Anwar’s unsworn statement an indictment of Malaysia’s political, justice systems


by Ramli Zain
The Malaysian Insider
Aug 22, 2011

AUG 22 — By making an unsworn statement from the dock today in his sodomy trial, Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim has now put the whole country, its judiciary, the media and our entire justice system on trial.

More than that, he has given notice to politicians like Datuk Seri Najib Razak and other players in his prosecution that he intends to place them on trial as well.

Whether one agrees with this move or not, the message is clear.

Sodomy II is no longer about whether he is guilty of sodomising his aide — if it ever was in the first place — but will now be an attack against the political and justice system which he claims has conspired to put him in this position.

Make no mistake; what Anwar did today was make a political statement from the dock.

Anwar played by the rules in Sodomy I more than a decade ago and it got him a few years in jail.

His attempts then to introduce evidence of political conspiracy were met with the constant refrain of “irrelevant, irrelevant, irrelevant.”

So any attempt now to examine from a legal perspective his unusual decision to make a statement from the dock is in fact irrelevant.

Anwar explained today that he was opting to testify from the dock, where the prosecution has no recourse under law to cross-examine his statement, because he had no confidence he would be tried fairly, and declared the entire court process “is nothing but a conspiracy by Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak to send me into political oblivion by attempting once again to put me behind bars”.

In his own words:”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.

“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.

So what Anwar is telling Malaysians is that he thinks that whatever the evidence he puts before the court he is still going to jail.

So he chose to have his say in court today.

  1. #1 by dagen on Tuesday, 23 August 2011 - 11:13 am

    “Alright.” “Point noted.”

    “Right.”

    “I hereby acquit you of the sodomy charge. You are a free man now.”

    “But you may not walk away yet.”

    “I am not finished with you. I want to cite you for contempt.”

    Hah! Yes, my imagination is at work again. But hey, with umno one never knows what sort of nonsense umno is capable of.

  2. #2 by Lutfi on Tuesday, 23 August 2011 - 12:38 pm

    Anwar’s semen was found “inside” Saiful. Nobody challenges this fact. So what conspiracy huh?
    Even the leaders of DAP’s idol country, Singapore believe that Anwar did that.

  3. #3 by dcasey on Tuesday, 23 August 2011 - 1:00 pm

    According to The Malaysian Insider report published today, the prosecution in Anwar’s case accused the Pusrawi doctor of modifying his medical record of the complainant. But
    correct me if I am wrong but common sense begs the question: what has the Pusrawi doctor got to gain by modifying his own medical report? In fact this report coming from the first doctor who examined the complainant should have the clearest reflection on the state of condition of the affected area of the “victim”. This is also the very first doctor whom the complainant himself chose to go to and it is not the situation as if he was directed to do so by the accused. So I find it odd that the prosecution is badgering this poor doctor for simply trying to put things on record as the way he saw it on that relevant day. I don’t think the correct word to use (by the prosecution) on the doctor is “gullable” but fear yes. I would face the same feeling if I were in his shoes when an assortment of the country’s law enforcement institutions are putting you under their microscope. Won’t any law abiding person (who only wants to mind his own business) pee in his pants if put in that precarious edge?

  4. #4 by boh-liao on Tuesday, 23 August 2011 - 1:03 pm

    Was AI’s semen or DNA found inside d full of sh!t rectum of d boh-pan-sai ful of sai?

  5. #5 by monsterball on Tuesday, 23 August 2011 - 1:19 pm

    I think Anwar and his lawyers know it is useless to go all the way to defend in a kangaroo court case.
    He might as well use the opportunity to expose all and be done with it.
    I think he is prepared to go to jail and spare millions of Malaysians hoping for a miracle.
    He has said there are dozens of Anwars to takeover his leadership.
    I think Anwar..is hoping the 13th GE will have millions of Malaysians free him by voting out BN.
    I think Anwar is more united with the people now..than before….for better or for worst kind of mentality and attitudes under a government out to politically assassinated him’
    The good news from world affairs showed the dictator Gadaffi is on the run…left Tripoli.
    Lets hope Malaysians supporting a corrupt dictatorship government will stop being racists and hypocrites and come down to earth and vote change of government.
    It is long long overdue.

