After all, if I were confident in my case and knew that I could argue my heart out on the merits and win a conviction for the good and true folks of my little town, then why should it be a cause of concern if the defendant knows what evidence I have?
THE CORRIDORS OF POWERDr. Kevin Anderson
I often contemplate the parable of the college professor who shows his class an empty glass container. He then places a number of large rocks inside the container and asks the class: “How many of you believe this container is full?” Of course, most in the class raise their hands. With that the professor continues to pour increasingly smaller varieties of rock, from pebbles to gravel to sand into the container, at each interval asking the class the same question. Eventually the class, marveling at the amount of material that the professor is able to fit into the container, is dumbstruck.
At the end of the demonstration, the professor finally concedes that the container is, in fact, full. He then pointedly asks the class about the meaning of the demonstration to their lives. No hands go up. Finally, in the rear of the class, a normally timid young woman raises her hand. The professor calls on her, and in a trembling voice she says: “Our lives are the container and in order to fill our lives we must always start with the big rocks. If we do that, we will always find room for the smaller rocks.”
More about that in a bit.
Perhaps it might be useful to view Anwar’s current legal struggle in the light of standards that exist outside of the Malaysian legal system. Of course, we as citizens of a nation can only work within the framework of the legal system of our country or state. Each sovereign has the absolute authority and prerogative to create laws that suit its people and that somehow reflect its legal history, its constitution and its overall mentality toward justice in general. And, certainly, Malaysian law should not be compared with, and is in many ways entirely dissimilar to, U.S. law. I understand this and am in no way suggesting that Malaysian law should be in lockstep with American legal precepts. As a former prosecutor in the U.S., I have always marveled at the many attractions in Malaysian law, not the least of which is the ability of the government to appeal acquittals and to seek upward modifications of sentence. Similarly, it certainly creates loads of new opportunities for closing arguments when the prosecutor is allowed to suggest that the defendant’s silence, under circumstances in which a reasonable man would be expected to cry out his innocence, is strongly suggestive of guilt. I mean, from the state’s standpoint, what’s not to like?
However, the present situation and battle being fought by Anwar is one that normally does not appeal to the majority of armchair legal quarterbacks who enjoy the pitched battle of actual trials: what we sometimes refer to as “the guilt phase”. This time, it’s the nitty-gritty stuff: evidence. Anwar is now in the midst of what is referred to in my state as a “motion in limine”. A motion in limine is any request, by either side, that may be raised prior to trial. These normally are critical evidence motions, often involving issues associated with providing evidence as set forth in the relevant rules.
What Anwar is dealing with now, and which notably the government is appealing, is a decision regarding “discovery”. Discovery is the term used in U.S. law to refer to the obligation of the parties in litigation (the State and the Defendant in a criminal case) to provide each other with certain information. Both have obligations to disclose some portion of their intended evidence.
My state of is no different than the other 49 states in its promulgation of criminal procedure rules that are strongly – and increasingly - deferential to the rights of criminal defendants. There are a number of reasons for this, primarily the U.S. constitution’s grant to the accused of the right to a fair trial. Beyond that is the requirement, accepted under Malaysian law as well, that governments prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
The implication of this burden of proof on the discovery process is the widely held perception that the defense can only illuminate such doubt when it has the benefit of assessing the evidence. Of course, there is the history underlying the formation of the 13 colonies: that a government with unbridled powers is a potential obstruction to liberty throwing back to touchy colonial issues such as freedom of worship, and taxation without representation.
Honestly, as a prosecutor, I never cared much for the requirement to turn over my case to the defense. Yet, I acknowledged that I represented the government: a well-oiled machine that had police, scientists, resources, credibility and, ultimately, the commonly-held belief within society that anyone who is charged with a crime is, well, probably guilty.
Remembering that the international symbol of justice is the blindfolded woman holding a scale, I always had to slap myself to remember that my disclosure of the state’s evidence went a long way in ensuring that balance. After all, if I were confident in my case and knew that I could argue my heart out on the merits and win a conviction for the good and true folks of my little town, then why should it be a cause of concern if the defendant knows what evidence I have? And, if his having the evidence allows him the opportunity to construct a lawful defense, then, at the end of the day, he has achieved his constitutional privilege of a fair trial. Don’t misunderstand me. I loved to win, perhaps too much. One of the things I often overlooked and that, in fact, ultimately drove me out of criminal practice, was my slap-in-the-face learning moment that it wasn’t how many notches I had in my gun belt It was all about letting the system work; about remembering that a man’s life and family are riding on judicial outcomes.
But it’s not my light bulb moment that matters now. It’s Anwar’s situation.
So, what is Anwar asking for? And here, I do have to do a little tit-for-tat comparison, so please excuse. Under my state’s law, the state must disclose all evidence that it intends to use at trial. It must also turn over all exculpatory evidence (evidence tending to suggest the innocence of the defendant). I, as prosecutor must also provide the names and reports of all experts I intend to call as a witness in the state’s case including the results of any tests or assessments done; the statements of any witnesses I intend to call, any tapes and recordings of statements made by the defendant, any information I have that tends to impeach the credibility of state’s witnesses, including prior inconsistent statements, relationship with the prosecution and evidence suggesting a character for untruthfulness. Significantly, all the above-mentioned items must be disclosed without request. They are what we call “automatic discovery”. It would appear that Anwar’s requests do not exceed what the majority view in U.S. law would consider stuff to which he is entitled without even having to ask.
The question I have then is a rhetorical one perhaps, yet one that must would appear to underlie the Anwar case at this point. Why isn’t it automatic discovery in this case? There is nothing fundamentally unjust about Malaysia. Its legal system is largely founded upon precepts of the British common law system, as is the American system. Similarly, there is nothing magical, mystical, anti-Asian, overly liberal, American or even western about American rules of discovery. They are simply a means to learn the truth in the judicial setting and to do so in a forum that offers a fair opportunity for both parties to access and benefit from that truth. And, in a country whose judicial system seeks to demonstrate its independence and to dispel suggestions of impropriety, aren’t the truth and the search therefore its best friends? Shouldn’t they be? Isn’t the best response by government to allegations that Anwar’s trial is somehow politically motivated – in the words of the old casino metaphor – to simply lay its cards on the table? To throw the chips in the air and let them fall where they may? Ultimately, as strong as is the belief that one who is charged is guilty, is the belief that one who hides something has something to hide. And, at the end of the day, all legal systems are based on such broad notions found within natural law. I am, perhaps, overly optimistic and believe that it is in the best interest of a government to ensure that, as the old legal axiom goes: “justice must be seen to be done.” Malaysian discovery rules need not become clones of those followed in the U.S.
Nevertheless, at stake here and in every courthouse in every nation, town, county, parish, district or province in the world is a search for the truth and the ability of all sides to assist in finding it. Remember the parable of the professor and the glass jar? This is the big rock with which we must start when filling the container of a healthy, unassailable judicial system. When we have loaded in the search for the truth, we will find that rules of discovery that assist in that search are somewhere between the gravel and the sand. They will fit quite nicely. Then the jar will be full.
Sunday 26 July 2009
Get Rich ..
NO HOLDS BARRED by Raja Petra Kamarudin
The aftermath of Malaysia’s 11th General Elections: Where to now BA?The opposition coalition, the Alterative Front (Barisan Alternatif or BA), will need a couple of days to recover from the shellshock before it regains its composure and decides where it goes from hereon. Yesterday, BA, in particular the National Justice Party (Parti Keadilan Nasional or keADILan) was wiped out in Malaysia’s 11th General Elections.
I am not about to go into a lengthy ‘I told you so’ piece. Nobody likes a ‘hindsight expert’. If you are so clever then why not talk with foresight, most would say. To offer your analysis after the event is easy. It is forecasting before the event that makes one an expert.The fight has not endedFirst of all, a defeat in an election is part and parcel of the game. Maybe keADILan has not seen itself massacred yet as, understandably, it is a new party and this is only its second election.
