Friday, February 13, 2015

Anwar Ibrahim's Jailing -- A Travesty of Justice

I apologise for my "recalcitrance" in delaying my commenting on Opposition Leader Sdr ANWAR IBRAHIM's conviction with five-year jail term last Tuesday by the Federal Court for allegedly sodomising a youth half his age at 67 (Desi's age too, BTW, and I am a PKR-card-carrying member.I believing in letting my esteemed readers (ER) know basic info on my background, so I am seen to be astranspaprent as possible as a human newsdog!) Here's the meaning from Thesaurus.com for those ER who would like to learn a seldom used word: Travesty...

burlesque

noun. bawdy show; vaudeville

Kuala Lumpur 23 °C, Mostly Cloudy

Malaysia

After Anwar convicted, Bar Council chief says Malaysians live in ‘strange world’

Published: February 11, 2015 12:34 PMUPDATED: February 11, 2015 01:40 pm

Tools

Bar Council president Christopher Leong (pic) says the conviction of Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim is feeding suspicions that his case was one of political persecution rather than criminal prosecution. ― File pic

KUALA LUMPUR, Feb 11 — “Glaring anomalies” in the conviction of Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim for sodomy is feeding suspicions that his case was one of political persecution rather than criminal prosecution, Malaysian Bar president Christopher Leong said today.
Although acknowledging it was too early to comment on the Federal Court’s decision to jail Anwar for five years on a charge of sodomy yesterday, Leong pointed out that Anwar’s accuser, Mohd Saiful Bukhari Azlan, was not prosecuted despite the decision to prosecute the opposition leader for consensual anal sex.
“It is notable that Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim was not charged under Section 377C of the Penal Code for forced sodomy or sodomy rape, although there may appear to have been some allegation of coercion made in the proceedings.
“This has also given rise to questions or concerns as to why the complainant, Mohd Saiful Bukhari Azlan, who was alleged to have been a participant in the act of sodomy, was not charged for abetment under Sections 377A and 377B, read together with Section 109, of the Penal Code,” Leong said in a statement today.
The Federal Court that yesterday upheld Anwar’s conviction under Section 377A had said that consent was not an ingredient of the offence. Mohd Saiful alleged that he was forced into the act by Anwar in 2008.
Malaysia’s apex court also decided that Mohd Saiful was a “credible witness”, concurring with both subordinate courts that his testimony was reliable.
Leong also noted the rarity of prosecution using the laws that criminalise “carnal intercourse against the order of nature”, which include both oral and anal sex,
“Given this, it is remarkable that Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim has been prosecuted and convicted twice for an alleged offence of sexual acts between adults wherein the charge does not contain elements of coercion,” he added.
“These glaring anomalies fuel a perception that Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim has been persecuted, and not prosecuted.”
Anwar’s conviction yesterday has invited questions over Malaysia’s judicial independence, with US and Australia leading the criticism of the decision to send Anwar to jail over a charge that he vehemently insists is a political ploy to end his career.
Suspicions were fuelled by the timing of a press statement issued by the Prime Minister’s Office affirming Malaysia’s judicial independence minutes after the Chief Justice Tun Arifin Zakaria announced that Anwar’s appeal was rejected and while the court was still in session.
The timing prompted Anwar to excoriate the court for “selling their souls to the devil” and “bowing to the dictates of the political master”, in the process becoming “partners in crime for the murder of judicial independence and integrity.
The Federal Court yesterday upheld the Court of Appeal’s 2014 ruling that had reversed Anwar’s acquittal of sodomising former aide Mohd Saiful, also sentencing him to five years’ jail.
Anwar will now lose his Permatang Pauh parliamentary seat as the law bars anyone fined over RM2,000 or imprisoned more than one year from serving as a lawmaker.
The decision also leaves the Pakatan Rakyat federal opposition pact without a leader.

- See more at: http://www.themalaymailonline.com/malaysia/article/after-anwar-convicted-bar-council-chief-says-malaysians-live-in-strange-wor#sthash.py7cCU4h.dpuf

The Malaysian Bar council must earn fair-minded Malaysians' kudos for putting it succinctly: PERSECUTION, not Prosecution of the Opposition Leader! Well reported by mmail.com.my, here's original from Bar Council website:-

Press Release | Dato’ Seri Anwar Ibrahim: Prosecuted or Persecuted?

Wednesday, 11 February 2015 09:57am

The Malaysian Bar refers to the decision of the Federal Court on 10 February 2015 with respect to the appeal by Dato’ Seri Anwar Ibrahim against his conviction and sentence to five years’ imprisonment by the Court of Appeal for a charge under section 377B, read together with section 377A, of the Penal Code.

The parties in the appeal were previously given a full hearing before the Federal Court between 28 October 2014 and 7 November 2014. Having listened to both parties and considered their arguments and submissions, the Federal Court had adjourned the matter for consideration and deliberation. On the morning of 10 February 2015, the Federal Court delivered an extensive judgment and affirmed the conviction and sentence of five years’ imprisonment of Dato’ Seri Anwar Ibrahim.

The Malaysian Bar has not yet had the opportunity to peruse the extensive written grounds of judgment of the Federal Court, and makes no comment at present as to the grounds for the affirmation by the Federal Court of the conviction and sentence of Dato’ Seri Anwar Ibrahim, save to say that in a criminal trial and any appeals arising therefrom, the accused need only raise a reasonable doubt in the prosecution’s case. Where there is any such reasonable doubt, the accused must be acquitted. The hearing of Dato’ Seri Anwar Ibrahim’s appeal was extensively reported in the media, and thus the decision of the Federal Court has come as a surprise to many.

