Satu kajiselidik yang dibuat baru-baru ini – sehari sebelum perhimpunan BERSIH 3.0 -  menunjukkan majoriti responden mahu daftar pemilih dibersihkan sebelum pilihan raya umum akan datang.

Menurut Merdeka Centre, 92 peratus daripada 1,019 orang yang dikajiselidik bulan lalu berkata kerajaan perlu melakukannya sebelum pilihan raya umum.

Keputusan itu hampir sebulat suara di kalangan responden pelbagai bangsa, kumpulan umur, jantina, pendapatan dan kawasan, dengan lebih 90 peratus daripada setiap kumpulan, menjawab dengan positif.

Kira-kira separuh atau 48 peratus daripada kumpulan yang sama juga berkata mereka tidak yakin dengan daftar pemilih.

The Wall Street Journal published an editorial on on May 24, 2012 titled “Malaysian People’s Court“. In it the influential newspaper challenges Opposition Leader Anwar Ibrahim to admit to committing “civil disobedience” at the April 28 Bersih Rally and accept the consequences of that action.  The paper says rather cynically “If Mr. Anwar wants to practice civil disobedience, he can’t pretend to be innocent at the same time.”

The Wall Street Journal seems to believe that the primary purpose of the gathering on April 28 was to protest the Public Assembly Act, which states in Section 4(2)(c):

“a person commits an offence if he organises or participates in a street protest.”

It’s clear however that the April 28th demonstration has nothing to do with the Public Assembly Act, just like the previous BERSIH rallies in 2011 and 2007 had nothing to do with the predecessor laws to the Peaceful Assembly Act that restricted public assembly in Malaysia and presumably rendered those public gatherings technically illegal under Malaysian laws. The April 28th demonstration had the stated purpose of protesting electoral fraud. Subsumed within that protest are a whole litany of laws that prevent free expression and assembly of Malaysians.

What exactly did Anwar do that is illegal? Currently he has been charged with violating the Public Assembly Act and pleading not guilty. What legal tradition does the WSJ belong to that suggests an accused must prove himself innocent when charged with a crime?

Such an upside down approach to the law is usually the modus operandi of the Malaysian Attorney General, where politically motivated trials place the burden of proof on the defendant and not the prosecution in a true perversion of the justice system.

If indeed Anwar Ibrahim was engaged in an act of civil disobedience by participating in the April 28th BERSIH Rally then so too were the 200,000 other Malaysians gathered in downtown Kuala Lumpur, not to mention the thousands of others who demonstrated throughout the country. Why is Anwar Ibrahim and his two associates the only ones to be charged by the government? And why would the WSJ place the lions share of responsibility on Anwar Ibrahim and not BERSIH chairperson herself Ambiga Srenavasan?

Additionally, if the BERSIH gathering was deemed legal but it was the breaching of the barriers at Dataran Merdeka in particular that are considered the illegal act which Anwar was expressing civil disobedience over, then the WSJ’s point is also fundamentally flawed. Anwar has denied giving any instructions for people to breach the barrier and in fact the extended video of him near the barrier shows he tried to get the people to disperse, rather than cross the barrier.

A legitimate, independent investigation needs to be conducted to figure out what happened. The likely conclusion will be that those near the barrier were dead set on crossing over and prepared to face the consequences. There was no mechanism for Anwar, Ambiga or anyone else to control that sentiment. However, it’s also clear that a truly independent inquiry is virtually impossible in Malaysia and even when inquiries do happen, their results are ignored.

So why then should Anwar plead guilty to an act of civil disobedience when 1) he was not expressing civil disobedience but rather demonstrating in support of electoral reform and 2) when doing so would necessarily land him in jail or with a fine that would disqualify him from contesting in the upcoming general election?

Is now the time for Anwar to willingly banish himself to prison or to the political wilderness just to prove a point that the opposition is willing to adhere to the rule of law in a country where the laws are themselves fundamentally flawed. Is the Wall Street Journal trying to make a point that Malaysia is a reformed nation now and that both government and opposition should be held to the same high standard of adhering to the rule of law?

What laws are we talking about here? Whose laws? The Public Assembly Act was forced through parliament just like all of Najib Razak’s so called reform measures. They are in each case an example of giving some rights out with their right hand and taking away a series of other rights with their left hand. The net effect is pretty much zero. Is the WSJ drinking the Kool-Aid that Najib’s administration is mixing with the help of well paid international media consultants, including some journalists formerly employed by the WSJ?

