Hanya setelah pendedahan tersebut, Dr Mahathir segera meminta Datuk Seri Abdul Rahman Maidin mengambil alih saham tersebut, dan ketika itu baru disebut sebagai milik Umno. Maka ia mengesahkan perakuan saya sebelumnya.

Hal sedemikian terbongkar semula dalam keterangan Abdul Rahman Maidin dan Datuk Nazri Abdullah dalam prosiding mahkamah dalam kes saman Datuk Khalid Ahmad terhadap Datuk Abdul Rahman Maidin. Saya bersyukur kehazrat Allah kerana fitnah terhadap saya yang sekian lama menjerat pemikiran sebahagian pendukung Umno kini terbongkar.

ANWAR IBRAHIM

Ramai juga yang bertanyakan pandangan saya berhubung desas desus perletakan jawatan Ketua Menteri yang sudah lama memerintah, Tan Sri Abdul Taib Mahmud. Bagi saya ianya sengaja dihebahkan. Pastinya menyedari suasana dan budaya BN, usaha akan dilakukan untuk mengerah jentera parti mereka membuat ikrar menyokong kepimpinan beliau.

Bagi kita, isu kepimpinan bukan soal peribadi. Maka isu perletakan jawatan tidak relevan. Perubahan kepimpinan sepertimana yang berlaku sebelum ini tidak menjanjikan sebarang perubahan dasar. Sistem sama terus diamalkan- angkuh dengan kuasa, rasuah berleluasa dan tidak ada kepedulian terhadap penderitaan rakyat. Makanya tanggungjawab kita yang bergerak dalamKeadilan dan muafakat Pakatan Rakyat, adalah untuk menjelaskan agenda kepada Rakyat dan menumpukan usaha menuntut reformasi – yakni menolak kezaliman dan menegak keadilan.

ANWAR IBRAHIM

Pakatan Rakyat sedar wujudnya satu muslihat politik oleh pimpinan Umno-BN untuk mengapikan sentimen perkauman sempit dan agama bertujuan memecahbelahkan keharmonian masyarakat. Politik usang bersifat peras ugut dan memesongkan fakta ini digunakan oleh pimpinan Umno-BN kerana mereka berada dalam keadaan terdesak untuk meneruskan kelangsungan kuasa mereka. Demi mencapai cita-cita politik tersebut pelbagai jentera kerajaan seperti BTN dan media seumpama Utusan Malaysia diperkuda untuk menggugat kesejahteraan rakyat.
Berhadapan serangan bertali arus itu, Pakatan Rakyat tetap beriltizam untuk melaksanakan Perubahan demi kemaslahatan rakyat keseluruhannya. Kita beriltizam untuk memastikan keharmonian dan perpaduan masyarakat dapat diperteguh serta politik perkauman sempit akan sirna dari negara ini.
Pakatan Rakyat menghormati perjuangan parti masing-masing dalam Permuafakatan Pakatan Rakyat. Permuafakatan ini sememangnya berlandaskan Dasar Bersama Pakatan Rakyat yang telahpun disepakati.
Dasar Pakatan Rakyat menyatakan:
“Pakatan Rakyat bertekad untuk menyemai persefahaman dan perpaduan di kalangan rakyat berteraskan prinsip memelihara kepentingan bersama. Perpaduan negara mesti mencerminkan kesepakatan, persefahaman serta muafakat sejati antara kaum, budaya dan agama.”
Kita akui sememangnya terdapat perbezaan di antara komponen Pakatan Rakyat, walaupun begitu kita tuntas menggalakkan perbincangan dan bersikap terbuka. Ini berbeza sekali jika dibandingkan dengan politik dalaman BN yang mana komponennya sering bertelagah dan bersikap menyembunyikan segala permasalahan.
Pakatan Rakyat tidak mempunyai keraguan untuk tetap bersatu melawan kemungkaran dan penganiayaan Umno-Barisan Nasional terhadap rakyat. Kami beriltizam untuk menentukan hala tuju baru buat rakyat dan negara ini. Menjelang 53 tahun kemerdekaan, sudah tiba masanya negara ini meninggalkan politik perkauman sempit yang seumpama barah merosak masyarakat. Pakatan Rakyat merasa bertanggungjawab untuk memaknai kembali Kemerdekaan yang berlandaskan Politik Baru yang lebih matang dan mengutamakan kemaslahatan rakyat serta negara ini.
Kita percaya antara lainnya serangan ini adalah untuk menutup kegagalan kerajaan Umno-BN menguruskan khazanah negara seumpama skandal rompakan saham untuk rakyat termiskin bernilai RM 52 billion. Kita menggesa satu Suruhanjaya Di Raja ditubuhkan bagi menyiasat kehilangan hak rakyat tersebut.
YB Dato Seri Anwar Ibrahim,
Ketua Umum Keadilan

