Malaysians Unplugged Uncensored

The Other Voices on Malaysian Politics and Social Issues

Tuesday, 17 February 2015

ARIFIN ZAKARIA's ATTITUDE AND HIS LEGAL COMPETENCE AS CHIEF JUSTICE IS QUESTIONED

C.k. Foo's photo.

MALAYSIANS MUST READ THIS ARTICLE:
THINGS THIS GOVT. AND THE JUDICIARY PREFER YOU DON'T KNOW OR WERE NOT TOLD ABOUT.

Article by John Malott, former US Ambassador to Malaysia

http://m.malaysiakini.com/news/289262

LESS than 20 minutes after the chief justice (Arifin Zakaria) announced the (Federal)!court's decision, an official government statement was sent to the media, both Malaysian and international.

For a government whose usual response is either "elegant silence" or to send out short and callous "tweets" about important and highly-charged topics (like the fate of the victims in the Malaysia Airlines crashes), this was indeed remarkable.

Let's take a look at the GOVERNMENT's CLAIMS.

A. First came the assertion that: MALAYSIA HAS AN INDEPENDENT JUDICIARY ???

"The judges will have reached their verdict only after considering all the evidence in a balanced and objective manner. Malaysia has an independent judiciary, and there have been many rulings against senior government figures."

But DOES THE WORLD BELIEVE that Malaysia has an independent judiciary, and that the court was balanced and objective?

- The court's decision was immediately criticised by the governments of the United States, the United Kingdom, Australia, Canada, New Zealand, Germany, and Switzerland, among others, as well as the European Union.

- The Embassies and High Commissions of these countries sent observers to cover Anwar's trials over the past many years. They all ALL CONCLUDED that the verdict RAISED MAJOR QUESTIONS about the independence of the Malaysian judiciary.

- Likewise, respected INTERNATIONAL HUMAN RIGHTS ORGANIZATIONS such as Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, and the International Federation for Human Rights said the same thing.

- The INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION OF JURISTS (ICJ)

International Commission of Jurists (ICJ) and the Inter Parliamentary Union (IPU) also condemned the court's verdict. As for the ICJ, it said, "Anwar Ibrahim should never have been investigated, charged with, tried, let alone convicted of and sentenced for such charges."

- QC MARK TROWELL's DAMNING ASSESSMENT OF ARIFIN ZAKARIA's JUDGEMENT

Especially telling were the comments of Mark Trowell, a Queen’s Counsel who represented the IPU, LAWASIA, and the Law Council of Australia. He said the decision of the Federal Court "was unconvincing and lacked a detailed analysis of the facts."

Further blasting the court, he said that "in reaching these conclusions, the court rejected or ignored the evidence that raised serious doubts about the reliability of so-called independence evidence and the credibility of the complainant."

In the most damning statement of all, Trowell said, "If the court had proper regard to the facts and the law, Anwar Ibrahim should never have been convicted."

- CENTRE FOR STRATEGIC AND INTERNATIONAL STUDIES

In describing the verdict, Murray Hiebert at the Centre for Strategic and International Studies in Washington DC, which normally is sympathetic towards Malaysia, told a German television network that "it's pretty much a travesty of justice and an attempt to sideline an opposition politician who has been challenging the ruling party in recent years."

- COUNCIL OF FOREIGN RELATIONS

Josh Kurlantzick of the Council on Foreign Relations, without doubt the most prestigious foreign policy institute in the United States, tweeted that "any belief in Najib Razak as some kind of reformer should now be fully and totally extinguished."

- THE WORLD's MEDIA's CRITICISM OF THE FEDERAL COURT's VERDICT.

Some of the most prestigious publications in the world, such as the Washington Post, the Wall Street Journal, and the Economist also have spoken out.

- The WASHINGTON POST

The Washington Post wrote in an editorial,

"The criminal case used to imprison Mr Anwar, who has been one of the foremost advocates of liberal democracy in the Muslim world, was as morally reprehensible as it was farcical...The case against him was thin enough to be dismissed by a court in 2012. That Mr Najib's government managed to have that decision reversed by an appeals court and upheld by the Supreme Court demonstrated only that Malaysia still lacks an independent judiciary."