Instead the WSJ should have read the latest polling results from the Merdeka Center that show 90% (i.e. virtually all) of Malaysians want to see the electoral roll cleaned before the next election and that nearly half of all Malaysians do not have faith in the integrity of the electoral process. There are also a large percentage of Malaysians, Malays in particular, who remain unclear about the stated goals of the BERSIH movement. Presumably, if given the chance to be informed and educated, a large percentage of these people will also question the integrity of the electoral process.

Is this not the real story that the WSJ missed by zeroing in on Anwar’s act of civil disobedience? The fact that an election is likely to take place in Malaysia within the next 11 months in the midst of the revolutions of the Arab Spring and the return to public office of Aung Sun Sii Kyi where 50% of voters do not believe in the integrity of the process and are thus likely to question the integrity of the counting and results?

27 Mei 2012 (Ahad)

1)    9.00 – 12.00 mlm – Ceramah Perdana 1 – Merdeka Rakyat

        Lokasi: Pekan Tongkiat, Bandar Pusat Jengka  

       Penceramah:

i.                    YB Dato’ Seri Anwar Ibrahim

ii.                  YBhg Dato’ Ariff Sabri

iii.                YBhg Nizam Abdul Hamid

iv.               YBhg Bostamin Bakar

2)    9.00 – 12.00 mlm – Ceramah Perdana 2 – Merdeka Rakyat

        Lokasi: Markas PAS, Bandar Baru Maran

        Penceramah:

i.                    YB Dato’ Seri Anwar Ibrahim

ii.                  YBhg Tok Guru Haji Ahmad Baki Osman

iii.                YBhg Dato’ Fauzi Abdul Rahman

iv.               YBhg Dr Hamzah Jaafar

Regardless of its terms of reference, the people will have to contend with the independent panel to investigate violence during the Bersih 3.0 rally that has been handpicked by the government. And we may have to wait a little while before judging whether the panel is fair or biased, or simply redundant.

This is in view of the attorney-general’s pre-emptive moves in charging several people under the Peaceful Assembly Act 2012, as well as having advised the government to sue the Bersih steering committee for damages.

The investigations, or any other action pertaining to Bersih 3.0, should have been put on hold once the government announced the formation of the said independent panel. Similar action was taken during the black eye incident, when I was instructed to put investigations on hold the moment the cabinet announced the setting up of the RCI. Abdul Gani Patail is fully aware of this precedent.

Be as it may, the impartiality of the panel has been a subject of contention since its formation was announced, particularly the appointment of Hanif Omar as the chairperson. The test of their impartiality will be whether the panel is willing to raise the issue on the position of Gani Patail, to whom the panel’s findings will be submitted for a decision.

Where goes the panel report?

Although many will disagree, but if there is need for a panel to investigate Gani, then I suggest that both Hanif and retired Chief Justice of Borneo Steve Shim are the most appropriate persons to be in that panel. I am also of the view that Gani’s antics cannot get past these two distinguished gentlemen.

For the benefit of all, this is Steve Shim’s decision on Gani’s conduct in Zainur Zakaria vs PP [2001] 3 CLJ:

“In the circumstances, was he (referring to Anwar Ibrahim) not justified, on a prima facie basis, in complaining that the AG’s (Gani Patail’s) conduct at the meeting on 2 October 1998 was an attempt to get Nalla to fabricate evidence in order to perfect charges against him (Anwar) for other alleged sexual offences?”

The former CJ is expected to defend his decision on the above and he will certainly be backed by Hanif, who knows the truth of what exactly happened in 1998 and how the facts were manipulated and by whom. Particularly now, since the panel’s report will eventually be scrutinised by none other than Gani himself.

The government of the day, then and now, cannot deny being fully aware of Shim’s decision on Gani. The government must recognise the former CJ’s decision in the same manner Dr Mahathir takes cognisance of another Federal Court decision, as found in his memoir A Doctor in the House (page 695):

“Most Malaysians are ignorant of the contents of the judgment of the Federal Court, which acquitted Anwar on a technicality due to the error relating to the date of the incident. They are not aware that the majority of the Federal Court had held that in their judgment they found ‘…evidence to confirm that the appellants (Anwar and Sukma) were involved in homosexual activities and we are more inclined to believe that the alleged incident at Tivoli Villa did happen’…”

No one saw Anwar sodomise Sukma or anybody else, or having sex with any woman. The Federal Court came to that conclusion merely relying on evidence gathered or manufactured by Musa Hassan and presented before the judges by Gani and his prosecution team.

