Dr.Seah relied heavily on information....

In the afternoon, Seah, who is the fifth prosecution witness, testified that her department follows strict guidelines as it is bound by international quality control standards and forensic guidelines. Seah said the department also has its internal guidelines to ensure it abides by the required standards as their work is a tightly regulated field.

The witness also agreed that Saiful's DNA blood sample was used as a reference specimen but denied that it had caused bias or influenced her in her decision. Ram asked, You relied heavily on that information and there was a possibility of you being influenced by the information which was given to you.

Yes I used the reference sample in B10 (Saiful's blood sample) but I am not influenced by it. It is used as a reference, she said.

She also revealed in court that it uses the DNA View and the Applied Biosystem Genetic Analysis machine which is 10 years old. It uses a Gene Matter software which is regularly updated, she said.

Asked by Ram when it was last updated, she said it was in 2007/ 2008.

The witness said although the manufacturer and software providers have their own set of written guidelines, the lab can adopt its own guidelines as recommended by the International Society of Forensic Genetics of which she is also a member.

Seah also revealed that the department also has specific guidelines if the DNA was mixed as in this case.

She agreed that dropout will occur in DNA sampling and there will be what is termed as a T-value threshold value whose charts are available and used in her analysis. However, Ram complained that the chart was not provided to the defence, resulting in McDonald being unable to refer to it. Prosecution did not add! ress B8 and B9 swabs

It is interesting to note that during the examination-in-chief earlier today by DPP Noorin Badaruddin, she did not address the cotton buds marked B8 and B9. Yesterday, she stopped her line of questioning at B7.

B8 concerns the high-rectal swab where Saiful's DNA and "Male Y" DNA were found, while B9 is the lower rectal swab where both DNAs were also found.

DPP Noorin only focused her line of questioning on the electropherogram chart which was printed by the Applied Biosystem Genetic Analysis, which was tendered as evidence. There was no reference made by the defence on a strand of pubic hair found, which has been tendered as evidence. The chemist's report states that the hair has no DNA profile.


Dr Seah Lay Hoong bertindak defensif dan enggan menjawab beberapa pertanyaan mengenai protokol dan mode operasi makmal beliau. Malah, peguam Ram Karpal pada sesi prosiding petang terus mempersoalkan cara ujian DNA oleh Dr Seah.

Ram bertanya adakah Makmal Jabatan Kimia Dr Seah mematuhi standard yang ditetapkan badan International Society for Forensic Genetics yang Dr Seah juga merupakan seorang ahlinya.

Peguambela Sankara Nair ketika ditemui wartawan di lobi menyatakan rasa terkejutnya dalam hal ini.

"Saksi kena jawab, tahu atau tidak, tapi ada yang dia tak tahu, sebagai contoh, Dia adalah ahli senior International Society for Forensic Genetics, apabila Ram tanya mengenai intrepertasi graf itu. Prosedur DNA, dia adalah ahli badan antarabangsa, tapi bila kita tanya dia tanya balik, Ini tunjukkan samada dia tak faham atau tak nak bekerjasama,"katanya.

Malah Applied Biosystem Genetic Analys! is yang digunakan untuk mengeluarkan laporan tersebut turut dipersoal oleh Ram. Pasukan pembelaan dibantu pakar DNA Australia Dr Brian McDonald. Dr Seah menafikan ia perisian lama sebaliknya menyatakan ia selalu dikemaskini dan kali terakhir pada 2007 atau 2008.

Menurut Sankara, tujuan hasil penyiasatan ini ialah bagi melihat samada cara laporan kimia yang digunakan telus dan baik, serta boleh dinilai Hakim Zabidin Mohd Diah.

Kita katakan kalau prosedur tak betul, keputusan tak betul, sebab itu kita soal balas di sini untuk tahu mode atau cara kajian dilakukan, jadi kalau mode itu salah, keputusan akan salah.

Perbicaraan disambung pada Isnin nanti dan peguambela akan terus menyoal balas Dr Seah.

source:TVS

cheers

MARTIN, MANDELA,ANWAR IBRAHIM, EL GHAD AND THE MAHATMA IN TAHRIR SQUARE

The liberal politician founded the opposition party El Ghad, which was formally recognized in 2004. He ran against Mubarak in the 2005 presidential elections the first under Mubarak that allowed multiple candidates and won second place, shortly was arrested for allegedly falsifying documents that established his party shortly after the election. According to current law, Nour is considered a criminal, and is therefore barred from running forpresident.

JUSTICE DELAYED IS JUSTICE DENIED UMNO/BN THE INFIDELS THE SUPREME PURPOSE OF ISLAMIC LAW IS JUSTICE.

The processes involved in our legal system are not a deterrent enough to rein in the risingcriminalactivities in the country. Heinous crimes go on happening partly because the perpetrators feel that they would not be expeditiously punished for their injudicious acts.

Criminalsthese days are shrewd enough to study the loopholes in the processes involved in any legal system. They are sentient of the fact that it is not easy for the authority to pin them down in the court of law. With the help of diligent and experienced lawyers, they can evade immediate punishment or possibly get themselves acquitted at the end of a court trial. A ! court ca se, too, can be dragged on for years and years to the chagrin of the party that suffers most the claimant or the defence.

Justicedelayed isjusticedenied has become a maxim for legal reformers in many countries who view thecourtsor government authorities as acting too slowly in resolving criminal and court cases. In some cases and in some countries, the elements of outside interference and corruption of officials cannot be ruled out.

Criminalsare aware that the court processes at times do favour them. The legal process is indeed a wearisome one. To begin with, an investigation has to be done by the police on a crime committed and there must be hard evidence before the accused could be brought to court.

Without adequate evidence, cases can be thrown out by the court. Then, there must be witnesses who are willing to testify against the accused in court. To get witnesses to testify in court is not an easy task. Many would decline to do so for fear of reprisal.

At times, court cases can be postponed for medical reasons or for many other reasons. If the accused is found guilty at the lower or high court, he can still appeal against his conviction while on bail and this again takes a lot more time before justice is done. Second or third delays on appeal are quite common.

Lawyers are smart too. If the case does not seem to favour them, they can find legally accepted means to delay the court processes. Those criminals flushed with money could employ thebest lawyersin to! wn to de fend them in court. It sometimes go a long way before justice could be seen to be done.

How about the legal redress for the party that has suffered? They have to wait and wait and they are the ones who would suffer most. By the time everything is settled in court, this may take months or years if the aggrieved party wants to see justice done for them. By then, some players in the script would have possibly kicked the bucket.

Anyway, these are the court processes in a democracy. Criminals are aware that it is not easy for the court to readily impose a sentence on them. Thus, we see the number of these criminals increasing despite all the measures taken to curb their activities.

What the party that has suffered wants is for the right to a speedy trial and to expedite the legal process. It is unfair for them to keep on sustaining the injury with little hope for quick justice.

The ordinary people on the street may not be judicial experts but they need to know they can depend on the judicial system and the government to gain justice. It is the slowing down of the process of quick justice that has partly made criminals these days more daring to commit crimes.

This, undeniably, is grossly unfair to the victims who need redress. The slowness of our court system, in a way, has considerably failed to punish criminals expediently. Of course, so many cases are pending at all the courts. The backlogs in the supreme and high courts both civil and criminal can also be partly blamed.

Even so, how long does a victim have to wait for justice? We strongly urge the government and the judiciary to take the necessary steps to ensure fair and expeditious trials, as well as quick appeal hearings for the sake of justice to the aggrieved party.

Justice delayed is effectively the same as having no redress at all.

READMOREMARTIN, MANDELA,ANWAR IBRAHIM, EL GHAD AND THE MAHATMA IN TAHRIR SQUARE

Filed underUncategorized

Law maker Vs law enforcer

I am not suprised at all with the decision of the High Court in Shah Alam that made the ruling that Badrul Hisham Abdullah is still the Port Klang assemblyman. It is like expecting a miracle to happen whenever a case involving any state assembly ruled by PR goes to court. The probability is like seeing a shooting star on a bright night. The disease which started in Perak has spread to the Malaysian Parliament and now to Selangor.

