向四川地震遇难者致哀

http://www.china5000.org.cn/flower/index.htm

Thank you so much and sorry for letting you down

Written by Malaysia Today

Friday, 09 May 2008

When the police came to my home last Friday to confiscate my computers, I was not at all shocked or perturbed. I had half-expected that to happen considering the response to my 25 April 2008 article in this same column, Let’s send the Altantuya murderers to hell (read the article here). And the response I am talking about is the public statement by the wife of the Deputy Prime Minister plus the letter from the Deputy Prime Minister’s Press Secretary (read the letter here).

As the police left my house, they issued me a Section 111 order to report to the Cyber Crime Division of Bukit Aman at 11.00am the following morning for my statement to be recorded. However, at 3.15pm that same day, they phoned me and asked whether I could go there at 4.00pm instead, that means in 45 minutes time, rather than the following day at 11.00am as originally ordered.

I phoned Sam, my lawyer, and he told me I need not comply to this ‘request’ as the Section 111 order had stipulated 11.00am, Saturday, 3 May 2008 and not 4.00pm, Friday, 2 May 2008. Since the order said 11.00am Saturday, then that is the date and time I should report to Bukit Aman and I can legally refuse to their request to come in a day earlier.

Nevertheless, I decided to consent to this request although I had legal grounds to refuse to do so. The police then told me that a police report had been made against me on the article mentioned above so they have to take my statement. I asked to see a copy of the police report plus the statement from the person who had lodged the report but they admitted they did not have it nor has the police officer who was to take my statement seen it yet. For all intents and purposes it did not exist. (Read the full story here: Towering Malays and the ‘hush’ on Peace Hill)

On Monday, at about 9.15pm, I received a phone call from the same police officer who raided my house three days earlier and he wanted to know if I could go to the Jalan Duta magistrates court at 9.30am the following morning, Tuesday, 6 May 2008. He asked me to look for DSP Mahfuz and said that they will be charging me. I asked what they were charging me for and he replied that he does not know. I then said if he knows that I am supposed to report to the Jalan Duta magistrates court and what time and day I am supposed to report there, surely he must know what I am going to be charged for. He replied maybe it is for sedition but he is not sure.

I called the police officer back five minutes later and he confirmed that it will be for sedition after all. But there are so many courts in Jalan Duta. Which court am I supposed to go to? He did not know. He said just hang around the lobby and they will come find me and escort me to the correct court.

I arrived in Jalan Duta at 8.45am, 45 minutes ahead of schedule. By 10.15am I was still hanging around and no DSP Mahfuz came to see me. One of my lawyers then went upstairs to try to find out which court my case was going to be held in and he came back to inform me that there is no case registered yet in the Jalan Duta magistrates court.

At 10.30am, I received a phone call from DSP Mahfuz asking me to go to the PJ sessions court. We all rushed to PJ and arrived there at 11.00am as instructed only to find out that there is no case registered there as well. In fact, the magistrate was on medical leave. Furthermore, no charges against me had been prepared yet.

I was asked to sit down and wait while they phone the magistrate to come back to work. They also needed to prepare the charge and register my case. It appears like they had decided to charge me first and then prepared the charge and decided which court to charge me in as an afterthought.

Under the Sedition Act they need to arrest me or at the very least issue me a summons. A summons under the Sedition Act is bailable but not compoundable like in a traffic summons. The maximum fine is RM5,000 or a jail term of three years or both. In my case, they had not served any summons, nor had they served a warrant of arrest, and my case was not even registered nor the charges prepared. For all intents and purposes, I was in court on my own free will and I need not have gone there if I did not want to.

After a lot of last minute preparing the charge, registering my case, and the magistrate on sick leave finally coming back to work, etc., they charged me, to which I pleaded not guilty. They then set the maximum bail of RM5,000.

This RM5,000 bail was absolutely unnecessary. I need not even have gone to court. There was no legal obligation on my part to do so. They just phoned me to ask whether I could go to court and I agreed to do so. I did so willingly, demonstrating full cooperation, and without forcing them to follow proper procedures. After all, how do I know who was on the other line? How do I know that this was a legitimate and not a crank call? They produced no evidence that I was to be charged and they did ask whether I could come to court -- and a question like that is open to a ‘yes’ or ‘no’ answer. They did not say I must go to court. They asked whether I could go to court.

So, when they imposed the maximum RM5,000 bail I refused to pay it and instead chose to be remanded until the day of the hearing in October 2008. When they asked me why, I replied that they could have posed bail on personal bond seeing how I was very cooperative and did not offer any resistance. I did not even insist they follow proper procedures but was quite willing to respond to mere phone calls.

When I arrived in Sungai Buloh Prison, something happened that put the entire prison on full alert. Sirul and Azilah, who were in the same block as me, Blok Damai, shouted for me to watch my back and that they will get me. I was quickly whisked out of the block. It seems they were angry that the Altantuya murder trial, which had disappeared from the radar screens, has now, again, been given the spotlight. Why should that upset them? Why the need for the Altantuya murder trial to disappear from the radar screens?

I was then assigned to my own cell, cell 8, and was not allowed to come into contact with any of the other prisoners. My cell door was permanently locked and whenever I had to leave my cell they would assign two or three Special Forces personnel, UPK, as my bodyguards. As further precautions, I refused to touch any drink or food as I remembered very well the arsenic poisoning that Dato Seri Anwar Ibrahim suffered when he too was in the same prison.

So, from the time I entered prison until the time I walked out four days later, I did not eat or drink, which of course the prison interpreted as a hunger strike. They told me that a hunger strike is a serious crime and they could charge me for that. But that was the least of my worries at that point of time.