But where falsification and fabrication of evidence are concerned, several people saw what Gani did. Musa Hassan and Dr Rahman Yusof not only saw it but were parties to it, willingly or otherwise. Another pathologist from Hospital Kuala Lumpur testified in court that Anwar’s blood sample for DNA tests was stolen from the doctor’s custody on Oct 15, 1998.

Over and above that, I not only saw with my own eyes what Gani did, but I went to the extent of warning him of the complications that could be expected in the near future when he (Gani) is discovered, besides telling him of the stern instructions and warning from the prime minister himself, whom I briefed on Oct 8, 1998, that there should not be any cover-up in the investigations involving Anwar Ibrahim. Most importantly the products of the falsifications are available for all to see.

One important question immediately comes to mind: Which of the two Federal Court decisions cited above should be given more weight? It must be noted that Shim’s decision on Gani came first.

Does that mean that if the court decides against Anwar, then the decision is said to be correct or is in the right direction, but when a court decides in favour of Anwar, then the court is wrong or the judge has a political agenda or may be labelled as a communist sympathiser?

If Shim’s decision on Gani is not given its due weight nor respected by the government of the day, then Shim should not be allowed to remain on the panel. Should the government have some decency to accept a legitimate judicial decision of the highest court of the country, then Gani should henceforth be suspended and made to face the due process.

The government of the day must explain how on earth was Gani Patail, despite allegations of having a tainted resume, chosen to be the attorney-general in 2002 and how such conduct could have escaped the Yang di-Pertuan Agong’s scrutiny.

Ulterior motives involved?

Either the government had ulterior motives or the government was simply negligent in exercising due care in vetting Gani’s suitability and competency before he was recommended to be appointed as the AG.

Either way ,the Agong was deceived into believing that Gani Patail was the most suitable and not encumbered with any criminal culpability if compared with at least two other candidates. The Agong would not have appointed Gani had he not been so deceived.

Former Yahoo CEO Scott Thompson was fired just four months after his appointment, for merely allowing two inaccuracies on his qualifications to appear in his biodata that was filed with the securities regulators – one in accounting and the other in computer science.

It was not about qualifications he didn’t have. It was all about honesty. If a CEO can cheat about his qualifications, then he can cheat about everything else pertaining to the affairs of the company.

Similarly, if the EC chairperson and his deputy can deceive the Conference of Rulers and the Agong with no feelings of remorse, then they can cheat on everything and anything concerning the electoral roll.

If our government copied the American model of gerrymandering, then it should also adopt their model of testing the honesty of the EC chairperson, as the Americans did with the former Yahoo CEO.

One must also not forget that Musa Hassan was reported to have committed perjury during a trial in 1998 by claiming to have a qualification that he did not, just like Scott Thomson. The only difference between them is that Thompson was caught once and given the boot, while Musa was caught three times in all and yet cleared of any wrongdoing.

If Gani Patail, who has a damning decision on his head and a preponderance of evidence in several other allegations of wrongdoings, can still be allowed to remain in office and carry on with his illegitimate ways of doing things;

If both the EC chairperson and the deputy are said to have secured their positions through fraud and misrepresentations and by concealing their present or previously held membership in a political party and yet are allowed to remain as custodians of the electoral roll;

If the prime minister himself, who could be proven to have affirmed false affidavits in September 2011 and knowingly filing the same in a High Court to avoid having to give his testimony before the said court and yet nothing was done by the appropriate authorities, then;

Are we not in a state of lawlessness already? No?

MAT ZAIN IBRAHIM is a former Kuala Lumpur Criminal Investigations Department chief.

Kawasan lapang peneroka tidak akan selamat apabila Felda Global Venture Holdings (FGVH) disenaraikan di Bursa Malaysia, kata PKR.

Pengarah Strategi PKR Rafizi Ramli mendakwa, sebaik sahaja peneroka hilang kawalan terhadap FGVH, tiada apa lagi yang dapat menyekat syarikat itu daripada mengambil alih tanah terbuka atau rumah kedai di kawasan Felda.

Walaupun tanah 10 ekar dan tanah yang dimiliki peneroka tidak dapat disentuh, tetapi kawasan tanpa geran tanah boleh diambil, dakwanya.

Bercakap di konvensyen berhubung hak masyarakat Felda dan Orang Asli, Rafizi memberi amaran, apabila pengambilalihan berlaku, perubahan drastik dalam persekitaran dan kehidupan sosial mereka akan berlaku.