SLA in any state or the parliament is by designed to be a self regulatory institution that is supposed to make laws. Its decision on its member stays within the boundary of the SLA. Being self regulatory means the decision made according to the rules of the institution is binding on its members. The issue of challenging any decision of the SLA is like opening a pandora box. It leaves long lasting implication on our nation constitutional system.

If any decision of the SLA can be challenged then one day any law passed by the SLA or the parliament can be challenged by any man with creative thingking. I dread to see the day some smart lawyer goes to court and get an injunction against the parliament for making a law or the court ruled that a particular newly created law is unlawful.

The issue is not about who started it but rather who will start a process to halt it. I believe it is the responsibility of all state government and the parliament to review the constitution and make it water tight to ensure that it stays as a highest law making body which cannot be challenged. This can only be done if all our ADUN and MP sees the importance doing it. Failing which, then I see a disaster looming in this country.

Pilihanraya Kampus: DI mana Suara Pemuda PAS?

Saya mengucapkan tahniah kepada Pemuda PAS kerana mengadakan kempen kesedaran sempena Hari Valentine. Saya merasakan kempen itu sangat berguna.

Namun, saya juga ingin bertanya kepada Pemuda PAS. Di dalam kempen piuliharnaya kampus yang sedang berlansung dengan rancak, di manakah suara Pemuda PAS?

Mengapa hanya seorang perempuan bernama Nurul Izzah yang terkial-kial memperjuangkan hak mahasiswa yang dihinjak dan dihina oleh HEP dan UMNO?

Dimanakah suara dari Tantawi, Ketua Pemuda PAS dalam hal ini. Bukankah kezaliman yang dilakukan oleh UMNO melalui HEP Kampus juga satu bentuk kemungkaran?

Mengapa Pemuda PAS tidak boleh mengadakan demo besar-besaran di harapan Kementrian Pendidikan bagi menghalang kezaliman kepada pelajar-pelajar universiti ini diberhentikan?

Kalau setakat mahu berkempen menentang "Hari Valentine" sahaja, menunjukkan Ketua Pemuda PAS kita hanya setaraf dengan presiden mana-mana NGO di Malaysia sahaja.

Apa guna memimpin Pemuda PAS kalau isu yang diperjuangkan hanya setaraf isu-isu yang diperjuangkan NGO sahaja.

Tak tau saya apa akan jadi pada Pemuda PAS. Malang sungguh pemuda PAS ada ketua yang berfikiran setaraf NGO sahaja.

Kalau Pemuda IKhwan Muslimin berjaya mengembeling jutaan pemuda-pemuda Mesir untuk turun ke jalan-jalan raya seterusnya menjatuhkan regim Mubarak, adakah Ketua Pemuda PAS kita ini mempunyai kebolehan untuk melakukan perkara tersebut?

Tepuk dada tanya iman.

TUlang Besi

Anwar Ibrahim Sodomy II The Recorded Truth 16 Februari 2011

Mahkamah Tinggi Jenayah 3 KL
Di hadapan Yang Arif Dato Mohamad Zabidin Mohd Diah

Pihak-pihak:-
PP : Semua hadir
PB : KS, SN, Ram Karpal (Datuk Param Cumaraswamy, Dato CV Prabhakaran, Marissa, Radzlan tidak hadir)
WB : Zamri Idrus (for Complainant)
Expert for defence: Prof. David Wells, Dr. Brian McDonalds
AI hadir

Sambung bicara 45-09-2009

[8.44 a.m.]

MY: Kes ditetapkan untuk sambung pemeriksaan balas SP4, Dr. Khairul.

SP4 mengangkat sumpah dalam Bahasa Inggeris.

Q: I refer you to P22. This is a joint report, isnt it?
A: Yes.

Q: The report was put up by you, together with Dr. Siew and Dr. Razali?
A: Yes.

Q: So all three of you are responsible for the report?
A: Yes.

Q: Was there any other person involved in the preparation of the report?
A: Only the three of us prepare the final report.

Q: Before the examination of SP1, wouldnt the three of you plan on how to go about it?
A: Yes.

Q: And there is a procedure in the examination of a witness, especially someone who alleged sodomy.
A: Yes.

Q: You have in the past done many cases, examined persons alleged being sodomised. How many?
A: Yes. About 20 cases.

Q: What is the procedure?
A: Based on the standard operating procedure and the management of OSCC, it should be attended by medical officer from Emergency Department. After that

only referred to OSCC.

Q: In this case is Dr. Suresh, isnt it? Who started it?
A: Yes.

Q: And from him three of you were called?
A: Yes.

Q: Wouldnt it normally in the examination like SP1 in this case, the police will not be involved at all, isnt it?
A: Normally the police will be there all the time, unless the patient came to us first in OSCC.

Q: Are you saying that the police would be there during examination?
A: Will be there.

Q: Has to be there?
A: Once a police report is made, the police has to be there.

Q: Do they have to be there during examination?!
A: D uring examination, we still keep privacy of the patient when it comes to examination.

Q: During the interview of the person?
A: Yes.

Q: In this case who was there?
A: DSP Jude.

Q: Any other police personel?
A: I only remember him.

Q: What was his role?
A: He has the police report, he has to make sure the handling of the specimens and [].

Q: In this case it was DSP Jude?
A: Yes.

Q: He handed you the report made by Saiful?
A: No. I didnt see it.

Q: But normally a police report will be considered, isnt it?
A: Yes.

Q: It is important, isnt it?
A: Yes.

Q: Was the police report referred to three of you?
A: I didnt refer to it.

Q: Did the others look at it?
A: I dont know.

Q: You didnt go through it?
A: No.

Q: How about the others?
A: Im not sure.

Q: You said it is important, isnt it? Is it important?
A: Yes.

Q: But in this case it was not adverted to by any of you?
A: Not by me. Im dont know about the others.

Q: Was there any discussion about the alleged incident among the three of you?
A: Yes.

Q: There was discussion, isnt it?
A: Yes.

Q: And the police officer was there?
A: Yes. He briefed us.

Q: He briefed you based on the report made?
A: Yes. Based on the complaint.

Q: And also the content of the report, isnt it?
A: Yes.

Q: What did the report show? What offence?
A: SP1 alleged that he was sodomised by a well known public figure.

Q: Without his consent?
A: Yes.

Q: The report would be referred to by DSP Jude, isnt it?
A: Yes.

Q: Was the three of you informed of any allegation of oral sex?
A: Yes.

Q: And it is based on the report?
A: Yes.

Q: You read up the report, dont you?
A: We were briefed.

Q: You were briefed based on the report, isnt it?
A: Yes.

Q: And there was specific mention of oral sex.
A: That part I discovered from my

Q: Not discovered, but specific m! entioned by DSP Jude.
A: I cant remember. But what I remember is the patient alleged sodomised by a public figure.

Q: What is sodomy?
A: Sexual penetration of the anus.

Q: Anal sex, isnt it?
A: Yes.

Q: Oral sex is not anal sex. It cant be isnt it?
A: Yes.

Q: Couldnt it before you proceed there was a pro forma?
A: Yes.

Q: Who fill it up?
A: Dr. Siew.

Q: I refer you to that pro forma. Wouldnt this be your pro forma?
A: Yes.

Q: The one filled by Dr Siew?
A: Yes.

Q: You are familiar with the pro forma?
A: Yes.

Q: And the requirement to fill it up?
A: Yes.

Q: I go to page 1 of the pro forma. On medical examination, item 6. Medical examination is carried out using the guidelines on pages 6-15. Would that be

right?
A: Yes.

Q: Page 3. Bottom of the page. There are 4 doctors referred to. Who are the doctors referred to it?
A: Myslef, Dr. Razali, Dr. Siew Sheue Feng and Dr. Razuin.

Q: There were 3 or 4 doctors?
A: Examination was done by the three of us.

Q: There were 4 doctors?
A: Yes.

Q: 4 of you examined him?
A: Only three of us.

Q: What is Dr. Razuins role?
A: She jot down all the information we verbally said. She took down notes.

Q: She took down everything?
A: Yes.

Q: And she went there as to the protocol of the examination?
A: Yes.

Q: She would have taken done everything?
A: Yes.

Q: Those notes available?
A: Yes.

Q: Page 5. What is the importance of the examination of the complaint by SP1? To take down the history?
A: Yes.