I met no less than five or six senior officers at different points of time who all insisted that I agree to meet my wife and lawyers so that they could arrange bail for me. I made it very clear that I refuse to see anyone because I do not want them to start crying and begging me to agree to bail as that would weaken me. If I shut myself out from the rest of the world that would make it easier to stand firm.

The head of the Special Forces and someone from the Intelligence Unit also met me to explain that they will try their best to keep me safe. Nevertheless, they can’t watch over me 100% of the time so my continued presence in prison is a great burden to the entire staff. We are on full alert and we have to report to the ministry every hour on the hour. No one can sleep because of you, they said, so please agree to bail and leave.

One of the Special Forces chaps told me to never trust anyone. Don’t even trust the men in uniform, not even if they wear this same uniform, he tugged on his shirt to emphasis the point. Your life here is worth a packet of tobacco. Prisoners will kill just for that. And Sirul (or was it Azilah?) is very intelligent, he added. He knows which prisoners can be bought and he has many on his payroll. He can always get someone to do his job for him.

Whenever I was brought out they made sure that Sirul and Azilah, and the other 18 or so police officers that are in their same block, were locked up. Once, when they brought me out, and someone in the walktie-talkie said that the two were in the hospital, they quickly locked me up and only brought me out again after the two were safely locked up. I could see that they were not merely trying to frighten me but were genuinely worried.

Look, they told me, we have only 600 men against more than 5,000 inmates. And not all 600 are on shift at the same time. This prison was built for only 2,500 inmates so we are grossly overcapacity. If anything does happen, our personnel are grossly outnumbered. And with you here the potential for something happening is very great. Please, they appealed, consider your stand of not agreeing to bail. If not for your sake at least for ours. Whether you wish to live or die is your decision. But whatever happens to you will affect all our careers as well.

Anyway, to cut a long story even longer, I finally agreed to meet my wife and agreed to my wife’s appeal that she be allowed to pay the bail. After all, a knife in my stomach would not exactly be what the doctor would recommend.

I made many friends in my very short stay in the Sungai Buloh Prison: the Indian chap who was on trial for kidnapping who kept peeping into my cell to ask whether I needed everything, the Indonesian transvestite across from my cell who kept calling me ‘sayang’ and offered to massage my aching back, the Chinese man on trial for money laundering who asked for my autograph, the air force pilot who searched all over prison for reading glasses so that I could read my books, and all the guards and Special Forces chaps who smiled and gave me the thumbs-up when I greeted them with ‘Makkal Sakhti’. And they all wanted just one thing. They wanted me home so that I can continue to write and so that they can continue to find out the truth as to what is happening in this country.

Yes, I was touched. I was touched that alleged kidnappers and murderers and those we would normally consider the scum of the earth, and all those who are guarding them in prison, know about Makkal Sakhti and want the message of Makkal Sakhti to continue through Malaysia Today. To those who are on the outside looking in, these people are the forgotten people. These people no longer exist. You do not have names in prison. You are just a number and a statistic. But when you are amongst them, you can see that they have chosen a life different from yours -- theirs is a life of crime -- but their aspirations and ideals are the same as we on the outside looking in. They too want justice, equality, democracy, freedom of speech and a better Malaysia for all.

Yes, they might be criminals. And they may be criminals out of choice. But life never really gave them too many choices. Some turn to crime out of greed. But many turn to crime out of sheer need and desperation. And these are the faces I saw in prison, faces of people whom life offered not many choices. But then one of these faces may be the last face I see. One of these faces may be that of the one sent to do the evil deed of those who feel I have brought the spotlight back onto a murder trial that was almost buried and forgotten if not for the article I had written.

My wife knows I can be very stubborn and I seldom back down once I have made my resolution. She also knows that I can marah nyamuk and bakar kelambu, which can be considered irrational to most. But the support from all and sundry kept her strong and allowed her the will to fight. She is very touched with the support shown and the solidarity demonstrated by friends, bloggers and readers of Malaysia Today. In such a situation words can never really explain how one feels. To all Malaysians, on behalf of my wife and my entire family, I would like to express our most sincere gratitude. And this comes from the bottom of our hearts.

And to all Malaysians, I also want to say that I am sorry for allowing myself to be persuaded in agreeing to accept bail. I feel like I have let you down after earlier rejecting bail and instead choosing to stay in jail until my hearing in October. Under the circumstances, why should I allow my adversaries to finish me off like a cornered rat? At least if one has to go down let it be one goes down fighting.

On the money collected thus far, if all you donors can agree to it, I am going to propose that the surplus be put into a BLOGGERS DEFENCE FUND so that any blogger who may in future suffer persecution from the powers-that-be will have financial support to stand and fight. The bail is of course refundable and can be put back into the fund for future use. And the fund can also be used for legal costs whenever we can’t find lawyers who will defend bloggers on a pro bono basis.

That is all for today. I am still slightly disoriented and my aching back is not allowing me to focus that well -- so sorry if my piece today is slightly below par.

Anwar - 100 tokoh paling berpengaruh

Written by Malaysia kini

May 2, 08 4:51pm

Penasihat PKR Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim dinobatkan sebagai seorang daripada 100 tokoh paling berpengaruh di dunia oleh sebuah majalah terkenal.

Keputusan itu dibuat berdasarkan undian secara dalam talian yang diselaraskan oleh majalah mingguan terkenal Time.

Tokoh-tokoh tersebut dibahagikan dalam lima kategori iaitu pemimpin dan revolusioner, hero dan perintis, ahli sains dan pemikir, seniman dan penghibur, serta jurubina dan titan. Anwar berada di tempat kesembilan dalam kategori yang pertama selepas beberapa calon presiden Amerika Syarikat, Dalai Lama dan George W Bush.