It will need many more elections under its belt before it can learn how to handle both defeat and victory.The Islamic Party of Malaysia (PAS), though, is better at this as once before, in 1986, it was wiped out leaving it a solitary seat in Parliament. Since then, however, PAS revamped itself and went through a leadership change after which it bounced back stronger than ever -- until yesterday.Now, PAS will have to do what it did in 1986. It will have to do some serious soul-searching and ask itself what went wrong. And what it discovers it is not going to like. But PAS will still need to address the matter. It will need to ask itself whether it is a missionary movement or a political party. It will need to ask itself whether it is in the business of propagating Islam or in the business of winning elections.PAS is trying to be both. But it cannot, as it should by now have learnt. PAS wants to serve God and it conducts its business with this in mind -- the Islamic State Document (ISD) is but one proof of this. PAS must now understand that, to win elections, it must serve the voters’ interest. And if serving God is not what the voters want, is this then the political strategy to adopt?
I am not saying that serving God is wrong. What I am saying is PAS should ask the voters what it would like to see and structure itself, its policies and its strategies taking into account the voters’ sentiment. As it is now, PAS does things in isolation, detached from the voters, and this is not how a political party should be run. And all those who would like to serve God should leave the party and become fulltime preachers, leaving the ‘hardcore’ politicians the task of ‘mending’ the party.KeADILan too will have to do its own soul-searching. Will it too need a leadership revamp? This will be for the party leadership to ponder upon. But keADILan will need to understand what it needs to do and change accordingly. If yesterday’s fiasco is the result of a bad leadership, then those responsible should gracefully stand aside and allow the party to be run by those who better understand politics.
If the party feels I have seriously erred and my role as the editor of the party newspaper, Seruan Keadilan, is a liability to the party, then I will be the first to tender my resignation and leave the scene without a whimper. I leave it to the party to decide my fate and I will accept whatever decision the party makes in the spirit of the betterment of the party.I hope those others will do the same.PAS’s 14-year cyclePAS seems to suffer from a 14-year cycle, probably similar to what people call the ‘7-year itch’. In 1990 it won Kelantan State, which thereafter saw its performance going uphill the two elections following it in 1995 and 1999. Today, 14 years down the road, and it is back where it used to be prior to 1990.Roughly 12 years prior to its success in the 1990 elections, Kelantan was under UMNO rule where in 1978 UMNO, with Tengku Razaleigh Hamzah leading the charge, knocked PAS out. 19 years before that, PAS was in control of Kelantan.In short, every three elections or so, Kelantan changes hands from PAS to UMNO, back to PAS, then back to UMNO again. And now Kelantan may be back to UMNO again or, even if PAS can still retain Kelantan after the recount of about five or six seats today, it will only be able to rule the state with a simple majority. Whatever the outcome, no one is going to have a two-thirds majority in the Kelantan State Assembly.
The question now would be, will PAS require another 14 years or three general elections before it takes back the state from UMNO? This will mean it would be close to 2020 before PAS will see its fortunes change in Kelantan.I remember way back in 1978 when UMNO managed to kick PAS out, one Kelantanese told me that every few elections they will give the state to UMNO so that they can get development. Then, when they feel they have been sufficiently developed, they will kick UMNO out and give the state back to PAS.This sounds over-simplified, but if this is really the mentality of the Kelantanese, then expect Umno to be in power in Kelantan for the next three elections, or at least until the Kelantanese feel they have had enough development. Maybe UMNO would then now not over-develop the state to ensure that the people keep on feeling they still need more, which means Kelantan can perpetually remain under UMNO control.The clock has been turned back 30 yearsAll Malaysians must understand the impact of yesterday’s general election. I am not talking with the advantage of hindsight here as I have said this even as early as last year during the launch of Party Keadilan Rakyat and what I said then drew a lot of flak from the non-Malays, in particular the Chinese supporters of the Democratic Action Party (DAP).What happened yesterday is we have turned the clock back 30 years, back to the days leading to the 13 May 1969 racial riots infamously known as ‘May 13’.
Then, when we utter the word “opposition” it is meant “Chinese” and when we say “government” we mean “Malay”. Today, we are back where we were in the days of the 1960s.In this scenario who loses? What we managed to achieve in 1999, 42 years after independence or Merdeka, has just been demolished. In 1999, after 42 years of sweat and toil, both the ruling party and opposition were transformed into a multi-racial mix. No longer could you say that Chinese oppose while Malays support. Today that is again what it is.This situation is bad for the Chinese as it is now so easy to play the racial card. When the Chinese go against the government it can easy be manipulated as they are against the Malays. Every policy the Chinese opposition oppose can be bandied as they are trying to undermine the Malays.UMNO, which in 1999 lost the right to claim it was a party representing Malay interests, has regained that right. The opposition, in particular keADILan, which claims to represent all races and fights for equality for all races can no longer claim so.In short, the line has been redrawn to Chinese opposing Malay interests. And with keADILan out of the picture this claim would have credibility.I have said this before, and that is the opposition must not be reduced to Chinese only and the ruling party as all Malay. My saying so drew accusations that I am a racist. But what I feared most has happened. I also said if this happens then the Chinese have only themselves to blame as kicking out keADILan would mean Malaysian politics would be again reduced to Malays on one side and Chinese on another.And is this not what happened yesterday? And does this not now put the Chinese at a great disadvantage? Every time the Chinese opposition opens its mouth the ruling party will scream that it is anti-Malay. And since the opposition is all-Chinese, and there is no real Malay opposition to speak off, will this not sound true?
It’s all about worldly desiresBefore this, one could only speculate that the Malays are religious and that the ‘Islamic values’ tagline would work with them. PAS’ success in the Malay heartland of Kelantan, Terengganu and Kedah was touted as proof of this.Opinion polls done over the last two years, however, revealed the stark reality that money was the motivating factor for the Malays and not rewards in the afterlife. 1999 was a unique situation and should not be used as an indication that the Malays have finally ‘seen the light’ and have rediscovered Islam. The Malays are still basically the same.
They have not changed much and money and development is still what the Malays seekWhat was most puzzling is the Malays’ sense of ‘values’. The Malays seem to be torn between two opposing values. For example, more than 80% of the respondents in the poll feel that the Internal Security Act (ISA) is undemocratic as detention without trial go against the very grain of democracy. These same respondents, however, though they pray, fast, perform their Hajj (pilgrimage) and so on -- in short display signs of being pious Muslims -- are not able to equate the ISA to Islam teachings.In other words, those 80% Malays who feel the ISA is wrong feel so with the spirit of ‘western’ democracy and not because detention without trial goes against Islamic teachings. In short, Islam is farthest from their minds in their opposition to the ISA.Then, when the issue of security is discussed, these same people feel that the ISA is necessary to protect the security of this nation. How can they feel that the ISA is undemocratic yet feel it is required to guarantee the peace and stability of Malaysia? They agree that the ISA is evil but is a necessary evil.
This is where the Malays demonstrate an extremely confused state of mind and I have said this before in a piece where I said the Malays are a difficult race to understand whom even the Malays themselves do not understand, let alone a non-Malay.What, therefore, do the Malays really want? A good afterlife is certainly not one of them! What they want is a good life right here on earth. And the Malays will chose secure jobs, a home, a couple of cars in their driveway, and money in the pocket, over guarantees of heaven after death. And if the ISA is required to guarantee them all this then the ISA shall remain, though in the same breath they may agree it is an undemocratic law.In short, forget about “give me liberty or give me death”. To the Malays it is, “to hell with democracy but give me property”. And to hell with Islam as well if I have to sacrifice my comfort here on earth.The Putrajaya experienceWhich brings me to what happened in Putrajaya where the keADILan candidate, Abdul Rahman Othman, not only lost but lost his deposit as well.