Sections 377A and 377B of the Penal Code criminalise sodomy and oral sex (fellatio). Section 377B provides that whosoever voluntarily commits the acts described in section 377A shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to twenty years, and shall also be liable to whipping. However, section 289 of the Criminal Procedure Code provides that no male above the age of 50 years shall be punishable with whipping.

It is notable that Dato’ Seri Anwar Ibrahim was not charged under section 377C of the Penal Code for forced sodomy or sodomy rape, although there may appear to have been some allegation of coercion made in the proceedings. Section 377C provides for essentially the offence of sodomy rape, and states that whoever voluntarily commits sodomy “on another person without the consent, or against the will, of the other person, or by putting the other person in fear of death or hurt to the person or any other person, shall be punished with imprisonment for a term of not less than five years and not more than twenty years, and shall also be liable to whipping”.

It may be said that Dato’ Seri Anwar Ibrahim has been convicted of an offence, sentenced to five years’ imprisonment, and will be disqualified from being a Member of Parliament with respect to a charge that seems, on its face, to be a victimless offence.

This has also given rise to questions or concerns as to why the complainant, Mohd Saiful Bukhari Azlan, who was alleged to have been a participant in the act of sodomy, was not charged for abetment under sections 377A and 377B, read together with section 109, of the Penal Code.

Further, the charge against Dato’ Seri Anwar Ibrahim is based on a provision of the Penal Code that has rarely been used. Given this, it is remarkable that Dato’ Seri Anwar Ibrahim has been prosecuted and convicted twice for an alleged offence of sexual acts between adults wherein the charge does not contain elements of coercion.

It is a strange world that we live in.

***These glaring anomalies fuel a perception that Dato’ Seri Anwar Ibrahim has been persecuted, and not prosecuted.

Christopher Leong

President

Malaysian Bar

11 February 2015

DESIDERATA: All the highlights (IN RED THUS) to emphasise the points I deem of high importance, are done by this writer, newsdog of 35years-plus -- spanning mainstream, online and diplomatic media -- and blogger for ten years cometh Ides of March 2015.The stress on point *** precisely describes Desi's perspective. In my blog previously I had writ that DSAI has been made the Nelson Mandela of Malaysia because of the suppression by the Government; three times in in prison, consisting of two years under the infamous ISA,then in 1999 during the time of Dr Mahathir Mohamad's rule, and now under the weakling PM Najib Razak

DSAI is a real Shakespearan fan -- he re-read all of Da Bard's wroks in the last imprisonment; he told the foreign media he may repeat this feat in the current sojourn -- that's where he gets his INSPIRATION, from Writers!:) I will expand my thoughts on Anwar Ibrahim - Nelson Mandela in my next post.

Just sharing from an olde post, cun? (You lazy BUMmers, please search for Part 2cun? I don't wanna pamper my ER, THOU ART NOT BORN lust week, yes?!

From

Saturday, July 22, 2006

UPDATE on Anwar Ibrahim's rumination on Da Bard

Today I\at leisure I re-visited Sdr Anwar Ibrahim's lecture at the Shakespeare conference in Brisbane, Australia, and I expanded the quotation of his thoughts to which I'm adding my Comments later as I fleshed out some connections with current issues in NegaraKu. ~~ Desi at 1.00PM, Saturday morn.

"Ucapan saya di Kongres Shakespeare Sedunia VIII Ahad 16 – Jumaat 21 Julai 2006 di Brisbane City Hall, Queensland, Australia

Our answer is that those who hold positions of power also carry a moral responsibility to listen to the people. To interfere with individual freedom is to rob individuals not just of their freedom, but of the right and responsibility they have to reason. No one has a right to take away that liberty, not a single despot and not even a duly constituted legislative majority.

Teks lengkap seterusnya…

Between Tyranny and Freedom: A Brief Voyage with the Bard

Plenary paper by Anwar Ibrahim at the VIII World Shakespeare Congress Sunday 16 – Friday 21 July 2006 at Brisbane City Hall, Queensland, Australia.