Q: That is prerequisite of the examination?
A: Yes.

Q: A very important one?
A: Yes.

Q: Page 5. On top of the page. Would it be right certain details are not included at all? For example circumstances that lead to the incident. Very

important to record circumstances adverted to by the complainant when he is being examined, isnt it?
A: Yes.

Q: And also the place of inciden! t and so forth. Important to record all that?
A: Yes.

Q: 1.2, site of incident, 1.3 place. Is required to be specified?
A: Yes.

Q: Was it specified here?
A: No.

Q: Have to fill up?
A: Yes. But it is just a guideline.

Q: Circumstances that lead to the incident? Very important, isnt it?
A: Yes.

Q: In fact, a prerequisite?
A: Yes.

Q: []
A: Yes.

Q: Circumstances of incident? Did not fill in?
A: No.

Q: Important to fill in?
A: Yes.

Q: 1.5. Force/violent used. What are the answer?
A. No.

Q: No force use? Answer by SP1?
A: Yes.

Q: That is why he fill in. Did SP1 put up resistance?
A: Yes.

Q: [] in what circumstances resistance was used?
A: It was not specified.

Q: It was supposed to be specified, but not specified.
A: Yes.

Q: 1.6, the details are important?
A: Yes.

Q: Type of sexual act. What is written there?
A: Oral attempted.

Q: Oral attempted / perform ejaculation?
A: Yes.

Q: Oral sex was attempted?
A: Yes.

Q: Not fulfilled?
A: Attempted.

Q: No perform ejaculation. Attempted?
A: Yes.

Q: Not perform?
A: Yes.

Q: [] would that be there?
A: Yes.

Q: That is what SP1 told you and therefore was included in here.
A: No. He didnt say that.

Q: Here it wrote whether rectal attempted and the answer is yes. Would it be right? It is there?
A: It is written there.

Q: Estimated duration of caitus. How many minutes?
A: 30 minutes.

Q: Page 6. Item 1.8. at the top of the page. Under history of events after the incident. Did he wash his mouth after that?
A: No answer.

Q: That he wiped/ wash his body? No answer?
A: Yes.

Q: Did he has a bath since the incident?
A: No answer.

Q: Did he defecate?
A: No answer.

Q: Was he seen by a doctor before coming to the hospital? No answer?
A: Yes.

Q: Did the doctor give him treatment? No answer?
A: Yes.

Q: Item 1.12 Sexual hi! story. P revious masturbation. No answer?
A: Yes.

Q: Previous coitus. No answer?
A: Yes.

Q: Date of last coitus? No answer?
A: Yes.

Q: It is a very important aspect here. And it required to be fill in as prerequisite in this case but was not done.
A: Yes.

Q: Page 7. Medical history. Important to be filled isnt it? Not fill in at all.
A: Yes.

Q: Physical examination. Not fill in?
A: Yes.

Q: All very important requirement. Important prerequisite. But not fill up.
A: Yes.

Q: Page 10. Item 2.6.3 Rectal examination. In this particular case is it important?
A: Yes.

Q: Rectal examination.
A: Yes.

Q: Very important requirement?
A: Yes.

Q: Not fill in at all.
A: Yes.

Q: Important aspect, anus/anal canal . No examination done as far as the pro forma is concerned.?
A: It is not fill up.

Q: Important to fill up?
A: Yes.

Q: Sketches not fill up?
A: Yes.

Q: Important to fill up?
A: Yes.

Q: Muscle tear.
A: Yes.

Q: Important?
A: Yes.

Q: Ought done so?
A: Yes.

Q: Faecal staining?
A: Yes.

Q: Important? Not fill in at all.
A: Yes.

Q: Swelling?
A: Yes.

Q: Important?
A: Yes.

Q: Not fill up?
A: Yes.

Q: Anal sphincter?
A: Yes.

Q: Important?
A: Yes.

Q: But not fill up?
A: Yes.

Q: P22. Done by 3 of you on 13th July 2008. Very important document?
A: Yes.

Q: History. Sodomised by a well known public figure, isnt it?
A: Yes.

Q: Nothing about oral sex?
A: Yes.

Q: Not mentioned at all?
A: Not mentioned in this.

Q: But important to have been mentioned?
A: Yes.

Q: Last page of P22. Summary/conclusion. [read conclusion 1]. Is that correct?
A: Yes

Q: Clinical finding. What is the meaning of it?
A: What we can see from our clinical examination

Q: But is based on other documents also such as police report?
A: No.

Q: Chemist report?
A: No.

!

Q: No chemist report at that time?
A: No.

Q: Page 3. Please refer to chemist reportfor full details. It is all before you when you made the conclusion?
A: Yes.

Q: So the chemist report were there before the 3 of you?
A: Yes.

Q: Based on the chemist report, final conclusion were made?
A: Yes.

Q: So you have it that time? Including chemist report. Everything was there?
A: Yes.

Q: Based upon all that, you made the conclusion?
A: Yes.
Q: And that was No clinical finding suggestive of penetration.
A: Yes.

Q: There is no clinical findings suggestive of penetration?
A: Yes.

Q: The complaint by SP1 it is attempted sodomy, based on the pro forma. Would that be right?
A: Yes.

Q: Attempted sodomy, would that be right?
A: Yes.

Q: Attempted oral sex.
A: Yes.

Q: That is what SP1 said. The pro forma was filled based on what SP1 said.
A: Yes.

Q: No indication of sodomy at all. Only attempted. That is what SP1 says to three of you.
A: No.

Q: Based on the pro forma it was attempted sodomy?
A: Yes.

Q: Based on the pro forma it was attempted oral sex?
A: Yes.

Q: And the pro forma is based on what SP1 said?
A: Yes.

Q: So far as P22 is concerned, everything is before you including chemist report.
A: Yes.

Q: It is important for purpose of ultimate finding of no clinical finding suggestive of penetration?
A: Yes.

Q: And the ultimate finding is no clinical finding suggestive of penetration. There was no penetration because it was attempted as said by SP1 based on

the pro forma.
A: Yes. The history is based on what he said. But this is just a pro forma.

Q: []
A: It is just a pro forma.

Q: In the pro forma it was attempted sodomy?
A: Yes.

Q: Attempted oral sex?
A: Yes.

Q: What is fill up in the pro forma is based on what he said.
A: Yes

YA: Let him answer that.
KS: []
MY: []
KS: The pro forma was based on SP1 said.
MY! : But SP 4 did not fill it.

Q: The pro forma is based on what SP1 said?
A: It was a guide.

Q: But pro forma show it was attempted sodomy?
A: Yes. Based on the pro forma.

Q: But the pro forma is based on what he said.
A: Whatever he complaints. It is not rigidly has to be fill. He did not say it was attempted.

MY: Can we leave it for submission? He clearly didnt tell the doctor [].
KS : What he recorded is based on what SP1 said.

Q: Based on what SP1 said, the pro forma reflect it was attempted sodomy.
A: Pro forma, yes. He didnt say it was attempted, thats the only thing.

MY: YA, we have to move on.
KS: []
MY: You are repeating the same thing. Of course witness will not agree with it. []. We accept that.
KS: You re-examine him. []

A: Based on pro forma yes, but

Q: But the pro forma is based on what SP1 said. Cant be anything else.
A: It is just a guideline. He didnt says attempted sodomy.

Q: He said attempted sodomy?
A: Based on the pro forma.

Q: But recorded as attempted sodomy.
A: Based on the pro forma.

Q: But the pro forma is based on what SP1 said. It is something which is so obvious. [].
A: Yes.

KS: SN will continue.
YA: Jangan repeat apa yang KS soal.

Cross-examination by SN.

Q: You fill up the pro forma as guideline?
A: Yes.

Q: And you fill it up?
A: Yes.

Q: You have to fill it up?
A: Yes.

Q: When three of you interviewed SP1, DSP Jude was there all through?
A: Yes.

Q: When was he not there?
A: He just come there and go.

Q: Was he there during the interview?
A: Yes.

Q: I refer you to P6(J) (container). There are 2 signatures on top.
A: Yes.

Q: Are they intact?
A: Yes.

Q: Do you agree that all sample must be put in tampered proof containers?
A: Yes.