YB Ust Nasharuddin Mat Isa
Timbalan Presiden Pas

PKR YAB Lim Guan Eng
Setiausaha AgungDAP

Antara Kandungan Dasar Bersama Pakatan Rakyat. Iltizam untuk melaksanakan Politik Baru:

1. Demokrasi Telus dan Tulen

A – Negara Perlembagaan dan Kedaulatan Undang-Undang
Perlembagaan Persekutuan merupakan penzahiran cita-cita dan harapan rakyat Malaysia yang merdeka. Di dalamnya hak asasi setiap rakyat termasuk hak agama, bahasa, kerakyatan dan budaya dijamin sepenuhnya. Justeru, Pakatan Rakyat beriltizam memartabatkan semangat dan peruntukan Perlembagaan Persekutuan.
Pakatan Rakyat akan:
i. Mempertahankan Perlembagaan Persekutuan, Islam sebagai agama bagi Persekutuan dan agama-agama lain boleh diamalkan dengan aman dan damai di mana-mana di negara ini serta melindungi kedudukan istimewa orang Melayu dan anak negeri mana-mana antara Negeri Sabah dan Sarawak dan kepentingan sah kaum-kaum lain sejajar dengan Perkara 153

ii. Mempertahankan peranan dan tanggungjawab institusi raja berperlembagaan.

iii. Memartabatkan pengunaan Bahasa Melayu selari dengan Perkara 152 Perlembagaan dan memperluaskan Bahasa Melayu sebagai lingua franca serantau, melindungi dan memperkukuhkan penggunaan bahasa ibunda semua kaum.
iv. Memansuhkan Akta Keselamatan Dalam Negeri dan undang-undang yang membenarkan tahanan tanpa dibicara. Serentak dengan itu mengesyorkan pembatalan semua pengisytiharan Darurat yang masih berkuatkuasa.
v. Memansuhkan atau meminda semua akta dan undang-undang yang zalim serta melanggar hak asasi.
vi. Menjamin semangat persekutuan serta hubungan yang adil di antara Persekutuan dengan negeri-negeri, terutama Sabah dan Sarawak.

Malaysia needs a new property rights policy to safeguard its population against rising prices and “market excesses” beyond the means of many people, Balik Pulau MP Yusmadi Yusoff said today.

Joining the debate on national housing, Yusmadi said the extremely high prices have denied many the opportunity to own homes.

He said that despite the quota system for bumiputras, many are still confined to their own kampungs and categorised as squatters because the land the villages stand on is owned by someone else.

In particular, Yusmadi said, the residents of Balik Pulau, both Malays and non-Malays, have become “mere spectators” as luxury housing projects way beyond their affordability come up in the area.

“Since the end of the 1990s, housing projects have been approved at a very fast pace,” he said in a statement. “The average price of between RM300,000 and RM900,000 here is beyond the means of the local residents.”

He said the issue of concern is why many Malays are still struggling with property ownership rights. “Is the current policy able to meet the expectations of our youths who want to own comfortable homes for their loved ones?” he asked.

Yusmadi said the suggestion by DAP MP Tony Pua that bumiputra quotas for luxury properties valued at RM500,000 and above be done away with should be considered. He also took Perkasa to task for its “narrow racial agenda”.

“We can no longer view justice through the lens of one race only. What is most important is that those who have become the victims of injustice need to be defended,” he said.

Yusmadi, who is also the Penang PKR Youth chief, said although a healthy market is needed for entrepreneurs in the development industry, there needs to be a review of the manipulation and market excesses.

“Should we resign ourselves to the market when there are no protective policies and mechanisms?” he said, questioning why the authorities exercise control over housing plans but not over-pricing.

Adalah dimaklumkan pihak polis akan mengambil keterangan dari Dato’ Seri Anwar Ibrahim pada jam 11pagi, hari Rabu, 18hb Ogos 2010, di Ibu Pejabat Parti Keadilan Rakyat, Merchant Square, Tropicana. Ini berkaitan penyiasatan penggunaan foto Sultan Johor kononnya oleh penganjur ceramah di Batu Pahat, Johor.  Terima kasih.

Pejabat Dato’ Seri Anwar Ibrahim

Sebelum inipun hakim yang sama menolak permohonan Pasukan Pembela agar Farah dan Saiful dipanggil untuk menjawab dan berhadapan dengan persoalan samada wujudnya hubungan sulit serta wujudnya kebocoran maklumat dokumen perbicaraan dan penyiasatan. Mahkamah seperti mahu memberi perlindungan kepada Farah dan Saiful sedangkan kedua-dua mereka sewajarnya memfailkan affidavit membela kehormatan jika benar tuduhan itu palsu. Mengapa gentar berhadapan dengan kebenaran!