  6. #6 by k1980 on Tuesday, 23 August 2011 - 1:40 pm

    On the final day of the trial, whereby the following verdict was announced—

    Judge: ” I find the accused innocent of sodomi”

    Loud cheers broke out throughout the court and outside into the streets. However, the judge was quick to add—

    Judge: “But… not so fast lah…. but I find the accused guilty of leewhat…. and hereby sentence him to 20 years hard labor without parole”.

    That’s bolehsia justice for you.

  7. #7 by k1980 on Tuesday, 23 August 2011 - 1:43 pm

    Addenum:

    Loud cheers broke out throughout the court and outside into the streets. Anwar ripped off his shirt like Lin Dan did when he won the world championship, and threw his shirt into the crowd of supporters. The federal prosecutor sat down and shed tears of anguish just like the loser Lee Choong Wei did. However, the judge was quick to add—

  8. #8 by Jeffrey on Tuesday, 23 August 2011 - 2:05 pm

    Personally I don’t care if DSAI (or for that matter anyone else including CSL) did it or not. Then again I’m extremely minority opinion here or elsewhere. I don’t think a charge like this should be brought in the first place. It shows this country is obssessed with sex and scandals and got no better measurement/criteria to adjudge a person’s eligibility for public office than to bring to light who he scr*ws in private (in violation of civil liberties)….Also when an extraordinary charge like this (carnal intercourse against nature) is brought, I also think that by ordinary legal standards DSAI should by law be acquitted based on no case to answer based on prosecution has not made a prima facie case – rather than the other way around of a prima facie case was said to have been made out, and his Defence now called (meaning he has to get his witnesses to effectively rebut the Prosecutor’s prima facie case or else face conviction based on beyond reasonable doubt standard).

  9. #9 by Jeffrey on Tuesday, 23 August 2011 - 2:23 pm

    It should be understood that based on system of Rule of Law what matters is not whether a person actually did that which he is accused of but whether by the very system of Rule of Law supposedly he and all in the realm are fairly and equally subject, without bias or favour, it is adjudged by the same set of legal rules and proof/evidence available to be guilty beyond reasonable doubt. If proof by that standard is not enough to make out a prima facie case then the charge should be dropped.

  10. #10 by Jeffrey on Tuesday, 23 August 2011 - 2:26 pm

    Just like Dominique Strauss-Kahn sexual assault case. Manhattan district attorney (DA)’s office recommends withdrawal of Charge “The nature and number of the complainant’s falsehoods leave us unable to credit her version of events beyond a reasonable doubt, whatever the truth may be about the encounter between the complainant and the defendant,” the document states. “If we do not believe her beyond a reasonable doubt, we cannot ask a jury to do so,” DA said. The prosecutors voiced concern that the case appeared to rest exclusively on the housekeeper Nafissatou Diallo, predicting her “falsehoods” would be “devastating” if revealed during a trial. They claim she “has not been truthful in matters great and small,” including lying about a “gang rape, as well as other details about her life in (her native) Guinea.” Nafissatou Diallo might well have been raped but her lack of credibility is such that by the Rules , Strauss-Kahn should be given the benefit and acquittal. Here its different. Charge said that sodomy was consensual but only witness/complainant said he was raped. The Charge itself implies the complainant is not to be believed and yet the trial is proceeded upon. Tis very strange.

  11. #11 by wanderer on Tuesday, 23 August 2011 - 2:42 pm

    It is obvious, the judiciary is completely screwed!…by the maggots of this beloved land of ours.
    Let the fall of the Dictators in Tripoli be a reminder to these so called, “Untochables”…no one is invincible.

  12. #12 by Jeffrey on Tuesday, 23 August 2011 - 2:49 pm

    Anwar’s semen was found “inside” Saiful. Nobody challenges this fact. So what conspiracy huh? #2 by Lutfi Re Anwar’s statement from the Dock, there are admittedly 3 interesting albeit unanswered questions.