Anwar Ibrahim is currently Distinguished Visiting Professor at the School of Foreign Service, Georgetown University, Washington DC, and Honorary President of Accountability, London.

~~~~~~~

"Ten years ago, I addressed an audience at the Ateneo de Manila University in the Philippines. I began with the following lines:

Midway in the journey of our life I found myself in a dark wood, for the straight path was lost. Ah, how hard it is to tell what that wood was, wild, rugged, harsh; the very thought of it renews fear! It is so bitter that death is hardly more so.

While I do not intend to sound like an antique drum, I do want to remind ourselves of our inter-connectedness in the face of the forces that threaten to separate us. It is said that throughout its history, the West has defined itself in opposition to the East, in terms of the rational against the irrational, the superior against the inferior, or as Edward Said puts it, the Orient is the West’s great complementary opposite since antiquity. To paraphrase William Hazlitt in his characterization of Leontes, this discourse is “beset with doubts and fears, and entangled more and more in the thorny labyrinth” of mutual distrust and jealousy. We will have more to say about The Winter’s Tale and the overriding theme of tyranny later, but, for now, let us just say that, it is this blinkered view of the world with vociferous advocates on both sides that has led us into mutual suspicion, acrimony and hostility, and threatens to suck us into the quicksand of an even greater clash.

The Divine Comedy to my mind is really about the clash between good and evil, a universal and timeless drama of the human predicament. According to Santayana, the symbolism in The Divine Comedy had been devised for a purpose; “and this purpose, as the Koran, too, declares, had been to show forth the great difference there is in God’s sight between good and evil.” (1) Let me transpose the clash between evil and good onto the struggle between tyranny and freedom as we embark on a brief voyage with the Bard, “the most universal genius that ever lived”, as our guide and companion.

On September 2, 1998, I was sacked from the government and relieved of all executive positions. I have had the occasion to recount the stormy events that followed at a keynote address given last year to the Lawasian Conference held here too, and since brevity is the soul of wit, I will just round up the episode by saying, once again, that:

Midway upon the journey of my life I found myself in a dark wood, where the right way was lost

The ‘dark wood’ I found myself in was none other than the prison cell that would be my abode of solitary confinement for the next six years. Tyranny had been let loose. Freedom was being incarcerated. It might not have been the Gulag Archipelago of Solzhenitzyn’s but there was the same systematic, deeply irrational use of terror against a large section of society: people who supported the cause of reform; and people who just wanted to show that they cared for freedom and justice and that they were prepared to suffer the consequences of fighting tyranny; But much as we opposed, we couldn’t end them. Hamlet had gate crashed into our lives, so that we would have to bear the whips and scorns of time, the insolence of office and the law’s delay. But, as I had said to Nelson Mendela when we met in Johannesburg soon after my release, mine was only a short walk to freedom.

Isaiah Berlin tells us that freedom is essentially the absence of constraints imposed by others. I am free to the degree to which no man interferes with my activity; political liberty in this sense is simply the area within which a man can act unobstructed by others. But viewed behind the walls of incarceration, shorn of philosophical abstraction, freedom takes on a completely different dimension. Thus, freedom is simply the day my lawyer placed on my table my own copy of the Riverside Edition of The Complete Works of Shakespeare. This came six months to the day of my incarceration. Before that, only one copy of the Qur’an was allowed which no doubt was rprise for the poor!’

Could thought control be justified on the grounds that freedom of expression can never be absolute? In a civilized society, every individual has the right to express his or her thoughts and beliefs but we would imagine that there has to be some limits to freedom to defame, to incite to hatred one race or ethnic group against another, to blaspheme, or to disseminate falsehood, and so on.

But in reality, we find that there is an even greater likelihood of autocrats and tyrants abusing the constraints on freedom. For example, they will contend that the freedom to criticize the powers that be must also be curtailed because it causes political instability, which in turn may lead to insurrection and disorder. This pretext has been used habitually by petty despots and aspiring autocrats alike, some citing religious sanction for legitimacy. Of late, it is also being used by democracies as legitimate grounds to erode the basic freedoms of the people. In the name of the war on terror, these modern demagogues have no hesitation in suspending civil liberties which are supposed to be the hallmarks of a constitutional democracy. In this regard, it is fashionable to invoke the virtues of traditional values and condemn the blind imitation of Western concepts: Consensus is better than individual freedom. Opinions of the state must prevail over those of the individual because of the need to protect public morals and to maintain peace and harmony. So on and so forth.

Our answer is that those who hold positions of power also carry a moral responsibility to listen to the people. To interfere with individual freedom is to rob individuals not just of their freedom, but of the right and responsibility they have to reason. No one has a right to take away that liberty, not a single despot and not even a duly constituted legislative majority.

According to Aristotle, tyrants acquire power by promising to protect the people and retain power by preventing the rise of any person of exceptional merit, by assassination if necessary. He should employ spies, sow the seeds of discord, and impoverish his subjects while keeping them occupied in great works, as the king of Egypt did in getting the pyramids built. For such a tyrant, freedom of expression is obviously untenable. On the contrary, literary conferences must be banned just as any education likely to produce hostile sentiment. (3) This really looks like “art made tongue-tied by authority”.