ANWAR IBRAHIM

Anwar Ibrahim is the leader of Malaysia’s opposition. Since reemerging in Malaysian politics in 2007 he has done well, quadrupling the new opposition coalition’s representation in Parliament, winning 47% of the popular vote, and taking control of six of Malaysia’s fourteen states and territories in the March 2008 elections. He has become the biggest threat to the sitting government’s 53-years of uninterrupted rule.

Perhaps that is why the Malaysian judiciary is pursuing a charge of sodomy against him, again. In 1998 he faced a similar ordeal in the midst of a popular uprising against the rule of then Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamed. Viewed as a threat to the ruling party’s status quo, Anwar was sacked from his position as Deputy Prime Minister and Finance Minister, arrested and sentenced to 15 years solitary confinement after a trial many believed was marred by political interference, falsification of evidence, blackmailing, coercion and torture of witnesses, harassment of defense lawyers, and refusal to admit witness testimony favorable to the accused. Anwar’s current trial looks to be a repeat of the travesty of justice that landed him in prison last time.

Firstly, there is overwhelming evidence that the charges are a government conspiracy. Just a few days before he filed the police report accusing Anwar of sexually assaulting him, the accuser met the current Prime Minister – Najib Razak, then Deputy Prime Minister. When asked about the meeting, Najib first denied it ever happened, but later changed his story, admitting that the meeting took place, but claiming that it was to discuss scholarship opportunities for the accuser, who is a college dropout. Najib then changed his story again, admitting that the accuser had come to him to complain about the abuse he had received under Anwar. Najib, the son of Malaysia’s second Prime Minister, was at the time Prime Minister in waiting. It was he who had the most to lose from an ascendant Anwar Ibrahim and opposition coalition.

In the days before lodging his police report the accuser also met a police officer who had falsified evidence in the 1998 trial. And the current trial is being led by an Attorney General who is believed to have fabricated evidence in Anwar’s previous trial.

Secondly, the charge does not match the accusation. The accusations – as detailed in accuser’s testimony in court – suggest forced sodomy, effectively rape. By pursuing a different charge from the one made by the accused, the Attorney General is opening himself up to some embarrassing questions. If he believes that Anwar raped Saiful, why not charge him for it? But if he really believes Anwar and Saiful engaged in consensual sex, why only press charges against a popular leader of the opposition, and not also the former intern?

It is likely that he is not charging Anwar for the rape of which he is accused for the simple reason that he knows the charge would not stand. Anwar Ibrahim was almost disabled in 1998 after a near-death beating at the hands of the Malaysian police, is known to have a disabling back problem. It is completely improbable that he could mount an attack on a younger, more agile man. It looks very much like the Attorney General has ignored the charge because he knows that there will be insufficient evidence in court to make it stick.

A third suspicious aspect of the whole affair is the lack of evidence. If the accuser was indeed assaulted then there would be some evidence to prove it. However, forty-eight hours after the alleged incident he was examined twice, once in a private hospital and once more in the Kuala Lumpur General Hospital. In both cases doctors ruled out any possibility of assault or penetration – the minimum amount of evidence necessary for a court to proceed with a trial. Moreover, the lag in time from the alleged incident until the time he was examined leaves wide open the possibility of planting or fabricating evidence.

A fourth reason for suspicion is clear evidence of obstruction of justice in this case. Anwar’s defense team and medical experts have yet to receive much of the information they need to do their jobs effectively. Medical reports, CCTV recordings, and even witness statements have all been withheld by the prosecution. The judiciary has systematically denied Anwar’s attorneys access to the facts of the case before and during the trial, leaving the defense with one arm tied behind its back.

Lastly, the charges emerged just months after the opposition made unexpected gains in the 12th Malaysian General Elections and in advance of Anwar’s threat to call for a vote of no confidence in Parliament and take over the government. There has been a general campaign to discredit and destabilize the opposition in general and vilify Anwar Ibrahim specifically, of which these charges seem to be just another example.

The Malaysian judicial system has acquired a poor reputation, taking in interferences with due process, the pursuit of political persecutions, and succumbing to political interference. This time, it looks like the system has not only abandoned the prospect of giving Anwar a fair trial, it has even abandoned any prospect of showing the world it is making any effort to give him a fair trial.

Only 10% of the Malaysian population believes the charges, and there has been a chorus of international outcry from lawmakers and human rights organizations in Australia, Europe, and the United States.