    1. He said samples of DNA (I assume semen) against him were contaminated & compromised. He said there were multiple contributors to complainant’s anus. But he didn’t explain how his got there. He explained however it could be planted. Assuming it was planted – how did the authorities get the sample in the first place? This was not explained as he could not be cross examined making unsworn statement from the dock.
    2. Why would an unsworn statement be preferred in terms of credibility over a sworn one? I can’t understand.

    3. He said allegation of rape “flies against the facts”. How could old man like him coerce Saiful in “early 20s, 6 footer a key UMNO student operative, having undergone the rigorous training conducted by the Biro Tats Negara of the Prime Minister’s Department withh powerful connections in the top police brass as well as the political elite with access to the very inner sanctum of power”? He forgets to explain why in spite of these reasons he promoted Saiful to be a close aide rapidly without caution.

  13. #13 by boh-liao on Tuesday, 23 August 2011 - 4:54 pm

    SPERM found inside rectum or DNA found inside rectum
    A big fat difference indeed!

  14. #14 by Loh on Tuesday, 23 August 2011 - 4:55 pm

    Lutfi :
    Anwar’s semen was found “inside” Saiful. Nobody challenges this fact. So what conspiracy huh?
    Even the leaders of DAP’s idol country, Singapore believe that Anwar did that.

    The most interesting DNA evidence was that of Saiful’s semen found inside his own anus. Unless Saiful has a different anatomy, the semen was introduced into his anus through a syringe.

  15. #15 by Loh on Tuesday, 23 August 2011 - 5:25 pm

    Jeffrey :
    Just like Dominique Strauss-Kahn sexual assault case. Manhattan district attorney (DA)’s office recommends withdrawal of Charge “The nature and number of the complainant’s falsehoods leave us unable to credit her version of events beyond a reasonable doubt, whatever the truth may be about the encounter between the complainant and the defendant,” the document states. “If we do not believe her beyond a reasonable doubt, we cannot ask a jury to do so,” DA said. The prosecutors voiced concern that the case appeared to rest exclusively on the housekeeper Nafissatou Diallo, predicting her “falsehoods” would be “devastating” if revealed during a trial. They claim she “has not been truthful in matters great and small,” including lying about a “gang rape, as well as other details about her life in (her native) Guinea.” Nafissatou Diallo might well have been raped but her lack of credibility is such that by the Rules , Strauss-Kahn should be given the benefit and acquittal. Here its different. Charge said that sodomy was consensual but only witness/complainant said he was raped. The Charge itself implies the complainant is not to be believed and yet the trial is proceeded upon. Tis very strange.

    What is more interesting is the statement by Najib claiming that Saiful had a right to justice when the court case for consensual sex. For that both Saiful and his accused partner are equally guilty, and what justice Najib said Saiful would gain? Saiful could only get revenge when the government is unjust to his accused partner. When both parties are against the law why should one party be spared the punishment simply because he reported the case against his partner in crime? That might apply under the ‘whistle blower Act’ when reporting the Act serves national interest. In the present case, the sodomy act if it happened has no bearing on national interest. It had a bearing on the interest of Najib and UMNO in weeding out a prospective political opponent. Najib has converted his personal interest and that of UMNO into national interest. Thus Najib is obviously confused about personal interest and national interest and that is why UMNO and Najib would put their interest ahead of that of the nation. That is also why UMNO leaders and Kaka-Mamak from Kerela consider emigrating when they could no longer milk the country. The Kerela Indian-turned-Malay said that he would migrate if Anwar became PM.

    Najib considered Saiful’s anus more important to protect than the lives of people who die in custody, police and MACC. That is how Najib weighs fairness in society. That is why Najib said that after 40 years of NEP, when his father considered and promised that it would end after 20 years, NEP should still go on because there exist poor Malays in the rural areas. By that statement, Najib should implement NEP only in favour of those found in the rural areas. But he clearly lied because there is no change at all to how NEP has been implemented in a perverted manner.

  16. #16 by bruno on Tuesday, 23 August 2011 - 6:30 pm

    Anwar is right.No matter what he says he is definitely going to jail.So better have his say in court and have his satisfaction of seeing Jibby ans Rosmah there too.