Seratus tokoh paling berpengaruh dipilih daripada lebih 200 tokoh yang dicalonkan.Dalam majalah itu, Anwar digambarkan sebagai pemimpin Islam yang memperjuangkan sikap toleransi, demokrasi dan hak-hak asasi manusia.

《时代》百名最有影响力人物 安华在领袖改革者榜中排第九

Written by Merdeka review

May 02, 2008 ■时间／01:55:29 pm

身陷囹圄六年，刚在4月15日重获参选权的前副首相安华依布拉欣尽管尚未重返国会殿堂，但仍获美国《时代》（Time）杂志推选为世界百名最有影响力人物之一，在“领导人与改革者”组中排名第九，仅次于达赖喇嘛、俄罗斯总统普丁、美国三名总统候选人奥巴马、希拉里、麦凯恩、中国国家主席胡锦涛、美国现任总统布什及南非前副总统雅各布祖马。

今年是《时代》杂志第五次推选世界百名最有影响力人物，而安华（Anwar Ibrahim）是唯一入选的马来西亚政治人物，其他入选者包括达赖喇嘛、中国国家主席胡锦涛、美国三名总统候选人奥巴马、希拉里、麦凯恩、俄罗斯总统普丁、美国总统布什、台湾候任总统马英九、缅甸民主派领袖昂山素枝、媒体大亨梅铎（Rupert Murdoch）等。
安华（左图）目前是人民公正党实权领袖，曾任巫统署理主席、槟州峇东埔区国会议员、副首相兼财政部长；在1998年金融风暴期间因与首相马哈迪政见分歧，遭马哈迪革职及开除党籍，过后更被控以渎职罪及鸡奸罪，在1999年4月14日因渎职罪名成立被判六年监禁。

安华的渎职罪刑罚在2003年刑满，但却因鸡奸罪官司而继续扣押的监狱，直至2004年9月鸡奸罪控状被撤销后，才重获自由。不过，我国法律规定，任何人在马来西亚境内被判监禁超过一年或罚款超过马币二千元，而又没获得赦免，出狱后五年内不能参与选举；因此，安华无法参加今年3月8日的第12届全国大选。

不过，人民公正党在今年3月8日的第12届全国大选赢得31个国会议席，成为国会最大在野党；而在野党阵营－－人民联盟－－一共赢得82个国会议席，首次否决了执政集团国民阵线在国会的三分之二多数席优势。

《时代》杂志的世界百名最有影响力人物归类为“领导人与改革者”（Leaders & Revolutionaries）、“英雄与先驱”（Heroes & Pioneers）、科学家与思想家（Scientists & Thinkers）、艺术家与演艺人士（Artists & Entertainers）及创富者与巨擎（Builders & Titans）。

“领导人与改革者”排名第九

安华的名字乃归类于“领导人与改革者”组，在20人中排列第九，名字在他之前的八人是达赖喇嘛、俄罗斯总统普丁、美国三名总统候选人奥巴马、希拉里、麦凯恩、中国国家主席胡锦涛、美国现任总统布什及南非前副总统、现任南非非国大领袖雅各布祖马（Jacob Zuma）。

名字排在安华之后的另11人则是澳洲总理陆克文（Kevin Rudd）、罗马大主教巴萨罗缪一世（Bartholomew I）、美联储主席伯南克（Ben Bernanke）、回教什叶派领袖慕塔达（Muqtada al-Sadr）、美国国防部长罗伯特盖茨（Robert Gates）、智利总统米雪儿巴切莱特（Michelle Bachelet）、印度国大党领导人索妮亚甘地（Sonia Gandhi）、阿富汗塔利班组织领导人巴伊图拉迈赫苏德（Baitullah Mehsud）、玻利维亚总统莫拉莱斯（Evo Morales）、台湾候任总统马英九及巴基斯坦军方首领卡亚尼（Ashfaq Kayani）。【点击：世界百名最有影响力人物完整名单】

《时代》推选世界百名最有影响力人物时，也会邀请一名显要人物撰写短文介绍当选者，而负责介绍安华的显要人物是美国前副国防部长、前世界银行行长保罗沃尔福威茨（Paul Wolfowitz）；保罗沃尔福威茨的短文全文如下：

“倡导宽容，民主及人权的雄辩家”

“在1990年代，马来西亚副首相安华依布拉欣和一组美国参议员联办了一个论坛，让东亚人和美国人交换意见。在其中一场会议中被问到回教在政治里的角色时，安华回答说：“我不尊敬那些自称为回教，却否决国内一半人口的基本权利的政府。” 这名虔诚的回教徒领导人是个令人印象深刻的、倡导宽容，民主及人权的雄辩家，因此，当他在1998年因渎职及鸡奸罪被捕和送审时，我们感到震惊。我认为，他真正的“罪行”是挑战了首相马哈迪，后者令人印象深刻的纪录将因他如此对待安华而永远被沾污。我和参议员纳恩（Sam Nunn）等人为安华辩护。

当他终于在2004年获释时，美国的对伊拉克政策在马来西亚不得人心，而安华更是严厉批判。他可以轻易地否认我们的友谊，但他不是那种人；尽管明确表明不认同我们，但他仍让对话的渠道继续开放。

现年61岁的安华回到了马来西亚政治的中心，他的妻子旺阿兹莎领导的联盟已成为主要的在野党阵营。他未来的角色只有马来西亚人才能决定。人们可以期望，他们将会拥护安华的宽容、重视政治歧见之间的对话，以及这名果敢的领导人将继续在世界舞台上发挥主导作用。”

