ISU masa depan politik masyarakat Cina di Malaysia turut disentuh oleh Long Yan dalam akhbar Nanyang Siang Pau bertarikh 29 Mac 2014. Artikel bertajuk Ke mana hala tuju politik orang Cina? disiarkan dalam ruangan Pendapat Yuan Lun halaman W3.
MCA telah ditubuhkan lebih 60 tahun lalu dan sepanjang tempoh itu ia telah menjadi komponen utama dalam Barisan Nasional (BN) yang memerintah negara.
Sebagai salah satu rakan kongsi penting dalam gabungan berkenaan, jasa MCA terhadap negara boleh dilihat di depan mata. Oleh itu, dakwaan MCA tidak menyumbangkan sebarang jasa walaupun sedikit adalah tidak betul. Ada ramai orang Cina terutama sekali generasi muda yang membuat dakwaan itu kerana melihat MCA gagal menyelesaikan masalah pendidikan Cina, kekurangan tenaga guru di Sekolah Jenis Kebangsaan Cina (SJKC) dan sijil sekolah menengah Cina tidak diiktiraf.
Mereka mendakwa kedudukan MCA yang hanya menjadi parti komponen utama tetapi tidak mempunyai kuasa dalam kerajaan telah menyebabkan orang Cina di negara ini dilayan secara tidak adil.
Kepada orang Cina, kita ingin menanyakan adakah penilaian mereka terhadap MCA dibuat secara adil? Orang Cina yang menghentam MCA ini dengan bijak berhujah bahawa sebagai rakyat, mereka sepatutnya mendapat hak sama rata seperti kaum lain. Pandangan itu memang tidak salah dan kita tidak mempertikaikannya. Cuma kita mahu orang Cina yang berhujah sedemikian melihat daripada ruang lingkup lebih luas yang melibatkan kaum lain. Sebagai warganegara mereka juga berhak menuntut hak dan kepentingan kaum mereka.
Contohnya, kita menghentam Presiden Pertubuhan Pribumi Perkasa Malaysia (Perkasa), Datuk Ibrahim Ali sebagai seorang fanatik. Sebenarnya apa yang dilakukan beliau hanyalah mempertahankan hak orang Melayu seperti yang termaktub dalam Perlembagaan Persekutuan. Beliau menuntut keadilan sama seperti yang diminta oleh orang Cina, jadi kenapa pula kita tuduh beliau fanatik?
Jika dikaji secara mendalam, Perkasa adalah sebuah pertubuhan yang mewakili orang Melayu dengan sebahagian kepimpinannya juga adalah terdiri daripada golongan cerdik pandai dan intelektual kaum itu. Kenapa mereka tidak dihormati seperti yang sepatutnya mereka dapat?
Ketika Pilihan Raya Kecil (PRK) Dewan Undangan Negeri (DUN) Kajang, pihak pembangkang dalam kempen mereka telah meletakkan calon BN daripada MCA, Datin Paduka Chew Mei Fun setaraf dengan pemimpin Perkasa. Isu itu dijadikan sebagai senjata pembangkang untuk menghentam MCA. Tindakan pihak pembangkang khususnya politikus Cina berkenaan adalah lebih menjurus kepada menghasut dan membangkitkan emosi kaum itu.
Yang lebih pelik lagi, kenapa politikus berkenaan diberi sokongan oleh masyarakat Cina. Ini bermakna ada sesuatu yang tidak kena dengan cara pemikiran orang Cina sekarang yang perlu diubah.
Nasihat kita kepada orang Cina, mereka hendaklah menghormati hak kaum lain seperti yang termaktub di bawah undang-undang dan dalam Perlembagaan negara. Tidak kira gabungan parti mana yang memerintah negara, ia sudah pasti tidak boleh melanggar batasan undang-undang berkenaan.
Dalam keadaan yang terbatas itu, perlu ada pemimpin luar biasa dan bijak yang boleh memastikan setiap kaum diberikan hak masing-masing seperti yang termaktub dalam Perlembagaan. Kita sudah tentu tidak memerlukan pemimpin tangkap muat yang hanya bijak berpidato dan berkata-kata sahaja.
Jika kita lihat pemimpin Cina sama ada daripada BN atau pembangkang, belum ada lagi individu yang terbilang seperti itu. Ramai pemimpin Cina sekarang hanya bijak menyalakan api, tetapi tiada seorang pun yang boleh menjadi penyuluh jalan kepada kaum itu.
Cukup dikesalkan kerana orang Cina kini menganggap pemimpin yang pandai bermain api itu adalah penyuluh jalan kepada mereka. Kaum berkenaan juga menganggap pemimpin politik yang sering menghentam MCA itu adalah penyelamat mereka. Jika itulah yang menjadi pendirian, kita mahu orang Cina keseluruhannya secara rela hati dan jujur menjawab ke manakah hala tuju politik kaum berkenaan?
I have decided to layoff blogging for a while due to work commitments and the travelling that goes with it, I am not getting any younger and time to recover between travels lengthens over the years, but glad to see that the tight security in KLIA is much tighter now judging by the long queues at the security check point. Everybody's not complaining about the extra security, that I am sure. In fact frequent air travelers like myself welcome the new development..just hope like all things Malaysian its not a hangat-hangat tahi ayam thing.
Anyway just received an e-mail from my retired senior civil servant friend Dato' ARMNOOR who request that I post this following letter he wrote for our YAB PM Najib Razak:
IT is understandable why the Chief Justice of Malaysia, Tun Arifin Zakaria, has, at this juncture, reiterated his commitment to the independence of the judiciary. Within certain circles, a negative perception of the institution has become more pronounced than before, partly because of the recent conviction of a couple of politicians.