- THE WALL STREET JOURNAL

Calling the verdict ‘Malaysia's Anwar shame,’ the Wall Street Journal said, "Umno's decades-long vendetta against Mr Anwar has brought discredit on Malaysia's government and political culture. It is likely to accelerate the ruling party's loss of support from a maturing population repulsed by such dirty tricks. Prime Minister Najib Razak's failure to call an end to this farce is a stain on his legacy."

- TORONTO GLOBE AND MAIL

And Dan Slater, a Southeast Asia specialist at the University of Chicago, told the Toronto Globe and Mail newspaper in Canada that when the government decided to appeal Anwar's acquittal in the High Court, the government's actions became "nothing better than a witch-hunt."

B. QUESTION FOR PUTRAJAYA

So here's a question for the public relations masters in Putrajaya.

You can claim that "Malaysia's judiciary is independent" until you are blue in the face.

But CAN YOU NAME:
- one foreign government,
- one international human rights organisation,
- one international newspaper,
- one foreign think-tank, or
- one overseas academic

who AGREES with the decision - and who CONCURS with YOUR ASSERTION that the verdict was the just conclusion of AN INDEPENDENT JUDICIARY

I DON'T THINK SO.

But I am also sure that you are now coming up with more multi-million dollar proposals for the government to try and sway world opinion.

Save your money.

Remember all the WASTED DOLLAR you spent on Jack Abramoff, Apco, FBC Media, and Paul Stadlen.
They all FAILED totally to achieve their paid objectives.

C. SAIFUL MADE POLICE REPORT ONLY AFTER HE MET NAJIB, ROSMAH MANSOR AND Sodomy-I POLICE OFFICER MOHD RODWAN MOHD YUSOF.

The government's press release then went on to say:

"The police report against Anwar Ibrahim was brought by a private individual - Anwar's employee and personal assistant - not by the government. As the victim of a serious sexual assault, he had every right to have his case heard in court."

Yes, it is true that the initial police report was filed by Mohd Saiful Bukhari Azlan, BUT ONLY AFTER HE MET with Najib and wife Rosmah Mansor, as well as the infamous police official from Sodomy I, Mohd Rodwan Mohd Yusof.

D. WHO IS THIS RODWAN MOHD YUSOF IN SODOMY-1 ?

We know about Najib and Rosmah, but just to remind everyone about Rodwan - according to a Malaysiakini
report:

In 2008, in the 1998-1999 trials, Anwar experienced the phenomenon of fabrication of DNA evidence.

We had senior assistant commissioner (SAC) Rodwan ILLEGALLY REMOVING DNA SAMPLES FROM FORENSIC CUSTODY.

In cross-examination of the prosecution's witnesses, it was exposed that DNA taken from blood samples was PLANTED ON THE INFAMOUS MATTRESS.

When confronted with this fact, the prosecution amended its charge and persuaded the late judge, Augustine Paul (who was later promoted to the Federal Court), to expunge the entire DNA evidence from the record, preventing Anwar Ibrahim's lawyers from responding.

E. COMPLICITY OF UMNO-BN GOVT ON A POLITICAL WITCH-HUNT USING SAIFUL AS A "PATSY"

Even after Saiful, a college dropout, met with the then deputy prime minister and filed the police report, it was up to the government to decide whether to file charges against Anwar.

So from that moment forward, IT WAS THE GOVERNMENT CASE, NOT SAIFUL's .

And when Anwar was acquitted, it was the GOVERNMENT decided to file the appeal, NOT Saiful.

At that point, it was clear, as Professor Slater of the University of Chicago said, that the GOVERNMENT was on a "witch-hunt". THEY were once again determined to remove Anwar as a force in Malaysian politics.

F. SAILFUL BUKHARI A VICTIM ???

The government's press release also calls Saiful "the victim of a serious sexual assault."

But WAIT A MINUTE... - WASN'T THE CHARGE "CONSENSUAL SEX" ?