In my solitary confinement, I sought solace in prayer and reading the Qur’an. Subject to that, I would agree with Hazlitt that Shakespeare would indeed be enough for us. Apart from going back and forth to One Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovich, Nehru’s Mandela’s Long Walk to Freedom, and al-Ghazali’s Deliverance from Error, Shakespeare remained my most intimate companion and chief source of comfort: Hamlet, King Lear, The Winter’s Tale – the list may look predictable, even hackneyed, but only if we see it from the frigid perspective of academia. But in the stoned silence of the night, when you have no one to talk to, Shakespeare’s characters become more than mere dramatis personae. They speak to you and allow you to speak to them.

In Julius Caesar you hear yourself telling Brutus why he should not have made that fatal error in allowing Marc Anthony to address those fickle minded Romans. And then it dawns on you that you yourself might have suffered the same overweening confidence in the goodness of your cause to resist injustice and tyranny. Hazlitt sums up the argument: Tyranny and servility are to be dealt with after their own fashion: otherwise, they will triumph over those who spare them. Reading Macbeth, you tell yourself that the “air-drawn dagger” should be haunting your conspirators, assailing them with ‘the stings of remorse” and “preternatural solicitings.” Usurper, murderer and tyrant, that’s what Macbeth is: but you’re still alive. But it wasn’t for want of trying – don’t forget you were left for dead and the whole world saw your black eye. And now there’s arsenic in your food. In The Tempest, you look around and find yourself surrounded by four walls; what else is there but to take a flight of fancy and start playing the part of Prospero? This one you could definitely relate to. It’s the story about freedom over tyranny, the triumph of light over darkness. It starts with incarceration and ends with freedom. And between the idea and the reality you have to settle for Ariel instead, bending to the tasks at hand, do your time before the time is out. And as the end draws near, you gain freedom with the rediscovery of virtue within yourself. But we see tyranny in its most ruthless manifestation in The Winter’s Tale unleashed on the saint-like Hermione. There is neither an Edmund nor an Iago to lay the blame on for Leontes’s state of mind. Is there a way to rationalize the character of this jealous tyrant? Is it the tyrant in him that makes him so irrationally jealous or is it just the jealousy that transforms him into a tyrant? Or does the answer lie in Shakespeare’s metaphysics?
:
:
:

DESIDERATA will not post anything new for this weekend as his plate will be filled with reflecting on ex-DPM Anwar's rumination. Yes, on with Da Bard!If you forego next week's newspapers reading for just one Essay, I recommend Anwar Inbrahim's lecture. Not that I love the local newspapers less, it's that I love Da Bard more. aMORE with Desi?

Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim: Prosecuted or persecuted? ― Christopher Leong

Published: February 11, 2015 12:29 PM

Tools

FEBRUARY 11 ― The Malaysian Bar refers to the decision of the Federal Court on 10 February 2015 with respect to the appeal by Dato’ Seri Anwar Ibrahim against his conviction and sentence to five years’ imprisonment by the Court of Appeal for a charge under section 377B, read together with section 377A, of the Penal Code.
The parties in the appeal were previously given a full hearing before the Federal Court between 28 October 2014 and 7 November 2014. Having listened to both parties and considered their arguments and submissions, the Federal Court had adjourned the matter for consideration and deliberation. On the morning of 10 February 2015, the Federal Court delivered an extensive judgment and affirmed the conviction and sentence of five years’ imprisonment of Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim.
The Malaysian Bar has not yet had the opportunity to peruse the extensive written grounds of judgment of the Federal Court, and makes no comment at present as to the grounds for the affirmation by the Federal Court of the conviction and sentence of Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim, save to say that in a criminal trial and any appeals arising therefrom, the accused need only raise a reasonable doubt in the prosecution’s case. Where there is any such reasonable doubt, the accused must be acquitted. The hearing of Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim’s appeal was extensively reported in the media, and thus the decision of the Federal Court has come as a surprise to many.
Sections 377A and 377B of the Penal Code criminalise sodomy and oral sex (fellatio). Section 377B provides that whosoever voluntarily commits the acts described in section 377A shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to twenty years, and shall also be liable to whipping. However, section 289 of the Criminal Procedure Code provides that no male above the age of 50 years shall be punishable with whipping.
It is notable that Dato’ Seri Anwar Ibrahim was not charged under section 377C of the Penal Code for forced sodomy or sodomy rape, although there may appear to have been some allegation of coercion made in the proceedings. Section 377C provides for essentially the offence of sodomy rape, and states that whoever voluntarily commits sodomy “on another person without the consent, or against the will, of the other person, or by putting the other person in fear of death or hurt to the person or any other person, shall be punished with imprisonment for a term of not less than five years and not more than twenty years, and shall also be liable to whipping”.
It may be said that Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim has been convicted of an offence, sentenced to five years’ imprisonment, and will be disqualified from being a Member of Parliament with respect to a charge that seems, on its face, to be a victimless offence.
This has also given rise to questions or concerns as to why the complainant, Mohd Saiful Bukhari Azlan, who was alleged to have been a participant in the act of sodomy, was not charged for abetment under sections 377A and 377B, read together with section 109, of the Penal Code.
Further, the charge against Dato’ Seri Anwar Ibrahim is based on a provision of the Penal Code that has rarely been used. Given this, it is remarkable that Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim has been prosecuted and convicted twice for an alleged offence of sexual acts between adults wherein the charge does not contain elements of coercion.
It is a strange world that we live in.
These glaring anomalies fuel a perception that Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim has been persecuted, and not prosecuted.
