///Dr Mahathir also lambasted Anwar his former deputy in government and the latter’s opposition pact for urging the prosecution in Sodomy II against appealing the court’s not-guilty verdict He pointed out that if the High Court had convicted Anwar of the crime the Opposition Leader would have likely appealed his case to the Court of Appeal and subsequently to the Federal Court and Special Court to reverse the decision///–Malaysian Insider at http:///www.themalaysianinsider.com/malaysia/article/dr-m-asks-if-pakatan-wants-to-legalise-sodomy

The Sodomy II trial should have been thrown out of court years ago had the judge decided as he did that the evidence were not acceptable. Having gone through the whole process to find eventually that information that was available long ago was pivotal the accused has been unnecessarily harassed. If the Attorney General chose to appeal the non-guilty verdict, the Court of Appeal and the Federal Court would have no other convincing evidence but to return to the same decision. Thus the AG would be misusing the judiciary process if the government appeals. The citizens of Malaysia do not wish to see the government politicise the legal process and that is why they urge the prosecution not to do the wrong thing.

///“But when Anwar was found not guilty as there was no corroborating evidence the right of the victim to appeal was disputed “Does our country’s opposition leader have special privileges in that justice only occurs when he is found not guilty ” Dr Mahathir wrote In the “history of Malaysia’s judiciary” ///–Malaysian Insider

If Mamakthir considered the victim was Saiful Bukhari Azlan then he had the most confused mind. Saiful was not a witness to a rape case, and so he was not a victim. Saiful could not be accorded the authority of the AG just because as a witness he did not agree with the verdict.

/// “Is a victim of lesser status in this country not entitled to justice to a point where he cannot appeal to be heard in a higher court. ..Does the refusal of the opposition leader to swear in a mosque and during trial in court have no meaning especially to Muslims while the oath sumpah laknat of the victim is disregarded ” he(Mahathir) added.///– Malaysian Insider

This is an example of how Mamakthir twists fact. How could Mamakthir be confused to consider Sodomy II anything but a case between the government and Anwar? Mamakthir chose to argue that Sodomy II was a trail between Anwar and Saiful by calling the witness a victim.

Mamakthir knows very well that the ‘secular’ court does not accept swearing as undisputed evidence and yet he criticised Anwar for not swearing as Muslim. If the government chose to give any weight to Muslims taking oath as evidence then the trial ought to have been carried out in a Syariah court as Anwar would be entitled to. In a Syariah court Anwar would have no case to answer since the government could not produce four adult eyewitnesses. Obviously Mamakthir did not choose Syariah trial for Sodomy I.

/// “I don’t think the move would negate Proton’s status as the national car manufacturer. To us, Proton is still the national automotive manufacturer as it is still in the hands of the Bumiputeras”///–MalaysiaToday

What does the status of a national enterprise entail? Does it mean that a company with the national status attached is entitled to bail out? Is there a law in the country which says that enterprises owned by Bumuputras are considered national enterprises? If national car manufacturer is entitled to bail out, does Muhyiddin suggest that other enterprises owned by Bumiputras would also be entitled to bail out.

NEP aims at removing poverty but it has been misused to create Bumiputra companies. Muhyiddin now claims that an enterprise owned by Bumiputras retains national status. It was bad that NEP has been utilized by UMNO to divide the nation rather than uniting it. Now Muhyiddin divides corporations into Bumiputras and non-Bumiputras.

Is Najib changing 1Malaysia into 1Bumiputras?