Malaysians Unplugged Uncensored

The Other Voices on Malaysian Politics and Social Issues

Tuesday 17 February 2015

GOVERNMENT WRAPPED UP IN :PENIS AND BUTTOCK" CULTURE IN MALAYSIA

A GOVERNMENT THAT TALKS ABIUT "PENIS AND BUTTOCK " CULTURE

by

Wong Jie Mei
http://tinyurl.com/jw3v7ga

FLASHBACK: In light of the recent conviction of Anwar, interest in the details of the case has skyrocketed among the Malaysian public.

This article published in the Chinese website on March 9 last year has recently gone viral, garnering over 100,000 reads in a single day. Here is the English translation.

ENGLISH TRANSLATION OF THE CHINESE ARTICLE;

" Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim is no match for the final decision made after the Attorney-General appealed to overturn the High Court’s verdict on the sodomy case, declaring him guilty and to be imprisoned for five years.

No one is calling for the court to make their decision based on public opinion, but in the face of such hasty judgements and insistence that solicitors make concluding remarks without implying that the case is to end Anwar’s political career, how should young legal workers like us feel about this?

Excluding anything that is “beyond all reasonable doubt” is supposed to be the norm in law practices, and it is broadly and commonly used. The High Court previously passed an innocent verdict due to doubt over the semen found in Saiful Bukhari’s anus. The focal point then is the expert witnesses called by both sides having endorsed that the DNA sample has the possibility of being contaminated, and there was a DNA sample of an unknown contributor “Male Y”.

In such cases, with the benefit of doubt to the defendant and without sufficient evidence, the defendant should have obtained an acquittal.

Furthermore, Anwar was charged under Section 377B of the Penal Code, which criminalises voluntary carnal intercourse against the order of nature, and not Section 377C, which is carnal intercourse against the order of nature without consent.

At this point, it is important to establish whether the unnatural sex carried out was with consent or not.

In this case, however, although the defendant needs only bear the criminal responsibility, the prosecutor’s motives and critical thinking skills should also questioned, as public opinion about them will paralyse the universal concept of objectivity.

The rape and murder cases of Norita Samsuddin and Chee Gaik Yap both shared the same verdict some years back due to similarities of the cases. Because both victims’ private parts contained semen of a third party - and in accordance to laws of logic and precedence – the verdict for both cases proved to be inconclusive, and the defendants walked free. However, in dealing with the case involving the opposition leader, there is a clear difference in terms of interpretation of evidence.

Under usual circumstances, the High Court and courts above it will use case law to pass down a verdict, the role of the judiciary is not only applicable to current laws but also to finders of judicial precedent.

Verdicts must be arrived at in a way that the interpretation and application of the law that applies on Norita and Chee’s case must be taken into consideration. Therefore, how can there not be uproar over such a judgment on Anwar?

In addition, the High Court has referred to prima facie evidence – the evidence established of a fact at first glance. For example, the prosecutor said there is sufficient evidence to make a case; unless Anwar himself has other evidence to back him up, the prosecutor will win the argument.

Despite the issues raised above, they (the judges) are still justifying their decision. This makes me feel that the knowledge of law is lost!

From being a “victim” to going to attend a swearing ceremony organised by a mosque, to Saiful’s father pleading for Anwar’s forgiveness and then changing his tune – there is definitely someone intent on controlling and manipulating mainstream institutions, including the media, to propagate the “official stance” of “sodomy and bisexuality not being part of Malay culture” to provoke and agitate people.

On the other hand, many cases that require arguments but did not get a chance to be heard, can only bear witness to Anwar’s case.

When studying in university, the western philosophical maxim is: “Not only must Justice be done; it must also be seen to be done”, yet the whole case seemed staged to thwart Anwar’s plans to contest in the Kajang by-election, and his political ambitions.

With all the ambiguity surrounding the case – from the mishandling of the DNA and semen samples, and the need for the defendant to prove his innocence instead of merely raising reasonable doubt – all eyes are on whether the Federal Court can restore the public’s confidence by changing the verdict.

Even as of yesterday, this judgement has made those who are sympathetic to Anwar more convinced that the government has been abusing its power.

A government that can only talk about the ‘penis and buttock’ culture, has not only sodomised the judiciary, but also angered the people!

The kind of government that wants to be a momentary “villain”, but has also wronged the good people, must be uprooted by the people."

NOTE

There are a lot of questions regarding this judgment. Hence, this article is written.

The original article, written in Chinese, can be found here.; http://cn.theantdaily.com/Article.aspx?ArticleId=2913

Posted by Malaysian Unplug at 00:33:00

Email This BlogThis!Share to Twitter 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.