拒绝回答警方一切盘问 柏特拉：这是政治提控

Written by Malaysia kini

5月2日 傍晚6点20分

受警方提前传召的《今日马来西亚》（Malaysia Today）网站主编拉惹柏特拉（Raja Petra Kamaruddin）於下午4时，到武吉阿曼警察总部网络罪案组(Cyber Crime)录取口供。

拉惹柏特拉是在代表律师兼人民公正党士拉央国会议员梁自坚的陪同下录取口供，并在傍晚6时30分左右步出警察总部。他告诉记者，在长达两个小时半的盘问中，他拒绝回答警方任何问题，并认为这是一项政治提控“political prosecution”。

他披露，警方时候根据刑事法典第112条文下录取其口供，拒绝合作者将可以受到逮捕。尽管如此，拉惹柏特拉表示，他告诉警方，他拒绝回答任何问题，警方可以选择逮捕或释放他。

梁自坚：警方未出示报案书

梁自坚则表示，由于警方没有出示报案书，导致其当事人无从回答，因此拉惹柏特拉有权拒绝回答。

他也认为，这是政府对付部落客的部分行动。除了拉惹柏特拉的妻子玛丽那(Marina)之外，大约10名部落客也在警察总部网络罪案组总部外守候，给予拉惹柏特拉支持打气。

巫统宣传主任莫哈末泰益在去年曾以《今日马来西亚》网站刊登数篇侮辱最高元首、贬低回教和煽动种族仇恨的文章和读者留言为由，而投报《今日马来西亚》触犯刑事法典、煽动法令，以及通讯与多媒体法令，导致拉惹柏特拉遭警方传召盘问长达8个小时。

警方拒让黄朱强探柏特拉

旺沙马珠区国会议员黄朱强也於傍晚5时50分抵达警察总部，他尝试以国会议员和律师身份进入，但是被拒绝。根据黄朱强的说法，警厅的警员宣称受到网络罪案组总监的指示，不允许所有国会议员和律师进入。

蔡添强：世界新闻日一大讽刺

另一方面，人民公正党全国宣传主任蔡添强对于警方在世界新闻自由日前夕，动用《煽动法令》对付《今日大马》（Malaysia Today）网站主编拉惹柏特拉的做法，表示遗憾！

他说：“5月3日是世界新闻自由日，让人感到遗憾的是，警方竟然在这一天，使用煽动法令对付网络媒体，这对原本就缺乏新闻自由度的马来西亚而言，无疑是一大讽刺！”

“较早前，首相阿都拉公开承认，忽略网络媒体、部落格和手机短讯等新兴媒体是国阵政府的一大失误，而今警方却在新闻自由日对付网络媒体，这是否意味著首相在承认失误后，不是承认网络媒体的自主性，而是加强对媒体的打压？”“警方不该动辄使用《煽动法令》，作为打压媒体人的手段；不管是传统媒体还是新兴媒体的报导，执政者如果持有不同看法，大可作出回应。

事实上，针对该网站发表指控副首相纳吉等人涉及蒙古女郎命案的文章，副首相已经透过其新闻秘书东姑沙烈胡丁在该网站上作出回应和反驳。”

“因此，警方在纳吉作出回应后，仍动用《煽动法令》的做法，无疑留下疑问。”

蔡添强是在今日发表文告，针对警方援用煽动法令调查《今日大马》网站主编拉惹柏特拉，并到其位于双溪毛糯住家充公他的电脑一事，作出回应。

另外，蔡添强强调，法庭应加速阿旦杜雅命案的审讯进度，以免此案予人“或因受到干预而进展缓慢“的印象。“不管是基于人道主义的立场，还是马来西亚和蒙古两国关系的外交考量，这宗案件的审理进度，都是各造关注的层面。”

新山德教会回教字画被抄 朝野政党华团齐要求彻查

Written by Malaysia kini

5月2日 傍晚5点38分

新山德教会回教字画被宗教局和内政部官员抄走事件引起社会震惊，隆雪华堂、马华与柔佛社青团不约而同发表文告谴责相关人员枉顾宗教敏感，并且要求这些单位进行彻查。

宗教局和内政部一行7人于本周三（4月30日），闯入柔佛新山的德教会紫书阁，取走挂在内厅代表回教主画像的字画。

德教在1950年代从中国潮州传入马来西亚，至今有50年的历史。这个宗教同时敬奉五大宗教的真主，即道教、儒教、释教（佛教）、耶教（基督教）以及回教，因此紫书阁大门內侧所悬挂的画像包括：基督主耶穌、道教主李老君、佛教主释迦牟尼、儒教主孔夫子、以及代表回教主的一幅白底玻璃相框黑色爪夷文字样的画。

要求彻查以保证不重犯

隆雪华堂会长黄汉良在今天的文告指出，这样的做法是不恰当的，因此要求内政部和宗教局彻查，以确保未来不会发生同样的事情。他表示，有关官员没有出示任何官方证件，而且事前也没有照会或通知德教会的负责人，便强行将德教会内悬挂的回教字画取走。

“不论从行政程序或者宗教敏感度而言，有关官员的做法都是不恰当的。隆雪华堂呼吁内政部和宗教局马上采取行动，调查有关的事件和所涉及的官员，并且确保有关的事件不会重演。”

黄汉良：侵害宪法信仰自由

黄汉良进一步表示，这样的不当做法将侵害宪法所保障的个人信仰自由。“众所周知，我国是一个宗教信仰自由的国家，联合邦宪法也保障各个宗教信徒的权利。

倘若以不恰当的手法，任意干预甚至侵犯其它宗教的信仰自由，势必引起不必要的误解，甚至导致各宗教之间的紧张关系。”