This, in fact, had been predicted, by no less than the Umno candidate, Adnan Mansor, who repeated time and time again that this would happen.But how did Adnan know? How could be so boldly predict this without fear that he would embarrassingly be proven wrong? Because he knew he would be proven right and he knew why.The Putrajaya constituency is 100% civil servants and 95% Malay. And they all live in government quarters, homes they do not own, at the grace of the government. Abdul Rahman knew this and he knew this would be the trump card Adnan could use against the Putrajaya voters. And he did.Adnan met the civil servants face-to-face in their offices, though this was not allowed, and told them in very clear terms that they risk being kicked out of their government quarters if they voted for the opposition.The voters were also told that their votes could be detected.
All the ballot papers are numbered. The voters too have serial numbers. Once the ballot paper is torn from the book, the voter’s serial number is recorded on the counterfoil that has corresponding numbers to the ballot papers.All they have to do is to check the ballot papers of the opposition votes and match its serial number against that on the counterfoil to know who voted for the opposition. When the voter goes into the polling station, his serial number is shouted out for all to hear and everyone in the room records it.Many civil servants personally told Abdul Rahman that they strongly believe their votes are not a secret and that the government can detect whom they voted for. Abdul Rahman tried his best to assure the voters that this is not so and that their votes are definitely confidential but the fear factor was just to high, and in the short space of seven days it was impossible to change their minds on this.Abdul Rahman, in fact, brought this matter to the attention of the Election Commission (EC) and requested them to make an official statement to clear the air. But it was not done and the Putrajaya voters who went to the polls on 21 March 2004 believed that their votes are not a secret and that it is not worth the risk of voting for the opposition and getting kicked out of their government quarters.Two days before Polling Day,
I discussed this fear factor with Abdul Rahman. We both believed that even if we cannot win we can still garner about 2,000 votes, an impressive enough performance against 5,000 voters, and not lose our deposit. But the fear factor was still very high and we had not been able to overcome it yet. If we could not do it the following 48 hours then we may yet prove Adnan’s prediction right.We also discussed the ‘Scud missile’ that Adnan would probably use against us. We believed that a ‘Scud missile’ was waiting to be fired, and this should be in the wee hours of the eve of Polling Day. But we just did not know what. There was no question of not getting hit with something ‘big’. We even knew the timing. But we were groping in the dark wondering as to what it was going to be.We decided to embark on a last round ‘polishing’ exercise of our own to counter whatever Adnan had waiting for us. Abdul Rahman himself prepared the ammunition. But on the last night we were stuck in our operations centre, unable to move. Every time we sent a team out the UMNO army surrounded it and locked it in. We phoned the police but got no help from them and this is not surprising considering this has been the scenario the entire week.I phoned the head of the Putrajaya Special Branch, ASP Ibrahim, and shouted at him. I accused him of being an UMNO tool. I went berserk.
I also sent him a nasty SMS message, which he saved on his hand phone, probably to use against me the next time they (again) detain me under the ISA.While we were under siege on that last night, the UMNO army did their rounds popping VCDs into every letterbox of the 5,000 Putrajaya voters. The VCDs was a documentary of Lokman Noor Adam, the onetime Executive Secretary of the keADILan Youth Movement, ‘revealing’ amongst others that keADILan was being funded by the Jewish currency trader, George Soros, “the man instrumental in wrecking Malaysia’s economy”, that the keADILan leaders misappropriate the money received from supporters and donors for personal use to build lavish homes and buy luxury cars, and so on and so forth.In short, keADILan was portrayed as a party backed by an enemy of Islam and Malaysia and its leaders but a bunch of corrupt, immoral and dishonest crooks. And this expose was made by non other than its Youth Secretary. And the VCDs showed the so-called ‘documentary evidence’ such as bank statements, etc. Whatever little support Abdul Rahman had was totally demolished.What is frustrating about this whole thing is we knew it was coming and even knew when. We even planned our own counter-operation. But we were stuck at base and had to just helplessly watch the UMNO boys tear us down piece by piece. We knew we had lost even before the race started. We were outnumbered, outgunned and outmanoeuvred. And the UMNO boys laughed at us while they destroyed us in our very face.We saw it comingPutrajaya is not the only place we saw it coming but were forced to stand by helplessly and watch everything crumble before our very eyes.
I frequently joke that PAS was built on love while keADILan was built on hate. PAS was built on love for Islam while keADILan was built on hate for Dr Mahathir.This may have been said in jest but, as they say, many a true word is said in jest.On the second day of Ramadan, a two-day conference was held in Melaka to discuss our political strategy for the 11th General Election. The number one issue that was agreed by all is that, now that Dr Mahathir has left the scene and Abdullah Ahmad Badawi has taken over, keADILan has lost the concept of enemy.It would, in fact, have been better if Dr Mahathir had stayed on. We could have held our ground or maybe even perform better if Dr Mahathir was still the Prime Minister. Now that Pak Lah is in charge, the concept of enemy has disappeared and this spells bad news for keADILan.It was further agreed that keADILan would need to quickly reinvent the enemy or else face irrelevancy. If it fails to do so, then the need for keADILan will disappear. KeADILan is only required so far as to kick Dr Mahathir out of office. Once this has been achieved, then who needs keADILan anymore? Our political strategists, however, were not able to come up with this new ‘enemy’, or maybe they did not see the need for one. Whatever it may be, the prediction resulting from the Melaka conference was fulfilled.Pak Lah walks down the same road as Dr MahathirOver the last couple of months I was asked by the foreign media, on more than one occasion, what I felt about the 11th General Elections and what was my prediction of the outcome. I replied that one must look back to the 1982 General Election soon after Dr Mahathir took over as Prime Minister. Then, Dr Mahathir was in his ‘honeymoon’ period and he performed well, as he did in the election after that in 1986. But, by the third election in 1990, his fortunes started to change and he lost Kelantan.But Dr Mahathir lost Kelantan not because PAS, who at that time had teamed up with Tengku Razaleigh’s Semangat 46, was strong, but because the Kelantanese just hated Dr Mahathir’s guts.If Dr Mahathir had stayed for just two terms, he would have retired at the top. But he stayed beyond that and, thereafter, Dr Mahathir was never able to recapture his ‘honeymoon’ period performance of 1982 and 1986 when PAS was practically wiped out.Pak Lah, I replied, just like Dr Mahathir in 1982, is now also in his ‘honeymoon’ period. He, just like Dr Mahathir in 1982, is going to perform well this election. And he will continue to do so in the following election as well in 2009, just like Dr Mahathir did in 1986. It will have to be in the third election in 2014 (Malaysia’s 13 General Election) before Pak Lah can be brought to his knees.If Pak Lah is smart, I added, he should retire around 2013 or 2014, just before the 13th General Election. Then he will retire at the top, something Dr Mahathir did not do. This will make Pak Lah the best performing prime minister in Malaysia history. If, however, just like Dr Mahathir, he tries to take Malaysia into his third election as Prime Minister, then he would face the same humiliation Dr Mahathir suffered.
In short, the opposition can expect humiliation in the 11th General Election, plus in the 12th as well. The opposition will then have to hope that Pak Lah becomes ‘greedy’ and clings to power, which means its fortunes will change in the 13th General Election. If, however, Pak Lah very cleverly bails out and hands the country to his deputy just before that, this would be bad news for the opposition as then it may never recover.‘Show me the money’I know this prediction does not augur well for the opposition. But when the Malaysian opposition parties can only win by default, win when the ruling party makes mistakes, then what can it expect? You just need to listen to the opposition speeches. The opposition leaders speak about the mistakes made by the government. It talks about the excesses and abuses. It talks about the corruption and mismanagement. In spite of all this, the country’s economy grows and Malaysians see development.The opposition fails, or refuses, to understand what the voters want. They want the security and comfort of a good life and the ruling party has shown it can guarantee this. They want peace and stability and the freedom to get rich and the ruling party offers this. They want education and good jobs and the ruling party provides this.Agreed, to get all this Malaysians must sacrifice a little freedom and democracy. Granted, while the voters are free to get rich, the ministers too help themselves to some of the money. Maybe, there is no real equality but the Chinese still prosper in spite of the Ketuanan Melayu (Malay supremacy) policy.Malaysia offers the voters a win-win solution.