Q: And it means iy will show if it is tempered, right?
A: Yes.

Q: If you look at the container, are the signature intact? Whose signature is on the t! op?
A : Dr Siew.

Q: Is it intact?
A: Yes.

Q: Do you know if it has been opened for chemical testing? Obviously there has been a tear of the seal. Are the seal intact?
A: Someone have opened it.

Q: But signatures are intact?
A: Yes.

Q: Is it not good practice to prevent tampering of evidence signature has to be below the opening so that when somebody open it, the signature will

defaces,
A: Yes.

Q: But signature is intact?
A: Yes.

Q: But the seal is broken?
A: Yes.

Q: I refer you to a literature by referred to yesterday where at page 1 there was sexual offences swab, 65 hours. I refer to page 139, para 2. [read]

Only two were recorded. And further down it says [read]. And this is a 1981 literature where there was no DNA profiling. Is it correct?
A: I do not know whether DNA profiling was there at that time.

Q: Para 2. [read]
A: Yes.

Q: [read] Do you agree with this statement?
A: It is a scientific studies.

Q: []
A: I agree because Im not the man in this expertise.

SN: Im done subject to recall. Just one more. I dont intend to recall SP2. But I would like to put []. [].
MY: []
SN: In that case thats all.

Re-examination by NH.
Q: Who prepare this pro forma?
A; By Forensic Department.

Q: Who fill up the details in the pro forma?
A: Dr. Siew.

Q: Page 3, 5 and 6. Bottom portion of the pages. Do you see the signature at the bottom?
A: Yes.

Q: Can you tell the court whose signature was that?
A: Probably Dr. Razuin.

Q: So you are not sure?
A: Yes.

Q: Do you recognize the signature of Dr. Siew?
A: Yes.

Q: Is this his signature?
A: No.

Q: If a person signed the bottom of the document, what does it mean?
A: Probably he is the one who fill up the pro forma.

Q: Just now you mentioned Dr. Siew is the one who fill up the pro forma, after looking at your signature and after your answer just now was it Dr. Siew

who fill up the pro ! forma? C an you be sure?
A: No. Im not sure.

YA: So you are not sure the pro forma was filled up by Dr. Siew?
A: Yes.

Q: Did you personally interview SP1 before you examined him on 28th June?
A: Yes.

Q: Who was were with you?
A: Dr. Siew and Dr. Razali. But Im the leading person taking the history.

Q: Only 3 of you involved?
A: Yes.

Q: You were asked about oral sex. Did SP1 informed during the interview about oral sex?
A: Yes.
Q: What did he told you exactly?
A: He said he is asked to perform oral sex.

Q: Is that the reason why you take samples from the mouth of SP1?
A: Yes.

Q: What is his main complaint when you interviewed him?
A: He was sodomised.

Q: Did he mentioned by who?
A: He told he was sodomised by a well known public figure.

Q: You did mentioned SP1 informed you before examination. When did he told you?
A: During history taking process.

Q: Did SP1 at any time informed you that there was an attempted sodomy?
A: No.

Q: Did he at any time informed you there was attempted oral sex?
A: No.

Q: With regard to the pro forma, did the person who wrote this pro forma cross-refer the content of the pro forma with you?
A: Yes.

Q: Did the person who wrote this cross-refer the content to you?
A: What do you mean cross-refer?

Q: Being shown to you.
A: No.

Q: Do you agree that this pro forma that was shown to you is for medical examination of a rape victim?
A: Yes.

Q: With regards to history taking, you said you personally took the history of SP1 before examination.
A: Yes.

Q: And you reflect it in your P22? The gist of it?
A: Yes.

Q: Can you read the history in P22?
A: [read]

Q: Based on that history taken before examination, is it sufficient for you and the two doctors to proceed with the examination based on it?
A: Yes.

Q: At that particular time on 28th June 2008, do you have a pro forma for medical examination for suspected sodomy ! case?
A: No.

Q: So this pro forma is just a guide for medical examination for sodomy cases?
A: Yes.

Q: You mentioned about a doctor by the name of Dr. Suresh who alerted you. Did Dr. Suresh himself examined SP1?
A: No.

Q: What about Dr. Daniel? Did Dr. Daniel examined SP1?
A: No.

Q: Look at the pro forma again. Page 1. All suspected rape cases must be treated as emergencies in view of evidence collection. They are classified as

follow: fresh case for any case less than 72 hours after the incident and cold case for any case more than 72 hours after the incident. So, this is a

guideline for sodomy when you examined SP1?
A: Yes.

Q: Do you also consider at that particular time that fresh case as less than 72 hours?
A: Yes.

Q: Can you explain?
A: One of the textbook of the medical examination says that specimens or evidence can still be traced up to 3 days and this decision to come up with the

[] is based on discussion and studies.

Q: You were shown your report, P22. And you were asked pertaining your conclusion no.1 [read-no conclusive clinical finding suggestive of

penetration..]. And you were asked about the chemist report. Have a look at ID25. Page 2 of the report. [read..I found the presence of semen]. My question is

do you know the sight of B5, B7, B8 and B9 when you read the report on 13th July 2008?
A: No.

Q: Who prepare the marking of B5, B7, B8 and B9?
A: I do not know.

Q: ID24. Page 2. When were you shown the document? If you can remember. Is it in court or before?
A: Before

Q: When you prepare P22, do you have ID24 with you?
A: No.

Q: So when you testify in open court that there was anal penetration, do you also refer to ID24 to come to the conclusion in court?
A: Yes.

Q: You were also asked regarding the presence of Jude during examination of SP1 and also the report. Did Jude read that report to you?
A: No.

NH: YA, itu sahaja. May the witness be released?
! KS: Just one question through court. With regard to pro forma.

Questions through court.

Q: Page 5 of the pro forma. On the top of the page. [read - the following should be noted regarding the alleged sodomy].
A: Yes.

Q: So it was in respect of sodomy that this pro forma was done?
A: This is

Q: Top page. It was converted to sodomy.
A: Yes.

KS: YA, can we have this pro forma tendered as exhibit. It is an important document.
MY: In fact throughout my observation I was thinking about this. It is supposed to be produced out of refreshing memory and this is supposed to be

referred to by counsel with regard to [] of this pro forma which was referred to in answering their question. And it end up like this. And today they want to

tender this.
KS: Then make it the prosecution exhibit.
YA: You are the one asking for the document. All this while the witness is giving oral testimony.
KS: But it is important now, YA.
MY: I dont have problem.[]
YA: We mark it as D 28.

Pro forma by Forensic Department filled up by Dr. Siew is tendered and marked as D28.

YA: Thats all? Re?
NH: Tiada.
YA: Doktor boleh balik.

MY: Saksi kami seterusnya ialah Dr. Seah. Kami mohon short break.
[10.03 a.m.] Stand down.

[10.54 a.m.]
MY: Saksi kelima adalah Dr. Seah Lai Kong. Pn. Noorin akan menyoal saksi ini.

EIC by NB.

SP5 mengangkat sumpah di dalam Bahasa Inggeris.

SP5 : Dr. Seah Lei Hong, Forensic scientist in the Chemist Department in Petaling Jaya.

SN: May I apply for Dr. Brian McDonald to sit together with us?
YA: []

Q: Please inform the court since when you are attached with the Chemist Department in Petaling Jaya.
A: Since 1991.

Q: Please inform your current designation at the department.
A: Head of Serious Crime Unit.

Q: And what do you do as the head of the [] crime unit in your department?
A:

[10.57 a.m.] Stand down (because no electricity).

[2.25 p.m.] Pihak-piha! k masuk ke dalam Kamar Hakim.
[2.29 p.m.] Pihak-pihak keluar dari Kamar Hakim.

Kes disambung esok kerana CRT tidak berfungsi.

[2.30 p.m.] Adjourned.

HOW DEEP IS NAJIB-ROSMAHS CONNECTION IN THE TAINTED MANIPULATING SODOMY II WHERE THE 2 BIGGEST CASUALTIES ARE TRUTH AND JUSTICE JUST TO STAY IN POWER

Anwar Ibrahims sodomy trial just shows that the victims of his trial are truth and justice. Perhaps it is time Prime minister Najib Abdul Razak stops manipulating the courts and stops betraying the rakyat.