陈财和：伤害宗教和谐共生

马华宗教局主任陈财和表示，德教会是获得国际认同的宗教，传扬五个宗教和谐共生的概念，而大马回教发展局和内政部的非理性行动，已损害宗教的共存和谐。

他指出，德教会的合法团体地位不容受到一些偏激的官员来挑战，德教会宣扬五个宗教教主的中庸之道，已在大马扎根超过五十年，其活动从来没有对回教带来任何负面的影响；相反地，其倡导的异中求同的和谐共生，对摆脱极端宗教带来潜移默化的良好发展。

这位前国内事务部副部长也强调，宗教局和内政部的不当举动，已触动了华社的敏感神经，尤其当局并没有表明采取行动的理由。

他期望有关部门对这种行动查处官员，给德教会一个合理的交代。

庄德志：不能纵容小拿破仑

民主行动党柔佛州社青团也抨击内政部及宗教局的行动，并且要求有关单位说明执法过程的细节。民主行动党柔佛州社青团署理团长庄德志要求彻查下达执行令者，以及质疑有关行动是否依据正常执法程序。

“有关的行动若证实由内政部及宗教局官员执行，那么内政部长赛哈密必须向国人解释，有关的鲁莽行动是否获得内政部的批准，以及内政部是否赞成官员采取相关接近于野蛮和无礼的行为？”

庄德志强调，若内政部长没有对有关官员采取必要的行动，则将等同于默许官员继续蛮横无理地执法，助长小拿破仑官员的气焰。他呼吁内政部长严正看待这宗事件，并积极采取行动杜绝执法人员的违法和滥权行为。

Petra disiasat kes Najib-Altantuya

May 2, 08 12:27pm

Polis menyerbu rumah Raja Petra Kamaruddin pagi ini berhubung siasatan mengenai tulisannya yang menyentuh timbalan perdana menteri Datuk Seri Najib Razak dengan Altantuya Shaariibuu.

Seramai lapan anggota polis tiba di rumah beliau pada jam 9 pagi tadi dan menyoalnya berhubung tulisan tersebut.

Pasukan tersebut diketuai oleh DSP Victor Sanjos dari bahagian jenayah siber Bukit Aman.

Polis yang berada selama dua jam di rumahnya, turut merampaskan komputer ribanya.

Raja Petra mengesahkan perkara itu ketika dihubungi Malaysiakini pagi ini.

Katanya, polis memberitahunya bahawa beliau disiasat bawah Akta Hasutan.

Beliau diarahkan hadir di bahagian jenayah siber pagi esok.

Ketika dihubungi, Victor berkata, laporan terhadap Raja Petra dibuat oleh ketua pegawai penyiasat kes pembunuhan wanita Mongolia itu, Supt Gan Tack Guan.
Dalam laporan Gan itu, tulisan Raja Petra didakwa berunsur hasutan dan sesiapa sahaja yang membacanya, boleh mempercayai apa yang ditulisnya.
Tulisan Raja Petra juga dianggap sebagai komen sebelum penghakiman kes tersebut dibuat.

Kelmarin, Najib berkata beliau tidak pernah mengenali wanita Mongolia itu dan tidak pernah bertemu dengan mangsa terbabit.

"Dakwaan seorang saksi dalam perbicaraan kes Altantuya bahawa konon-kononnya si mati (Altantuya) pernah makan bersama dengan Razak Baginda dan individu bernama 'Najib Razak' tidak pernah disahkan, malah kredibiliti saksi itu juga tidak pernah diteliti.

"Dakwaan kononnya ada gambar si mati dengan (Abdul) Razak (Abdullah Baginda) dan timbalan perdana menteri juga tidak pernah dibuktikan oleh mana-mana pihak melainkan gambar rekaan yang terbukti palsu," kata Najib, melalui kenyataan yang dikeluarkan oleh setiausaha akhbarnya Datuk Tengku Sariffuddin Tengku Ahmad.

Kenyataan akhbar itu diterbitkan Malaysia Today semalam bagi menjawab artikel pengendalinya Raja Petra bertajuk "Let's send Altantuya's murderers to hell" pada 25 April.

Tengku Sariffuddin juga menafikan beberapa dakwaan dalam artikel tersebut, antaranya:

Najib dan isterinya Rosmah Mansor ada kaitan dengan pembunuhan Altantuya,

timbalan perdana menteri pernah menyokong permohonan visa wanita itu, dan

rekod imigresen wanita itu telah sengaja dihapuskan.

"Semua kenyataan ini merupakan kenyataan pandang dengar (hearsay) yang tidak pernah dibuktikan, tetapi pihak tuan sewenang-wenangnya menyiarkan kenyataan seperti itu seolah-olah ia (adalah) fakta," katanya.

Menjawab kenyataan ini pada hari yang sama, Raja Petra berkata beliau berasa gembira dan dihormati apabila setiausaha akhbar kepada timbalan perdana menteri sendiri sanggup menulis kepada Malaysia Today.

"Seperti saya nyatakan beberapa kali sebelum ini, satu-satunya jalan menangani media independen ialah berdepan dengannya, bukan mengabaikannya, kerana pengabaian anda boleh memusnahkan anda sendiri," katanya, memulakan reaksi segera dalam artikelnya "My reply to Datuk Tengku Sariffuddin Tengku Ahmad".

Selain mempertikaikan kewibawaan sistem kehakiman negara, khususnya sewaktu perbicaraan Anwar, penulis blog terkenal itu juga menyebut beberapa insiden layanan buruk polis yang didakwanya dialaminya dan juga isterinya.