KUALA LUMPUR 25 Mei: KEADILAN telah mengenal pasti samseng Umno yang melempar batu, telur dan botol hingga menyebabkan beberapa penyokong Pakatan Rakyat cedera di ceramah malam tadi.

Menurut Pengarah Operasi Jentera Pilihan Raya KEADILAN Lembah Pantai, Md Zaman Md Tasi, tindakan biadap itu dilakukan oleh Pemuda Umno kawasan berhampiran.

“Saya mengenal pasti mereka adalah Pemuda Umno. Saya merupakan penduduk Lembah Pantai dan mustahil saya tidak mengenali mereka,” katanya pada sidang media di Ibu Pejabat KEADILAN tengahari tadi.

KUALA LUMPUR, May 25 — A PKR ceramah featuring Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim and daughter Nurul Izzah Anwar turned ugly when the crowd as well as opposition leaders were pelted with stones and eggs.

Tensions were already running high before the event began last night, as the scheduled PKR function was located a mere 100 metres away from another ceramah — one organised by Umno.

Lembah Pantai Umno youth members were earlier seen carrying banners near the venue which read “Anwar causes violence in this country.”

Some 100 Lembah Pantai Umno youth members were earlier seen blocking the main road leading to the PKR ceramah venue, carrying banners which read “Anwar causes violence in this country.”

PKR’s ceramah had an unceremonious start as guest speakers tried to speak as loudly as they could to compete with the Umno ceramah nearby.

Chaos occurred when Nurul Izzah was about to speak — the wiring to the sound and lights system was cut, delaying the Lembah Pantai MP’s speech by a good 15 minutes.

Shortly after she spoke, Anwar arrived and that was when the stone- and egg-pelting commenced.

The night saw one major casualty where a senior citizen suffered injuries to the head after being hit with a stone.

The PKR de facto chief ordered the bleeding man to be brought to the nearest medical centre for treatment. Anwar also immediately blamed Umno for the incident.

“This is the way of Umno youth. A man has been injured because stones were thrown at him by the accursed Umno youth!

“I challenge (Datuk Seri) Najib (Razak) to a debate, not to send his thugs to do this,” said Anwar to cheers from the 1,000-odd crowd who were mostly PR supporters.

“Throwing stones, it means a total lack of respect for democracy in Malaysia… it is a sign of an Umno-BN that is desperate to hold on to power,” added Nurul Izzah.

In contrast, Umno’s 500-odd ceramah attendance degenerated into a verbal shouting match as its star speaker Ummi Hafilda Ali screamed verbal abuse each time Anwar or any PR leader spoke.

“Anwar is al-juburi. He is pro-Jewish. He is the father of womanisers,” shouted the woman whose complaint led to Anwar’s first sodomy trial, as she tried to drown the former deputy prime minister’s speech.

This prompted Anwar to say: “We want to win the elections not by insulting people but by rule of law.

“I am used to getting insulted every night, for 14 years I have been insulted by TV3 and Utusan Malaysia,” he said to cheers from the PKR crowd.

This marks the third time a PR function has been disrupted after similar incidents in Merlimau and Malacca last weekend.

Till now, except for the case of 25-year-old Mohd Safuan Mamat, where he was beaten up in an attempt to extract a confession, when Safuan went to the police station voluntarily, the police has not ascertained who damaged the police vehicles but are already bringing a civil suit against S. Ambiga and the Bersih 2.0 Steering Committee to seek RM122,000 in special damages for 15 police vehicles damaged during the protest, including two water cannon trucks.

It is also not transparent how the damages have been assessed in the first place, because there were no witnesses from both parties. Could it be possible that some damages have been further done to the vehicles in order to create a bigger loss?

Focus on the 8 electoral reforms

Going further, instead of pursuing a civil suit or pressing charges on the civil society movement, the Government should focus on the eight demands of Bersih.

Keadilan calls on Najib to focus on the eight demands by Bersih 2.0 Steering Committee, and ensure that all resources are focused on cleaning up the electoral roll and to make the electoral roll foolproof against any forms of cheating. After all, these people are doing a national service without being asked to be put on the already bloated government’s payroll.

Both EC chief and deputy must resign

Keadilan calls upon Prime Minister Najib to clean up the electoral roll before the next General Election and deal with the other issues such as gerrymandering and mal-apportionment to ensure that we have a clean and fair election.

Both the chairman and deputy chairman of the Election Commission should be asked to resign to pave the way for a new team who can work closely with the civil society to ensure the electoral process is foolproof.

Wan Azizah Wan Ismail
president of Parti Keadilan Rakyat