If we traced this perception to its root, a certain episode in the 1980s -- the Salleh Abas episode -- would be part of the reason why it had emerged in the first instance, compounded by the questionable decisions and actions of some senior judges in the past.
But in recent years, it is the intensity of inter-party political competition that has impacted adversely upon the judiciary. Sweeping generalisations are made about the integrity of the institution and its standard-bearers based on whether a decision is in the interest of one party or the other.
When a decision is favourable to one side, the judge concerned and the judiciary are lauded by the winner and his supporters; if the decision is unfavourable to him, he and his acolytes condemn the judge or judges involved and the judiciary in the vilest language conceivable.
Such infantile behaviour is particularly true of a certain influential politician and his diehard followers. It is their antics in the last 16 years that have smeared and sullied the image of the judiciary. It is an irrefutable fact that this politician has been acquitted as he has been convicted in equal measure by different judges in the course of the last decade and a half. He has won and he has lost various legal battles.
The latest conviction against him is yet another illustration of how his fanatical devotees stubbornly refuse to even consider the merits of the court judgment against him and the legal principles underlying the case.
He himself continues to whip up mass emotions against the judges who had convicted him by conveying the erroneous impression that he is the victim of some grave injustice. By so doing, he has set aside his conscience.
This is illustrated by a report in a local daily about a rally he addressed in a town in Penang on March 9, attended by more than 3,000 people.
Apparently, he "got the crowd going when he took off his shoe and threatened to symbolically hurl it against the judges who convicted him".
Needless to say, such despicable conduct is an affront to the judiciary. One wonders why he has not been hauled up for contempt, especially since it is widely known that he has, on numerous occasions at home and abroad, made disparaging and demeaning remarks about the judiciary.
It appears that he enjoys some sort of immunity and has the liberty to tar and tarnish the image of the nation's most vital institution in the protection of its integrity.
This brings us to how we Malaysians can help to protect the independence and the integrity of the judiciary:
the judiciary itself should ensure, through its decisions and actions, that it is truly independent and free of any bias. Its primary commitment is to justice.
if there are unscrupulous attempts to bring the judiciary to disrepute, the attorney-general, as required of his office, should act expeditiously to protect the institution. He should immediately institute contempt proceedings against the individual or entity concerned.
the government should also demonstrate that it is sincere about respecting the independence of the judiciary. Its actions should not give rise to the slightest doubt that it is trying through subtle or stark manoeuvres to influence the judiciary.
local and foreign corporations, and individuals who command wealth, power and influence in society should not appear to be trying to shape judicial decisions through direct and indirect means.
FIVE, opposition leaders and parties should not pressure the judiciary by mobilising the mob against the institution or threatening judges and their families. Neither should they smear the institution or its standard-bearers through vicious demonisation and vulgar attacks.
SIX, opposition leaders should not seek the help of foreign governments or other external actors to apply pressure upon the judiciary to make decisions that are favourable to them and their ilk.
the Malaysian Bar Council have a special responsibility to defend the independence of the judiciary. Given the prevailing situation, it should undertake to present the facts as they are to the general public to minimise the misconceptions about the judiciary. The Bar Council can do this by preparing a balance sheet of the so-called "political cases" adjudicated in the last 10 years, which will reveal the number that were won by the government and elements associated with it and the number won by the opposition and groups allied to it. It should compare this balance sheet with the record of judiciaries in Britain, Canada, India and other democracies.
civil society groups also have a role to play. They should adopt a balanced position on the question of the judiciary without falling into the trap of either uncritical acceptance of each and every judicial decision or slavish rejection of the judiciary's record goaded by blind antagonism towards the government of the day.
the media, whatever its form, should regard the defence of the judiciary, especially if the judiciary is endeavouring to uphold its independence, as its sacred duty. If the proposed balance sheet on the performance of the judiciary materialises, the media should disseminate the information as widely as possible.
more than all the institutions and bodies mentioned here, it is Malaysian citizens who should cherish the independence and integrity of the judiciary in their hearts. They should be deeply conscious of how fundamental judicial independence is to their own well-being and the wellbeing of their loved ones.
Malaysians should realise that judicial independence resonates with the virtuous examples of independent-minded judges of integrity found in many of our spiritual and moral philosophies. This is why an independent judiciary is in the ultimate analysis one of those hallowed principles that unites all Malaysians.
'How do you live with yourself when this is the man you really are? How do you sleep at night knowing you have failed as a husband, father, friend, politician? You have destroyed countless lives… and you will continue to destroy many more should you ever, God forbid, become PM'
An article I found in RPK's blog about Anwar Ibrahim, rather interesting critique.
So Pakatan supporters are once again crying foul over the recent guilty verdict that will put you behind bars. So they slam the judiciary (once again!) for corrupt practices.
Being the great statesman that you are, instead of pleading for calm, you seize the opportunity to ride on their disdain for the judiciary and Barisan Nasional by instructing them to take to the streets in the name of justice for Anwar Ibrahim, the most self-serving politician in Malaysia’s history. Never mind the ensuing chaos, the potential for violence and injury and the very likelihood of arrests for disobeying the law. As long as you are the centre of attention, why bother about the welfare of the people?
While you can hoodwink the majority of your supporters most of the time, you cannot stop those who know the truth from whispering it angrily to others or shouting it in their blogs or Facebook postings. Because you see, Anwar, those close to you — your political peers, your lawyers, your political adversaries, ex-staff and most of all, the victims of your numerous sexual escapades, whether consensual or forced — know your guilt is real.