And didn't attorney-general Abdul Gani Patail just say that the reason Saiful also was not charged for consensual sex was BECAUSE HE HAD TURNED STATE's WITNESS and agreed to testify against Anwar?

So if it was CONSENSUAL, WHY does the Prime Minister's Office call Saiful a "victim" of sexual ASSAULT ?

- JOHN MALOTT

--------------

THE ARTICLE HIGHLIGHTS ONE POPULAR PERCEPTION HELD BY MALAYSIANS:

"THE UMNO-BN GOVT AND THE JUDICIARY THINK MALAYSIANS AND THE REST OF THE WORLD ARE IGNORANT FOOLS AND STUPID MORONS."

SO REALLY, WHAT DO MOST MALAYSIANS AND THE REST OF THE WORLD THINK OF :

- OUR JUDICIARY HEADED BY ARIFIN ZAKARIA ( a Kelantanese who is out of sorts, really)

- AND BY EXTENSION, OUR UMNO-BN GOVT HEADED BY NAJIB ABDUL RAZAK ELECTED IN MAY 2013 ?

ANSWER:
A BUNCH OF EMBARRASSING JOKERS WHO THINK THEY ARE SMARTER THAN EVERYBODY ELSE IN THE MALAYSIA AND THE REST OF THE WORLD WITH THEIR SPINS AND HALF-TRUTHS ON WHAT's GOING ON IN THE COUNTRY.

Posted by Malaysian Unplug at 00:40:00

Email This BlogThis!Share to X Share to Facebook Share to Pinterest

No comments:

Newer Post Older Post Home

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)

Blog Archive

► 2016 (36)
- ► November (1)
- ► August (7)
- ► July (11)
- ► April (6)
- ► March (7)
- ► February (4)

▼ 2015 (28)
- ▼ February (27)
- ► January (1)

► 2014 (108)
- ► December (8)
- ► November (2)
- ► October (7)
- ► September (37)
- ► August (36)
- ► July (8)
- ► June (1)
- ► May (6)
- ► April (1)
- ► February (1)
- ► January (1)

► 2013 (57)
- ► December (1)
- ► November (4)
- ► October (3)
- ► September (12)
- ► July (6)
- ► June (4)
- ► May (8)
- ► April (2)
- ► March (10)
- ► February (6)
- ► January (1)

► 2012 (29)
- ► November (3)
- ► September (2)
- ► August (5)
- ► June (1)
- ► May (5)
- ► April (5)
- ► March (1)
- ► February (2)
- ► January (5)

► 2011 (68)
- ► December (1)
- ► November (3)
- ► October (3)
- ► September (7)
- ► August (7)
- ► July (5)
- ► June (9)
- ► May (6)
- ► April (1)
- ► March (11)
- ► February (5)
- ► January (10)

► 2010 (229)
- ► December (12)
- ► November (6)
- ► October (18)
- ► September (16)
- ► August (12)
- ► July (26)
- ► June (5)
- ► May (25)
- ► April (19)
- ► March (14)
- ► February (17)
- ► January (59)

► 2009 (442)
- ► December (24)
- ► November (14)
- ► October (22)
- ► September (22)
- ► August (39)
- ► July (47)
- ► June (54)
- ► May (35)
- ► April (39)
- ► March (44)
- ► February (77)
- ► January (25)

► 2008 (402)
- ► December (28)
- ► November (22)
- ► October (37)
- ► September (48)
- ► August (41)
- ► July (35)
- ► June (24)
- ► May (28)
- ► April (29)
- ► March (52)
- ► February (32)
- ► January (26)

► 2007 (350)
- ► December (30)
- ► November (40)
- ► October (15)
- ► September (23)
- ► August (32)
- ► July (33)
- ► June (29)
- ► May (38)
- ► April (22)
- ► March (25)
- ► February (31)
- ► January (32)

► 2006 (8)
- ► December (8)

Pages

Home

Search This Blog

Featured post

THE BLINKERED APPROACH TO THE LAW BY THE FEDERAL COURT

Blog Archive

Awesome Inc. theme. Powered by Blogger.