  17. #17 by country for good malaysian on Tuesday, 23 August 2011 - 9:29 pm

    The very fact that Saiful had so many semens in his back should throw out the case. What a sham.

  18. #18 by Jeffrey on Tuesday, 23 August 2011 - 9:45 pm

    Our law makes an offence of “carnal intercourse against the order of nature”. In a word it means inserting the penis (by even a mere fraction of an inch) into the anus or mouth of another person – whether same or opposite gender – is criminal. This is curious. Here Nature is not bothered such an act said to be against it but Man is. Why so? If one says its society’ repugnance against people of same gender having this kind of sexual expression, it is really not so because: even between a man and a woman anal & oral sex is criminal. Funnily no two female lesbians can ever have “carnal intercourse against the order of nature” because neither is possessed of a penis! The roots of this crime is based on ecclesiastical law (taken from the book of Leviticus in the Old Testament) since 1534 in England!

  19. #19 by Jeffrey on Tuesday, 23 August 2011 - 9:50 pm

    Continuing from preceding post currently moderated – How can such a law riddled with inconsistency & irrationality be still relevant for enforcement by today’s circumstances practices & norms? The original religious premise is that a man’s seed (read sperm) must be fruitful. It must find its target via female’s vagina that leads to conception. Multiply and be fruitful, that what is exhorted. Sex is for procreation – not recreation. How can it be relevant today? If so the condom should be banned because it obstructs conception. Oral sex between consenting heterosexual adults – that leads to no conception- is also criminal though likely majority are doing it! It is not just about whether our “political & Justice System” at stake. That we should invoke such an archaic law to selectively tarnish an opposition leader (and close an eye to the rest of populace committing the same infraction) in order just so to win an election is an indictment of our nation and moral fiber/collective intelligence/sensibility of ourselves in eyes of the educated civilized world.

  20. #20 by yhsiew on Wednesday, 24 August 2011 - 5:41 am

  21. #21 by Jeffrey on Wednesday, 24 August 2011 - 6:55 am

    Basically the way Sodomy II proceeds is this: (1) for the charge of sodomy there must be proof of penile penetration. (2) This cannot be established by anal tear, nor is it easy to do so where the one sodomised is regular passive recipient since anal tissues have become elastic due to regular abuse. (3) So penetration is sought to be proven via Semen deposit allegedly taken in a swab from the anus. (4) Problem is that there are more than one deposits here: we have donors (say) Male “X” “Y” & “Z” (5) So they need independent fresh DNA from Anwar to see if it matches any of “X” “Y” or “Z”.(6) Anwar exercised his right under law (since amended) to refuse giving his DNA for matching purpose in fear of “tampering” as in Sodomy I. (7) They then took DNA samples from towel, toothbrush & mineral water bottle that Anwar used when he was detained for a night in lock up in 2008. (8) The samples taken were then matched against and found same as the other sample Male “Y” from Saiful’s swap.(9) That match is said accurate The probability of that DNA profile having a coincidental match is 1:470 quintillion for Malays, 1:52 quintillion (Chinese) and 1:210 quintillion (Indians).

  22. #22 by Jeffrey on Wednesday, 24 August 2011 - 7:11 am

    Given the above (under current moderation again) Controversy arises from twofold: [A] the procuring of DNA from towel, toothbrush & mineral water bottle used by Anwar in lockup is by deception and illegal since lock up rules violated in 2008 detention. Hence samples of DNA being fruits of illegality is not admissible as evidence to be used for DNA match against semen deposit (Male “Y”) allegedly taken from swap from Saiful’s anus [B] Anwar’s witness (forensic expert Dr David Well testified that after 56 hours ‘Male “Y”’ sample from Saiful is so degraded and contaminated that its not reliable for DNA profiling/matching against that obtained from Anwar’s towel, toothbrush & mineral water bottle! It is Anwar’s defence’s position that [A] cannot be matched against [B] because [A] is inadmissible as evidence by reason of their being illegal fruits obtained from illegal 2008 detention and [B] is contaminated and degraded & hence also not admissible as evidence. There is therefore no proof of a link between sample taken from Saiful and himself.