Get rich, prosper, get a good education, get good jobs, live in beautiful homes, drive nice cars, but just do not question what the government does or criticise it. This is acceptable to two-thirds of the voting population. The balance one-third disgruntled voting population can support the opposition if it so wishes. But in the ‘first past the post’ election system that Malaysia practices, the one-third is of no consequence.And yesterday’s 11th General Election has proven this point.The voters have not heard how the opposition can better develop Malaysia. The voters have not been told how they would get even richer than now if the opposition were to come to power. In fact, Kelantan and Terengganu have proven the reverse; the people get poorer with the opposition running these two states. And this is all that counts. And this is something the opposition does not seem to understand.
Do I hear someone say this is a most unIslamic stand to take? Do I hear someone say that principles cannot be compromised and exchanged for worldly desires? Don’t tell me, tell the voters, they don’t seem to think so as yesterday’s message from them has very loudly and clearly shown.And the message from the voters is, “Show me the money!”
The aftermath of Malaysia’s 11th General Elections: Where to now BA?The opposition coalition, the Alterative Front (Barisan Alternatif or BA), will need a couple of days to recover from the shellshock before it regains its composure and decides where it goes from hereon. Yesterday, BA, in particular the National Justice Party (Parti Keadilan Nasional or keADILan) was wiped out in Malaysia’s 11th General Elections.
I am not about to go into a lengthy ‘I told you so’ piece. Nobody likes a ‘hindsight expert’. If you are so clever then why not talk with foresight, most would say. To offer your analysis after the event is easy. It is forecasting before the event that makes one an expert.The fight has not endedFirst of all, a defeat in an election is part and parcel of the game. Maybe keADILan has not seen itself massacred yet as, understandably, it is a new party and this is only its second election.
It will need many more elections under its belt before it can learn how to handle both defeat and victory.The Islamic Party of Malaysia (PAS), though, is better at this as once before, in 1986, it was wiped out leaving it a solitary seat in Parliament. Since then, however, PAS revamped itself and went through a leadership change after which it bounced back stronger than ever -- until yesterday.Now, PAS will have to do what it did in 1986. It will have to do some serious soul-searching and ask itself what went wrong. And what it discovers it is not going to like. But PAS will still need to address the matter. It will need to ask itself whether it is a missionary movement or a political party. It will need to ask itself whether it is in the business of propagating Islam or in the business of winning elections.PAS is trying to be both. But it cannot, as it should by now have learnt. PAS wants to serve God and it conducts its business with this in mind -- the Islamic State Document (ISD) is but one proof of this. PAS must now understand that, to win elections, it must serve the voters’ interest. And if serving God is not what the voters want, is this then the political strategy to adopt?
I am not saying that serving God is wrong. What I am saying is PAS should ask the voters what it would like to see and structure itself, its policies and its strategies taking into account the voters’ sentiment. As it is now, PAS does things in isolation, detached from the voters, and this is not how a political party should be run. And all those who would like to serve God should leave the party and become fulltime preachers, leaving the ‘hardcore’ politicians the task of ‘mending’ the party.KeADILan too will have to do its own soul-searching. Will it too need a leadership revamp? This will be for the party leadership to ponder upon. But keADILan will need to understand what it needs to do and change accordingly. If yesterday’s fiasco is the result of a bad leadership, then those responsible should gracefully stand aside and allow the party to be run by those who better understand politics.
If the party feels I have seriously erred and my role as the editor of the party newspaper, Seruan Keadilan, is a liability to the party, then I will be the first to tender my resignation and leave the scene without a whimper. I leave it to the party to decide my fate and I will accept whatever decision the party makes in the spirit of the betterment of the party.I hope those others will do the same.PAS’s 14-year cyclePAS seems to suffer from a 14-year cycle, probably similar to what people call the ‘7-year itch’. In 1990 it won Kelantan State, which thereafter saw its performance going uphill the two elections following it in 1995 and 1999. Today, 14 years down the road, and it is back where it used to be prior to 1990.Roughly 12 years prior to its success in the 1990 elections, Kelantan was under UMNO rule where in 1978 UMNO, with Tengku Razaleigh Hamzah leading the charge, knocked PAS out. 19 years before that, PAS was in control of Kelantan.In short, every three elections or so, Kelantan changes hands from PAS to UMNO, back to PAS, then back to UMNO again. And now Kelantan may be back to UMNO again or, even if PAS can still retain Kelantan after the recount of about five or six seats today, it will only be able to rule the state with a simple majority. Whatever the outcome, no one is going to have a two-thirds majority in the Kelantan State Assembly.
The question now would be, will PAS require another 14 years or three general elections before it takes back the state from UMNO? This will mean it would be close to 2020 before PAS will see its fortunes change in Kelantan.I remember way back in 1978 when UMNO managed to kick PAS out, one Kelantanese told me that every few elections they will give the state to UMNO so that they can get development. Then, when they feel they have been sufficiently developed, they will kick UMNO out and give the state back to PAS.This sounds over-simplified, but if this is really the mentality of the Kelantanese, then expect Umno to be in power in Kelantan for the next three elections, or at least until the Kelantanese feel they have had enough development. Maybe UMNO would then now not over-develop the state to ensure that the people keep on feeling they still need more, which means Kelantan can perpetually remain under UMNO control.The clock has been turned back 30 yearsAll Malaysians must understand the impact of yesterday’s general election. I am not talking with the advantage of hindsight here as I have said this even as early as last year during the launch of Party Keadilan Rakyat and what I said then drew a lot of flak from the non-Malays, in particular the Chinese supporters of the Democratic Action Party (DAP).What happened yesterday is we have turned the clock back 30 years, back to the days leading to the 13 May 1969 racial riots infamously known as ‘May 13’.
Then, when we utter the word “opposition” it is meant “Chinese” and when we say “government” we mean “Malay”. Today, we are back where we were in the days of the 1960s.In this scenario who loses? What we managed to achieve in 1999, 42 years after independence or Merdeka, has just been demolished. In 1999, after 42 years of sweat and toil, both the ruling party and opposition were transformed into a multi-racial mix. No longer could you say that Chinese oppose while Malays support. Today that is again what it is.This situation is bad for the Chinese as it is now so easy to play the racial card. When the Chinese go against the government it can easy be manipulated as they are against the Malays. Every policy the Chinese opposition oppose can be bandied as they are trying to undermine the Malays.UMNO, which in 1999 lost the right to claim it was a party representing Malay interests, has regained that right. The opposition, in particular keADILan, which claims to represent all races and fights for equality for all races can no longer claim so.In short, the line has been redrawn to Chinese opposing Malay interests. And with keADILan out of the picture this claim would have credibility.I have said this before, and that is the opposition must not be reduced to Chinese only and the ruling party as all Malay. My saying so drew accusations that I am a racist. But what I feared most has happened. I also said if this happens then the Chinese have only themselves to blame as kicking out keADILan would mean Malaysian politics would be again reduced to Malays on one side and Chinese on another.And is this not what happened yesterday? And does this not now put the Chinese at a great disadvantage? Every time the Chinese opposition opens its mouth the ruling party will scream that it is anti-Malay. And since the opposition is all-Chinese, and there is no real Malay opposition to speak off, will this not sound true?