There are inconsistencies in the medical examination, missing gaps in the forms and it appears that standard operating procedures were casually ignored. If these are insufficient to throw out the case, then what is?

Najib would be well advised to salvage whatever integrity and semblance of authority left behind. His conduct has thus far been shocking. How many more lies will he feed us? How much more of taxpayers money will be wasted?

Najib is supposed to be Prime minister but has yet to show leadership qualities. Can he not understand that we should now allow all political parties to concentrate on the country and improve the state of the economy, to restore investor confidence but more importantly to improve the lives of its rakyat?

Najibs distraction is this trial. He is trying to detract us from the shocking state of the countrys finances, the economic mess, the disunity of its people, the poor governance, the bickering in his own party, the extravagances of his ministers and corrupt officials and his own fears about the Egypt syndrome.

The problem is he has no clue how to resolve them and there are others waiting in the wings ready to stab him in the back and resume control.

All of Najibs extravagant plans have a habit of backfiring. Look at the other farcical show in town the Royal Commission of Inquiry int! o politi cal aid Teoh Beng Hocks suspicious death. That has descended into chaos.

The rakyat is sick and tired of Najibs plotting just to stay in power. We know he was never elected as Prime minister and is desperate to be elected at the next general elections. The problem is, once these men have tasted power, they will not want to let it go.

Moreover, the higher these people climb the ladder of authority, they more they are prepared to lie. Consequently, he is prepared to risk anything.

Yesterday, Karpal Singh and Anwar Ibrahim urged the attorney-general (AG) to drop the charge against Anwar.

Karpal said, The doctors have contradicted their report and Saifuls complaint. The pro forma form states attempted sodomy.

The proforma report clearly showed that Saiful had complained of attempted sodomy and oral sex; these contradict his own earlier claims.

Karpal implored Najib to stop making Malaysia a subject of ridicule: I call on the AG to step in immediately and drop the charge, (or it will) result in further embarrassment for the country.

He then explained that there was provision in the lower courts for a charge to be dropped if there was conflict of evidence. However, this was absent in the High Court and that is why Karpal had asked the AG to step in.

Another defence team lawyer, Param Cumaraswamy, repeated Karpals call.

He said, It is proper now for the prosecution to honourably withdraw the charge in light of this latest development.

Param, is a former UN special rapporteur and he noted that what the public wanted was for the prosecution to abide by standards set up in the UN Standard Rule on Prosecution.

Anwar reiterated his stand that the charges were frivolous and politically motivated.

He took swipes at Najib and said that the excessive malice shown to him by the Najib administration ranged from denying him access to key documents, to the unprofessional attitude of the At! torney-G enerals office.

Anwar warned, The AG should not act in the interests of his political masters.

PKR director of legal affairs Latheefa Koya said: We are happy but also extremely angry. This is the most farcical show. Not only has the trial caused Anwar and his family deep pain but it has embarrassed the entire nation. It has made Malaysias name mud.

She added, This case should never have gone to trial in the first place. The so-called evidence against Anwar is so flimsy. As a professional, he should have advised the government that not only is it against the interests of justice, but it also makes a mockery of our judicial system.

Desperate men will do anything to cling onto power, by whatever means available.

For men like Najib, truth is a rare commodity. Truth is a word that they often use when trying to convince us that they have the answer to our problems.

Two unknown male DNA profiles were found on a swab of Mohd Saiful Bukhari Azlans perianal region, the High Court was told in the Sodomy II trial today.

Government scientist Dr Seah Lay Hong, who was the sole expert witness to testify today, said she had detected a mixture of three male DNA profiles from swab stick B5 said to be taken from the area just outside Saifuls anus.

Of the three, she said her chemistry report dated July 7, 2008 found that one had matched Saifuls bloodstain sample provided while a second matched the DNA profile of an unknown man she had earlier called Male Y who had also left semen stains on a pair of grey Levis briefs said to belong to Saiful.

Opposition Leader Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahims defence moved to cast doubt on a government scientists DNA profiling report today, claiming her analysis was too simple and incomplete.
Forensic scientist Dr Seah Lay Hong had determined that one of the male contributors of semen stains found on a pair of black trousers belonged to its owner, Mohd Saiful Bukhari Azlan, a former aide to Anwar.

Saiful had complained he was sodomised by his then-employer in a luxury condominium here three years ago.

The probability of a coincidental match from a randomly selected, unrelated individual as calculated based on the population database of Malaysian Malays is one in 570 quadrillion, Dr Seah had told the ongoing sodomy trial yesterday, while under questioning from the prosecution.

She added that the DNA profile from a swab of the semen stain on the trousers had matched Saifuls DNA profile taken from his bloodstain sample.

She said she had performed the statistical evaluation calculations that yielded those results as it was important to make sure the DNA profile was Saifuls and not someone elses.

Today, the defence challenged that view.

Anwars lawyer, Ramkarpal Singh, asked Dr Seah if she had carried out the statistical evaluation to confirm a probability match of the other male DNA contributors.

She admitted she had not.

Ramkarpal then questioned if this meant she could not exclude the possibility of there being other male contributors in the samples she was given.

Two other male DNA profiles had been detected on swabs of Saifuls perianal region and high rectal zones, but have not been identified in court yet.

Dr Seah told the court she had found a matching DNA profile of another male contributor that was not Saiful, between the semen stain found on the black trousers and a swab of Saifuls high rectal zone.

She called this unknown male contributor Male Y.

She had also recorded the presence of a third male contributor in a swab of Saifuls perianal region, which she said was also of unknown origin.

Referring to the results in a three-page summary of a Short Tandem Reaction (STR) test she had carried out, Ramkarpal pointedly asked if there could be other male contributors involved, based on the combination of the DNA fragment sequences.

He rattled off several sequence combinat! ions to illustrate his point.

You said 12, 13 is concordant with the complainant, he said, referring to the numerical value accorded to Saiful at point D8 in the printout of the STR test.

What about 13, 15? 12, 14? 14, 15? the lawyer pressed.

He said there appeared to be the possibility of eight other male contributors apart from Saiful and Male Y involved.

Dr Seah grudgingly admitted to the possibility, but stressed that the profiling of the number and identities of the contributor could not be evaluated based on just one locus, as the defence appeared to suggest.

Ramkarpal told reporters later that the defence sees Dr Seahs DNA profiling analysis as incomplete.

Shes doing it simply by looking at those graphs, but its a more complex process, he said.

An Australian DNA expert, Dr Brian McDonald, was seen whispering frantically to the lawyers earlier this morning while the prosecution was carrying out its examination-in-chief.

Ramkarpal said that based on Dr Seahs own STR test, there appeared to be a possibility of 10 contributors in total, and in order to exclude the other eight she had already identified Saiful and Male Y she must conduct a statistical evaluation.

This is important. She admitted she only did one for A3, the trousers. And for that, she didnt give us a copy of the report.

Her analysis is not complete. She has to do more tests to be sure, he said during a break in court proceedings.

The defence continued to interrogate Dr Seah over her analysis of the information of the DNA profiles, when trial resumed in the afternoon.

Ramkarpal suggested that she had not consistently followed international standards and guidelines, which was hotly rebutted by Dr Seah in the witness box.

Appearing somewhat flustered, she insisted that the Chemistry Departments laboratory in Petaling Jaya had been accredited by several world bodies and passed muster, saying the systems used for geneti! c profil ing work was up-to-date.

But Ramkarpal persisted in his questioning, asking her if she had adopted the guidelines set out by the International Society of Forensic Genetics of which she was a member in this case.

Dr Seah reluctantly admitted she had not, after trying to explain that each lab had its own benchmark methods.

It was not employed in this case, she said.

The defence team later explained to reporters that it needed to find out what methods Dr Seah used in her laboratory, if she had followed international guidelines and whether she had been consistent in adopting them to come to her conclusion.

The trial resumes at 8.30am on Monday.

The identities of the two male contributors have yet to be established in court.

Semen stains were also found on two spots on a black pair of his trousers.

But it was the presence of a third male on Saifuls anal region that caused a stir in court today.

The university dropout, who had previously worked for Opposition Leader Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim, had complained his ex-boss had sodomised him at a luxury condominium in upper-class Bukit Damansara on June 26, 2008.

