diri demi menjaga air muka pembuat dasar yang semakin tercalar. Penentangan kerajaan-kerajaan negeri di bawah pentadbiran Pakatan telah menjadi penghalang besar dan menggagalkan judi bola.  Kemarahan rakyat dan ketewasan politik pemerintah telah berjaya mencegah satu lagi perusahaan judi daripada menjadi sah - legal. Kebangkitan rakyat dan kuasa politik alternatif yang dipadukan berjaya menghalang maksiat dan salah satu dosa besar - al kaba’ir.

Kita menghormati autoriti dan yang berpengetahuan agama. Kita mengharapkan panduan dan pelaksanaan posisi berautoriti untuk menegakkan agama, mempertahankan kebenaran dan keadilan. Kita berdoakan supaya kita semua bertindak dengan penuh integriti tanpa gentar atau pilih kasih.

Apabila Ilmu ditundukkan oleh Kuasa

Pada tahun 2010, sewaktu dalam perjalanan bersama, anak lelaki bongsu saya yang pada masa itu berumur 15 tahun bertanyakan soalan. Dia bertanya samada Profesor Yusuf Qaradawi  telah bertemu dengan Menteri Hal Ehwal Agama JPM apabila Prof Qaradawi berada di Malaysia. Saya menjawab sudah tentu dia berjumpa kerana ada berita bahawa dia mengunjungi Menteri berkenaan dan PM kerana Profesor Qaradawi penerima anugerah  Maal Hijrah negara. Anak saya bertanya lagi samada Profesor Qaradawi telah membangkitkan isu Fitnah II kepada menteri tersebut. Saya menjawab sudah tentu dia menyatakan rasa prihatinnya, memberi pandangan dan nasihat serta tegurannya tentang hal itu.  Anak saya bertanyakan apa jawapan menteri. Saya kata bahawa kita hanya boleh mengagak secara andaian menteri akan menjawab bahawa dia tidak terlibat secara peribadi dalam kes berkenaan dan hal itu urusan mahkamah, oleh itu diserahkan kepada keputusan mahkamah. Anak saya berhujah pula mengatakan oleh kerana menteri berkenaan seorang yang berpengetahuan agama, sepatutnya dia mengambil tindakan yang betul dan sewajarnya menentang Fitnah II.

Saya terpaksa mengatakan kepadanya bahawa ilmu pengetahuan bukanlah penentu segala-segalanya terutama apabila ilmu ditundukkan oleh kuasa dan ditentukan oleh kepentingan-kepentingan. Begitulah anak saya yang kadangkala mempersoalkan kenapa mufti-mufti tidak berbuat begini dan begitu tentang isu-isu besar umat. Anak saya cukup menyanjungi, menghormati dan memandang tinggi guru-guru dan ulama', dan inilah sifat yang sepatutnya kepadanya. Tetapi hakikat dan realiti sangat mencabar. Kita berdoalah dan berharap supaya anak-anak kita beristiqamah dengan agama dan tetap rasa hormat kepada ilmu dan para ilmuwan.

Pada tahun  1999, seorang rakan senior berjawatan arkitek di sebelah utara, bertanya kepada seorang ahli jawatankuasa fatwa yang juga rakan kenalannya.  Dia bertanya kenapa ahli-ahli yang menganggotai satu badan yang penting dan berpengaruh tidak mengambil pendirian apabila fitnah pertama melanda terutama babak-babak yang sangat memalukan dan menghinakan umat. Rakan alimnya menjawab secara terus terang bahawa mereka bukan pejuang, mereka memutuskan persoalan fiqh, kerana katanya pejuang itulah yang berada di dalam penjara Sg Buluh. Memiliki ilmu dan bertindak serta beramal dengannya adalah ujian dan mehnah besar kepada pemiliknya serta semua orang tanpa ada pengecualian.