It’s all about worldly desiresBefore this, one could only speculate that the Malays are religious and that the ‘Islamic values’ tagline would work with them. PAS’ success in the Malay heartland of Kelantan, Terengganu and Kedah was touted as proof of this.Opinion polls done over the last two years, however, revealed the stark reality that money was the motivating factor for the Malays and not rewards in the afterlife. 1999 was a unique situation and should not be used as an indication that the Malays have finally ‘seen the light’ and have rediscovered Islam. The Malays are still basically the same.
They have not changed much and money and development is still what the Malays seekWhat was most puzzling is the Malays’ sense of ‘values’. The Malays seem to be torn between two opposing values. For example, more than 80% of the respondents in the poll feel that the Internal Security Act (ISA) is undemocratic as detention without trial go against the very grain of democracy. These same respondents, however, though they pray, fast, perform their Hajj (pilgrimage) and so on -- in short display signs of being pious Muslims -- are not able to equate the ISA to Islam teachings.In other words, those 80% Malays who feel the ISA is wrong feel so with the spirit of ‘western’ democracy and not because detention without trial goes against Islamic teachings. In short, Islam is farthest from their minds in their opposition to the ISA.Then, when the issue of security is discussed, these same people feel that the ISA is necessary to protect the security of this nation. How can they feel that the ISA is undemocratic yet feel it is required to guarantee the peace and stability of Malaysia? They agree that the ISA is evil but is a necessary evil.
This is where the Malays demonstrate an extremely confused state of mind and I have said this before in a piece where I said the Malays are a difficult race to understand whom even the Malays themselves do not understand, let alone a non-Malay.What, therefore, do the Malays really want? A good afterlife is certainly not one of them! What they want is a good life right here on earth. And the Malays will chose secure jobs, a home, a couple of cars in their driveway, and money in the pocket, over guarantees of heaven after death. And if the ISA is required to guarantee them all this then the ISA shall remain, though in the same breath they may agree it is an undemocratic law.In short, forget about “give me liberty or give me death”. To the Malays it is, “to hell with democracy but give me property”. And to hell with Islam as well if I have to sacrifice my comfort here on earth.The Putrajaya experienceWhich brings me to what happened in Putrajaya where the keADILan candidate, Abdul Rahman Othman, not only lost but lost his deposit as well.
This, in fact, had been predicted, by no less than the Umno candidate, Adnan Mansor, who repeated time and time again that this would happen.But how did Adnan know? How could be so boldly predict this without fear that he would embarrassingly be proven wrong? Because he knew he would be proven right and he knew why.The Putrajaya constituency is 100% civil servants and 95% Malay. And they all live in government quarters, homes they do not own, at the grace of the government. Abdul Rahman knew this and he knew this would be the trump card Adnan could use against the Putrajaya voters. And he did.Adnan met the civil servants face-to-face in their offices, though this was not allowed, and told them in very clear terms that they risk being kicked out of their government quarters if they voted for the opposition.The voters were also told that their votes could be detected.
All the ballot papers are numbered. The voters too have serial numbers. Once the ballot paper is torn from the book, the voter’s serial number is recorded on the counterfoil that has corresponding numbers to the ballot papers.All they have to do is to check the ballot papers of the opposition votes and match its serial number against that on the counterfoil to know who voted for the opposition. When the voter goes into the polling station, his serial number is shouted out for all to hear and everyone in the room records it.Many civil servants personally told Abdul Rahman that they strongly believe their votes are not a secret and that the government can detect whom they voted for. Abdul Rahman tried his best to assure the voters that this is not so and that their votes are definitely confidential but the fear factor was just to high, and in the short space of seven days it was impossible to change their minds on this.Abdul Rahman, in fact, brought this matter to the attention of the Election Commission (EC) and requested them to make an official statement to clear the air. But it was not done and the Putrajaya voters who went to the polls on 21 March 2004 believed that their votes are not a secret and that it is not worth the risk of voting for the opposition and getting kicked out of their government quarters.Two days before Polling Day,
I discussed this fear factor with Abdul Rahman. We both believed that even if we cannot win we can still garner about 2,000 votes, an impressive enough performance against 5,000 voters, and not lose our deposit. But the fear factor was still very high and we had not been able to overcome it yet. If we could not do it the following 48 hours then we may yet prove Adnan’s prediction right.We also discussed the ‘Scud missile’ that Adnan would probably use against us. We believed that a ‘Scud missile’ was waiting to be fired, and this should be in the wee hours of the eve of Polling Day. But we just did not know what. There was no question of not getting hit with something ‘big’. We even knew the timing. But we were groping in the dark wondering as to what it was going to be.We decided to embark on a last round ‘polishing’ exercise of our own to counter whatever Adnan had waiting for us. Abdul Rahman himself prepared the ammunition. But on the last night we were stuck in our operations centre, unable to move. Every time we sent a team out the UMNO army surrounded it and locked it in. We phoned the police but got no help from them and this is not surprising considering this has been the scenario the entire week.I phoned the head of the Putrajaya Special Branch, ASP Ibrahim, and shouted at him. I accused him of being an UMNO tool. I went berserk.
I also sent him a nasty SMS message, which he saved on his hand phone, probably to use against me the next time they (again) detain me under the ISA.While we were under siege on that last night, the UMNO army did their rounds popping VCDs into every letterbox of the 5,000 Putrajaya voters. The VCDs was a documentary of Lokman Noor Adam, the onetime Executive Secretary of the keADILan Youth Movement, ‘revealing’ amongst others that keADILan was being funded by the Jewish currency trader, George Soros, “the man instrumental in wrecking Malaysia’s economy”, that the keADILan leaders misappropriate the money received from supporters and donors for personal use to build lavish homes and buy luxury cars, and so on and so forth.In short, keADILan was portrayed as a party backed by an enemy of Islam and Malaysia and its leaders but a bunch of corrupt, immoral and dishonest crooks. And this expose was made by non other than its Youth Secretary. And the VCDs showed the so-called ‘documentary evidence’ such as bank statements, etc. Whatever little support Abdul Rahman had was totally demolished.What is frustrating about this whole thing is we knew it was coming and even knew when. We even planned our own counter-operation. But we were stuck at base and had to just helplessly watch the UMNO boys tear us down piece by piece. We knew we had lost even before the race started. We were outnumbered, outgunned and outmanoeuvred. And the UMNO boys laughed at us while they destroyed us in our very face.We saw it comingPutrajaya is not the only place we saw it coming but were forced to stand by helplessly and watch everything crumble before our very eyes.
I frequently joke that PAS was built on love while keADILan was built on hate. PAS was built on love for Islam while keADILan was built on hate for Dr Mahathir.This may have been said in jest but, as they say, many a true word is said in jest.On the second day of Ramadan, a two-day conference was held in Melaka to discuss our political strategy for the 11th General Election. The number one issue that was agreed by all is that, now that Dr Mahathir has left the scene and Abdullah Ahmad Badawi has taken over, keADILan has lost the concept of enemy.It would, in fact, have been better if Dr Mahathir had stayed on. We could have held our ground or maybe even perform better if Dr Mahathir was still the Prime Minister. Now that Pak Lah is in charge, the concept of enemy has disappeared and this spells bad news for keADILan.It was further agreed that keADILan would need to quickly reinvent the enemy or else face irrelevancy. If it fails to do so, then the need for keADILan will disappear. KeADILan is only required so far as to kick Dr Mahathir out of office. Once this has been achieved, then who needs keADILan anymore? Our political strategists, however, were not able to come up with this new ‘enemy’, or maybe they did not see the need for one. Whatever it may be, the prediction resulting from the Melaka conference was fulfilled.Pak Lah walks down the same road as Dr MahathirOver the last couple of months I was asked by the foreign media, on more than one occasion, what I felt about the 11th General Elections and what was my prediction of the outcome. I replied that one must look back to the 1982 General Election soon after Dr Mahathir took over as Prime Minister. Then, Dr Mahathir was in his ‘honeymoon’ period and he performed well, as he did in the election after that in 1986. But, by the third election in 1990, his fortunes started to change and he lost Kelantan.But Dr Mahathir lost Kelantan not because PAS, who at that time had teamed up with Tengku Razaleigh’s Semangat 46, was strong, but because the Kelantanese just hated Dr Mahathir’s guts.If Dr Mahathir had stayed for just two terms, he would have retired at the top. But he stayed beyond that and, thereafter, Dr Mahathir was never able to recapture his ‘honeymoon’ period performance of 1982 and 1986 when PAS was practically wiped out.Pak Lah, I replied, just like Dr Mahathir in 1982, is now also in his ‘honeymoon’ period. He, just like Dr Mahathir in 1982, is going to perform well this election. And he will continue to do so in the following election as well in 2009, just like Dr Mahathir did in 1986. It will have to be in the third election in 2014 (Malaysia’s 13 General Election) before Pak Lah can be brought to his knees.If Pak Lah is smart, I added, he should retire around 2013 or 2014, just before the 13th General Election. Then he will retire at the top, something Dr Mahathir did not do. This will make Pak Lah the best performing prime minister in Malaysia history. If, however, just like Dr Mahathir, he tries to take Malaysia into his third election as Prime Minister, then he would face the same humiliation Dr Mahathir suffered.