It is clear that the trial has been unfair from the start. Every day that it continues is a further blot on the Malaysian judiciary. The charges are tainted, inconsistent, and lacking credibility; the evidence flimsy where it exists; and the process skewed in the interest of the government.

I have no axe to grind in Malaysian politics. I am moved to write only by a sense of injustice, and outrage that this process might be allowed to stand. It does not just threaten Anwar Ibrahim. It threatens the development of Malaysian democracy, which would otherwise have the chance of being an example throughout the Muslim world.

In the interests of justice and Malaysia’s international image, the case against Anwar Ibrahim must be dropped.

Azeem Ibrahim is a Research Scholar at the Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University, Member of the Board of Directors at the Institute of Social Policy and Understanding and Chairman and CEO of Ibrahim Associates.

Sumpah..sumpah..sumpah…adakah semua masalah boleh selesai dengan hanya bersumpah?
Mengapa bila dibawa kes ke Mahkamah Syariah, Menteri UMNO sendiri yang menolaknya. Mengapa takut dengan Mahkamah Syariah? Bukankah anda mengaku sebagai pejuang Islam.

Sungguh besar risiko dan ancaman bagi orang yang berdusta dan berbohong dalam sumpahnya, sebab itu Islam mengingatkan umatnya agar hati-hati dalam bersumpah dan jangan biasakan diri bersumpah. Jangan bersumpah tentang ini dan itu tanpa keperluan.

Kebiasaan bersumpah akan menyebabkan orang merasa tidak bersalah ketika berdusta dalam sumpahnya sehingga akhirnya terjebak dalam ancaman hadis di atas. Bahkan Allah SWT berfirman:

“Dan janganlah kamu mengikuti orang yang selalu bersumpah, lagi hina.” (QS. Al-Qalam:10)

Rahsia kerajaan yang kuat atau masyarakat yang maju adalah terletak pada tertegaknya hukum yang adil. Sudah menjadi bukti sejarah, bahawa kehancuran umat-umat terdahulu, adalah kerana tidak berlaku tertegaknya hukum yang adil.

Jika pemimpin buat salah, orang “kuat” atau berduit, walaupun kejahatan yang besar, bahkan merugikan masyarakat terbanyak, hukum tidak ditegakkan.

Namun jika yang buat salah itu rakyat marhaen, walaupun kecil kesalahannya, segera hukuman ditegakkan dengan seberat-beratnya.

Rasulullah Saw. bersabda:

“Wahai manusia!, ketahuilah bahwa kehancuran umat terdahulu adalah karena mereka tidak menegakkan hukum dengan adil. Jika yang mencuri –berperkara- dari golongan terpandang, mereka biarkan. Namun jika yang mencuri itu orang yang tidak punya, mereka secara tegas menegakkan hukum. Demi Allah, jika Fatimah putri Muhammad –anak beliau sendiri- mencuri, pasti saya potong tangannya.” (HR. Bukhari)

“Demi Allah” sebagai sebuah ucapan yang mengawali sumpah sering kita dengar untuk membuktikan bahwa sesuatu itu benar atau tidak benar.

Sesungguhnya, Allah Ta’ala melarang sumpah dijadikan sebagai alat menipu, “Dan janganlah kamu jadikan sumpah-sumpahmu sebagai alat penipu diantaramu yang menyebabkan tergelincir kaki(mu) sesudah kokoh tegaknya dan kamu rasakan kemelaratan (didunia) karena kamu menghalangi (manusia) dari jalan Allah dan bagimu azab yang besar.” (QS. An-Nahl :94).

Dari Abu bakar r.a, Rasulullah Saw bersabda: “Maukah kalian semua jika kuberitau tentang dosa paling besar diantar dosa-dosa paling besar ?” kami menjawab ” sudah tentu wahai Rasulullah.” lalu, sambil berbaring beliau Saw bersabda: “Pertama, syirik kepada Allah, lalu durhaka kepada orang tua…” lalu tiba-tiba Rasulullah duduk tegak dan bersabda: “yang ketiga sumpah palsu dan saksi palsu. “Rasulullah terus mengulang-ulang yang ketiga ini sampai para sahabat gemetar dan berkata: “seandainya Rasulullah diam” karena takutnya para sahabat mendengarkan kata sumpah dan saksi palsu yang diulang terus menerus oleh Rasulullah.” (Hr. Bukhari Muslim).

Betapa beratnya dosa dengan sumpah palsu apalagi untuk mengaibkan orang lain demi untuk kepentingan peribadi.

Jauhilah sumpah palsu dan raja sesumpah.