Jadi tibalah masa apabila sekumpulan guru-guru agama dan pendidik-pendidik yang jujur diintimidasi, digertak oleh pentadbir-pentadbir kerana dilihat membuat program-program seperti tadhkirah yang dianggap mengancam serta tidak seiring dan tidak serasi dengan regim penguasa yang ada. Tiba-tiba, orang-orang yang berilmu, berbudi luhur dan berniat baik diuji dengan ujian yang amat berat ke atas tasawur hidup mereka dengan diintimidasi melalui tekanan dan tindakan pentadbiran. Sewaktu itu, semua tersentap dan bagaikan menyedari makna sebenar dan nilai tadhkirah, ia bukanlah pengsian kosong atau wacana cetek, hanya bertujuan untuk penyampaian sehala kepada pendengar yang pasif. Tadhkirah dan kerja da'wah yang seumpamanya terpaksa mengharungi serta berdepan dengan penentangan dan perseteruan. Peristiwa dan kejadian sebegini bakal membentuk pandangan hidup dan wacana pemikiran, apabila kesusahan material, laluan kerjaya dan peluang pangkat dipapar dan dijuntai oleh para pentadbir berautoriti. Pentadbir merasakan seolah-olah mereka mempunyai kuasa ke atas manusia lain dan mampu menentu nasib serta rezeki. Betapa jauh dan melesetnya ini daripada kebenaran. Adakah fasad dan kemungkaran telah mencapai tahap yang begitu parah sehinggakan orang baik-baik dipaksa tunduk dan menyerah diri serta memadamkan cahaya murni keilmuan mereka menurut kehendak mereka yang berkuasa?

Begitulah anak-anak saya yang lain terpaksa melalui pelbagai percubaan penguasaan minda sewaktu di latihan khidmat negara dan di universiti, di kutuk dan dimomokkan orang-orang, pertubuhan dan pimpinan yang terkenal baik dan mulia, sebaliknya dijulang tinggi pula orang-orang curiga dan pimpinan yang tidak sepatutnya, ditanamkan pemikiran sempit rasa permusuhan, kebencian dan kefanatikan bangsa dan diselitkan ancaman kerjaya,  penempatan -posting dan penentuan nasib diri. Paling malang adalah mereka sebagai manusia bebas, warga bermaruah dan golongan yang berpelajaran tinggi di institut pengajian terpaksa mengalami propaganda saraf, fenomena ilmu dan kebenaran ditundukkan oleh kuasa.

Anak - anak akan mengadu tentang percanggahan nilai ini kepada kita kerana mereka mempunyai idealisme tentang kebenaran dan keadilan menurut asuhan pendidikan awal, pendedahan, tahap dan kefahaman mereka. Kita cuma boleh nasihat bahawa perasaan takut itu tidak ada masalah kerana seperti mana pengalaman mereka semasa kecil, mereka merasa takut kepada kegelapan serta perkara-perkara begitu. Tetapi untuk menganggap pentadbir atau penguasa mempunyai kuasa ke atas penentuan nasib dan rezeki adalah salah dan batil samasekali. Kebatilan ini perlu ditentang dan ditolak menurut daya dan kemampuan selari dengan anjuran agama.

Kita berharap anak-anak kita tidaklah terpaksa melalui pancaroba di mana kejahatan itu dijulang dan kebaikan ditindas secara sedar dan terang-terangan. Jika ini berlaku maka kita sendiri telah menjahanamkan generasi masa depan kita. 

Covert Malaysian Campaign Touched A Wide Range Of American Media

Outlets from Huffington Post to National Review carried pieces financed by the Malaysian government. An international campaign against Anwar Ibrahim. (Rosie Gray, Buzz Feed, 1 March 2013)

A range of mainstream American publications printed paid propaganda for the government of Malaysia, much of it focused on the campaign against a pro-democracy figure there.