In short, the opposition can expect humiliation in the 11th General Election, plus in the 12th as well. The opposition will then have to hope that Pak Lah becomes ‘greedy’ and clings to power, which means its fortunes will change in the 13th General Election. If, however, Pak Lah very cleverly bails out and hands the country to his deputy just before that, this would be bad news for the opposition as then it may never recover.‘Show me the money’I know this prediction does not augur well for the opposition. But when the Malaysian opposition parties can only win by default, win when the ruling party makes mistakes, then what can it expect? You just need to listen to the opposition speeches. The opposition leaders speak about the mistakes made by the government. It talks about the excesses and abuses. It talks about the corruption and mismanagement. In spite of all this, the country’s economy grows and Malaysians see development.The opposition fails, or refuses, to understand what the voters want. They want the security and comfort of a good life and the ruling party has shown it can guarantee this. They want peace and stability and the freedom to get rich and the ruling party offers this. They want education and good jobs and the ruling party provides this.Agreed, to get all this Malaysians must sacrifice a little freedom and democracy. Granted, while the voters are free to get rich, the ministers too help themselves to some of the money. Maybe, there is no real equality but the Chinese still prosper in spite of the Ketuanan Melayu (Malay supremacy) policy.Malaysia offers the voters a win-win solution.
Get rich, prosper, get a good education, get good jobs, live in beautiful homes, drive nice cars, but just do not question what the government does or criticise it. This is acceptable to two-thirds of the voting population. The balance one-third disgruntled voting population can support the opposition if it so wishes. But in the ‘first past the post’ election system that Malaysia practices, the one-third is of no consequence.And yesterday’s 11th General Election has proven this point.The voters have not heard how the opposition can better develop Malaysia. The voters have not been told how they would get even richer than now if the opposition were to come to power. In fact, Kelantan and Terengganu have proven the reverse; the people get poorer with the opposition running these two states. And this is all that counts. And this is something the opposition does not seem to understand.
Do I hear someone say this is a most unIslamic stand to take? Do I hear someone say that principles cannot be compromised and exchanged for worldly desires? Don’t tell me, tell the voters, they don’t seem to think so as yesterday’s message from them has very loudly and clearly shown.And the message from the voters is, “Show me the money!”
The other side of midnight in .....
Written by Our Correspondent ASentinel
Monday, 20 July 2009
How did an opposition party aide manage to throw himself off an anti-corruption agency building? If Teoh Beng Hock had died in the custody of the police in Moscow or Chechnya, the death would have been all over the western media as yet another example of the brutality of the system.
But because Malaysia buys lots of arms from the west, western tourists love Langkawi beaches, and Manchester United makes millions from its Malaysian fans, this appalling story rated the briefest of international mentions. Yet murder goes closer to top people in Malaysia than it does to their equivalents in Russia.Teoh was an aide to an executive councilor in the Selangor state government which is controlled by an opposition coalition including the Democratic Action Party (DAP) of which Teoh's boss was a senior member.
He was found dead on the fifth floor roof of the Malaysia Anti-Corruption Commission building having allegedly jumped to his death after an interrogation.The story is not just a tragedy for Beng Hock, his family, fiancée and friends. It is yet another tragedy for the Malaysian system of law and justice. Exactly what happened at the Shah Alam, Selangor, of the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission we shall probably never know. Cover-ups will go on indefinitely, as also in the case of the murder of Mongolian model and translator Altantuya Shaaribu , the pregnant former mistress of Razak Baginda a close associate of now prime minister Najib Razak who was killed by members of Najib's security detail.According to the MACC, Teoh's interrogation had ended some hours earlier but he had elected to stay at its offices, from which he later jumped.
At the very least, if Teoh had killed himself it could only have been after mental or physical torture or administration of drugs by the MACC. Teoh was not the subject of investigation by the MACC, the agency said, only his boss. He was a former newspaper reporter for the Chinese daily Sin Chiew Jit Poh until joining the state government after the opposition victory last year. He was due to be married soon. The MACC may sound a worthy institution dedicated to clean government. But foreigners should not be fooled. Its interrogation of Yeoh was clearly aimed at trying to dig up something to pin on his boss and hence disrupt an opposition coalition already subject to the money politics which has helped keep the UMNO-led coalition in power at national level for more than 50 years.
The MACC meanwhile has singularly failed to investigate the payment of "commissions" totaling €114 million to Najib's friend Razak Baginda for the purchase of French submarines while Najib was Defense Minister. The French-speaking Altantuya visited Paris with Razak Baginda during discussions with the French so was almost certainly privy to the deal and, by her own admission, later tried to blackmail Baginda.
According to testimony which was not allowed in court, Najib was also present on one of these Paris visits. Indeed, according to a private detective who later recanted his testimony then disappeared, Najib himself had previously had a sexual relationship with Altantuya.The trial of Razak Baginda, who was acquitted, and two members of Najib's squad, who were found guilty, was a bizarre affair which made a mockery of justice. (see Asia Sentinel: Altantuya's Killers Judged Guilty) Yet western governments, which continue to lecture Russia and others on human rights and the rule of law for their own commercial reasons, continue to accord Malaysia's government and courts a liberal and democratic status which they lost two decades ago.
The death of Teoh Beng Hock is yet another tragic illustration of how rotten the Malaysian system has become after years of one party rule, racialism and blatant corruption on a massive scale.
Monday, 20 July 2009
How did an opposition party aide manage to throw himself off an anti-corruption agency building? If Teoh Beng Hock had died in the custody of the police in Moscow or Chechnya, the death would have been all over the western media as yet another example of the brutality of the system.
But because Malaysia buys lots of arms from the west, western tourists love Langkawi beaches, and Manchester United makes millions from its Malaysian fans, this appalling story rated the briefest of international mentions. Yet murder goes closer to top people in Malaysia than it does to their equivalents in Russia.Teoh was an aide to an executive councilor in the Selangor state government which is controlled by an opposition coalition including the Democratic Action Party (DAP) of which Teoh's boss was a senior member.
He was found dead on the fifth floor roof of the Malaysia Anti-Corruption Commission building having allegedly jumped to his death after an interrogation.The story is not just a tragedy for Beng Hock, his family, fiancée and friends. It is yet another tragedy for the Malaysian system of law and justice. Exactly what happened at the Shah Alam, Selangor, of the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission we shall probably never know. Cover-ups will go on indefinitely, as also in the case of the murder of Mongolian model and translator Altantuya Shaaribu , the pregnant former mistress of Razak Baginda a close associate of now prime minister Najib Razak who was killed by members of Najib's security detail.According to the MACC, Teoh's interrogation had ended some hours earlier but he had elected to stay at its offices, from which he later jumped.