Saiful, now aged 25, has never named anyone else.

Dr Seah appeared hesitant to speculate about how a second mystery male DNA profile had been transferred to the perianal region, saying she was not an expert.

But when the prosecution pushed the question despite the defence lawyers objection, Dr Seah said it was mostly through a third-party contact and not directly.

She said it was possible for the DNA profile to transfer from another surface to Saifuls perianal region; such as a through the backsides contact with a common toilet seat.

Dr Seah also noted that two other swabs of Saifuls rectal area showed the presence of a male DNA profile other than his own.

She said that another swab stick marked as B7, which was one of two taken from the high rectal area, sh! owed tha t the mystery man Male Ys DNA stamp there to be more dominant than Saifuls own.

A second swab of the same area however revealed neither Male Y to be more dominant than Saiful or otherwise.

Dr Seah spent the afternoon expanding on an indepth analysis of her findings.

The court proceedings were abruptly halted less than two hours into the prosecutions questioning of Dr Seah when the defence team informed the judge of yet another discrepancy in their copy of the 52-page detailed profiling report.

Judge Datuk Mohamad Zabidin Mohd ordered the prosecution to hand over a proper copy before adjourning the trial to tomorrow at 8.30am.

The trial had been set back in its morning session when the defence team was supplied with a different version of a police document, triggering an outcry from Anwars side.

Anwar, the 63-year-old PKR de facto leader, is currently facing sodomy charges for the second time in his life.

The former deputy prime minister is charged with sodomising his former aide at Unit 11-5-1 of the Desa Damansara Condominium in Jalan Setiakasih, Bukit Damansara here between 3.01pm and 4.30pm on June 26, 2008.

Anwar has denied the charge, describing it as evil, frivolous lies by those in power when the charge was read out to him.

He is charged under section 377B of the Penal Code and can be sentenced to a maximum of 20 years jail and whipping upon conviction.

The trial is taking place 18 months after Anwar was charged in court in August 2008.

He was charged with sodomy and corruption in 1998 after he was sacked from the Cabinet and was later convicted and jailed for both offences.

He was freed in September 2004 and later resurrected his political career by winning back his Permatang Pauh parliamentary seat in a by-election in 2008, which had been held in the interim by his wife.

He had three years ago led the opposition coalition, Pakatan Rakyat, to a historic sweep of five s! tates an d 82 parliamentary seats in Election 2008.

REAMOREHOW DEEP IS NAJIB-ROSMAHS CONNECTION IN THE TAINTED MANIPULATING THE COURTS AND NAJIBS PLOTTING JUST TO STAY IN POWER.

HU Editor

Key Pledges of Pakatan Rakyat Sarawak 2011

Filed under: Alternatives, Human rights Tagged: Anak Sarawak Bangsa Malaysia, Human rights, Pakatan Rakyat, Sarawak politics, Save Sarawak

Forum on Climate Change: A Catastrophe in the Making

18 February, 2011 By Lord Bobo

KL Bar Environmental and Humanities Committee (EHC) is organising a one day Forum on Climate Change: A Catastrophe in the Making on:Date: 22 February 2011 (Tuesday)Time: 9.00 am to 5.00pmVenue: Bar Council Auditorium, 1st Floor, 15 Lebuh Pasar Besar, Kuala LumpurSpeakers:

Ms Chew Swee Yoke (KL Bar member trained by former US Vice President Al Gore)

Ir. Gurmit Singh KS (CETDEM)

Mr Muru Loganathan (Climate Change Officer, British High Commission Kuala Lumpur)

Prof. Chan Ngai Weng (School of Humanities, USM)

Mr Adrian Yeo Eng Kang (Malaysian Youth Climate Justice Network)

Mr Richard Loh (iWind Energy (M) Sdn Bhd)

and more to be confirmed;Admission is free; and open to the public.For further details, please click here. For further enquiries and reservations please send your particulars to Puan Norhayati at the KL Bar Secretariat at 03-26933585 or email yati@klbar.org.my

• Share/Save

Tags: Adrian Yeo, Al Gore, Bar Council Auditorium, British High Commission, catastrophe, CETDEM, Chew Swee Yoke, climate change, Climate change forum, Environmental and Humanities Committee, Gurmit Singh, iWind Energy, KL Bar, KL Bar Secretariat, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysian Youth Climate Justice Network, Muru Loganathan, Prof Chan Ngai Weng, Puan Norhayati, Richard Loh, School of Humanities, USM

This entry was posted on 18 February, 2011 at 3:31 pm and is filed under Green-World. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.

Who is bias BN or PR speakers.....

An Umno leader is wringing his hands over what he feels is speaker bias in legislative assemblies of Pakatan Rakyat-ruled states. Seberang Jaya assemblyperson Arif Shah said their lack of even-handed treatment at times had stirred "dissatisfaction and disappointment' among opposition representatives.

He pointed out that when the speaker acted in an unjust manner, assemblypersons have no means to retaliate as the former has "absolute" authority during proceedings.

"Sometime he punishes us wrongly; when the opposition raises a question to the state executive committee member at the assembly sittings, the replies are not relevant but the speaker simply says 'sit down'," he complained.

He also griped during a dialogue session at the Penang assembly yesterday that backbenchers (from the ruling party) take advantage of the standing orders to prevent them from speaking. Arif said such a situation only happened

after March 2008, unlike the times when the Barisan Nasional was ruling the state.

Lets see(video) whether the Speaker of Parliament was acting in a just or unjust manner......

Seorang pemimpin Umno mendakwa bahawa speaker Dewan Undangan Negeri (DUN) yang diperintah oleh Pakatan Rakyat bersikap berat sebelah terhadap wakil rakyat pembangkang.

ADUN Seberang Jaya Datuk Arif Shah berkata layanan tidak adil itu telah menimbulkan rasa "tidak puashati" di kalangan wakil rakyat pembangkang.

Menurutnya, apabila speaker bersikap tidak adil, maka wakil rakyat tidak dapat membantah kerana speaker mempunyai kuasa "mutlak" di dewan.

"Kadang-kadang beliau menghukum kita secara salah; apabila pihak pembangkang mengajukan pertanyaan kepada exco negeri di sidang DUN, jawapannya tidak relevan tetapi speaker hanya kata 'duduk'," tambahnya.

Tapi bila ahli2 BN mengambil tindakan untuk mengheret keluar macam anjing Speaker PR yang sah dan melantik seorang speaker(grafik diatas) haram serta MB lantikan mahkamah Adun2 BN kita buat diam saja.....

cheers.

Bukan Melayu tergugat, tapi UMNO takut ianya pupus....

Kebimbangan Umno kononnya hak dan keistimewaan orang Melayu semakin terhakis di bawah kuasa Pakatan Rakyat adalah tidak berasas sama sekali sebaliknya sengaja diada-adakan untuk menakut-nakutkan rakyat agar tidak menyokong pakatan itu. Sedangkan PAS dalam Pakatan Rakyat konsisten untuk mempertahankan hak dan keistimewaan orang Melayu seperti yang terkandung dalam Perlembagaan Persekutuan.

Exco Dewan Pemuda PAS Pusat, Abdullah Karim berkata, golongan muda tidak harus terpengaruh dengan ketakutan yang ditimbulkan itu kerana perlembagaan bukanlah perkara yang boleh dipinda dengan sewenang-wenangnya. "Secara realitinya, walaupun perlembagaan itu merupakan dokumen yang boleh dipinda tetapi kita semua tahu tidak cukup untuk dipinda kalau sekadar mendapat dua pertiga.

Prosesnya cukup ketat, kena dapatkan kebenaran dari Majlis Raja-Raja sebagai contoh. Jadi apa yang nak dibimbangkan? Saya pernah sebut dalam PAS, kalau katakan DAP menang majoriti dalam Dewan Rakyat, mereka pun tak mampu buat kalau mereka kata nak pinda perlembagaan berkaitan perkara ini, kata beliau dalam forum Ketuanan Melayu: Umno Rasis atau PR Retorik di Dewan Perhimpunan Cina Kuala Lumpur-Selangor, dekat sini malam tadi.