What is even more distressing is that you enjoy playing the victim, abusing the people’s trust and shrewdly diverting their attention away from the fact that not too long ago, you were one of the scoundrels in the very same ruling party you so despise today.
Your philosophies are flawed. While you speak of religious tolerance, was it not you who brought down all the crucifixes in convent schools when you were education minister? I am appalled that the Catholic church allowed you the opportunity to speak to their congregation in Kajang to espouse your political views and to stand there as a proponent of religious freedom. That, you are certainly not! Many Catholics have forgotten your past. I, however, have not! Was it also not during your tenure as DPM that you pushed the BTN agenda with great fervour? Now you sing the infamous BTN song in a mocking fashion to the crowds who are amused by you stage antics and gullible enough to give you a second chance at being PM.
During this time of great sadness, frustration and uncertainty regarding the missing MH370, you not once came forth in a show of solidarity, putting your political differences aside, to work with the ruling government to find the missing plane. You not once spoke to the nation as a concerned Malaysian rather than as a disgruntled politician, asking for calm and hope during this period. Instead, you criticised the government for their mishandling of the situation then issued a ridiculous statement that the bomoh’s crocodile slap threat to UMNO Youth chief Khairy Jamaluddin was UMNO Youth’s karma. Seriously? You’re talking about bomohs and karma during a time of crisis like this while the whole world looks on in shock that the plane is yet to be found?
What is even more ironic is that you yourself rely on the antics and prophecies of shamans, Hindu priests and the odd bomoh or two to see you through your political hurdles. A tad hypocritical then to lambast Barisan Nasional for the bomoh’s unwelcome presence at KLIA, more so since no one from their side has claimed to have invited him in the first place.
However, you are right about karma. If Khairy deserves what is coming to him in the form of a crocodile slap (whatever that may be!) then you more than deserve your five-year stint in prison for your misdeeds, don’t you think?
How do you sleep at night when you know you are guilty of so many unsavoury deeds in your political career? As an open-minded Malaysian, I care not how you live your personal life. Your sexual orientation concerns me not. Neither do your sexual conquests. However, whether I agree or disagree with it, sodomy is a crime in this country. And homosexuality is not recognised. Neither is bisexuality. Corruption, also a no-no. Abuse of power – absolutely wrong. Rigging of internal party polls – totally unconstitutional.
What’s more, your sexual baggage is so alarming it has compromised your effectiveness as a politician because anyone in the know uses it as a weapon of control against you to either buy your silence or to do their bidding. Imagine the havoc in Putrajaya if you ever made it there with your pack of greedy, salivating hounds, biting at your heels as you took your seat as the head of the nation.
How do you live with yourself when this is the man you really are? How do you sleep at night knowing you have failed as a husband, father, friend, politician? You have destroyed countless lives… and you will continue to destroy many more should you ever, God forbid, become PM.
How do you sleep at night when everything you stand for is dripping with thick lashings of debauchery, lies and abuse of power?
Here is a quite recent interview of former Ketua Hakim Negara Tun Hamid, who was one of the 2 FCJs who in 2003 in a 2-1 Federal Court Ruling freed Anwar from the charge of sodomizing his driver, based on a legal technicality.
I hope Anwar's Federal Court appeal would be done speedily, there are enough delays to his trial from the High Court to the Appeals Court..let him sleep in peace in jail where he rightly belong.
Perhaps friends would like to bookmark this site by the Guardian UK, a bit more balance reporting and less speculations like CNN or other American News networks, and heavy on facts without the unnecessary irrelevant comments:
Satellite indicates Flight MH370 still flying seven hours after takeoff
Malaysian Prime Minister Najib Razak said Saturday that a missing Malaysia Airlines passenger jet was steered off course after its communications systems were intentionally disabled and that it could have flown for seven additional hours. Read related article.
I can only pray for the best for the crew and passengers of MH370
The world expects the Malaysian Government to handle the search for the missing flight MH370 which went missing last Saturday as if this has happened before for Malaysia. But truth be told this is the first time that Malaysian has had to face the reality of a downed B777 jet. Under these circumstances, I would say the Malaysian Government have done a commendable job..it is not easy to search and find a missing airplane which suddenly disappeared from radar.
I just received today an e-mail from an old friend who is now a retired Civil Servant who had served this blessed country well for more than 30 years. During our coffee talk time together he has many times expressed his unhappiness of the present political scene in Malaysia.
The following is an open letter to Dr. Wan Azizah (PKR President) whom he said knew him from during her student days in Ireland many years ago, which he wanted me to post in this blog:
I hope somehow this letter could be read by Dr Wan Azizah and I am sure she would know who wrote this letter and what it meant. Thank You.
5.36pm: Ram Karpal says it was important for the court to note that it was 96 hours when it was not preserved.
He adds that there should be degradation.
Court adjourns at 5.50pm. Hearing to continue at 9am tomorrow.
5.15pm: Ram says the samples should have been placed in a freezer at minus 20 degrees.
"Both witnesses, local and foreign chemists, agree there will be degradation (of DNA samples) and it could be stopped by placing it in a freezer.
“As degradation gets worse, you start losing samples to make copies, resulting in unreliable DNA,” he says.
5.11pm: Court back in session.
Justice Balia wants counsel Ram to finish off the issue of degradation of DNA samples.
4.55pm: Court takes a 15-minute recess.
4.35pm: Ram says the DNA samples retrieved were found to be in pristine condition, considering it was 96-hours-old when examination was carried out by chemist.