At the very least, if Teoh had killed himself it could only have been after mental or physical torture or administration of drugs by the MACC. Teoh was not the subject of investigation by the MACC, the agency said, only his boss. He was a former newspaper reporter for the Chinese daily Sin Chiew Jit Poh until joining the state government after the opposition victory last year. He was due to be married soon. The MACC may sound a worthy institution dedicated to clean government. But foreigners should not be fooled. Its interrogation of Yeoh was clearly aimed at trying to dig up something to pin on his boss and hence disrupt an opposition coalition already subject to the money politics which has helped keep the UMNO-led coalition in power at national level for more than 50 years.
The MACC meanwhile has singularly failed to investigate the payment of "commissions" totaling €114 million to Najib's friend Razak Baginda for the purchase of French submarines while Najib was Defense Minister. The French-speaking Altantuya visited Paris with Razak Baginda during discussions with the French so was almost certainly privy to the deal and, by her own admission, later tried to blackmail Baginda.
According to testimony which was not allowed in court, Najib was also present on one of these Paris visits. Indeed, according to a private detective who later recanted his testimony then disappeared, Najib himself had previously had a sexual relationship with Altantuya.The trial of Razak Baginda, who was acquitted, and two members of Najib's squad, who were found guilty, was a bizarre affair which made a mockery of justice. (see Asia Sentinel: Altantuya's Killers Judged Guilty) Yet western governments, which continue to lecture Russia and others on human rights and the rule of law for their own commercial reasons, continue to accord Malaysia's government and courts a liberal and democratic status which they lost two decades ago.
The death of Teoh Beng Hock is yet another tragic illustration of how rotten the Malaysian system has become after years of one party rule, racialism and blatant corruption on a massive scale.
Friday 20 February 2009
An eye for an eye...
the sufferers....
TEHRAN, Iran (CNN) -- Ameneh Bahrami is certain that one day she'll meet someone, fall in love and get married. But when her wedding day comes, her husband won't see her eyes, and she won't see her husband. Bahrami is blind, the victim of an acid attack by a spurned suitor.
Ameneh Bahrami said her attacker pestered her with marriage demands.
If she gets her way, her attacker will suffer the same fate. The 31-year-old Iranian is demanding the ancient punishment of "an eye for an eye," and, in accordance with Islamic law, she wants to blind Majid Movahedi, the man who blinded her.
"I don't want to blind him for revenge," Bahrami said in her parents' Tehran apartment. "I'm doing this to prevent it from happening to someone else."
Bahrami says she first crossed paths with Movahedi in 2002, when they attended the same university.
She was a 24-year-old electronics student. He was 19. She never noticed him until they shared a class. He sat next to her one day and brushed up against her. Bahrami says she knew it wasn't an accident.
"I moved away from him," she said, "but he brushed up against me again." Watch Bahrami return to the attack scene for the first time »
When Bahrami stood up in class and screamed for him to stop, Movahedi just looked at her in stunned silence. He wouldn't stay silent for long.
Bahrami said that over the next two years, Movahedi kept harassing her and making threats, even as he asked her to marry him. "He told me he would kill me. He said, 'You have to say yes.' "
On a November afternoon in 2004, Movahedi's threats turned to violence.
That day at 4:30 p.m., Bahrami left the medical engineering company where she worked. As she walked to the bus stop, she remembers sensing someone behind her.
She turned around and was startled to see Movahedi. A moment later came the agonizing pain. Movahedi had thrown something over her. What felt like fire on her face was acid searing through her skin.
"I was just yelling, 'I'm burning! I'm burning! For God's sake, somebody help me!' "
The acid seeped into Bahrami's eyes and streamed down her face and into her mouth. When she covered her face with her hands, streaks of acid ran down her fingers and onto her forearms. Watch how the still-pungent acid destroyed Bahrami's clothes »
Two weeks after the attack, Movahedi turned himself in to police and confessed in court. He was convicted in 2005 and has been behind bars all along.
Bahrami's lawyer, Ali Sarrafi, said Movahedi had never shown any remorse. "He says he did it because he loved her," Sarrafi said.
Attack victims in Iran usually accept "blood money": a fine in lieu of harsh punishment. With no insurance and mounting medical bills, Bahrami could've used the cash, but she said no.
"I told the judge I want an eye for an eye," Bahrami said. "People like him should be made to feel my suffering." Watch how the acid destroyed Bahrami's eyes (includes graphic content) »
Bahrami's demand has outraged some human rights activists. Criticizing acid-attack victims is almost unheard of, but some Internet bloggers have condemned Bahrami's decision.
"We cannot condone such cruel punishment," wrote one blogger. "To willingly inflict the same treatment on a person under court order is a violation of human rights."
Late last year, an Iranian court gave Bahrami what she asked for. It sentenced Movahedi to be blinded with drops of acid in each eye. This month, the courts rejected Movahedi's appeal.
Bahrami's lawyer, Sarrafi, said the sentencing might be carried out in a matter of weeks. He said he doesn't think Bahrami will change her mind. Neither does Bahrami.
TEHRAN, Iran (CNN) -- Ameneh Bahrami is certain that one day she'll meet someone, fall in love and get married. But when her wedding day comes, her husband won't see her eyes, and she won't see her husband. Bahrami is blind, the victim of an acid attack by a spurned suitor.
Ameneh Bahrami said her attacker pestered her with marriage demands.
If she gets her way, her attacker will suffer the same fate. The 31-year-old Iranian is demanding the ancient punishment of "an eye for an eye," and, in accordance with Islamic law, she wants to blind Majid Movahedi, the man who blinded her.
"I don't want to blind him for revenge," Bahrami said in her parents' Tehran apartment. "I'm doing this to prevent it from happening to someone else."
Bahrami says she first crossed paths with Movahedi in 2002, when they attended the same university.
She was a 24-year-old electronics student. He was 19. She never noticed him until they shared a class. He sat next to her one day and brushed up against her. Bahrami says she knew it wasn't an accident.
"I moved away from him," she said, "but he brushed up against me again." Watch Bahrami return to the attack scene for the first time »
When Bahrami stood up in class and screamed for him to stop, Movahedi just looked at her in stunned silence. He wouldn't stay silent for long.
Bahrami said that over the next two years, Movahedi kept harassing her and making threats, even as he asked her to marry him. "He told me he would kill me. He said, 'You have to say yes.' "
On a November afternoon in 2004, Movahedi's threats turned to violence.
That day at 4:30 p.m., Bahrami left the medical engineering company where she worked. As she walked to the bus stop, she remembers sensing someone behind her.
She turned around and was startled to see Movahedi. A moment later came the agonizing pain. Movahedi had thrown something over her. What felt like fire on her face was acid searing through her skin.
"I was just yelling, 'I'm burning! I'm burning! For God's sake, somebody help me!' "
The acid seeped into Bahrami's eyes and streamed down her face and into her mouth. When she covered her face with her hands, streaks of acid ran down her fingers and onto her forearms. Watch how the still-pungent acid destroyed Bahrami's clothes »
Two weeks after the attack, Movahedi turned himself in to police and confessed in court. He was convicted in 2005 and has been behind bars all along.
Bahrami's lawyer, Ali Sarrafi, said Movahedi had never shown any remorse. "He says he did it because he loved her," Sarrafi said.
Attack victims in Iran usually accept "blood money": a fine in lieu of harsh punishment. With no insurance and mounting medical bills, Bahrami could've used the cash, but she said no.
"I told the judge I want an eye for an eye," Bahrami said. "People like him should be made to feel my suffering." Watch how the acid destroyed Bahrami's eyes (includes graphic content) »
Bahrami's demand has outraged some human rights activists. Criticizing acid-attack victims is almost unheard of, but some Internet bloggers have condemned Bahrami's decision.
"We cannot condone such cruel punishment," wrote one blogger. "To willingly inflict the same treatment on a person under court order is a violation of human rights."