*Christopher Leong is the President of the Malaysian Bar Council.
**** This is the personal opinion of the writer or publication and does not necessarily represent the views of Malay Mail Online.

- See more at: http://www.themalaymailonline.com/what-you-think/article/datuk-seri-anwar-ibrahim-prosecuted-or-persecuted-christopher-leong#sthash.CP6hn81W.dpuf

Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim: Prosecuted or persecuted? ― Christopher Leong

Published: February 11, 2015 12:29 PM

Tools

- See more at: http://www.themalaymailonline.com/what-you-think/article/datuk-seri-anwar-ibrahim-prosecuted-or-persecuted-christopher-leong#sthash.CP6hn81W.dpuf

Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim: Prosecuted or persecuted? ― Christopher Leong

Published: February 11, 2015 12:29 PM

Tools

- See more at: http://www.themalaymailonline.com/what-you-think/article/datuk-seri-anwar-ibrahim-prosecuted-or-persecuted-christopher-leong#sthash.DwszW58i.dpuf

Kuala Lumpur 23 °C, Mostly Cloudy

Malaysia

After Anwar convicted, Bar Council chief says Malaysians live in ‘strange world’

Published: February 11, 2015 12:34 PMUPDATED: February 11, 2015 01:40 pm

Tools

Although acknowledging it was too early to comment on the Federal Court’s decision to jail Anwar for five years on a charge of sodomy yesterday, Leong pointed out that Anwar’s accuser, Mohd Saiful Bukhari Azlan, was not prosecuted despite the decision to prosecute the opposition leader for consensual anal sex.

“It is notable that Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim was not charged under Section 377C of the Penal Code for forced sodomy or sodomy rape, although there may appear to have been some allegation of coercion made in the proceedings.

“This has also given rise to questions or concerns as to why the complainant, Mohd Saiful Bukhari Azlan, who was alleged to have been a participant in the act of sodomy, was not charged for abetment under Sections 377A and 377B, read together with Section 109, of the Penal Code,” Leong said in a statement today.

The Federal Court that yesterday upheld Anwar’s conviction under Section 377A had said that consent was not an ingredient of the offence. Mohd Saiful alleged that he was forced into the act by Anwar in 2008.

Malaysia’s apex court also decided that Mohd Saiful was a “credible witness”, concurring with both subordinate courts that his testimony was reliable.

Leong also noted the rarity of prosecution using the laws that criminalise “carnal intercourse against the order of nature”, which include both oral and anal sex,

“Given this, it is remarkable that Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim has been prosecuted and convicted twice for an alleged offence of sexual acts between adults wherein the charge does not contain elements of coercion,” he added.

“These glaring anomalies fuel a perception that Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim has been persecuted, and not prosecuted.”

Anwar’s conviction yesterday has invited questions over Malaysia’s judicial independence, with US and Australia leading the criticism of the decision to send Anwar to jail over a charge that he vehemently insists is a political ploy to end his career.

Suspicions were fuelled by the timing of a press statement issued by the Prime Minister’s Office affirming Malaysia’s judicial independence minutes after the Chief Justice Tun Arifin Zakaria announced that Anwar’s appeal was rejected and while the court was still in session.

The timing prompted Anwar to excoriate the court for “selling their souls to the devil” and “bowing to the dictates of the political master”, in the process becoming “partners in crime for the murder of judicial independence and integrity.

The Federal Court yesterday upheld the Court of Appeal’s 2014 ruling that had reversed Anwar’s acquittal of sodomising former aide Mohd Saiful, also sentencing him to five years’ jail.

Anwar will now lose his Permatang Pauh parliamentary seat as the law bars anyone fined over RM2,000 or imprisoned more than one year from serving as a lawmaker.

The decision also leaves the Pakatan Rakyat federal opposition pact without a leader.

- See more at: http://www.themalaymailonline.com/malaysia/article/after-anwar-convicted-bar-council-chief-says-malaysians-live-in-strange-wor#sthash.2OFgvLUP.dpuf

Malaysia

After Anwar convicted, Bar Council chief says Malaysians live in ‘strange world’

Published: February 11, 2015 12:34 PMUPDATED: February 11, 2015 01:40 pm

Tools

- See more at: http://www.themalaymailonline.com/malaysia/article/after-anwar-convicted-bar-council-chief-says-malaysians-live-in-strange-wor#sthash.8WE5pbeN.dpuf

Malaysia

After Anwar convicted, Bar Council chief says Malaysians live in ‘strange world’

Published: February 11, 2015 12:34 PMUPDATED: February 11, 2015 01:40 pm

Tools

- See more at: http://www.themalaymailonline.com/malaysia/article/after-anwar-convicted-bar-council-chief-says-malaysians-live-in-strange-wor#sthash.O1yGeNrp.dpuf

Saturday, January 17, 2015

Fiction based on Facts -- Take2

Please dear ER read my immediate PRIOR POST FIRST, there is RELEVANCE. You dare aRsEk where or what? Hey, get the here out of hell!

I will write the FICTION after you digest the following extract from malaysiakini.com via yahoo.new!

Treat the following as

FACTS

sourced and attributed:

*****5-starred

4:50PM Jan 15, 2015

Malaysiakini

Meet the killers of Altantuya

At last, almost a decade after the high-profile case of slain Mongolian national Altantuya Shaariibuu, the faces of the two ex-police officers convicted for her murder have been revealed.

Malaysiakini has today obtained a copy of their photographs, courtesy of the Bukit Aman police headquarters.

***************************

Okay, plugging for my former workplace:

For this news and more, subscribe for only RM0.83 a day.

If you're already a subscriber, click login

Adsvertiosing ends here/hear!

*********************************************************

DESIDERATA: Thinking Aloud/Allowed still, cun?

You see now the TWO FACES above -- but how do you KNOW FOR CERTAIN these arethe two sentenced to hang? I don't know, you don't know until you were shown the photos courtesy of mkini, BUT THE Q REMIANS: Why Now after eigfht LONG years?

OR writers should not ask questions? I remember Amnpour of CNN used to plug their programmes with one line -- paraphrasing here OK! "We dare to ask the questions that should be asked (for the readers' benefit) -- especially those questions people are not willing to answer..."

FACTS-cum-FICTION that follows:

An alert fellow blogger asked me to read about the "hero" in the "TALE OF TWO CITIES"