The payments to conservative American opinion writers — whose work appeared in outlets from the Huffington Post and San Francisco Examiner to the Washington Times to National Review and RedState — emerged in a filing this week to the Department of Justice. The filing under the Foreign Agent Registration Act outlines a campaign spanning May 2008 to April 2011 and led by Joshua Trevino, a conservative pundit, who received $389,724.70 under the contract and paid smaller sums to a series of conservative writers.

Trevino lost his column at the Guardian last year after allegations that his relationship with Malaysian business interests wasn't being disclosed in columns dealing with Malaysia. Trevino told Politico in 2011 that "I was never on any 'Malaysian entity's payroll,' and I resent your assumption that I was."

According to Trevino's belated federal filing, the interests paying Trevino were in fact the government of Malaysia, "its ruling party, or interests closely aligned with either." The Malaysian government has been accused of multiple human rights abuses and restricting the press and personal freedoms. Anwar, the opposition leader, has faced prosecution for sodomy, a prosecution widely denounced in the West, which Trevino defended as more "nuanced" than American observers realized. The government for which Trevino worked also attacked Anwar for saying positive things about Israel; Trevino has argued that Anwar is not the pro-democracy figure he appears.

The federal filing specified that Trevino was engaged through the lobbying firm APCO Worldwide and the David All Group, an American online consulting firm. The contract also involved a firm called FBC (short for Fact-Based Communications), whose involvement in covert propaganda prompted a related scandal and forcedan executive at The Atlantic to resign from its board.

According to the filings, Trevino was also employed to write for websites called MalaysiaMatters and MalaysiaWatcher.

Trevino's subcontractors included conservative writer Ben Domenech, who made $36,000 from the arrangement, and Rachel Ehrenfeld, the director of the American Center for Democracy, who made $30,000. Seth Mandel, an editor at Commentary, made $5,500 (his byline is attached to the National Review item linked to above). Brad Jackson, writing at the time for RedState, made $24,700. Overall, 10 writers were part of the arrangement.

"It was actually a fairly standard PR operation," Trevino told BuzzFeed Friday. "To be blunt with you, and I think the filing is clear about this, it was a lot looser than a typical PR operation. I wanted to respect these guys' independence and not have them be placement machines."

Trevino said neither he nor the client knew what the writers were going to write before it went up.

"I provided a stipend to support their work in this area and they would just ping me whenever something went up," he said.

Domenech, a former Washington Post blogger who runs a daily morning newsletter called The Transom, said he "was retained by Josh's Trevino Strategies and Media PR firm in 2010 with the general guidance to write about Malaysia, particularly the political scene there."

"I did not ever have anyone looking over my shoulder for what I wrote, and the guidance really was just to write about the political fray there and give my own opinion," Domenech said. "Of course, Josh picked me knowing what my opinion was — I stand by what I wrote at the time and I continue to be critical of Anwar Ibrahim, who I think is a particularly dangerous fellow."

Domenech attached two pieces he'd written about Malaysia for the San Francisco Examiner as well as one for the Huffington Post in his email to BuzzFeed.

Chuck DeVore, the Vice President for Policy at the Texas Public Policy Foundation (where Trevino now works), said he was unaware of the arrangement in an email.

"He knew of my expertise and suggested I write some pieces," DeVore said. "As I've seen over the years, it's not uncommon for freelancers to be paid for their work from various sources. I frankly didn't think much of it, having been paid by papers in a few nations abroad and by PR firms, such as the one Mr. Trevino was running at the time."

"He never told me who his client was," DeVore said. "I wonder if they did the same via him? Interesting that he filed the paperwork, given it appears he was working for someone else."

Mandel said, "I was blogging about issues relating to Israel and anti-Semitism in 2010, and Josh approached me about a Malaysian opposition figure who had made anti-Semitic comments and was affiliated with anti-Israel organizations. I had full editorial freedom — Josh never saw anything I wrote until after it was published — and I had no relationship with the Malaysian government. I was paid by Josh for what was probably a handful of blog posts in the fall of 2010, I believe, while working as a freelancer in Washington."