Late last year, an Iranian court gave Bahrami what she asked for. It sentenced Movahedi to be blinded with drops of acid in each eye. This month, the courts rejected Movahedi's appeal.
Bahrami's lawyer, Sarrafi, said the sentencing might be carried out in a matter of weeks. He said he doesn't think Bahrami will change her mind. Neither does Bahrami.
So important and assignment...
Wow, an "important" case, .. so boring...(they are no bigger fish to catch ?)
KUALA LUMPUR, Feb 20 — The Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC) has said there is "strong evidence" to show Selangor Menteri Besar Tan Sri Khalid Ibrahim had misused his powers over the purchase of 46 cows and maintenance of his own cars.
The cases are believed to be linked to allegations brought up by his predecessor Datuk Seri Mohd Khir Toyo, and which is now the subject of a law suit brought by Khalid for defamation against the Barisan Nasional man.
It is understood the investigation papers have been forwarded to the Attorney-General's Chambers.
"The MACC can decide but it's better for the Attorney-General to consider and take action, it involves a VIP and we have to be fair to everyone," MACC chief commissioner Datuk Seri Ahmad Said Hamdan told a news conference in Penangafter performing the ground-breaking ceremony for the Penang MACC quarters building.
Bernama quoted him as saying that from the technical point of view, there was evidence pertaining to the allegations.
Abdul Khalid has been accused of using state government funds for the maintenance of his personal sports utility vehicle, a Lexus bearing the number plate WQR779, and the purchase of 46 cows costing RM10,400 for sacrifice.
On another matter, Ahmad Said said the MACC would also investigate allegations of abuse of power by Perak state assembly Speaker V. Sivakumar for suspending Perak Menteri Besar Perak Datuk Dr Zambry Abdul Kadir and his six state executive councillors from the assembly.
"If it's true that there has been abuse of power, the MACC will take appropriate action," he added...SOO BORING
KUALA LUMPUR, Feb 20 — The Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC) has said there is "strong evidence" to show Selangor Menteri Besar Tan Sri Khalid Ibrahim had misused his powers over the purchase of 46 cows and maintenance of his own cars.
The cases are believed to be linked to allegations brought up by his predecessor Datuk Seri Mohd Khir Toyo, and which is now the subject of a law suit brought by Khalid for defamation against the Barisan Nasional man.
It is understood the investigation papers have been forwarded to the Attorney-General's Chambers.
"The MACC can decide but it's better for the Attorney-General to consider and take action, it involves a VIP and we have to be fair to everyone," MACC chief commissioner Datuk Seri Ahmad Said Hamdan told a news conference in Penangafter performing the ground-breaking ceremony for the Penang MACC quarters building.
Bernama quoted him as saying that from the technical point of view, there was evidence pertaining to the allegations.
Abdul Khalid has been accused of using state government funds for the maintenance of his personal sports utility vehicle, a Lexus bearing the number plate WQR779, and the purchase of 46 cows costing RM10,400 for sacrifice.
On another matter, Ahmad Said said the MACC would also investigate allegations of abuse of power by Perak state assembly Speaker V. Sivakumar for suspending Perak Menteri Besar Perak Datuk Dr Zambry Abdul Kadir and his six state executive councillors from the assembly.
"If it's true that there has been abuse of power, the MACC will take appropriate action," he added...SOO BORING
Thursday 5 February 2009
Its the power that matters..
who cares about respect and dubious...
KUALA LUMPUR, Feb 5 — Tengku Razaleigh Hamzah said a large section of the public will be angry if the Perak Ruler does not dissolve the state assembly and invites Barisan Nasional to form the state government on the basis of dubious crossovers.
Writing in his blog, the Gua Musang Umno MP cautioned that taking control of Perak without getting the mandate of the people will spell disaster for BN in the next general election.
"Our taking control without resorting to elections would cement the enmity of the very people we should be trying to win back.
"Come the next general election, they are going to reject both our state and parliamentary candidates with greater vehemence, and not just in Perak."
The former finance minister said contests in a democracy are not a fight for survival where anything goes but a competition to serve and BN must reform to improve its ability to serve with distinction.
He said this was a long-term goal which required immediate focus, adding that BN did not need questionable victories which he described as distractions but needed to upgrade itself to win elections again, fair and square.
Tengku Razaleigh said this was the only sustainable way for BN to win back the public.
He said Umno was in critical condition because of ethical failures and its biggest challenge was tackling corruption at every level.
"We are under close public scrutiny and unless we implement radical reforms and are seen to be doing so, we are finished politically come next elections".
However, he said, BN was embroiled in "winning back" Perak with the crossover of who he described as low-calibre individuals.
"The two assemblymen whose allegiance we have suddenly gained are under investigation for corruption, while the Bota assemblyman's justification for his record-breaking 10-day double-hop is an insult to the public's intelligence and nauseating in its insincerity."
He said this open abuse, for personal gain, is what caused people to hate Umno.
Tengku Razaleigh also lashed out at the circumstances surrounding the defections.
"The mysterious disappearances, sudden reversals, and weak explanations, show ample signs of illegal inducement.
"No matter what the truth of the matter, let us not fool ourselves. People will not believe that these crossovers were honest. This mistrust will taint any government formed on the back of these crossovers."
He said the celebrations over the Perak takeover were premature because the defections may or may not topple the state government.
"The Constitution and the role of the Ruler in such crises must be respected because defections are not a basis for the formation of a government. Elections are."
He said the Constitution spells out a formal process for the formation of a government and the Ruler is sworn to uphold and protect this constitutional process.
"The menteri besar has sought the Ruler's consent for the dissolution of the State Legislative Assembly.
KUALA LUMPUR, Feb 5 — Tengku Razaleigh Hamzah said a large section of the public will be angry if the Perak Ruler does not dissolve the state assembly and invites Barisan Nasional to form the state government on the basis of dubious crossovers.
Writing in his blog, the Gua Musang Umno MP cautioned that taking control of Perak without getting the mandate of the people will spell disaster for BN in the next general election.
"Our taking control without resorting to elections would cement the enmity of the very people we should be trying to win back.
"Come the next general election, they are going to reject both our state and parliamentary candidates with greater vehemence, and not just in Perak."
The former finance minister said contests in a democracy are not a fight for survival where anything goes but a competition to serve and BN must reform to improve its ability to serve with distinction.
He said this was a long-term goal which required immediate focus, adding that BN did not need questionable victories which he described as distractions but needed to upgrade itself to win elections again, fair and square.
Tengku Razaleigh said this was the only sustainable way for BN to win back the public.
He said Umno was in critical condition because of ethical failures and its biggest challenge was tackling corruption at every level.
"We are under close public scrutiny and unless we implement radical reforms and are seen to be doing so, we are finished politically come next elections".
However, he said, BN was embroiled in "winning back" Perak with the crossover of who he described as low-calibre individuals.
"The two assemblymen whose allegiance we have suddenly gained are under investigation for corruption, while the Bota assemblyman's justification for his record-breaking 10-day double-hop is an insult to the public's intelligence and nauseating in its insincerity."
He said this open abuse, for personal gain, is what caused people to hate Umno.
Tengku Razaleigh also lashed out at the circumstances surrounding the defections.
"The mysterious disappearances, sudden reversals, and weak explanations, show ample signs of illegal inducement.
"No matter what the truth of the matter, let us not fool ourselves. People will not believe that these crossovers were honest. This mistrust will taint any government formed on the back of these crossovers."
He said the celebrations over the Perak takeover were premature because the defections may or may not topple the state government.
"The Constitution and the role of the Ruler in such crises must be respected because defections are not a basis for the formation of a government. Elections are."
He said the Constitution spells out a formal process for the formation of a government and the Ruler is sworn to uphold and protect this constitutional process.
"The menteri besar has sought the Ruler's consent for the dissolution of the State Legislative Assembly.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