Beliau berkata, Ketuanan Melayu kembali dicanangkan Umno selepas pilihan raya umum 2008 yang menyaksikan kemerosotan sokongan rakyat terhadap Umno BN. Kenapa bising-bising (mengenai ketuanan Melayu) sekarang ini? Timbul hak Melayu makin terhakis, Raja Melayu semakin dipinggirkan? Sebabnya senang sahaja. Bukan sebab hak orang Melayu digugat tapi yang menjadi masalah besar ialah hilangnya ketuanan Umno, katanya.

Menurutnya, tanpa melaungkan Ketuanan Melayu, PAS konsisten menjaga perkara yang termaktub dalam perlembagaan ini malah menjadikan perkara tersebut sebagai agenda dalam Pakatan Rakyat. Sikap PAS sejak puluhan tahun dulu sehingga sekarang, kita konsisten mempertahankan keistimewaan orang Melayu yang wujud dalam perlembagaan.

Sebab itu PAS sanggup bersama dalam Pakatan Rakyat, kita tidak kompromi soal tersebut dan perjanjian dibuat bersama Pakatan Rakyat sebelum konvensyen pertama Pakatan Rakyat pada 2009, katanya.

Sehubungan itu, golongan muda tegasnya tidak perlu terpengaruh dengan Ketuanan Melayu yang menjadi agenda politik sempit Umno. Momokan ini bagi orang muda yang semakin celik maklumat, kita akan faham bahawa segala kekalutan yang timbul ini semata-mata bersifat politik, katanya.

Sementara itu, Pengarah Strategi PKR, Rafizi Ramli berkata, Ketuanan Melayu hanya mementingkan kuasa politik dominan Melayu tanpa menyedari bahawa kekuatan Melayu yang sebenar ialah jati diri. Kuasa politik dominan orang Melayu dikatakan perlu untuk kononnya menjamin kedudukan orang Melayu. Kalau tak ada kuasa politik, hak dan kedudukan orang Melayu akan terjejas. Sebab itu Mac 2008 merupakan titik tolak yang sangat besar kerana dilihat berlaku hakisan dominan politik, katanya.

Tambahnya, Melayu terus dilemahkan dengan kononnya terus memerlukan tongkat dari kerajaan untuk maju dalam ekonomi selain diajar untuk mengambil hak bangsa lain jika ingin maju dalam ekonomi. Teras yang terus dipasakkan dalam pemikiran Melayu ialah orang Melayu terus perlukan tongkat untuk maju dalam ekonomi kerana tanpa bantuan berterusan dari kerajaan Melayu akan tenggelam. Untuk orang Melayu mendapat kedudukan dalam bidang ekonomi, kita perlu ambil bahagian orang lain. Itu yang menjadi teras Ketuanan Melayu yang perlu diteliti kembali, k! atanya.

Ujarnya, perbincangan mengenai Melayu seringkali disensitifkan tanpa merujuk sejarah secara keseluruhan menyebabkan timbulnya sifat tidak senang Melayu terhadap kaum lain. Perbahasan tentang Melayu ini terlalu emosi dan diherotkan perbincangannya. Contohnya bila kita bercakap tentang ekonomi, kita tidak adil apabila menidakkan peranan kaum lain dalam membina ekonomi negara. Kalau baca sejarah negeri Johor, berapa ramai yang tahu bahawa dalam tahun 1850-an dan 1860-an lebih ramai orang Cina daripada orang Melayu di sana.

Kita kena baca sejarah secara keseluruhan, jangan tinggalkan idea tokoh pimpinan dahulu yang banyak beri kesan kepada negara. mereka bukan Umno, bukan Perkasa tapi orang seperti Zaaba, mereka bawa kesedaran kepada rakyat bahawa orang Melayu tertekan dan dimangsakan golongan elit pemerintah dari dulu lagi, katanya.

Turut menjadi panel pada forum yang dihadiri majoriti golongan muda itu ialah Naib Presiden Perkasa, Dr. Asyraf Wajdi dan blogger Umno Reform, Anuar Mohd Nor.

source:harakah daily

UMNO nak tolong orang Melayu macam mana sedangkan habuan untuk pemimpinnya pun belum habis dikaut.....

cheers.

Anwar: Mamahthir LIED !

Dr M didn’t support scrapping ISA, says Anwar

By Debra Chong

February 17, 2011

KUALA LUMPUR, Feb 17 — Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim has disputed Tun Hanif Omar’s claim that Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad had wanted to scrap the Internal Security Act (ISA), saying today the former prime minister had never discussed it openly or in party meetings.

The country’s longest-serving national police chief had claimed today that both Dr Mahathir and Anwar had wanted the ISA abolished but the police had objected to the proposal.

“Mahathir has never supported any amendments or to scrap the ISA when I was there, whether openly or at party meetings. Tun Hanif Omar may have had some meetings in private with Mahathir but I am not aware of that fact,” Anwar(picture) told reporters outside the Kuala Lumpur High Court here.

Dr Mahathir had also claimed today that he had wanted to abolish the ISA when serving as prime minister but had faced opposition from the police.

The 1960 security law allows for detention without trial and a 1989 amendment under Dr Mahathir’s rule removed the option for judicial review, granting the home minister absolute discretion to extend or reduce detention time.

Hanif, who served as the police chief for 20 years until 1994, said the issue was first raised by Anwar at a security briefing prior to his retirement from the service.

“Anwar said we should abolish ISA, Dr Mahathir said OK,” recounted Hanif at a forum on parliamentary democracy here.

He said he later urged the two leaders to reconsider their plans, and suggested they merely review the security law.

Opposition Leader Anwar said today he raised the issue at a National Security Council meeting after he entered government in 1982. He claimed to have mooted a proposal to scrap the ISA but it was rejected by the Attorney-General and Hanif, who was the IGP then.

The Permatang Pauh MP added that he tried to resurrect it in the 1990s when he became deputy prime minister.

“If we can’t scrap it, why not revise it to amend some provisions to allow for appeal purposes? If you check the Hansard, it should show that when I was DPM I had said that we are willing to study and amend the ISA but it was not taken up because it had to be taken up by the home minister,” he said, referring to Dr Mahathir, who held the portfolio at the time.

Dr Mahathir also recently blamed the police for a mass ISA arrest in 1987, which led to the detention of then-Opposition Leader Lim Kit Siang, his son Lim Guan Eng and 104 others.

Hanif recently sought to exculpate Dr Mahathir over the crackdown, known as Operasi Lalang, saying it was done to avoid a racial riot in Kuala Lumpur.

Anwar himself has been arrested under the ISA twice, the first in 1974 soon after Hanif was appointed IGP.

His second ISA arrest was in 1998 following his sacking as deputy prime minister by Dr Mahathir. - Malaysian Insider

SNAPs return haunts Taib and PKR

Joe Fernandez

Sarawak Chief Minister Abdul Taib Mahmud, by all accounts, is thinking of going for state election sooner rather than later. This is being driven by the SNAP factor. The Sarawak National Partys rapidly growing influence since its recent rejuvenation indicates that the Dayak majority of Sarawak is becoming increasingly restless. Taib, being a Melanau, is also a Dayak, but hes from a Muslim minority.

Taib, according to one report, is fumbling like a man driven berserk for an election date in March or April. The speculation is that any date with a 9 in it, or which adds up to 9, such as 18 or 27, would be the date of the next state election. Nine is Taibs favourite number.

With events on the Sarawak ground rapidly spinning out of control, he can no longer afford the luxury of waiting for Prime Minister Najib Tun Razak to accept his idea of the Sarawak election running simultaneously with the general election, which, according to his thinking, would take the intense opposition heat off him. This is especially true in the Chinese and urban areas, in many Dayak seats and some Muslim seats.

No such luck for Taib. Najib, with former prime minister Dr Mahathir Mohamad breathing down his neck, is more interested in saving in own skin than swimming or sinking with the Sarawak chief minister. He may well remember Mahathir raising the hand of then Sabah Chief Minister Harris Salleh in public in 1985 and pledging to swim or sink with the Harriss Berjaya Party. Harris sank, but Mahathir swam safely to shore.