  23. #23 by k1980 on Wednesday, 24 August 2011 - 7:30 am

    Saiful has also admitted in court that in the days prior to the alleged rape, he met with then-Deputy Prime Minister Najib Tun Razak, Najib’s wife Rosmah Mansor, and Rosmah’s close friend, former top athlete Mumtaz Jaafar, the executive chairperson of the National Athlete Welfare Foundation, an organization to which Rosmah is the patroness.

    Saiful also acknowledged meeting with Rodwan Mohd Yusof, who was the investigating officer in Anwar’s discredited first trial for sodomy in 1998 and was accused of fabricating the evidence that put Anwar in prison for six years. He also met with Khairil Anas Jusof, an aide to Najib, and spoke on the telephone with Musa Hassan, now the head of the Malaysian police who led the investigating team in the first sodomy case.

    How was a former student whom Anwar described in his statement as “just a university dropout working part time helping out my chief of staff,” able to gain access to Najib, his staff members, his wife, one of the country’s former top athletes and other officials if he didn’t have anything important to talk about?

    http://www.asiasentinel.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=3404&Itemid=178

  24. #24 by Loh on Wednesday, 24 August 2011 - 10:43 pm

    The expert witness said that DNA would have deteriorated after 36 hours, and what was said to be obtained from Saiful’s anus were taken out after 72 hours, and they were stored in a condition which made the DNA subject to further deterioration for a further 40 hours. So the DNA could not have been used for the examination. But government chemist provided the results as if the DNA was fresh. LET US NOT DOUBT THE INTEGRITY OF THE CHEMIST WHO CARRIED OUT THE EXAMINATION. She must have used a sample which would prove that what were obtained from the towel matched with that obtained from Saiful’s anus. Who is to refute or confirm that the samples said to be taken from two different places actually came out from one source?

    Since DNA is not like an IC number ready for confirmation, and Anwar has not given his blood sample for independent checking, who knows from where the DNA were obtained which are now tabled for the court case. The government scientists confirmed that they received two samples from different sources and they were found to have matching DNA codes. The prosecutor asked if the sperms were planted, should it not be from the same person. Clearly there were no evidence to conclude that the sperms came from the accused. The sperms could come from any source so long as that same person also has held the towel for the DNA to be extracted, assuming that the scientist actually obtained the matching DNA from the towel. The only proof was that Anwar had held a towel, and god knows whether the DNA was actually extracted from the very towel Anwar had held. So Saiful could very well have introduced his own semen inside his anus, through any means except his penis, and held the towel to provide the DNA for testing, then the government can decide whoever it chose to charge. Besides the government has determined that sperm inside Saiful’s anus must be introduced by a penis.

    Judging from the way government agencies are manipulated, for example, Altantuja has no immigration record to confirm that she ever entered into Malaysia, how can anybody be sure that the DNA which was the only proof were actually obtained from elsewhere other than from where it was said to be obtained. The court case only serves to show that the persecution has gone through the legitimate process.

  25. #25 by Loh on Wednesday, 24 August 2011 - 11:23 pm

    ///The probability of that DNA profile having a coincidental match is 1:470 quintillion for Malays, 1:52 quintillion (Chinese) and 1:210 quintillion (Indians).get a match.///

    That only shows that it is more difficult to get a DNA match than to win a sport Toto jackpot. But if you submit the DNA from the same person in as many samples, the match is certain. Can anyone be sure that the samples tested were the same samples said to be collected from the different sources? Immigration records can go missing, CCTV records fail to show images of specific time, and parangs were found in the young teen Amnul’s car after he was sprayed with bullets, can we ever trust the agencies concerned in their professionalism? This is especially so when the plaintiff saw the DPM prior to staging circumstantial evidence to deny any defense on alibi, other evidence are easy to create. The court case is not a matter about sodomy, it is equivalent to UMNO fighting against losing the election; a court case in place of a repeat of Harun Idris power grab.

You must be logged in to post a comment.