"One can recognise degradation from the DNA graph. Degradation is expected to happen and it (DNA samples) reached the chemist after four days.
"However, Dr Seah said degradation is if no concern to her. The prosecution is in agreement that there is a high degree of the effects of degradation.
"Degradation is due to bacterial growth as a result the samples not being preserved, as a result of it not being placed in a freezer."
“One would expect there will be degradation, (so) how is it that there were no degradation after the samples were only given to the chemist four days after the incident,” he says.
Hence, Ram tells the court that those samples could not have been the ones retrieved from Saiful. “It is possibly not the same samples taken."
4.25pm: Ram Karpal says the 'Good Morning' towel retrieved from Anwar's lock up was also contaminated.
He adds that the items were illegally obtained and inadmissable.
"If this is taken into consideration, there would not be a 'Male Y' and the entire prosecution case falls and Anwar's defence would not be called."
4.10pm: Ram Karpal says the judge was wrong to call for defence as there is no prima facie case.
"There was contamination in the peri anal swab, and also on the lower rectum swab. This is not disputed. There was another male contributor. There is a mixture of semen containing Saiful's DNA, ‘Male Y’ and there was another male contributor retrieved from the peri anal area.
"There is a third male contributor for the rectal swab perhaps the complainant had been penetrated by another person or third party."
3.40pm: Karpal reading Saiful's testimony, saying he is not a "country bumpkin", as he has got tertiary education.
"Saiful said he was afraid of Anwar but he could have left the place. The door was not locked, he could have escaped. He attended a function the next day. It was obvious he lied when he said the incident took place 'tanpa kerelaan' (without consent)
"Saiful delayed in making a report two days after incident. He did not go to HKL first but went to another hospital."
3.55pm: Karpal says Saiful met many people but did not actually report the matter directly.
He noted that Saiful (left) met (former Anwar aide) Ezam Md Noor and also Mumtaz Jaafar (a friend of Prime Minister Najib Abdul Razak’s wife, Rosmah Mansor) but did not lodge a report then.
Dr Mohd Osman Abdul Hamid, the Hospital Pusrawi doctor, Karpal says should have been called by the prosecution when Saiful told the doctor that he was assaulted with a plastic object that was inserted in his anus.
"It was not a conduct of someone who has been ravaged."
He says the defence was “not a bare denial” as “we called two experts”.
3.35pm: Based on what had been said, Karpal argues that Anwar should not be called for defence in the first place.
"The court must subject maximum evaluation, and the court should consider Saiful's evidence with care as it did with Azizan Abu Bakar (in Anwar’s first sodomy case), which was described by the trial judge to be a credible witness as strong as the Rock of Gibraltar, but the Federal Court overturned this."
3.25pm: Karpal submits on the uncertainty of the samples being compromised.
The trial judge, he adds, was correct in acquitting Anwar as there were questions regarding the integrity of the samples.
"It is wrong to say that the judge did not take into consideration the defence witnesses Dr David Wells and Dr Brian McDonald. There was a latent defect in the prosecution's case.”
"The sample was taken 56 to58 hours after the incident. The sample was not placed in a freezer but it was found in pristine condition despite the threat of degradation from bacteria."
3.00pm: Karpal says Jude, as the star witness, testified that degradation may take place.
"Dr Siew asked Jude to put the samples in a freezer but he did not do so and this shows the sample was compromised when he placed it in his cabinet."
"The cabinet is not a freezer, and when asked by Sankara Nair if this is not against police procedure, Jude did not answer that question. He knew he should place it in the freezer to prevent degradation. This shows Jude did not follow Dr Siew's direction and this shows he went against the IGSO.”
Ram Karpal says the samples were given on early June 29 and he cut it open that same morning. Ram adds that Jude only gave the samples in the late evening of June 30.
Karpal says Shafee is maligning Anwar and should apologise.
2.50pm: Karpal says that every extent of a criminal case must be proven beyond reasonable doubt.
Shafee, Karpal adds, is talking about the evidence of Jude when he had condemned the same witness in the Suhakam inquiry.
"He also brought to court and contends the bottle contains the samples which had been given to Jude, given by Dr Siew."
2.40pm: Court resumes.
Karpal submits that the court must follow the evidence adduced. He takes strong objection to Shafee's remarks on Anwar.
"An accused person need not put up defence, he can remain silent, make a statement from the dock or witness stand.
"Anwar chose to make a statement from the dock and the prosecution should not poison the minds of the judiciary by making such statements."
Karpal asked whether the standard of proof is balance of probabilities in a criminal case.
2.15pm: The courtroom is already packed. Counsel Karpal Singh will shortly submit for Anwar's defence.
12:40pm: Shafee says there was no conspiracy between Jude and the chemist. "Where will Jude get the accused's sperm?" he asks.
Justice Aziah asks if the trial judge addressed that and Shafee replies, "How could Anwar's sperm be 4cm in Saiful's anus?"
"The judge did handle this in his judgment (but despite this it resulted in an acquittal)."
"Not only must have Jude obtained the semen but he must have obtained a degradation sample, in order to to prove conspiracy. Judges must watch National Geographic and all."
To the laughter of the gallery, Justice Aziah responded, "We watch CSI."
Shafee says the appeal must be allowed as the evidence is overwhelming and this is one case where the court cannot resist to do so.
Court in recess. Hearing will resume at 2.30pm.
12.25pm: Shafee shows Anwar's notice of alibi and that at the time the opposition leader was not at the Desa Damansara condominium unit where the alleged incident took place.