Najib, whom Ke! lantan s trongman Tengku Razaleigh Hamzah once described as yellow-bellied, is more inclined to treat Taib as a guinea pig in his bid for his own mandate. The number of state seats that Taibs coalition can muster will give Najib an idea of how many of the 31 parliamentary seats in Sarawak he can count on when it is his turn to face the people.

In Sarawak 2011, there are shades of Sabah 1985, when the 45-day-old Parti Bersatu Sabah (PBS) defeated the mighty Berjaya. Even Harris lost his deposit at the hands of the unknown Kadoh Agundong.

Senior Sarawak Barisan Nasional (BN) leaders grudgingly concede that SNAP currently presents the most serious threat to Taibs Pesaka Bumiputera Bersatu (PBB) and its hold on power. DAP is a threat only to the Chinese-based Sarawak United Peoples Party (SUPP), which Taib may be forced to sacrifice anyway to fend off the opposition and to better focus on what he can keep.

What particularly rankles Taib is that Daniel Tajem anak Miri, a sworn enemy, is back in the limelight as SNAP adviser. Tajem, once deputy chief minister under Taib, was a senior leader in SNAP until 1983, when it suffered a breakup that gave birth to Parti Bansa Dayak Sarawak (PBDS), evidently financed by PBB moneybags under Taibs direction.

Deeply suspicious

Taib, still deeply suspicious that the Dayaks would unite and overthrow his familys dynastic hold on power, also financed the splintering of PBDS after Tajem became its president in 2003. The breakaway was Parti Rakyat Sarawak (PRS) under James Masing. Only 20,000 members from PBDS, less than half of them Dayaks, joined Masing.

PBDS itself was deregistered and attempts by Tajem to gather his people, numbering over 100,000 by a conservative count, under the Malaysian Dayak Congress (MDC) was thwarted by the Registrar of Societies (ROS) on national security grounds.

Tajem parked himself at the Sarawak PKR as adviser.

The rump SNAP was further humiliated when PBB financed the breakaway Sarawak Progressive Democratic Party (SPDP) in 2002 under William Mawan. SNAP was kicked out of Sarawak BN the day the ROS deregistered it. The courts subsequently saved SNAP after many months.

Taib tried to have PRS deregistered as well between the 2004 and 2008 general elections. However, then prime minister Abdullah Ahmad Badawi stepped in and saved the party just as he was going for the early polls that eventually cooked his goose.

SPDP has also suffered at the hands of Taibs mischief-making, which saw half its legislators swearing allegiance to Masing and making bids to join PRS.

All this has brought the current political situation in Sarawak full circle, with SNAP once again virtually calling the shots. The party stands poised as the most credible threat to the ruling coalition and well-placed to deny it the 29 Dayak state seats.

Harsh reality

Now Taibs past is haunting his future.

Sarawak PKR would obviously like to have some of the Dayak seats besides the two Chinese seats promised it by DAP under a condition which is unlikely to be met. DAP wants PKRs Dominic Ng of Padungan put in cold storage.

SNAP, however, wants Sarawak PKR to focus on the Muslim seats, including the Muslim Melanau seats, and stay clear of the non-Muslim native seats. This is unlikely to go down well with Sarawak PKR, which is led by introvert land rights lawyer and activist Baru Bian, a Dayak Christian.

At one time, there was strong talk that Bian would ditch PKR for SNAP, but this became difficult after he was appointed head of the partys Sarawak chapter.

In any case, Sarawak PKR has yet to come to terms with the harsh reality that it no longer calls the shots in Sarawak Pakatan Rakyat. Taib has capitalised on this by advising businessman Sng Chee Hua to offer to finance PKR candidates at the next state election. The conditi! on is th at Sng would suggest who would represent PKR.

This arrangement is likely to end in disaster for PKR at the polls, especially if the party insists on fielding candidates in Dayak seats.

Sng is a former deputy president of PRS and former deputy president of PBDS when Masing, in defiance of Tajem, claimed to be the party president as well. This was after Leo Moggie anak Irok stepped down in 2003.

Sngs son Larry is a party-less assistant minister in Taibs Cabinet after his claim to be PRS president failed and is married to the daughter of construction tycoon Ting Pek King. The younger Sng holds the majority Iban Pelagus seat, which belongs to PRS under the Sarawak BN quota system.

Filed under: corruption, Human rights Tagged: Anak Sarawak Bangsa Malaysia, Barisan Nasional, corruption, Human rights, Pakatan Rakyat, Sarawak politics, Save Sarawak, Taib Mahmud

Najib urged to confiscate Mahathir's assets and give some to Op Lalang victims

Revisit Ops Lalang, urges Kit Siang

Lim Kit Siang was among the 106 people detained in the 1987 Ops Lalang crackdown. — File pic

KUALA LUMPUR, Feb 17 — Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad’s continued defence of his role in Ops Lalang demands a “full visitation and inquiry” into the events of the infamous 1987 crackdown, said DAP adviser Lim Kit Siang.

He also scoffed at Dr Mahathir’s claim that he had wanted to scrap the highly-criticised 1960 Internal Security Act (ISA), accusing the former prime minister of being flippant over the matter.

“How serious was he in wanting to amend or repeal the ISA and how far did he go? The way he spoke about it today shows that he was not very serious.

“It is like he said ‘let's abolish ISA’, then the IGP (Inspector-General of Police) said ‘no’ and then he said ‘okay’. How can you treat such a serious matter in that way? He does not seem serious at all,” Lim told The Malaysian Insider today.

Lim was responding to Dr Mahathir’s statement today that he had wanted to abolish the ISA during his term as prime minister but had faced opposition from the police.

The 1960 security law allows for detention without trial and a 1989 amendment under Dr Mahathir’s rule removed the option for judicial review, granting the home minister absolute discretion to extend or reduce detention time.

“ISA must be invoked when necessary, but when I was the prime minister I wanted to abolish the ISA but the police were against it,” Dr Mahathir told a forum on parliamentary democracy here.

“When I suggested that the period be reduced from two to one year, they said ‘cannot’,” he said, adding that he had to rely on the police as his advisers on national security.

Lim said that if Dr Mahathir had truly wanted to repeal the ISA, he would have had to initiate discussions among government leaders to obtain feedback on the proposal.

He added that the former prime minister could not refute the fact that he was home minister at the time of the 1987 crackdown and had been the authority who signed off on the ISA arrests.

During Ops Lalang, 106 individuals were arrested and Dr Mahathir later signed a two-year detention order on 49 of them, including Lim, his son Lim Guan Eng and five other DAP MPs.

“So although he claims that it was the police who did it, no one believes him because after the 60 days of interrogative custody, he signed off on the detention,” said Lim.

The Ipoh Timor MP added that since there seemed to be no end to the ongoing argument over the issue, the case should be revisited to ascertain the true details of the event.

“There should be a full visitation and inquiry into Ops Lalang. Let’s see once and for all whether there was an abuse of power and violation of human rights.

“It should then serve as a lesson to be learnt. Since the police are now collaborating with Dr Mahathir and we are giving different accounts, we need to establish the true facts of the case,” he said.

Lim also agreed that Dr Mahathir, the nation’s longest-serving prime minister for 22 years, could not have been less powerful than the police.

Former IGP Tun Hanif Omar confirmed Dr Mahathir’s statement today, claiming that he had indeed stopped the latter from abolishing the ISA.

In the same forum, the former police chief said that Dr Mahathir’s former deputy Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim, now the opposition leader, had been the one to first raise the suggestion.

“Anwar said we should abolish ISA, Dr Mahathir said OK,” recounted Hanif.

He said he later urged the two leaders to reconsider their plans, and suggested they merely review the security law.

Hanif also claimed that Dr Mahathir had been consistent in his opposition to the ISA.

“When he became the prime minister, Musa Hitam told me ‘don’t invoke the ISA, Dr Mahathir will not like it’,” said Hanif, referring to the former deputy prime minister and home minister in the 1980s.

Events of the 1987 Ops Lalang crackdown were dredged up recently when Dr Mahathir was quoted in a new book by American journalist Tom Plate as saying that he had met all opposition members before the operation and had assured them that they would not be arrested.

Dr Mahathir also insisted that he had not thought it necessary to arrest the opposition leaders but had no choice but to accept that the police believed otherwise. - Malaysian Insider