Adei PariahTulukan Mahathir don’t fuck around enough of Sodomizing the Malays
TAXIDRIVER’S THOTS
A truly suspicious case
feedom is the recognition that no single person, no single authority or government has a monopoly on the truth, but that every individual life is infinitely precious, that every one of us put in this world has been put there for a reason and has something to offer.”-Thomas Jefferson
What a joke to say there’s no conspiracy. Conspiracy did not begin or end with the court. It began with the planting of moles, fabricating evidence, and then framing charges. Of course. if we get a judge with high integrity and conscience, the conspiracy chain is easily broken, if not too bad. Questions Malaysians should ask are : Why waste the court’s time when the evidence produced had seemed so flimsy even to the layman ? Eg, a person being ‘sodomised’ seemed so casual, keeps his evidence in his arse for a few days before making police report and that only after consulting the PM and the IGP. Wouldn’t he run to the nearest police station to make a eport the very instant after the act ? And even then, different MO’s had come out with different findings of whether there was penetration………and so on. If I were the judge hearing this case, I would have thrown out the case at the first instance not only to save the court’s time, but to prevent the accused from being dragged thru the mud. So don’t fool us by saying there was no conspiracy.
No conspiracy? If not because he who craved near absolute power & consumed by power beyond redemption, why on earth then Mr Anwar needed to waste 6 years in jail. The mere fact that Mr Anwar was subsequently exonerated also proved that the court then was under Maha-devil’s evil thumb to persecute Mr Anwar in all blindness.The conspiracy is not so much with the judgement. The conspiracy is more related to the decision to frame charges. Why the PM discussed with Saiful, Saiful’s getting the mobile number of the IGP and the meeting between police and Saiful before the police report etc. The objective may not even be to jail Anwar but more to keep him busy and worried that he cannot function effectively as a political leader to topple the government. The not guilty verdict may even be beneficial to the BN government. Anyway the story may not be finished yet because there is the possibility of the AG appealing the case. The higher courts sometimes reverse the verdict as had happened so many times before.Mahathir, time for you to acknowledge that another UMNO plot has failed. You guys finally acknowledged that a guilty verdict would have turned Anwar into a martyr and decided that it was better to have him out of jail than in jail. You aren’t fooling anyone but simply displaying yet again how often UMNO’s leaders rush in with half-baked ideas only to have to recant. It is time to toss out a leadership with no leadership and no brains
As the pain and anger of Anwar’s 1998 sodomy trial fade in intensity after 11 intervening years, slowly replaced by fresh, hopeful anticipation of change, we are yet again confronted by an almost comical repeat of the stale sodomy charges that threaten to open deep scars of shame and regret in our national psyche.
Future generations of Malaysians will look back aghast at how we could have allowed it to happen, how we could have permitted one despot to subvert and manipulate all our cherished instruments of democracy to serve his personal agenda of demolishing a political enemy.
As we look back in anguish and plead that we were helpless to resist the iron-fisted dictator who controlled all the levers of power in a climate of fear, we now face another chance to resist the naked assault on decency and justice and we wonder if we are just as helpless as we were before.
How have things changed in more than a decade and what are we up against?To convict an innocent man of false charges, there must be four parties acting in concert, three of them in the criminal justice system. They are the Police to fabricate evidence, the Attorney-General to frame the charge and the Judiciary to convict the accused irrespective of whether he can put up a creditable defense.
However in a democracy, even these three powerful institutions acting in concert are not enough. To this must be added a fourth institution – the press, also aptly referred to as the ‘Fourth Estate’.These four institutions which protect our freedom and democratic rights are also called the pillars of democracy.
Unfortunately, all of them have been severely damaged by Mahathir during his iron-fisted rule. If even one of them had been healthy and functioning properly in 1998, the unjust conviction of Anwar back then would not have been possible.
FROM 1998 TO 2009
How do these institutions fare now compared to eleven years ago? Is it possible for a repeat of the shameful sodomy caper of 1998? There is certainly no improvement in the institution of the Attorney-General and the Police.They are now helmed by men who actively participated in the prosecution of Anwar in 1998. The current A-G, Gani Patail was the head of the prosecution team and the current IGP, Musa Hassan was the head of the police investigation team in Anwar’s previous sodomy case.
The judiciary sometimes shows a rare spark of independence but only rarely and planned judicial reforms appear to have gone nowhere. As the Perak crisis has shown, there is certainly no lack of judges willing to serve the government instead of serving justice.
The mainstream media is less slavish than it was under Mahathir but is still a well controlled boneless wonder. However there is one significant difference – the alternative media is now fully developed.
In 1998 the Internet was at its infancy. The government controlled the flow of information through the mainstream media to mould public opinion and anything could be buried by the powers-that-be. But this is no longer possible as online penetration is at least twelve times what it was in 1998 and the online media has reach mainstream status.
An example is the Lingam video scandal which was ignored by the mainstream media and the government initially but knowledge of it became so widespread via the online world that the Bar Council and the government were forced to act.
So the first three institutions are still compromised – enough to do the the hatchet job again; in fact, some would say they have become worse. Only the press has improved somewhat although it must be said that the improvement in information access was an unintended side effect of the proliferation of the Internet and not from any positive action by the BN government. Can the freer flow of information save Anwar now as he battles for his political future?