Artikel awal Raja Petra minggu lepas dimulakan dengan isu menuntut keadilan buat Altantuya sewaktu kunjungan bapa mangsa bunuh itu Shaariibuu Setev ke Kuala Lumpur bagi mendesak perbicaraan kes bunuh anaknya dijalankan dengan adil.

Selain Abdul Razak, seorang penganalisis politik yang dikaitkan dengan Najib, dua anggota polis pasukan berprofil tinggi Unit Tindakan Khas (UTK) di Bukit Aman turut dituduh dalam kes tersebut mulai Jun tahun lepas.

Cif inspektor Azilah Hadri, dan koperal Sirul Azhar Umar didakwa membunuh Altantuya, di lokasi mukim Bukit Raja, Shah Alam antara 19-20 Oktober 2006.

Abdul Razak, pula didakwa bersubahat dengan Azilah dan Sirul Azhar di Wilayah Persekutuan sehari sebelum pembunuhan itu.

Pembunuhan Altantuya mula menggegarkan negara apabila penganalisis politik ini dan beberapa anggota polis, termasuk Azilah dan Sirul Azhar, ditahan polis pada 7 November 2006.

蒙古女郎案调查官报案 拉惹柏特拉电脑被充公

Written by Malaysia kini

5月2日 中午12点19分

更新因在网站上发表指控副首相纳吉与其夫人罗斯玛涉及蒙古女郎命案的文章，警方援用煽动法令调查《今日马来西亚》（Malaysia Today）网站主编拉惹柏特拉（Raja Petra Kamaruddin），并到其位于双溪毛糯住家充公他的电脑。

明早11时网络罪案组报到

拉惹柏特拉也被谕令在明早11时，向武吉阿曼警察总部网络罪案组(Cyber Crime)报到，以录取口供。

拉惹柏特拉是于日前在《今日大马》(Malaysia Today)网站上发表一篇题为“让我们将杀死阿旦杜雅的凶手送入地狱”( Let's Send Altantuya's Murderer to Hell）的文章而掀起浩然大波。拉惹柏特拉在这篇网络文章中，指控副首相纳吉与其夫人罗斯玛涉及蒙古女郎阿旦杜雅的命案。

充公手提电脑和电脑主机

来自武吉阿曼警察总部网络罪案组的维克山佐斯副警监(Victor Sanjos)是在今早9时，率领7名警员到拉惹柏特拉的住家充公了一台手提电脑和一台电脑主机(CPU)，并逗留了两个小时之久。

在充公的过程中，警方也询问拉惹柏特拉，究竟是不是他亲手撰写和刊登有关章，并求证他是否就是《今日大马》网站的拥有者。

调查官指未有判决就评论
维克山佐斯在接受《当今大马》电询时指出，蒙古女郎命案的调查警官颜德源警监，已针对拉惹柏特拉的网络文章报案。

维克山佐斯透露，颜德源在报案书中，指拉惹柏特拉的文章涉嫌煽动，读过其文章的读者可能相信其内容，而他也在法庭未作出判决前，就先行评论该案。

针对拉惹柏特拉的指控，纳吉也破天荒通过其新闻秘书东姑沙烈胡丁在该网站上发表反驳声明。沙烈胡丁在声明中表示，指纳吉支持阿旦杜雅来马的签证申请、阿旦杜雅的入境纪录被删除以及纳吉曾与阿旦杜雅合照等，都是道听途说的谣言。

声明也说，指阿旦杜雅的死与政府购买潜水艇有关的指控也是毫无根据的传言，并否认纳吉认识死者阿旦杜雅，编造这样的传言只是为了让故事听起来可信度较高。

声明表示，由于指控严重及具破坏性，所以纳吉将会毫不犹豫咨询法律意见。

My reply to Datuk Tengku Sariffuddin Tengku Ahmad

Written by Malaysia-today

Wednesday, 30 April 2008

Dear Datuk Tengku Sariffuddin Tengku Ahmad,

First of all, thank you for writing to Malaysia Today. (Read letter here). As promised, I have published your letter in toto without any amendments, additions, deletions, or ‘touch up’, though I felt some improvement to the language may have been necessary. Nevertheless, I was very careful in not ‘doctoring’ any parts of your letter lest I open myself to accusations of any sort.

I must admit I am pleased and honoured that the Press Secretary of the Deputy Prime Minister and likely future Prime Minister would take the trouble to write to Malaysia Today. As I have said so many times in the past, the only way to deal with the independent media is to engage it, not ignore it, for you ignore it at your own peril. And note that I have used the term ‘independent’ media and not ‘alternative’ media or ‘opposition’ media -- because that is exactly what we are. In fact, what you call the ‘mainstream’ media, today, could actually be called the alternative media.

Now, on the points in your letter. A ‘trial’ by court of public opinion has been what we, the Rakyat, have had to rely on since 1998. Some say that the judiciary has in fact been compromised since 1988 after the sacking of Tun Salleh Abbas and his fellow judges. The fact that these half a dozen or so judges were recently honoured in a dinner graced by the Prime Minister where Abdullah Ahmad Badawi announced that the government will spend millions of the taxpayers’ money to pay these judges their 20 years back-pay confirms that the Abdullah government, in which Dato Sri Mohd Najib Tun Razak is part of, agrees with the court of public opinion’s view of events that happened 20 years ago.