According to Trevino, he was approached by publicist and social media executive David All in 2008. He never had contact with "the ultimate client," he said. "I only had an assumption of who I was working for. I never knew exactly who APCO was dealing with, never knew exactly who FBC was dealing with."

Trevino acknowledged that he shouldn't have lied to BuzzFeed editor Ben Smith, then at Politico, when this first came up in 2011.

"When Ben Smith contacted me in July 2011, I ought to have come clean with him at the time," he said.

As for why he waited until five years after the fact to register with FARA, Trevino said he didn't know he was supposed to have registered until recently.

"The accurate answer is that I didn't know there was a foreign agents database at all." Trevino said. "When all the stuff with the Guardian went down in August, I had a friend ask me whether I registered with FARA and I said what's FARA?"

"They allowed me to do a retroactive filing," he said.

Trevino terminated his relationship with Malaysian interests when he joined the Texas Public Policy Foundation, he said.

This article has been updated to include comments from Mandel.

Update 2:33 p.m.: Trevino called back to say that he had actually checked with his legal counsel in 2011 after being questioned by Politico, but had been told at the time that he didn't need to register anywhere.

"Ben Smith had actually asked me if I was a foreign agent back in 2011," Trevino said. "I asked a lawyer friend, my counsel. I said, hey, is there anything I need to comply with? He came back and said no."

"After the Guardian thing, I reached out to a different counsel, and I did some googling and found out about FARA," Trevino said.

UPDATE: Trevino's Malaysia-related posts have been removed from the Huffington Post and replaced with an editors' note that says the author "violated blogger guidelines by not properly disclosing financial ties that amounted to a serious conflict of interest."

Dr Wan Azizah Wan Ismail: The Torchbearer of Reform

The Torchbearer of Reform

Who walks down the streets of Kuala Lumpur to the cheers and chants of support. Together with her children, they are given thunderous applause from an eager loving crowd. In front of the courts as if parading with her lawyers, even those serious lawyer types smile and wave back and by doing so even encouraging the eclectic crowd to elate further. So much so that the police has to enforce the barrier lines forcing the people further back until they are now over the river only to be pushed further so as to hide them away from their symbol of their champion of discontent. The husband has over the period been seen always waving his hand up high for the crowd who in turn cheer his name and shout his slogan. He has never once shown any sign of defeat ever strong spirited. They try to shield his person from being seen by the public, blocking the roads, circling with trucks so that they cut him off from the very people he struggles for. How tragic and how sad things have become. The way things are going they are even afraid of his shadow and looking at the way things are heading for it is as if they are going to crucify him.

They incarcerated her husband but not his spirit and not his ideals. And that spirit and image is in her and her children, family and friends. Truly the spark has been lit, as she said in a TIME interview and she is indeed the torch bearer. The symbol of what is badly wrong in the society and why the fight for truth and justice must go on. It is not a lonely struggle for the goals are shared by all wise minded people. But the suffering, the anxiety, the grief is solely borne by her and her children. Indeed, when a woman has to fight for the cause of righteousness, she has to summon great strength and courage to boldly face antagonists of overwhelming proportions. She has to find the time for her children, keep attending to her beloved husband never once being away from his side in court under much restrictions and to visit him in prison never leaving his side except to part because of forced circumstance. At the same time she has to spearhead and carry on the struggle for justice and carry on her husband's message for reform.

Being the wife of Anwar Ibrahim, Dr Wan Azizah can never be the same after that fateful month of September 1998 when everything was taken away from them, their honour, their happiness, their space. That such inhumanity and such cruelty could be perpetrated in full view and in full knowledge of all thinking people was an insult and an affront to dignity and common sense. It caused such a profound reaction and public anger and resentment never before towards an authority which sees itself as benevolent and an authority which seeks constantly gratefulness and homage from the very people they are supposed to serve.