by Charles Dickens: how this is relevant to The Takle of Two Malaysian Felons, One in Prison, and One on the Run Down Under, if you believe the Star and the iGP as disclosed in the precedent post.

Please bear with Desi while I google for what is referred above to by my BUMmer friend I fondly call DPP, Cun?

(To be resumed...)

FROM shmoop.com:~~~~~~

A Tale of Two Cities Summary

How It All Goes Down

It’s 1775. Trouble is a-brewin’ in the French countryside. Apparently, the folks out there don’t like to be starved and taxed to death. Who would’ve guessed it, eh?

As our novel starts, a very businessman-like British gentleman makes his way into the heart of Paris. He’s on a very unsettling mission. In fact, it’s almost enough to make a businessman cry. You see, eighteen years ago, a French doctor was imprisoned without any warning (or any trial). He’s been locked up in the worst prison of all prisons, the Bastille. After almost two decades, he was released – again without any explanation – and he’s currently staying with an old servant of his, Ernst Defarge. Today, Mr. Lorry (that’s our British businessman) is on a mission to the French doctor back to England, where he can live in peace with his daughter.

Dr. Manette may be free, but he’s still a broken man. He spends most of his time cobbling together shoes and pacing up and down in his dark room. Too accustomed to the space of a prison to understand that he can actually leave his room, Dr. Manette seems doomed to live a pitiful life.

Fortunately for Dr. Manette (and for Mr. Lorry, now that we think about it), he happens to have the World’s Perfect Daughter. Lucie, the child he left eighteen years ago, is now a grown-up, smiling, blond, perfect ray of sunshine. Everything she touches seems to turn to gold. Vomit if you’d like, but Lucie is indeed perfect. And she’ll need every ounce of that perfection to restore her father back to health.

Of course, she does manage to bring Dr. Manette back into the everyday world. We never doubted her for a second. Within the space of five years (that’s 1780, for those of you who are counting), Dr. Manette is a new man. He’s a practicing doctor again; he and Lucie live in a small house in Soho. They don’t have much money (Dr. Manette’s cash was all seized in France), but Lucie manages to shine her rays of wonderfulness over their lives. In other words, they’re pretty happy. And they’ve adopted Mr. Lorry as a sort of drop-in uncle.

As we pick up the story in 1780, Dr. Manette and Lucie have been called as witnesses in a treason case. Apparently, a young man named Charles Darnay is accused of providing classified information to the French government. English trials at the time resemble smoke-and-mirror tricks: Dickens takes great delight in mocking the "esteemed" members of the court. Thanks to Lucie’s compassionate testimony and some quick work by a man who looks strangely like Charles Darnay, however, our man Charles is off the hook.

A free man, Charles Darnay immediately realizes just how perfect our perfect Lucie actually is. He sets up shop in the Manette house, coming to visit almost every day. The Charles look-alike, a disreputable (but, let’s face it, really likable) guy called Sydney Carton, also takes a liking to Lucie. If Charles is shiny and good and perfect, Sydney is… not any of those things. He also likes to beat himself up a lot. (In fact, we’re thinking that he could really use one of those twelve-step esteem boosting programs.)

Sydney loves Lucie with all his heart, but he’s convinced that he could never deserve her. What does he do? Well, he tells her precisely why she could never love him. Surprise, surprise: she agrees. She’d like to help him be a better person, but he would rather wallow in his misery. After all, wallowing sounds like so much fun, doesn’t it? Wallow, wallow, wallow. That’s Sydney in a nutshell.

Charles, meanwhile, fares a little bit better. He marries Lucie. On the day of his wedding, he tells Dr. Manette a secret: he’s actually a French nobleman in disguise. A very particular French nobleman, as a matter of fact: the Marquis Evrémonde. Because everything in a Dickens novel has to fit into a neat pattern, it’s no real surprise that the Evrémondes were the evil brothers who locked Dr. Manette up in the first place. The good doctor is a bit shocked, of course, but he eventually realizes that Charles is nothing like his father or his uncle (the evil Evrémondes brothers). Dr. Manette is willing to love Charles for the man he is, not the family he left behind.

Things are going swimmingly in England. Charles moves in with the Manettes, he makes a decent wage as a tutor, and Dr. Manette seems to be as happy as ever. But wait, wasn’t this a tale of two cities? What happened to the other city?

OK, you got us. While everything’s coming up roses in London, everything’s coming up dead in Paris. We only wish we were kidding. People are starving, the noblemen run over little children with their carriages, and everyone is pretty unhappy. In fact, they’re so unhappy that they’re beginning to band together as "citizens" of a new republic. Right now, Ernst Defarge and his wife are at the center of a revolutionary group. We can tell that they’re revolutionary because they’re super-secret. And they also call each other "Jacques." That’s "Jack" in French.

In the village of the Evrémondes, the Marquis has been stabbed in the night. Gasp! The government hangs the killer, but tensions don’t ever really settle down. Finally, the steward of the Evrémonde estate sends a desperate letter to the new Marquis: because folks hated the old Marquis so much, they’re now throwing the steward into prison.

A bunch of fluke accidents conspire to make sure that Charles gets the letter. He’s the Marquis, remember? Even though he’s thrown off his old title and his old lands entirely, he can’t help but feel responsible for the fate of this steward. Without telling his wife or his father-in-law anything about what’s been going on, he secretly sets off for France.

Unfortunately for Charles, he picked a bad time for a summer vacation. By the time he arrives on the shores of France, the revolutionaries have overturned the country. The King is about to be beheaded. The Queen soon follows suit. Murder and vengeance and mob mentality are all boiling over. Immediately detained, Charles soon realizes that he’s made a big, big mistake. By the time he reaches Paris, he’s become a prisoner. New laws dictate that he’s going to be executed by La Guillotine.