This opinion is of course strengthened by your very own de facto Law Minister’s statement, barely a few days after taking office, that the government should apologise to Tun Salleh and his fellow judges. This was of course shot down by the Cabinet, and instead of an apology, they are being paid millions of Ringgit, which Najib said should not be interpreted as an apology. Maybe Najib is right when he says that if the government pays out millions of Ringgit of the taxpayers’ money this should be only taken as 20 years back-pay and not be taken as an apology. Nevertheless, this still tantamount to an admission that the judges had been wrongfully dismissed, apology or no apology.

We must also not forget the statement by Justice Kamil when he delivered his judgement in the Likas election petition case. Yang Arif admitted that he always receives instructions from the top before he delivers his judgement on important or crucial cases. Justice Kamli also said that he is not the only judge to receive such instructions but that many other judges are also subjected to interference and instructions from the top and that they are told how they should rule. When asked who this person from the top is, he replied that we should know whom it is he means and he left it at that. No one had any misgivings as to whom Justice Kamil meant.

One very respected retired Chief Justice, who is known as an extremely straight and no-nonsense chap, remarked, if he had to be tried in court, he would not like it to be in a Malaysian court. He further remarked that the windscreens of the cars of judges are blacked-out not for security reasons but because the judges are ashamed to be seen by the public. This is coming from someone who is placed above normal men and when someone of that calibre makes such statements how can the public not feel that the Malaysian judiciary can no longer be trusted? As they say, let you be judged by your peers, and the judiciary’s peers have made their ruling.

Dear Datuk Tengku Sariffuddin Tengku Ahmad,

To argue that we should leave this matter to the courts to decide is just not on. It can never be on until we see genuine and real reforms in the judiciary. And when the talk amongst legal circles is that, in September, the President of the Court of Appeal will take over as the new Chief Justice, this just erodes our confidence in the judiciary even further. Putting Umno’s lawyer in charge of the judiciary is like putting the fox in charge of the henhouse or, as the Malays would say, putting the kambing in charge of the sireh. And you want us to leave it to the courts to decide? When you have highly-respected judges and retired Chief Justices openly condemning the Malaysian judiciary what do you expect the lesser-learned Rakyat like us to do?

Of course, you will say that one is innocent until proven guilty. That is a beautiful concept. However, if you believe such a thing is possible in Malaysia, then you probably believe in the Tooth Fairy and Santa Claus as well. Do you remember Anwar Ibrahim’s trial ten years ago? Anwar was tried in a court of public opinion when they paraded that mattress in and out of court every day. What happened to that mattress? It was never part of the evidence and eventually just quietly disappeared out of sight. Was that not grandstanding for the media and TV cameras?

In Anwar’s case, he was not innocent until proven guilty. Though the Malaysian judicial system, which follows the British and not the French system, stipulates that a man is innocent until proven guilty, Anwar was assumed guilty and he was made to prove his innocence. The onus should be on the court to prove guilt but in Anwar’s case he was considered guilty and he had to prove his innocence. And the judge sent Anwar to jail because, according to the judge, Anwar had failed to prove his innocence.

We are therefore using the same ‘burden of proof’ on the present Deputy Prime Minister just like what the previous Deputy Prime Minister was subjected to. If this system of ‘prove you are innocent or else we have to assume you are guilty’ was good enough for Anwar then it is certainly good enough for Najib. Why should there be different standards between one Deputy Prime Minister and another? Should there not be one standard for all?

Note that Malaysia has a law called the Internal Security Act. When you are detained under this law, you are assumed guilty until you can prove you are innocent. And if you fail to prove your innocence then you are detained without trial indefinitely. Some Malaysians have spent more than 20 years under detention because the hapless person was not able to prove his innocence. Ahmad Boestaman, the famous Malay nationalist and independence fighter, was detained for 14 years or so. You may remember him. His son, Rustam Sani, died recently.

Dear Datuk Tengku Sariffuddin Tengku Ahmad,

I must remind you that I too was arrested on Hari Raya Haji Day in 2001 after I walked into the police station to be with my wife who had earlier been arrested. Her ‘crime’ was for trying to help an old woman who had a knee injury and who was struggling to walk up a hill. The police arrested my wife, the poor old woman, and her daughter.

When I walked into the police station, Bakri Zinin, the current CID Director, assaulted me when I attempted to step outside to make a phone call. I was trying to step outside because a policeman shouted at me that I am not allowed to make a phone call inside the police station. But when I tried to step outside as instructed, Bakri assaulted me. He then instructed his officers to arrest me.

When I asked what my crime was and as to the reason I was being arrested, they told me they will think of something later. In the meantime they will arrest me first. I then insisted I be allowed to make a police report against Bakri but they refused to take my report. When I refused to accept no for an answer, they reluctantly took my report but nothing further was done after that. That police report made on Hari Haji Day of 2001 is probably no longer in the file.

Dear Datuk Tengku Sariffuddin Tengku Ahmad,

I am glad you talk about respect for the law. I just wish you and Najib had said the same thing when they beat me up, handcuffed me, and threw me into the lockup without a charge back in 2001. Will I be accorded justice as well just like how you and Najib want to see justice done? Will Bakri Zinin be taken to task for beating me and for arresting me without any charge? Thus far, the only action taken against him is that he has been promoted from OCPD Dang Wangi to Director CID. Let us talk about justice when I see justice done to me as well. Until then we shall rule by law of public opinion, as that appears to be the only ‘system’ available to us.

I understand the concept of subjudice when commenting on an ongoing trial. So allow me to comment only on what the mainstream newspapers have already covered. The mainstream newspapers reported about a green Suzuki Vitara. The registration plate of the car was also mentioned in that newspaper report. Malaysia Today traced the owner of this car to an address in Ijok. On further checking with the SPR registration, it was confirmed that this person exists and his name, address and IC number tally with that in the JPJ registration.