Who says a Muslim woman can never rise above the situation for this is the clear living proof of a woman challenging the odds. Her children steadfastly beside her, her family and friends always being there for her.. But there are no easy ways. A lady welfare minister 'advised' her through the press to just stay home and look after the children and not concern herself. How pathetic can you get and how totally out of touch that veteran lady politician was compared to Wan Azizah. Other politicians were more harsh menacing her with their open and veiled threats. How could this lady overnight be a threat to seasoned and crisis hardened politicians and the vast administrative machinery, one would ask. Some others stayed away from her and but the people are with her, the ordinary public, the NGO's, the ordinary folk rather unlike those fair weather friends. This noble lady  became a celebrity by being called upon near and far. The Indonesians, Philippines and the Thais send messages of sympathy and personal support for a start. Corazon Aquino immediately identified herself by her. Wan Azizah's daughter Nurul Izzah created a coup by her ASEAN visits showing much the mantle of her father. Then the much vaunted Western sympathies and later the Americans strutted into the scene. They snubbed the already unpopular antagonists and accorded Wan Azizah the level of a dignitary by receiving and meeting with their top officials. This and among others a certain line of a speech provided ammunition for an anti-American backlash in the wake of APEC and was exploited to the hilt to once again to slander Wan Azizah and her fledgling movement for justice.

But she is undeterred, not apologetic and much more determined. As they, the well organised and entrenched forces try to put her down, her spirit soars as well as the masses realisation to be with her and to reject what Rehman Rashid calls the politics of contempt. Things will change and ultimately she will prevail, insyallah. As she said in an iftar-breaking of fast gathering in the northern town of Alor Star, quoting from the Qur'an: al-insyirrah - with hardship comes ease, and with hardship comes ease.

(BIC NEWS 24 January 1999)

Cinta di antara Dua Garisan

Baru-baru ini anak saya yang memang memandang sangat tinggi tokoh agamawan membawa satu status FB seorang tokoh. Anak saya menjadi rakan FBnya setelah mengikuti kuliah tokoh berkenaan. Status itu amat mengecewakan kerana tokoh berkenaan menyindir secara bersahaja tetapi kesat sekaligus menghampiri kelakuan Qazaf. Saya menasihati anak saya untuk tidak lagi menjadi rakan FB tokoh itu. Sudah tiada lagi manfaatnya persahabatan FB itu, malah tiada apa yang boleh diperolehi daripada seorang yang kesaksiannya diragui kecuali bersubahat dalam fitnah.

Sindiran yang dimaksudkan itu dituju kepada siapa lagi, tidak lain dan tidak bukan, Anwar Ibrahim.

Serangan-serangan peribadi oleh askar-askar maya upahan dan gerombolan regim korup memang bertubi-tubi tetapi asakan-asakan jahat ini berada pada apa yang dikatakan garisan bawah. Serangan di garisan bawah termasuklah celaan-celaan Datuk T, Utusan, TV3, BTN, ahli politik celupar, pencacai-pencacai serta seluruh jentera yang beroperasi di ruang legar cemuhan, lucah dan melanggar had Qazaf.

Pemain-pemainnya telah bergelumang dalam kegiatan fitnah hina ini sejak rancangan besar-besaran menjatuhkan Anwar pada 1998 (sudah lebih 14 tahun lamanya fitnah ini) dan masih belum nampak titik noktah atau wakafnya. Keputusan-keputusan mahkamah di pihak Anwar dan nasihat teguran ulama, tuan-tuan guru, tokoh dan pencinta keadilan terutama kebangkitan rakyat seluruh lapisan dan spektrum, tidak dihirau langsung. Malah rekacipta dan rekayasa baru memburuk-burukkannya berjalan sehingga kini dengan talk-show serta menyebarkan CD, video, cetakan kilat dan segala macam aneka tebaran naba fasiq. Garisan bawah ini jelas kefasikannya dan dikutuk oleh rakyat yang telah mual dengan kelakuan tidak senonoh kecualilah oleh para pengamalnya dan sidang wartawan yang masih belum sedar akibat rasukan kebencian.