Fortunately, Dr. Manette hears about his fate. With Lucie in tow, he rushes to Paris. It turns out that he’s something of a celebrity there: anybody who was falsely arrested under the aristocratic rule of old is now revered as one of the heroes of the new Republic. The doctor shows up at Charles's trial and wows the judges with his heroic plea to save his son-in-law.

Everything seems happy again. Sure, it’s the middle of the French Revolution, but the Manettes and Charles are in the clear. Or at least, that’s how it seems for a few hours. All too quickly, however, Charles is arrested again. This time, the Defarges have accused him of being a member of the nobility and a stain on the country’s name.

Frantic, Doctor Manette tries to intervene. The court case for Charles’s second trial goes very differently from the first one, though. Ernst Defarge produces a letter, written by Dr. Manette himself, which condemns Charles to death.

Wait a second! Dr. Manette? Impossible! Well, not exactly. Long ago, Dr. Manette scribbled down the history of his own imprisonment and secreted it in a wall of the Bastille. The history tells a sordid tale of rape and murder – crimes committed by Charles’s father and brother. Incensed, the jury of French revolutionary "citizens" decides that Charles should pay for the crimes of his father.

Before he can be executed, however, Sydney Carton comes to the rescue. A few good tricks and a couple of disguises later, Charles is a free man. He and his family head back to England in (relative) safety. Sydney, however, doesn’t fare so well. He takes Charles’s place in prison and dies on the guillotine.

Crazy, huh? The novel, however, thinks that his sacrifice is pretty heroic. And we’ve got to say, we agree.

Part Fiction/Part Factual and someting in-betwin:

DESIDERATA: Thinking Aloud/Allowed continues, cun2?

So can the creative in Desi spin a Tale of Two Modernist Countries, along with playing Modernist Sherlock Holmes&Olde DrWhatson?

MSherlock: Dr Whatson, my good companion -- you have a situation here in Malaysia, no?

One blighter Azilah was present in court and sentenced in court for the murder of a Mongolian gal on Malaysian soil who according to reliable immigration records never entered Malayia, how can that be?

Dr Whatson: I think in this Internet age, there is a possibility of the runaway felon being in TWO UNIVERSES; I think Dr Stephen Hawking and some of his weird professors of Nobelity believe this in a phenomenon termed PARALLEL UNIVERSE.

MSherlock: Ah, that's interesting. Arresting in fact -- the Police arrested him in Malaysia, then conveniently he was allowed to cover his face and anatomy top to toe in appearances at the High Court, Appeal Court and lastly/lustily, at the final Federal Court. No wonder the people of Malaysia are relieved to be ablt to see the FACES via PHOTOS published by malaysiakini.com

(refer to shortest 5-starred extract***** above from the news portal -- this mousey writer called Desi , blarfy h**l!, can't even afford subscribin g to the news portal so we can't learn more like a full APB from CSI or Law&Order episodic American propaganda! Sorry, I digress:)

Dr Whatson: But where is this leading us? WQhat's the connection to the Malaysian court sentence of DEATH to the two blighters?

MSherlock: For that, you my dear Dr Whatson, go to the country named Australia down under. Dopn't take the MAS or AirAsia flight, OK!

Dr Whatson: OK, can I swim over, I have ancestry genes form Mount Olympus, you know?

Thursday, January 15, 2015

Fictional piece based on Facts: I am still Thinking, Therefore I still Exist

FICTION:

I dreamt I struck a Huge lottery, so I bought a first class ticket to fly to Paris. I wanted to show SOLIDARIDAD with my fellow hournalists-satirists-cartoonist who died at the hands of B**tards that fateful morn whenn they stormed the office of Charlie Hebdo. The only one Malaysian satirst I had on my mind was Zunar, and there he was at the airport with a seat next to Desi's.

We took off. My heart was still bleeding so we did not engage in much conversation. Zunar drant some fresh orange; I drank some whiskey to forget my woes (last 365dies had been full of woes. dddD).

Just as we flew over the French capital, an annoucement came over the PA systrem -- we are turning back to where we started. I startled on hearing the words, I thought I was about to go back to that Blak Holde where I originated -- I just watched the story of Stephen Hawking last week -- you aRsEked whois that blighter? You dare???)

The plane lost direction and we plunged into the .....Ocean, I woke up, Zunar was no longer seated next to DEsi

____________________________________________

FACTS:

Recently a Desi fan asked me WHY I had not been writing much. I answered that I am not thinking well nowadays, although I still exist. He sms-ed Desi: You think, therefore you are. I replied: Please quote where that came from, replacing "you" with "I"; I added that it's from my recalll from either of the following, all Greek, viz: Socrates, or Aristotle, or Plato. He claimed IGNORANCE, but it's OK, I was wrong on ALL 3 Counts -- on checking 5mins ago, it's from from Descartes:~~

From wikipedia, extracted here:

Cogito ergo sum

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

René Descartes

Part of a series on
Cartesianism · Rationalism Foundationalism Doubt and certainty Dream argument Cogito ergo sum Trademark argument Causal adequacy principle Mind–body dichotomy Analytic geometry Coordinate system Cartesian circle · Folium Rule of signs · Cartesian diver Balloonist theory Wax argument Res cogitans · Res extensa
Works
The World Discourse on the Method La Géométrie Meditations on First Philosophy Principles of Philosophy Passions of the Soul
People
Christina, Queen of Sweden Baruch Spinoza Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz Francine Descartes
v t e

Cogito ergo sum^[a] (/ˈkoʊɡɨtoʊ ˈɜrɡoʊ ˈsʊm/, also /ˈkɒɡɨtoʊ/, /ˈsʌm/; Classical Latin: [ˈkoːɡitoː ˈɛrɡoː ˈsʊm], "I think, therefore I am", or better "I am thinking, therefore I exist") is a philosophical proposition by René Descartes. The simple meaning of the Latin phrase is that thinking about one’s existence proves—in and of itself—that an "I" exists to do the thinking; or, as Descartes explains, "[W]e cannot doubt of our existence while we doubt … ."
This proposition became a fundamental element of Western philosophy, as it was perceived to form a foundation for all knowledge. While other knowledge could be a figment of imagination, deception or mistake, the very act of doubting one's own existence arguably serves as proof of the reality of one's own existence, or at least of one's thought.
Descartes' original phrase, je pense, donc je suis (French pronunciation: [ʒə pɑ̃s dɔ̃k ʒə sɥi]), appeared in his Discourse on the Method (1637), which was written in French rather than Latin to reach a wider audience in his country than scholars.^[1] He used the Latin cogito ergo sum in the later Principles of Philosophy (1644).