The house exists and the neighbours confirm that the person concerned does live there and that the green Suzuki Vitara has been seen in front of the house. This, according to the newspapers, is the car that took Altantuya away after she was arrested in front of Razak Baginda’s house and taken to Bukit Aman.

Has this man been picked up? And, if not, then why since Altantuya was last seen alive driving off with him? Malaysia Today has revealed his name, address and IC number. And this man’s neighbours in Ijok confirm his existence and that of the car. Note that this was raised in the trial and was reported by the mainstream newspapers. So this is not mere insinuations and innuendoes.

In an interview in 2002 or 2003, Razak Baginda confirmed that his company brokered the submarine deal. He even mentioned the commission he had earned. This matter was confirmed by Razak himself and is documented in that interview. So this is also no insinuation or innuendo. And have we forgotten Razak’s wife’s outburst when she said that her husband is innocent and that it is not he who wants to become the next Prime Minister? Was Razak’s wife talking about Tengku Razaleigh Hamzah, Anwar Ibrahim or Khairy Jamaluddin? And was not Razak’s wife once a magistrate who would therefore know the law and know what constitutes subjudice?

Dear Datuk Tengku Sariffuddin Tengku Ahmad,

I can go on but let the above suffice for the meantime. The issue of the changing of the judge after the filing of the Affidavit during the bail hearing (which was raised by Karpal Singh), the defence lawyers resigning because of threats from certain people (which Zulkifli Nordin confirmed), the changing of the entire prosecuting team the morning of the trial (which the prosecutor admitted when he asked for a one-month postponement), and much more are all documented and are on public record. Let the court of public opinion decide whether Malaysia Today is merely raising what is already well-documented or whether Malaysia Today is dabbling in insinuations and innuendoes.

Again, I thank you for your letter and really appreciate you taking the time to write to us. Let us together, in the spirit of Islam, the religion we profess, seek the truth and oppose transgressions -- as made mandatory by Islam under the concept of amar maaruf, nahi munkar. From God we come and to God we shall return. And we shall be made accountable for all that we have done on this earth. And, in the eyes of God, those defending kemunkaran will be as guilty as those committing it. Let us not fear man for man proposes but God disposes. And nothing will befall us that God has not planned will befall us. Subjudice and contempt of court are creations of man that will not carry any weight in God’s court. So fear God because man even as powerful as Prime Ministers and Deputy Prime Ministers will be powerless to help you in God’s court where we shall all ultimately be judged.

Yours truly,

Raja Petra Bin Raja Kamarudin

Press Statement from Deputy Prime Minister Dato Sri Mohd Najib Tun Razak

Wednesday, 30 April 2008

I would like to refer to an article posted on your website under the heading “Let’s Send the Altantuya Murderers to Hell ” on April 25. For the benefits ofyour readers, I would to like to put the record straight since there were insinuations and unjustified comments made against the Deputy Prime Minister Dato Sri Mohd Najib Tun Razak and his wife Datin Sri Rosmah Mansor in respect of the murder case.

2. The article alleged that the DPM and his wife were implicated in the murder of the Mongolian girl, the Deputy Prime Minister supported her visas application, her immigration record had been erased and there were pictures taken with her. These are hearsays which you have deemed alright to published as reflected by your position “we too have conducted our own trial by court of public opinion and we have already arrived at our verdict”.

3. The article also gave the impression that police investigation was flawed and the legal proceeding was being compromise (show trial in the kangaroo court) and designed to hide the real perpetrators. While it is up to the judiciary and police to deal with these allegations, Dato Sri Mohd Najib reserved the right in this “public opinion” court to reiterate his earlier comments that he did not know and has never met the deceased. As such all these allegations are unfounded and designed to tarnish his standing within the Malaysian public.

4. A witness claimed that Altantuya had dinner with Razak and Najib was never corroborated. No picture was produced in court except that of PKR Information Chief Tian Chua who posted a concocted ‘picture’ on the web. Strangely, no legal attempt had been made to produce this picture as evidence in court to date by PKR as it appears it is only admissible in the public opinion court.

5. The case is a private matter involving Encik Razak Baginda and how the policemen were involved will come out in the open during the court proceedings. I would like to also point out that the claims that Altantuya murder was linked to the country’s purchase of the submarine as baseless and unfounded, it was done to make a good and believable story in the public opinion court.

6. Dato Sri Mohd Najib has been very restrained and guarded in making any public statement on the matter since people known to him have been implicated and have been charged in court. It could be misinterpreted or seen interfering in the case since the court proceedings is on going. In fact, a former Deputy Prime Minister was convicted for abuse of power when trying to suppress a sexual misconduct investigations against him.

7. As pointed out in the article there is an issue of subjudice or contempt of court and Dato Sri Mohd Najib, Malaysians and foreigners here must respect the laws and system that all of us are subject too. As such it is unfair that unfounded and wild allegations in such a serious matter had been made which will tarnish the Deputy Prime Minister’s standing in public.

8. As stated in your article “But this is not about politics and should not be dealt as such”, the DPM also shared this sentiment that this case should seek out the truth and justice should be served. However, it is clear that there are those who are not interested in finding justice for Altantuya. It is the politics of Altantuya they are concerned with and it is my sincere hope that your readers will be able to differentiate between truth, half-truth, falsehood and lies since politicians are judge in the public opinion court.

9. Since the allegations are serious and damaging in nature, the DPM will not hesitate to seek legal redress on the matter.

Thank you.

Datuk Tengku Sariffuddin Tengku Ahmad

Press Secretary to the Deputy Prime Minister