Apa kesalahan Anwar Ibrahim? Mungkin kerana dia mempunyai kebingkasan dan ketangkasan untuk kembali pulih walaupun dijatuhkan (what management terms as resilience – the ability to bounce back from adversity).

Demikianlah fitnah dan serangan peribadi garisan bawah yang jelas bejat dan langsung tidak bermoral. Bagaimana pula mereka yang menyerang dan berada pada garisan atas? Mereka ini pula terdiri daripada bekas kenalan dan rakan-rakan serta tokoh-tokoh yang ternama. Ada juga bekas-bekas rakan sahabat seperjuangan. Ada yang membela penuduh fitnah dengan berhujah tuduhan liwat bukan kategori jenayah Qazaf. Padahal penuduh-penuduh bukan pergi ke mahkamah tetapi menggunakan semua saluran media, ruang awam hingga mencemarkan masjid-masjid dengan sumpah seranah, menerangkan tanpa rasa malu atau hormat dengan butiran yang keji dan terperinci perilaku terkutuk yang tidak sepatutnya sampai kepada rakyat awam tua, muda, keluarga dan kanak-kanak. Inilah bencana fitnah dan dosa qazaf.

Mereka gagal melihat atau sengaja tidak mahu memikirkan keseluruhan permasalahan adalah persoalan keutuhan Shariah Islam, tentang hak dan batil, kebenaran dan keadilan bertentangan dengan kezaliman dan maruah umat serta kedudukan Islam di kedudukan moral yang tinggi. Kezaliman itu berbentuk fasad yang dibiarkan dan meracuni segala tindakan. Hujah-hujah tidak kurang fanatiknya sehingga mempertikaikan aqidah dan iktikad dengan mengetengahkan isu pluralisme, Kristianisasi dan liberalisme pada hal latar politik telah mewarnai setiap perbuatan mereka. Penganjuran pula ditaja regim korup yang berkepentingan. Memang tiada masalah demi keprihatinan dan pembelaan umat tetapi fokus terlalu jelas kepada character assasination -  menyerang kredibiliti serta peribadi.

Ada yang tergelincir dan terlajak juga ditelan perasaan dengan menyerang pada garisan atas dan juga pada garisan bawah – yakni membela agama dan pada masa yang sama melakukan kesalahan Qazaf. Ada yang menghilai dan menibai tak tentu hala sebaik saja tamat solat Jumaat di Masjid Negara padahal seruan khatib agar berlaku adil, berbuat ihsan, menjaga talian persaudaraan dan menjauhi fahsyar dan mungkar. Maka terjerumuslah mereka tergolong bersama Datuk T dan seangkatannya yang terdiri daripada mereka yang rakyat tahu dan kenali sebagai orang-orang mempunyai akhlak yang amat keji.

Anak saya akan sentiasa bertanyakan soalan yang sama dan begitulah teman-teman dan orang awam juga akan menyoalkannya. Kenapa mereka jadi begitu? Seorang ustaz dan tokoh akademik serta aktivis lama gerakan Islam ada memberikan pendapatnya tentang fenomena ini pada 2012. Dia berkata, “Mereka menyayangi parti korup itu lebih daripada daripada idealisme perjuangan.” Ini bukan pertama kali sahabat berpaling tadah. Pada 1998, masih segar dalam ingatan, seorang rakan yang menyerang peribadi Anwar (sewaktu Anwar merengkok di penjara dan setelah tersebar berita Anwar dipukul),  berkata di kaca TV, “bukan saya tidak sayangi sahabat saya itu, tetapi saya cintai parti ini lebih lagi.”

STATEMENT FROM THE DOCK

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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 maxim Judex 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, in Liversidge 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 11th August, 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:

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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