What Anwar stated in the notice is that he was in the next door unit and this was a devious manouevre, adds the lawyer.
"There are 14 witnesses, they say, but none were called to support the notice of alibi."
12.15pm: Shafee (right) says the pictures and video recording at the scene proved Anwar was there.
"Not a whisper of an alibi was produced. The defence is dishonest when confronted with the video, they dropped the entire defence without a whisper."
12.05pm: Court now asks whether the trial judge accepted Anwar's statement from the dock.
Shafee, in describing the High Court judgment, says it is like reading an Agatha Christie thriller. It is only in the final two points, the judge decides to acquit.
"The judge is for the prosecution all the way but in defence he was about 90 per cent for the prosecution. It is only in the final two points, he decided otherwise.”
Shafee says the judge never took into account of the accused’s statement from the dock.
"It was a mere denial (statement from the dock) and it is a classic bare denial. A denial of this sort after he gave a notice of alibi. He (Anwar) said he was never there but no witnesses are called to support the alibi."
11.55am: Shafee contrasts this case with another case where three test tubes were not sealed but the court accepted the evidence as there was no broken chain of evidence.
"In this (Anwar’s) case, the chemist received the samples sealed, yet this resulted in an acquittal."
11.45am: Shafee says the trial judge made the mistake when he misconstrued that the individual bottles containing the samples were tampered with.
Actually, it is only the plastic bag which defence witness David Wells agreed had been tampered with, he adds.
"However, when asked by (former solicitor-general II Mohd) Yusof ( Zainal Abiden) the witness said he remains uncertain if the integrity of the samples were compromised.”
Shafee points out that in a criminal case, one should argue on balance of probabilities.
He adds that the IO followed the IGSO under scientific assistance, where all items should be packed differently and not mixed together and labelled clearly.
In this case, HKL doctors placed all the samples in a plastic bag.
11.30am: Court in session.
Shafee says Anwar's foreign expert Dr David Wells said that the plastic bag in which the samples were placed were not tamper proof.
The appointed lawyer argues that in Australia they may not extract samples after 36 hours but that is not gold standard.
11am: Justice Balia remarks that all evidence are sealed. Shafee further submits that the seals have the doctor's and Saiful's signatures on them.
"This is an added precaution... As normally the doctor's signature is sufficient," he said.
Court takes a 15-minute break.
10.50am: Shafee says if the chemist took all the precaution from the hospital and the IO, how could the judge ignore this.
There is silence in the gallery.
The appointed DPP says the Borang Pengendalian (handling form) revealed that the samples were sealed by Dr Siew.
"It is difficult to say the doctors and IO conspired. I would say the IO's evidence is impeacheable."
10.46am: Shafee shows judges the HKL plastic bag used to keep the samples, that was cut open by Jude."It was cut open with the bottom portion still dangling."
But all the samples are placed in separate envelopes according to the IGSO as explained earlier.
The chemist, Shafee says, did not reject any of the samples given by Jude despite this.
10.40am: Chemist Dr Seah Lay Hong testifies that the seals on the samples taken at Hospital Kuala Lumpur remained intact."The security label placed remained intact. The seals remained intact."
10.30am: A man attracts the attention of Anwar’s supporters outside the court with his anti-government songs and poetry, including criticising former prime minister Dr Mahathir Mohamad.
He says he is from Penang and now lives in Kuala Lumpur, and has been at the Palace of Justice since 8am. However, he declined to disclose his name.
Another Anwar supporter claims that the man is "Uncle Sow", and has been a loyal attendee at court every time Anwar is tried.
10.30am: Shafee says there is no evidence of tampering as the seal on the recepticles remained intact despite being placed in envelopes.
10.25am: Shafee says the investigating officer placed the bottles in separate envelopes. "The exhibit inside remains intact and the seal remains intact."
He adds that the judge made the mistake in deciding that the plastic bag with the samples sealed were torn amounting to tampering.
"I suspect he (the trial judge) must have confused it with the bottles that were sealed."
10.13am: Shafee says the samples retrieved from Saiful's rectum was in "pristine" condition despite it being retrieved 56 hours after the alleged incident.
He says the trial judge took the easy way out, when they accepted the foreign experts' testimony. He claims these these experts relied on textbooks as compared to the local chemist, Dr Seah Lay Hong, who is a specialist in her field and has done extensive field work.
"The learned judge misconstrued the facts. There were several bottles sealed and put in a plastic bottle. The doctors did not mark any numbers they write upper rectum, low rectum and peri-anal."
The bottles were all sealed and signed by the doctors and counter signed by Saiful.
Shafee says the samples were placed in a plastic bag.
However, the investigating officer (Jude) said according to the IGSO (Inspector General Standing Orders), the samples had to be separated and not all placed in one plastic bag.
10.10am: According to Shafee, sometimes you cannot find injury to the anus when a lubricant is used (the KY jel).
He says from the fingernails of Saiful, there were skin traces of the accused.
10.08am: Shafee says there is no explanation how the accused (Anwar's) sperm was in Saiful's anus.
"With the conclusive finding of the discovery of the sperm, the doctors concluded there was penile penetration."
10.05am: Shafee says the collecting of samples was done by the three Hospital Kuala Lumpur doctors and according to them, there is penetration in Saiful's high and low rectum.
Lembah Pantai MP and Anwar's eldest daughter Nurul Izzah and her husband are also in court but both are standing at the back.
9.55am: In term of reasonable doubt, Shafee says there is no need to create 100 percent reasonable doubt.