A QUESTION TO PONDER
this mother fucker judge
It is sad that 11 years after the infamous sodomy trial we still have to ponder this question instead of declaring confidently that thing have changed so much that sending an innocent man to jail under fabricated charges is no longer possible. What the new information environment means is that nothing can be hidden, obscured, obfuscated or distorted. Every proceeding of the court and every evidence tendered or argument advanced will be dissected and scrutinized in detail by a local and international audience.
The mainstream press cannot be too one-sided now. It must at least show some decorum of balanced reporting in the face of widespread public knowledge to avoid insulting its readers.
A blatantly unjust conviction will draw strident condemnation from politicians, social activists, rights groups and NGO’s and the transparent political persecution of an opposition leader will invite outside condemnation and make Malaysia an international pariah.So does this mean that Anwar is safe? The answer is “not necessarily” because despite extreme negative publicity, UMNO is arrogant enough to ride roughshod over public opinion when it suits them.
Being good isn’t an easy task. In order to be so, you must acknowledge the bad within you. Are you almost good and not quite bad?Am I really good? This is a question that has always bothered me. I think I am, and I am pretty sure the world I inhabit, on the whole, thinks so too. Basically, a good human being who wouldn’t harm another and if possible, would go out of my way to help someone.Is that good enough? Or, does one need to apply more stringent, rigid standards? If so, I’m sure I’d win some, lose some. As I go through Gurcharan Das’ latest book, The Difficulty of Being Good, I am even more confused. The book examines the Mahabharata through an analysis of the one predominant characteristic — good or bad — of each of the epic’s characters. What is heartening is that all good characters in the epic seem confused too, at some point or other.Yudhishthira is convinced he cannot declare war against his elders and brothers, but still does so; Arjuna is dead against killing his grandfather, his teacher and an unarmed Karna, and yet does it; Bhishma is goodness personified, but he doesn’t try to stop his grandchildren from attempting to disrobe the hapless Draupadi in court. He also leads the armies of one set of grandchildren against another!Who can deny Lord Krishna’s goodness? And yet, at times we question the advice he gave Arjuna that led to the killing of his grandfather Bhishma, his teacher Drona and his brother Karna! Goodness, it seems, is confusing.“I am good,” declared colleague Debasish with great confidence when I asked him. “I’m good because I try not to hurt anyone and because I try to follow the dictates of my inner voice.” Rashmi replied, “Yes, I am good because I try to be conscientious and do the right thing, though my definition of ‘right’ may change from time to time.” A kind of shifting goodness?“Yes,” says Jyoti, “because my intentions are generally good and because it’s important to think positively of yourself, as that makes you capable of being positive.”The self-effacing Anuradha was the first to say, “No, I’m not good. Though I do try to measure up to a moral science kind of ideal, I feel guilty when I fall short. In many situations, I find other people’s reactions more humane, with more feeling… I look at them and feel they are so much nicer than me. Are we good if we’re better than the next person?”The most interesting response was Urvashi’s. “I think I am a good person because there have been people who’ve performed worse deeds than I have, deeds I think I’m incapable of… And I don’t think I’m a good person because I’ve met people who are far better than I am — in their thoughts and deeds!”Urvashi’s is by far the most realistic answer. Here’s someone who tries to be good, and yet leaves some scope by questioning her goodness and ideals.The goody-goody characters on television confound the confusion. They are so good, so pure, so butter-wouldn’t-melt-in-their-mouth that they are not just unbelievable, but actually irritating! They suffer vicissitudes and insults with never a word against those who persecute them. Their ‘nobility’ makes you squirm in your seat.Now, why should goodness irritate? But truth is that too big a shot of goodness does arouse discomfort! All of us know at least one friend, aunt, cousin or even a parent or sibling who irritate with their saccharine goodness or obsession of self-sacrifice! They are so good that they seem Divine! Such people are an anachronism in today’s world! They set such high standards that they make us feel inadequate.Mahabharata too has its moments of irritating goodness. Yudhishthira is calm and unmoved during the period of exile as Draupadi’s temper blazes. “Why be good?” she asks and “Why doesn’t your anger blaze?” His goodness at that point is irritating to his beloved wife and brothers, as enumerated by Gurcharan Das.Eklavya cuts off his thumb and gifts it to Drona to ensure Arjuna has no equal. And Arjuna is reported be happy at this. My anger turns against Eklavya for following an instruction from a self-seeking and devious guru who had refused to accept him as a pupil because he was a low caste! Was it good of Eklavya to cut his thumb? I think not!Then there’s the incident when Lord Indra dressed as an ascetic, demands Karna hand over his protective inborn armour and earrings. Knowing that handing over these will make him vulnerable, Karna still does so. Was it good of him? I don’t think so. The selfless Bhishma actually reveals the means of his self-destruction to the Pandavas as he is bound by an oath he gave them. Yudhisthira, the upholder of dharma exploits this.
Gurcharan Das says that Bhishma’s ethics of selfless detachment fails the day he fails to protect Draupadi and suggests that this may be the Mahabharata’s way of telling us that “even an exalted virtue like selflessness and commitment to disinterested performance of duty can get one into trouble!” The Mahabharata reminds us once again about the difficulty of being good.Is it important to have some bit of vice because the bad instinct is inborn, a part of us? And goodness is the struggle against that instinct; we all achieve varying degrees of success and so are good in different ways. That’s human. And so Krishna is good, so are Yudhishthira and Arjuna. Their struggle against evil, their moments of weakness and their repentance make them so.So then, are we saying that actually, it is the evil within us that makes us good? Just as without darkness, who would appreciate light? How can you be good if you have no shade of bad within you?