The argument is popularly known in the English speaking world as "the cogito ergo sum argument" or, more briefly, as "the cogito".

I am today thinking aloud for the first time this year, still allowed to my Blogger sify now MP for Jelutong Jeff Ooi. I was thinking on reading about the "guilty" verdict of the two blighters for unfortunately being charged for muder of a Mopngolian beauty. But the Immjigration Department said there was NO RECORDS of any entry into Malaysia by a girl named Altantuya Shaaribuu. DIGRESSING ONE BYTE, CAN?(You Tanya Siapa, my friend asked. I jawab I tak tnaya siapa, itu Press/loyar burok punya tanya punya!)

So Playing Sherlock Holmes, Desi to prove he's still alive and kicking, thought aloud: How can Altantuya be murdered on Malaysian soil IF THE MALAYSIAN AUTHORITIES STATED A LADY BY THAT NAME NEVER DID ENTER MALYSIA?

******************************
Okay, back to quoting The Star report plus pix, stressing on what the IGP said, the court's decison and reporatge is old stuff, hence not wworth my repeating here. If you don't like reading from here, please get the here out of hell! --YES, 5-starred relevant extract the Star follows!:

*****

We will track Sirul down, says IGP

by qishin tariq, christine cheah, rashvinjeet s. bedi, AND farik zolkepli

Death penalty: Bailiffs escorting Azilah away after the Federal Court verdict in Putrajaya.

PETALING JAYA: Bukit Aman is on the hunt for former police corporal Sirul Azhar Umar, who failed to show up at the Federal Court yesterday to hear the verdict against him for murder.
Inspector-General of Police Tan Sri Khalid Abu Bakar said the police would track Sirul down following the arrest warrant issued against him by the court.
“We will use our resources in tracking him down. The law will be upheld without fear or favour,” he said yesterday.
Kuala Lumpur police chief Senior Deputy Comm Datuk Tajuddin Md Isa said his men would be deployed in the search for Sirul.
“We will leave no stone unturned. I trust that my counterparts in other states will do the same,” he said.
Quoting a source, Bernama reported that Sirul is believed to be in Australia and had “no money” to return to Malaysia.
However, according to the source, Sirul knew that the Federal Court would be delivering its judgment yesterday.
“He went abroad two months ago. (The guilty verdict) was not something that can be expected but it was necessary for Sirul Azhar to be overseas,” said the source.
In 2009, the High Court convicted Sirul and former chief inspector Azilah Hadri and sentenced them to death for the murder of Mongolian Altantuya Shaariibuu in 2006. The two were commandos in the police force’s Special Action Squad at the time.
In 2013, the Court of Appeal allowed their appeal against the conviction and sentence, which then led to the prosecution to file an appeal to the apex court.
Azilah’s former fiancee said the former police officer had been ready for the Federal Court verdict, no matter the outcome.
Norazila Baharuddin, 37, said Azilah had conveyed this to her in a phone call on Monday, during which he had also sought her forgiveness for their failed relationship.
“He was prepared to face whatever decision the court would take. Bad or good, he would accept it. He did not want to run away from it,” she told Bernama.
Azilah, added Norazila, also told her that he was thankful to his lawyer Datuk Hazman Ahmad for doing his best.

DESIDERATA: The stress in blue (HIGHLIGHTED THUS) above I had written here before asking why every time the accused duo were brough to court from the HIgh Court, to the Court of Appeals and the last, the Fedewral Court, wer allowed to cover their faces; I had NOT sighted any of the two accued by their PHOTOGRAPGH at all. WHY? WHY?? WHY??? the special protection given to these two? Even after the DEATH SENTENCE was handed down, the blighter facing the hangman's noose was obviously given cooperation by the POlice as shown in the Star pic above "to cover up"!

As for the other blighter reported to have allegedly flowbn to Australia, alll the Star had was a non-descript ARTIST'S IMPRESSION of the duo.

Hey, If the IGP was serious in getting the runaway convict, AN APB (ALL POINTS BULLETIN-lah, I learnt after watching those American detective series like Law& Order, CSI and whathaveyous?) should have been issued internationally, won't it? Yes, with the LATEST PHOTOGRAPH of the blighter, NO?

Q1: How do you know if you were to bump iunto Sirul at the Australian airport departure lunge and he was sitting next to you speaking bloken Inggeris he is a WANTED FELON?
Q2: Yeah, maybe based oin the Star artist's impression with SOME writer's imagination, aaa bright young Malaysian girl can ID him and seduce him to report at the nearest police station on landing back at KLIA? You know, some Malaysians are pretty(&)patriotic, I no.

FINAL THINKING ALLOWED: Well, maybe they will do it after a civic conscious Malaysian tycoon offers a RMXmillion reward for his capture? Many Malaysians, MAY/will certainly take sabbaticat leave to play the Modernist Sherlock Holmes. Maybe out of a sense of patriotism,mybe for some desperado cowboys FOR A FEW DOLLARS MORE? For aMore!

QUIZ: If you answer correctly WHO WAS THE WRITER OF THE LAST QUOTE OF THE DAY hear withing the next 24 hours, you may get a copy flee of my next book in the making. Yeah, I am a bookmaker!
"I may disagree with what you say, but I will defend to the death, your right to say it."

My Anthem

Friday, February 13, 2015

Anwar Ibrahim's Jailing -- A Travesty of Justice

After Anwar convicted, Bar Council chief says Malaysians live in ‘strange world’

Saturday, July 22, 2006

UPDATE on Anwar Ibrahim's rumination on Da Bard

Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim: Prosecuted or persecuted? ― Christopher Leong

Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim: Prosecuted or persecuted? ― Christopher Leong

Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim: Prosecuted or persecuted? ― Christopher Leong

After Anwar convicted, Bar Council chief says Malaysians live in ‘strange world’

After Anwar convicted, Bar Council chief says Malaysians live in ‘strange world’

After Anwar convicted, Bar Council chief says Malaysians live in ‘strange world’

Saturday, January 17, 2015

Fiction based on Facts -- Take2

Meet the killers of Altantuya

A Tale of Two Cities Summary

How It All Goes Down

Thursday, January 15, 2015

Fictional piece based on Facts: I am still Thinking, Therefore I still Exist

Cogito ergo sum

We will track Sirul down, says IGP