He refers to Section 3 of the Evidence Act, what needs to be proved is a fact of issue is a balance of probabilities and not 100 percent.
"It is a probability test. How do we prove a case beyond reasonable doubt, all facts must be gathered and the cumulative facts to prove the case."
"The judge imposed a high burden that the integrity of the sample is compromised. That generated the acquittal by raising the doubt," he says.
9.45am: According to Shafee, the foreign chemist hired by Anwar had created doubts to the integrity of the samples.
This is despite the judge earlier had ruled in accepting the testimonies by the prosecution witnesses resulting in Anwar's defence being called.
"However, there is nothing in the written judgment to say the court was convinced by the foreign experts."
"The judge only says there is no 100 percent certainty that the samples remained intact," says Shafee.
9.45am: Shafee says there is a mistake on the part of the trial judge to question the integrity of the samples from Saiful's rectum.
He adds the trial judge also made a mistake in questioning the chemist report and the DNA findings.
The chemist, he says, had taken into consideration of all factors.
"There is no evidence of the samples from the rectum were tampered as the seal is intact," argues Shafee.
"The judge also failed to take into consideration of corroborative evidence."
9.40am: Shafee says there is one single issue that results in the acquittal of Anwar, namely the DNA exhibits recovered from Saiful's rectum was compromised.
He says the question is whether there was tampering by investigating officer Jude Pereira, the integrity of the samples that were preserved by the two chemists and whether their testimony could be relied upon.
Shafee said the petition of appeal is focused on this.
9.35am: Shafee introduces all the parties involved in the case. Also present is complainant Mohd Saiful Bukhari Azlan's counsel Zamri Idrus.
Shafee says the prosecution's submission had been tendered on July 19.
Seats inside the courtroom are all occupied with many more unable to get in waiting outside.
9.30am: Court is now in session with justice Balia Yusof Wahi leading the three-member Court of Appeal panel.
6.56pm: Shafee says he has no objection if the bail is post. Court allows Anwar to post bail the latest by 11am on Monday.
Court is adjourned. It appears that Anwar needs not spend his weekend in jail.
6.52pm: Karpal responses bail was not granted in the first instance.
"Normally he (Shafee) does not object, of course he is now on the other side. That is why he is a mercenary."
Judge Balia asks the two sides to stop arguing. Justice Balia says the application of stay of execution is allowed, pending appeal with bail of RM10,000.
6.48pm: Karpal applies a stay. Shafee says he has been instructed by the attorney-general to bring the matter for a stay.
"I have been asked to put in an objection on the grounds of the case of Anwar itself. Outside this court, (you can hear) the chanting."
Shafee says the judges can also hear it (the crowd outside).
"The stay is for purposes of execution of sentence. We are objecting on grounds of public order. An appeal is not a stay."
6.46pm:Judge Balia says the court having heard what the counsel told the court and has found Anwar guilty.
"He is convicted and sentenced to five years."
6.41pm: A female PKR supporter walks out of the courtroom saying she finds it hard to respect the court.
Shafee continues, saying Anwar attacked prosecutor Yusof Zainal Abiden and the PM.
"The accused that he is found guilty of this act, in a position of power now in the opposition and opens himself to blackmail and source of extortion and is a danger to national security."
"The country will open up the national security issue," he says.
6.36pm: Shafee says Anwar has conviction for abuse of power.
"I also been asked to mention this, in 2004 in the Malaysian Law Journal made the observation in the Federal Court - that the accused is involved in acts of sodomy."
Shafee says there are other court proceedings.
Those in the public gallery shout at Shafee. Judge Balia says those who make noise will be thrown out in court.
Shafee continues, saying that Anwar is the Permatang Pauh MP and Selangor government advisor as well as candidate in Kajang.
6.35pm:"The circumstances is clear from the notes. This is not the first time the accused has taken advantage of him," says Shafee.
Karpal says that statement has been expunged.
Shafee says that no condom was used and this was an irresponsible and dangerous act.
"He took advantage of the Saiful," he says.
Anwar shouts from the dock: "You have got what you wanted."
6.32pm:Judge Balia says that the court will pass sentence.
Shafee says he took instructions from the attorney-general, who is in Sabah.
"The complainant is a young man, 23 years old, and an employee under his (Anwar's) charge."
6.30pm: Karpal says the court has to consider the sentence along with the medical report.
Balia says the DPP is not challenging it. Karpal says this court is not being reasonable.
"Can I take it that a medical report is not necessary?"
Balia says they will take it for whatever it is worth.
"Under the circumstances of this case, a medical report is not necessary," says the judge.
6.25pm:Judge Balia, after consulting with the other two judges, asks whether that is all.
Karpal says he is not abandoning the right to mitigation.
Shafee says if there is certain conditions, the prosecution will not object.
"We know he has back condition and we are willing to take the statement from the bar," he says.
6.20pm: Prosecutor Shafee says the medical report can be "onward management" of the matter.
He said sentencing is on the offence.
Balia asks whether there will be other mitigation.
Karpal stresses that the defence need time to prepare the medical report.
"All this matters must be placed on record. No reason to rush this trial," he says.
Balia: "We are giving you your right."
Karpal: My lord, when you consider the sentence, the medical report will set out what the respondents and the sentence to be imposed. What is your hurry?
Balia: We are not in a hurry.
Karpal: I am unable to take instructions from my client.
Balia: You are unable to mitigate?
6.17pm: Court in session. Mitigation begins. Defence lawyer Karpal says Anwar suffers from back pain, high blood pressure and heart ailment.
"I have to submit a medical report on this and pray that we will be given time. I cannot be making statements from the bar."
5.11pm: Justice Balia says, "We will allow time and come back in one hour."
Anwar stands up and says, "We do it (mitigation) now.”
5.08pm: Karpal blasts back, saying if Shafee is on this side, "He would say that mitigation would be done on another day."
"He is speaking with a forked tongue and this is why a mercenary DPP should not be appointed."
5.06pm: Shafee objects saying appeal has been delayed.
"If mitigation ought to be required it should be done today. We should hold the mitigation today I am also unprepared but am prepared to hold it today."
5:03pm: Karpal applies for mitigation to be done next week.
4.57pm:Justice Balia noted that the prosecution argued that the trial judge has erred in its decision.
"The learned judge had misconstrued on the integrity of the samples. He ruled there was tampering of the HKL plastic bag.
"We have scrutinise evidence of the IO Jude Blacious what he did was cut the bottom of the plastic and put the recepticle, in each envelope."
"The tampering is on the plastic bag and not the evidence. The seals of the samples are intact and did not compromise the samples."
He said if the learned judge conclude the tampering is on the plastic bag only, and having examined the grounds in the judgment.
"We find the judge has no reason to depart from his earlier finding (in calling the defence)."
"The learned judge has failed and appreciate in coming to the conclusion. The judge has erred in listening to the foreign experts.
"We find the judge had misdirected himself on the issue of the integrity of the sample.
"We allow the appeal and found guilty of the charge."
4.55pm: Justice Balia Yusof says this is a unanimous decision.
4.52pm: Court resumes.
3.36pm: Justice Balia says they will deliberate and return later. This indicates a possible decision will be made.
3.30pm: The government-appointed lawyer says the doctor confessed that there were two lawyers asking him to do a statutory declaration over the meeting.
Shafee says whether there is a conspiracy of three doctors, or the chemist, and the IO to amount to all of it.
He ends his submission.
3.25pm: Shafee wants the court to scrutinise Pusrawi's doctor's testimony carefully due to the limited space in the report.
"The patient says he was assaulted with the introduction of a plastic (object) introduced into his (Saiful's) anus."
"If you turn over the next page, the doctor wrote 'advice sodomised. Advise to go the HKL'," he said.
3.22pm: Shafee replies that he does not have any absence of memory when DP Vijendran was asked to testify from the dock.
"Vijendran is a much better criminal lawyer than me, and he was advised by then late Christopher Fernando (Aris Rizal) to make his testimony from the dock."
3.20pm: Shafee agrees with Karpal that in criminal proceedings the burden of proof has to be beyond reasonable doubt.
"However, not all items are required to prove beyond reasonable doubt, but in some ingredients it would be on balance of probabilities."
3.17pm: Shafee says is the defence is only asking if the DNA had been planted in Saiful's rectum, or planted while in possession with the police officer.
"The defence never addressed the issue how Male Y's semen ended up in Saiful's rectum," he said.
3.00pm: Shafee cites a murder case in Queensland, Australia, where the murder took place in 1984 and the body was covered with a red towel and buried in a shallow grave.
He says the grave was uncovered and tests conducted on the towel showed there was semen and using DNA tests, the assailant was found.
"A 13-year period, still the DNA sample can be found. The assailant was later convicted in 2001."
2.50pm: Shafee says the prosecution has answered clearly about the degradation and contamination issue.
He cites a case, saying, "We are talking about degrees of degradation. You need a minuscule amount. Seah (chemist) says degradation begins once the fluid leaves the body."
2.47pm: Court in session.
12.22pm: Court breaks for Friday prayers and will resume at 2.45pm, with Shafee slated to submit. Shafee promises his submission will take half an hour.
12.12pm: Noorin says that degradation had been taken into account in the analysis.
She says the differential fraction examination process to separate the sperm and non-sperm cells were performed.
"The sperm fraction tests were done and the chemist said there was sperm already there."
She says that had Seah admitted there was contamination in the peri-anal region and the unknown contributor is the non-sperm.
The learned judge had actually dealt with the scientific evidence at the end of prosecution's case and Noorin claims that Justice Zabidin did not go through that evidence in defence.
12:05pm: Noorin says the word "pristine" came from McDonald as there is almost a high reading on the sample.
She defended that Seah had not said there was no degradation.
"Any scientist has yet to come up with a test on degradation as it will always be there, and it is a matter of interpretation."
"McDonald's last test was done in 2004, and since then, he only interprets the results," she says, pointing to McDonald's field work.
11.50am: Now DPP Noorin Badaruddin is submitting on the matter of the 18 allele.
"DNA profiling is based on the 16th DNA loci. The 18 allele is found on one or two locus to two different chemist.
"That is why Nor Aidora (the chemist) did not report the 18 allele. The allele is only found on one loci and it was not necessary to report it."
11.47am: Karpal replies to Shafee on the question of the alibi of the witness.
"By right, the statement made from the dock is evidence and it must be considered.
"This is also misdirection of the judge which requires attention (by this court)."
Karpal ends his submission.
11.42am: Anwar’s counsel Karpal Singh says Shafee suffers from “bouts of amnesia” as the Umno lawyer said that a person who testifies from the dock is of low-mental capacity.
"However, Shafee had represented DP Vijendran and he testified from the dock."
Justice Zawawi asked if this was in reference to the the former deputy speaker, to which Karpal replied yes, to laughter in the court.
He adds that statement from the dock is evidence.
11.40am: Ram says investigating officer Supt Jude Blacious Pereira had been found "a liar" in the past and the finding was made by Shafee.
"We find the evidence of Jude as totally unsatisfactory as he is constantly not telling the truth or suffer from absence of memory and that is what was written by Shafee," he said.
Jude, Ram said, is central to the exhibits.
"He had the sample and intimate samples. There are third-party allele in there.
"This is what we call tampering. We have to support the finding of the High Court judge as what if the swab used were tampered with."
Ram concludes his submission.
11.35am: Ram says the manual on this states that the separation of the cells must be made to remove non-sperm cells.
"The fact remains that in the sperm fraction analysed, there is non-sperm cells in them.
"It can be modified and even if the prosecution's version (is correct), it would be impossible to say that the sperm cells comes from male Y," he said.
Ram says Seah cannot say that for sure and as such, Shafee should not be saying that the sperm cells are from male Y (Anwar).
11.25am: Ram submits that Seah did not separate the sperm fraction and other cells.
"She says it is impossible to separate sperm and non-sperm cells. But our expert witness (Australian DNA specialist Dr Brian McDonald) says it is possible to separate them."
"When she says the sperm cells came from male Y (Anwar), she is merely assuming it came from sperm cells. However, the separation was not done," he said.
11.15am: Ram says the DNA tests were not properly carried out.
"It was not determined which cell source the DNA came from."
"DNA can come from skin, hair, saliva, sperm, etc. It is not in dispute that when it came to the chemist, it came in the form of mixture and there is doubt that the sperm is actually from male Y (Anwar)," he says.
11.12am: Court is in session.
10.40am: Court recess.
10.30am: Ram further defends the expertise of the foreign experts which Shafee had earlier questioned.
Ram says Shafee takes a simplistic view of the law in excluding all this.
He adds that the required burden of proof requires that the integrity of the samples is ensured.
"However, in this case it is not... There are many questions. If there is anomaly it should be taken in favour of the accused."
10.20am: Ram says Shafee took a simplistic view by saying Jude only cut open the HKL plastic bag but did not disturb the samples.
Despite this, he says there are the unexplained contaminations.
"There are two types of contamination, direct and indirect.
"The cases referred by Shafee shows there was nothing peculiar but in this case, even if it is said that Jude cut the plastic, there is no explanation on the degradation and contamination."
10.10am: Defence lawyer Ram argues the possibility of the 18 allele coming from investigating officer Jude Pereira could be there as he held the samples for a period of time.
"It is not for us to speculate, but for the defence to create reasonable doubt. It is incumbent on the prosecution to exclude the presence of the third party."
9.50am: Ram questions chemist Seah's testimony on the high rectal swab as at first she said it the 18 allele was important but later when asked further in her testimony, she said it was not important.
He also raises questions on another chemist Nor Aidura Saedon's testimony over her examination of the 'Good Morning' towel.
"She said the reason she did not report the 18 allele as it is below the threshold and it could be a 'starter'.
"I put it to her it was not a starter, and it did not follow her Chemistry Department guidelines and she agreed."
The point, Ram says, the 18 allele is there, but the chemist did not conduct further tests on it as it is from another male contributor.
"It shows there is contamination in the intimate sample and we do not know who the contributor is."
9.40am: Ram moves on to the issue of contamination.
He says the 'Good Morning' towel retrieved from Anwar's cell have an unidentified characteristic with the presence of an 18 allele in the DNA reading.
"The 18 allele, is also present in the high rectal swab. This means a third person's DNA has been found in the anus but high up the rectal."
There are two ways this could happen. With the sexual intercourse, the semen was ejaculated inside the anus.
"Complainant (Saiful) says he is not homosexual, so how can one explain the 18 allele in there.
"The chemist says the presence could have been as result of drop-in (contamination)."
9.30am: Ram says chemist Dr Seah Lay Hong had testified there was no evidence of degradation to the high rectal swab.
"The point here is the prosecution is in agreement of the defence that the sample was 'pristine'."
9.24am: Continuing from yesterday, Ram Karpal submits that the peri-anal sample shows sign of degradation but the high rectal swabs shows no sign of degradation.
"All these samples are taken at about the same time and all should show signs of degradation. However, the high rectal swab did not.
"This raises the question on the possibility of tampering."
9.14am: Court now in session with justices Balia Yusof Wahi, Aziah Ali and Mohd Zawawi Mohd Salleh on the Court of Appeal bench.
Balia complains that the proceeding is late by 15 minutes.
"When we say 9am, it is at 9am."
Defence lawyer Ram Karpal says they were on time and it was possibly because the court thought lead defence lawyer Karpal Singh will come.
"Karpal will come in later," he says.
Justice Balia wants the counsel to conduct the proceedings professionally.
Balia reminds them not to read from their submission as judges have already read them.
9.10am: The situation outside the court house is quiet and calm. There are about a dozen police officers milling around the area. There are no protesters today.
Meanwhile, there are about eight police officers standing guard at the back of the court complex. The police also brought in two dogs from their K9 unit.
8.56am: Opposition Leader Anwar Ibrahim and his wife, PKR president Dr Wan Azizah Wan Ismail, arrive at the Palace of Justice along with three of their children.
They go to the second floor where the Court of Appeal is located.
8.55am: Muhammad Shafee Abdullah, the private lawyer appointed by the government to lead the prosecution team in this appeal, enters the courtroom.
End....the Sodomy 2 will sure be appealed by Anwar, however the evidence shown in the Appeals Court Hearing does not seems to side with Anwar..I believe at the end of the Federal Court hearing..Anwar will have to spend 5 years in jail for sodomy on Saiful Bukari.